Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Phil Howze, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary A. Apgar, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald Caffey (for Joseph A. Brown), Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, Marla H. Mallette, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Jerry Monteith (for Kay M. Zivkovich), Jay Needham (for Lisa B. Brooten), Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Brooke H. H. Thibeault.

Members absent: Eric Hellgren (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Allan L. Karnes, Thomas H. Tarter.

Visitors and Guests: Ken Anderson (Geology), Jake Baggott (Student Health Center), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Chris Glidewell (University Risk Management), Andrea Imre (Library Affairs), Jonathan Nabe (Library Affairs), Farzad Pourboghrat (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Stile Smith (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meetings on October 13, 2009, and November 10, 2009, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. P. Howze reported: a) a new cell phone law going into effect January 1, 2010, will make texting while driving and using a cell phone in school zones illegal in Illinois; b) the constituency heads will meet on December 11, at which time there will be discussion with the President regarding the financial affairs of the University. It is hoped that there will be another allotment of funds from the Comptroller's office to carry the University through the Christmas break. There will be additional cash flow in January when tuition dollars resume; c) at the beginning of his term as Senate president, he presented a list of items to be accomplished during his term. The final item on his agenda is a joint resolution with the Graduate Council to support Open Access SIUC. His understanding is that the resolution is under development by a committee being co-chaired by Library Affairs Dean David Carlson. D. Carlson confirmed that the group has met several times and is continuing to make progress, though he is unsure they will make the date set by the Graduate Council resolution. P. Howze indicated that as soon as he is aware the resolution is firming up, and concerns have been addressed, he will ask that a presentation be given to the Senate about Open Access SIUC.

2. Provost Rice reported: a) the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee received a report from Kevin Bame (Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance) indicating that the December 15 payroll will be made. K. Bame is also optimistic that the University will make the January 4 payroll as well. b) There are some dean searches he anticipates will soon come to fruition. Searches are ongoing for a dean for the School of Law (the third candidate is currently on campus) and a dean for the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. Agricultural Sciences Dean Gary Minish will retire at the end of this year, and a search committee is currently working on an interim appointment. He will later assess when it will be possible to conduct a search for the permanent position; c) there will be 64 promotion and tenure cases reviewed this year; 43 are promotion to associate with tenure; 1 is tenure only; 2 are tenure and promotion to full; and the remaining 18 are promotion to full. This is a larger number than has been brought forth recently, and projections for next year will put the number in the high 70s. He believes the high numbers are a result of the very good hiring that took place approximately four to five years ago. Provost Rice noted that he will be reviewing all the dossiers over the break.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

P. Stockdale commented that it appears the Provost is abiding by the joint resolution of the Senate and [Graduate Council] that was approved last year on interim positions (attempting to reduce the number of positions that are called interim). She noted that Provost Rice reported he is searching for an interim dean in Agricultural Sciences. Did not the resolution state that if there is a search, the position is temporary rather than interim? Provost Rice responded that he has been taking the resolution into consideration. However, "interim" to him means that there is no one standing in the wings. The position is not acting or temporary. He needs to insure that there is fiscal authority and that the person in the position is capable of working with the departments to move the college forward. He will not delay conducting a national search unless it is precluded by the University's financial situation. P. Stockdale believes the resolution stated that even if the search is local, the occupant would be considered to be the dean without the interim title, but that there may be a sunset on the position until such time a national search is conducted. Provost Rice responded that he has no objection to that, but in this particular search, the contract will be until a permanent dean is appointed. He added that there are other searches that may or may not go forward at this time, including the search for an Associate Provost for Academic Affairs (a duty he has taken on in addition to his duties as Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor), directors for the University Press, Continuing Education and Upward Bound and an assistant director for Touch of Nature. All currently have interims. His hope is that there will be an internal search for a permanent associate provost in the spring. That will be a topic of conversation with him, Chancellor Goldman and Chancellor Cheng. [All of these] positions already have funded lines; the question is whether the current and incoming chancellors want to move forward with filling the positions.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. F. Pourboghrat presented and reviewed the annual report of the Judicial Review Board (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). He further commented on the Judicial Review Board's (JRB) recommendation for either a workload release or for one-month of summer compensation. Because members are from different colleges and departments, by the time they begin their work, the assignments have already been made, and it is very difficult to make changes in order to get release time. The suggestion, therefore, is that funds be budgeted early enough so that they can go wherever they are needed. P. Howze suggested this issue be taken up by the Executive Council. He is supportive of some relief, which the Senate would have to [develop] and then discuss with the Chancellor to see if s/he is supportive. Having sat on a JRB panel before, he can attest that the work is very intense; panel members must read extensive evidence and be prepared to take extensive notes. P. Stockdale asked if consideration has ever been given to shortening the term of JRB members. She understands there should be continuity, but three years is quite a commitment. She believes many faculty would be willing to serve for a year, and that might be a way to reduce the load on these volunteers. It may be unreasonable for the University, especially given its current financial situation, to be able to offer course reductions for every member for all the years they are on the JRB. Reducing the load or increasing the membership so they do not have to serve on so many panels may be something to consider. P. Howze believes what may preclude shortening the terms at this point is that there is no record of case law. The JRB does not come back to the Senate and give particulars. He has advocated for some kind of record, but he understands they are also bound by strong confidentiality rules. In his opinion, the learning curve is about three years.

D. Lightfoot mentioned that last [month], there were questions raised about the composition of the JRB. He asked F. Pourboghrat if he finds that cases come from all schools and colleges, or are they mainly [confined] to four or five. If the latter is the case, would it be better, in F. Pourboghrat's view, to have representation from each college? Additionally, is representation effectively being concentrated only in a few schools and colleges? F. Pourboghrat responded that, as far as he is aware, the [joint committees of Executive Council and Committee on Committees] decides on the slate for JRB membership. First, however, each college elects a certain number of representatives, and the names [of those who agree] are given to the [joint committee]. From those names JRB members are selected, with the understanding that they are distributed among the colleges. Currently, the JRB has representatives from Applied Sciences and Arts; Education and Human Services; Law; Engineering; Business; Liberal Arts and Science. He believes the Board to an extent is representative [of the colleges], but does not necessarily have representation from every college. P. Howze noted that what skews the representation is the requirement that the faculty member be a full professor.

4. Chancellor Goldman reported that the constituency groups will meet with the President on December 11 to discuss the budget situation. B. Thibeault asked if the Chancellor would provide more information about the Confucius Institute. Chancellor Goldman explained that the SIUC was invited to establish an institute on this campus for the purpose of promoting the study of Chinese and Chinese culture. For the first two or three years, the University would receive $80,000 to $100,000 to establish the institute, and [China] would send two faculty members here. There are approximately 60 institutes nationally, and if SIUC sets one up, then it would be the only one in the state. B. Thibeault asked if the purpose is to teach the students here and not necessarily to teach the students they send here. Chancellor Goldman responded that it would be open to anyone who wants to enroll. B. Thibeault noted that Chinese is currently offered on campus, but only as a minor. Chancellor Goldman explained that SIUC would establish three centers--two in China, and one in Taiwan. One center is already set up at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE) and Zengzhou University (ZZU) is in the process of developing one. The other center is in Taiwan. They will [all] assist in recruiting students. There is a tremendous amount of interest from students there who want to come here. It is anticipated that eight or ten students will arrive this spring, but the hope is that the number will be much larger in the fall. Also, he has learned that China includes SIU in its list of universities of [world-wide] renown. Chancellor Goldman reassured the Senate that SIUC will make the final selections as to the students who come here. They will be pre-screened, and the top students will be identified. Their applications will be sent to departments, which will then make the selections. The University would never yield the decision on who comes into the programs and departments with respect to the quality of the students.

S. Kumar believes that, aside from the admission standards, the other issue is the price the University is paying for the centers by giving the in-state fee to anyone who comes through those centers. He calculates the loss in revenue at approximately $6,000 per student per semester. Chancellor Goldman pointed out that the enrollment of international students at SIUC has seriously declined. At one time, the University was in the top ten in the country, so something has to be done. He noted that alternate tuition is being given to students in five border states, and the estimate was that the University would need an increase of 150 students from those states to make up the difference in tuition should the numbers from the previous years hold up (which they did not). Currently, there are well over 150 students from the border states who have been admitted, and those numbers are rising tremendously. Thus, [the loss in tuition] will have to be made up in volume. What he has been told by the people in China is that they have always wanted to send their students here, but the cost was prohibitive. When they were offered the alternate tuition rate they jumped at it immediately. He believes it will be well worth the trade-off. Provost Rice agreed, pointing out that these students are paying tuition the University would not otherwise have seen because they were unable to afford the cost. Chancellor Goldman added that it will also be beneficial for the local economy, as it depends a great deal on the University.

S. Kumar commented that if the administration is looking at students who otherwise would not have come, why is the alternate tuition not being offered to students in other parts of the United States who might come here? Chancellor Goldman responded that it has to do with marketing. Currently, much of the marketing is focused on the five border states, and places such as Evansville, St. Louis, Nashville and the Paducah area are being heavily recruited. His hope is that the University can [some day offer alternate tuition to those outside the five border states], but at the moment there is no choice but to market to [the aforementioned] targeted areas.

J. Ferraro provided some anecdotal information about some students locally, with good ACT scores, who are being contacted by many other universities except SIUC. He believes that the most inexpensive thing to do would be to recruit those students who are right here. Chancellor Goldman responded that he hears similar stories, and there is no doubt a few students are missed.; however, the University does go out and recruit heavily in this area. There is a new program called "Southern Stars" that [recruits] high quality students from high quality high schools; 36 students were picked up this fall. J. Ferraro asked why a letter could not be sent to at least the top half of the classes so no one will be missed. Provost Rice noted that they have been made aware that many of the students who are missed are home-schooled. That is something they are attempting to fix, but he believed a better job was being done canvassing the local high schools.

5. G. Spittler reported on the Council of Illinois University Senates meeting he attended on November 10 (included as appendix 2 to the minutes).

6. A. Karnes submitted his written report on the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as appendix 3 to the minutes).

7. P. Howze reported that the Graduate Council is deferring action on the Senate's proposed resolution on the formation of a Chancellor's Budget Policy Committee until Chancellor Cheng [begins her duties]. Additionally, the Graduate Council believes there should be a discussion regarding the composition of the committee.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. The Resolution to Support the Faculty Advisory Council to the Illinois Board of Higher Education's Resolution Urging the Pursuit of an Agreement on Adequate Stable State Appropriations in Exchange for a Limit on Tuition Increases (included as Attachment A to the Agenda) was withdrawn.

2. S. Kumar reported the Council requested, and he has received, the final Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) from the Chancellor's office. At its last meeting, the Senate approved a resolution expressing concerns about the MOU's and was to establish a task force. S. Kumar indicated that once the MOU's have been reviewed, a task force may be established at a later date. P. Howze noted that anyone with questions on this issue should contact S. Kumar.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

1. G. Spittler discussed the committee's status report (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He reported that R. Hughes has been working on the issue of conducting Senate elections electronically. P. Stockdale asked about the resolution that was included in the status report. R. Hughes responded that it was included only to provide the Senate with an example of the special rule of order that was approved for last year's elections. His hope is to set up electronic balloting through the use of Blackboard. Faculty would be able to use their existing network ID to log into Blackboard, and then [pull up their college's ballot to vote].

2. G. Spittler reported that two meetings ago, Ken Anderson brought a resolution before the Senate that was intended to facilitate and rigorize methods by which the Senate could consider resolutions. The concern was that there be adequate time for deliberation and consultation with constituents, while also realizing that there may be occasional causes for urgent action by the Senate. The resolution brought forth by K. Anderson has been replicated in Attachment C of the agenda for this meeting. The resolution calls for the Operating Paper of the Faculty and Faculty Senate to be changed under Section II.D.2.g., Conduct of Meetings, to address the concerns previously raised. G. Spittler explained that the resolution had been referred to the Governance Committee by the Senate at the meeting at which it was raised. The committee gave very serious consideration and due weight to the logic of the proposed revisions; however, in reviewing the current Operating Paper, the committee concluded that there is, in fact, simpler and more efficient [wording] to address ways by which materials may be considered out of order and for urgent action. Therefore, the committee voted unanimously to report its conclusions to the Senate as a whole, with a recommendation that [the resolution] not be adopted because there is already a more efficient, streamlined method of handing these situations.

P. Howze asked if there was a resolution before the Senate. G. Spittler responded that it is the Governance Committee's recommendation that the resolution as included in Attachment C not be adopted. R. Hughes clarified that it was reported at the last Senate meeting that the committee recommended no action on the proposed resolution. Since there is no recommendation from the committee, there is no resolution to consider. In an effort to simplify the matter, G. Spittler moved that the Governance Committee moves that the resolution as presented be rejected; seconded by J. Allen.

S. Ebbs commented that there is a point in the proposed resolution he believes needs to be considered that the existing language fails to convey, and that is an issue of transparency. He pointed to the event that precipitated this action. On the day the Senate was asked to accept the urgent action, he recalled that no information was given on the content of the action. Additionally, there were three or four Senators from the constituency involved who left for other obligations. He indicated that he would not have left the meeting had he known the motion that was raised involved his college. M. Lydy agreed that he also did not recall the subject of the urgent action being revealed. S. Ebbs believes in that respect, the issue of transparency is not addressed in the existing language. The body may adopt urgent action, but there is no mandate to reveal the content of that urgent action. Though expansive, the new information does address the issue of transparency, and in that regard, he does not believe it can be dismissed outright. P. Howze responded that he has owned the mistake. Had he been more careful in how he acted as a chair, there could have been a fuller summary [of the urgent action]. He assured the Senate that it would not happen again during his term, and he is sure his successor will not [let it happen] either.

K. Anderson reported that, in order to assist in the discussion, he and some colleagues undertook a review of the Senate minutes over the last five years. They looked at every case where a waiver of the five-day rule was invoked; over the last 5 years, there have been 10 waivers, 9 of which were proceeded by [a request for a waiver]. There was another case when no waiver was requested for that particular resolution. Of the 10 [waivers] brought forward, there is really only 1 that would not have proceeded until the next meeting, while the other 2 were questions [that simply were not clear]. What is clear, however, is that the Senate is inconsistent in the procedures that it follows in conducting waivers of the five-day rule. There have been instances where waivers have been requested en masse, e.g., bringing forth a number of resolutions under one waiver, which is not proper. There have been cases where there were other variations on the procedures. What the proposed resolution does is codify the procedures and allows the opportunity for the constituencies to contribute to the discussion. The language of the resolution is boilerplate in most large organizations where there is an allowance for suspending the bylaws. The proposed changes are simple and are taken mostly from Robert's Rules or a similar document. It is not the proposed resolution's intention to restrict the Senate's ability to take actions that need to be taken up urgently; it just states how it should be done. Having said that, K. Anderson indicated that the one case that sticks out as irregular and inconsistent is the September 8 issue.

J. Ferraro believes that when the Senate's Operating Paper is silent on a point, then Robert's Rules are followed. K. Anderson responded that Robert's Rules provides a means for suspending the rules, but it is illegal to suspend the bylaws. P. Howze responded that one of the problems is that there is nothing in the Operating Paper that says it is the equivalent of bylaws, and that is why it makes interpretation of the rule extremely difficult. He would suggest that if the five-day rule is mentioned, it is because of these other examples that have been provided in which the Senate has acted in a way that forms a pattern. He also read approximately 15 years worth of the Senate's minutes when he prepared for the all faculty meeting; if the past is taken as a reflection on the present, then just in order to sit [as chair], he could blow his foot off at any time. If K. Anderson wants to create a clean mechanism for perfect compliance with Robert's Rules, then he (P. Howze) can comply; it is his sense, however, that if anything, it was the subject matter that was unsavory. S. Ebbs disagreed, pointing out transparency is a separate issue.

P. Stockdale believes that if the Senate had followed the [proposed] resolution, then the waiver request at the beginning of the meeting would have included what the waiver was considering; then, those around the table could have decided whether or not they wanted to leave. P. Howze responded that therein lies the essence of the mistake. The title of the issue was not full enough to constitute a sufficient abstract for someone to make up their minds as to whether they would stay or go; consequently, the perception exists that a fast one was pulled. K. Anderson reiterated that there are three procedural issues involved: a) one of transparency (insufficient information given in advance of the waiver); b) whether there was actually a waiver requested since the person who moved the waiver thought it was on an entirely different issue. When there is a motion such as waiver of the five-day rule, it should be absolutely clear what is to be discussed, and there should be a separate waiver for each [issue] being presented; and c) any issue brought forward as a result of a waiver of the five-day rule must then immediately be brought forward. P. Howze disagreed on the last point, indicating that there is no such provision in [Robert's Rules]. Whether or not a body wishes to hear an item is the essence of the five-day rule.

J. Allen expressed regret that the confusion of the issue has somehow been perceived as a reprimand for the mistake P. Howze made in chairing the session. He does not view it as such and pointed out that there are substantive issues that do arise from the differences in how the Senate operates and the way Graduate Council operates. The Graduate Council has a month, rather than five days, to review any motions it considers. However, he believes that five days is not too difficult for the Senate to be able to [consider and then act on an issue]. The five-day rule waiver, then, should be exceptional and waived in much more extraordinary circumstances than he believes were considered in September since the issue in the College of Science had been simmering for months. Therefore, setting aside P. Howze's role, he believes the Senate should consider the substantive procedural question on the table, which is how and under what circumstances the Senate waives what is already a fairly generous opportunity to deal expeditiously with issues of [importance] to the faculty. P. Howze expressed appreciation for J. Allen's remarks, noting that the first tenet of Robert's Rules is if a procedure prohibits the work of the body, it should not be used. Rather, something easier should be found so that the body can move forward with its business.

R. Hughes commented that in Robert's Rules, there is a provision that to change the rules would require a two-thirds vote. The point here is that this is not a change in the rules; this is, in fact, the rule of the Senate--the five-day rule may be waived by a majority vote of the Senate. What he finds disturbing about the whole discussion of the resolution is the idea that three Senate colleagues from his college would have the power to veto [discussion or action on an issue he would bring forward]. The real obstruction is for the ability of Senators to raise and cause a full discussion of [an] issue. R. Hughes pointed out that the Senate should not even be discussing the proposed resolution because the Governance Committee already carefully reviewed the issue and believes it would restrict the ability of the Senate to actually discuss issues and make decisions. K. Anderson disagreed, believing there is nothing in the proposed resolution that in any way restricts what the Senate can discuss; it only deals with the timing of which [it can be discussed]. Rather than preventing an issue from arising, it would allow a senator to ask that it be deferred to the next meeting so there would be time to consult with constituents and allow time to review and consider the issue before taking action.

After further discussion, J. Allen pointed out that there is currently a motion on the floor; he then called the question. G. Spittler clarified that the motion is that it is the Governance Committee's recommendation that the resolution as presented be rejected. A negative vote would mean that the Senate wishes to discuss the matter further, but it does not inherently mean that the language being presented is being accepted. An affirmative vote would be a rejection of the proposed change.

Motion carried 12-10-1 on a show of hands vote.

[A change in the order of the agenda was made to allow the report of the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee]

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Approve 2010 Internal and External Physics Department Reviewers (included as Attachment F to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

1. Ballots for the Judicial Review Board election were distributed to Senators. After a tally of the votes was taken, the following four faculty were elected to three year terms: David Gibson, College of Science; James LeBeau, College of Liberal Arts; John McIntyre, College of Education and Human Services; and Farzad Pourboghrat, College of Engineering.

2. S. Kumar presented for approval Motion 1 to appoint F. Pourboghrat as chair for the Judicial Review Board for the 2009-2010 term (included as Attachment E to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

3. S. Kumar presented for approval Motion 2 to appoint M. Lamb as vice chair for the Judicial Review Board (included as Attachment E to the Agenda).

Motion carried, with one nay, on a voice vote.

P. Stockdale expressed opposition to the appointment because M. Lamb is already vice chair of the Faculty Senate, as well as the Faculty Association.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- G. Apgar, Chair

P. Howze introduced J. Baggott and C. Glidewell, who were to give a presentation to the Senate; however, because of the lateness of the day, P. Howze indicated they would be placed at the top of the agenda, in place of his report, at the next meeting of the Senate (February).

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES --None.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS - None.

NEW BUSINESS - None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m.