Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:16 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, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, David Gibson (for Stephen D. Ebbs), Eric Hellgren (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, Marla H. Mallette, Grant Miller (for Cathy C. Mogharreban), Samuel Pavel (for Jose R. Ruiz), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Brooke H. H. Thibeault.

Members absent: Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Don Rice (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Thomas H. Tarter, Jerry Monteith (for Kay M. Zivkovich).

Visitors and Guests: Ken Anderson (Geology), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Susan Logue (Provost and Vice Chancellor), Deborah Nelson (General Counsel), Stile Smith (Daily Egyptian), Mark Wetstein (Broadcasting Service).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on September 8, 2009, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. P. Howze reported he is attending the usual and customary meetings on behalf of the Senate. He reminded Senators that October 15 is the MAP rally. He urged faculty to release students who plan to attend. P. Howze also reported that the Senate will be entertaining a resolution later in the semester on Open Access SIUC, which deals with the University's institutional repository. The matter is in the Graduate Council at this time, but is anticipated to be completed in December. The hope then is to have the text for a joint resolution to bring to the Senate.

2. P. Stockdale provided an update on the activities of the Chancellor Search Committee (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). She noted that the committee would like to have stronger participation from the campus community than there has been in the past. Committee members have a number of new ideas they would like to attempt; one is to hold a forum with invited guests from the various constituency groups in order to familiarize them with the candidates before they arrive on campus. Then, once the candidates are on campus, the entire campus community will be invited to hear a talk by the candidate, followed by a panel discussion. There will be a second opportunity later that day or the next for the various constituencies to have their own time with the candidates. The hope is to create more interest and participation. Online evaluations will be available to allow people to complete an anonymous evaluation of the candidates. Additionally, the open forums will be videotaped so that those who may have missed a meeting will have an opportunity to view the forum online and submit an evaluation. K. Hytten asked if there is diversity among the candidates. P. Stockdale responded that it is a diverse group. M. Amos asked if the committee was satisfied with the quality of the pool. P. Howze responded that it is an outstanding pool; there is gender balance and overall diversity representation among high quality individuals. J. Allen asked how many of the six remaining candidates were uninvited (i.e., responded to the ad) and how many were people vetted and approached [by the pre-search committee]. P. Stockdale responded that three were part of the pre-vetted pool, and three were nominated by other "friends of the University". D. Lightfoot commented that with the last chancellor search, two of the three candidates withdrew almost immediately after their campus visits, supposedly because of the negative comments they heard about the campus during the process. What will be different with the search this time to make sure these candidates stay in the pool? P. Stockdale responded that it will depend on [the University community]. That is why the preliminary vet will occur before the candidates arrive so that questions that come up can be answered. She believes the [campus] has to do its job in both getting to know the candidates and in [having good attendance at the open forums]. Also, the committee has had conversations with all of the six finalists, and they have heard much about SIUC already, in addition to having conversations with President Poshard, former Vice President Haller, Tom Britton and herself. P. Howze asked that when the schedules are released for the Faculty Senate and Graduate Council meetings with the candidates, Senators should please attend or line up someone who can attend in their place.

3. P. Howze introduced S. Logue and D. Nelson, who have been working on the Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures. S. Logue noted she did not have a presentation planned, but she and D. Nelson would like to respond to questions anyone may have. J. Ferraro commented that he spent much time and effort in attending meetings, giving input and encouraging others to provide input into the Sexual Harassment Policy itself. The procedures that emanated from the policy suggest that none of the concerns faculty have about the policy have been taken to heart; consequently, the procedure is fraught with many problems. S. Logue responded that all the input received from all the different areas was taken into consideration; she asked for specifics. J. Ferraro pointed out that a person could be removed from campus and put on paid leave without knowing the accusations and who was making them. D. Nelson responded that the University has legal obligations that come into play. There has to be a balance not only between case law, federal law, the EEO Commission, etc., but also between the accused and the accuser to ensure both parties are being protected. That is the University's obligation to its employees. The provision does not say the accused will be removed; it is saying that the University is notifying people of the possibility if the two individuals are in such close proximity that there is a risk of continued harassment or retaliation. Should there be a finding of sexual harassment, then obviously the appropriate disciplinary policies for that person's status (represented or non-represented) will be used. The accused will have an opportunity to declare her/his innocence and be provided with information to defend her/himself.

M. Lamb commented that the resolution approved by the Faculty Senate on November 18, 2008, addressed the issue of removing someone from campus who has been accused of sexual harassment. She believes everyone understands there are circumstances in which someone may need to be removed; however, in the resolution the Senate approved, it was suggested that an oversight committee be formed that is composed of three members who would share authority with the compliance officer in opposing any disciplinary measures, including but not limited to, placing the accused person on paid administrative leave or banning that person from campus. Is there a legal reason why an oversight committee cannot be added to this decision; why it is one person's decision alone, which puts enormous power in that person's hands. D. Nelson responded that placing someone on administrative leave is not legally a disciplinary action. There are reasons that have nothing to do with anything inappropriate, e.g., the person requested it because of a need related to their family or other reasons. The fact remains that the person hired for that [associate vice chancellor] position is supposed to be an expert who understands how to balance a person's rights based on the accusations, as well as what legally has to be done to protect the University. A compliance committee is not going to look at that in the same way. D. Nelson noted that it is a supervisory function that belongs with the supervisors.

J. Ferraro commented that two recent public cases of sexual harassment--one of which was found not to have any merit [caused] tremendous damage to the individual and the University. D. Nelson responded that the University never provides information on cases. In the two J. Ferraro mentioned, the information came out in other ways. It is part of the confidentiality in the document to make sure that information does not come out and that everyone's reputation is protected to the best of the University's ability. If it is determined that a report is false, then the accuser will be held similarly accountable. J. Ferraro did not believe the procedures were very clear on that fact. D. Nelson indicated she would take a look at that if it is not clear.

G. Spittler commented that even the hint of sexual harassment can ruin a person's reputation, particularly in education. Where is the protection? D. Nelson responded that part of her point is that there have been a multitude of other cases no one has heard about, and so the reputation of those individuals was protected. She understands that [the perception] that those who are accused do not have the same protections in place as the accuser; but, it would have to be something fairly substantial before the University would place someone on paid administrative leave.

A. Karnes commented that the purpose behind the oversight committee was to separate out the role of the prosecutor into some type of a judiciary. He also does not want to place all the power in one person, especially when that person has the power to put someone on administrative leave. The oversight committee was just a check on that power.

J. Allen asked if at any time there was a check of the sexual harassment policies and procedures at other institutions comparable to SIUC. How those institutions handle that adjudication is an important issue. S. Logue believes the policies at peer institutions are quite similar. In some cases, the procedures are more detailed than others. She cannot speak in specifics, but she is unsure all the procedures have an appeal process. J. Allen questioned whether some kind of oversight body was the norm rather than the exception. D. Nelson believes that most of the policies she has looked at do not address the issue of paid administrative leave; it is just the right of the employer.

M. Lamb indicated that the Senate's November 2008 resolution also addressed the issue of how the sexual harassment panel is chosen and [how] the decision of the compliance officer (Associate Vice Chancellor) is appealed. In this version, the associate vice chancellor who made the decision that is being appealed is selecting the members of the board to hear the appeal. Is this best practice? Why not have someone else, like the sexual harassment board itself, select the members randomly? D. Nelson responded that various groups have suggested various ways on how to select a panel, and she believes they attempted to go in the middle. S. Logue indicated that it is something they can consider, as they are taking comments. M. Lamb responded that the Senate asked last year that these things be considered. S. Logue responded that they will be considered now.

P. Stockdale stated that it is her understanding that this document is a result of negotiations between [the Associate Provost's office], representatives of the IEA collective bargaining units, as well as input from the Sexual Harassment Working Committee. R. Hughes responded that the Faculty Association is in the midst of negotiation, so this is not the result of negotiations. G. Spittler added that the non- tenure track faculty also has not accepted or made any concrete recommendation on this matter. S. Logue indicated the document has had input from the IEA-NEA unions through the negotiation process. R. Hughes clarified that bargaining is not a process of input; it is a process of negotiation. This document is not a result of the bargaining process. M. Lamb commented that "input" is a tricky word. The Senate gave tremendous input in November 2008, and for the most part it has been ignored.

P. Stockdale commented that, in terms of putting a person on administrative leave, she believes the Senate's November 2008 resolution sought more clarity on the conditions under which someone would be placed on leave. The suggestion was made to follow a model similar to getting a protective order against a domestic partner; that it would be an imminent threat and maybe some wording that the person be placed on leave if there is some form of direct threat. That may help allay some of the concerns that someone could be put on leave "willy-nilly." Also, she pointed out that in the document, it states that an appeal panel will be formed for conducting a "de facto" review. Is that what was meant? De facto would not mean anything in this context; de novo would mean reviewing all the evidence over again, and that is not appropriate at an appeal level. She suggested an appellate level review where the procedures are reviewed or, if there was a decision that went against the [manifest] weight of the evidence [and have that kind of language]. D. Nelson believes that was the intent and agreed that it needed to be cleared up.

P. Stockdale believes that the way the procedures are written, anyone can ask for an appeal on any grounds and it will be reviewed all over again, with a new committee, new investigators, new evidence. Why go through the investigation in the first place if it is going to be investigated again? She suggested that be fixed. She noted that other matters appear to be minor, though she would like to see more opportunities for supervisors of faculty to do informal resolution. It appears to all be housed in the associate chancellor's office. For the sake of resolving things at the lowest possible level, she believes faculty and supervisors should be trained on how to do very low level, informal resolution. S. Logue responded that she believes that is the intention. The decision as to whether the matter is one that is appropriate for informal resolution is what lies with the associate chancellor.

J. Davis asked what the next step is for the document after now. D. Nelson responded that what they are basically doing is attempting to circle back around. The procedures will be bargained, but not everyone is represented by a union. There may be some unions not represented at that table, so they want to make sure they have everyone's statements, thoughts and comments to make sure they discuss what needs to be discussed. P. Howze noted that there are non-bargained faculty here, and those voices still need to be heard. D. Nelson indicated there is an e-mail on the Office of General Counsel website where people can submit questions.

J. Ferraro questioned why the University does not simply use what is stated in the Illinois State Law, word for word, regarding sexual harassment. The Senate submitted this comment, and it was not accepted, either. D. Nelson responded that the law is used to a certain extent, but it should be kept in mind that Illinois State Law is not the only law applicable here; there are federal laws, EEOC guidelines and case law that define it further. She noted that this was discussed thoroughly with the unions before the definition used in the policy was adopted.

P. Howze recommended that the matter be returned to the Executive Council so that a resolution can be formulated on the Senate's position regarding the work that has already been done and the work that remains to be done. The resolution can then be brought to the Senate for approval at its next meeting. He indicated that the resolution will also take a position on the efforts that have been put forward by the Faculty Senate, by the Sexual Harassment Working Group and by others who have given substantial amounts of their time and intellectual resources to help and be heard.

4. A. Karnes reported on the September 18 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council of the IBHE (see appendix 2). Additionally, he reported that he received information that the University of Illinois is formulating rules for faculty time reports. It has been state law for a few years, but SIU has been able to avoid having faculty report their time. He is unsure what the format is for reporting; it may be something general, but he believes there is a storm brewing. P. Howze commented that the Illinois Civil Service Act makes clear the difference between exempt and non-exempt employees. Those who are not exempt are civil service, for which there are classifications and pay scales. Faculty work in the abstract, meaning their work cannot be quantified or measured. The only fixed portion is the classroom hours, which represent a very small share of the profession; that is why faculty are classified as exempt. P. Howze indicated the Senate will inform faculty as best it can on this issue, as it is something that must be railed against.

With respect to the faculty seat on the IBHE, M. Amos asked if there is a way faculty can encourage the Governor to select A. Karnes over the U of I candidate. A. Karnes responded that letters could be written. He does not want to do a model letter, but he can post to the listserv the letter that was sent to the Governor.

5. E. Hellgren reported: a) the Graduate Council approved a joint resolution with the Faculty Senate Executive Council supporting the restoration of MAP grant funding. The resolution was read by Chancellor Goldman when the Governor was on campus last week; b) S. Logue attended a recent meeting to discuss the sexual harassment procedures; c) the review process for graduate programs, which is being overseen by J. Allen, is proceeding well. There are approximately 23 different graduate programs being reviewed this year; d) grantsmanship on campus has doubled since this time last year. Much of this has to do with federal stimulus funds.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar presented for approval the Joint Resolution (with Graduate Council) to Approve Supporting Efforts on Behalf of Students to Restore MAP Grant Funding (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He noted that because of the time issue, the Executive Council approved the resolution so that it could be read when the Governor was on campus.

Resolution was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

2. S. Kumar presented for a first reading the Resolution on the Formation of a Chancellor's Budget Policy Committee (see appendix 3). Currently, there is a Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee; however, the thought is there should be a budget policy committee with voting members who would have more input into the budget. Additionally, the committee could recommend policies on budget cuts and how budgets should be allocated or reallocated. P. Howze noted the Senate has some time before having to act on the resolution. It will be discussed at next week's constituency heads meeting in order to gauge support for the resolution. Also, there will be a change forthcoming in administration, which will provide a better time to change the culture.

3. P. Howze reported the Executive Council will be presenting at next month's Senate meeting a resolution expressing disappointment that its previous recommendations to the sexual harassment policy and procedures were not followed. He believes that discussion on the issue has returned to the legalese, and the tremendous amount of feedback the Senate received--especially from the working group and through the open forums--was not legally based; it was educationally based. He does not know why the administration will not take the word of those such as P. Stockdale who have researched and published books and articles on this subject. He does not want to see all the energy and effort put forth on this issue to go for naught. P. Howze added that anyone still wishing to comment should send them, anyway. He will be compiling all the comments into a notebook, and none will be left out. He will deliver that binder to the administration as the faculty response.

4. S. Kumar reported there was a special election in the College of Liberal Arts to replace Lori Merrill- Fink. He again welcomed G. Boulukos to the Senate. S. Kumar also reported that nominations for the Judicial Review Board are being collected from each of the colleges, and the Elections Committee will be counting those ballots later in the week. P. Stockdale asked why paper ballots [as opposed to electronic ballots] were used for the election. P. Howze responded that [ARC was not contracted] to conduct those elections. G. Spittler explained that the original resolution to use electronic voting for elections was valid only for one trial period, which has since ended. At the committee's request, R. Hughes, has been looking into electronic voting methods. R. Hughes indicated the committee is looking at using Blackboard, which would require collecting everyone's network IDs and determining the best way to use the system so that it is not too off-putting for faculty to use. B. Rodriguez asked if voting with Blackboard would be anonymous. R. Hughes responded that it can be done anonymously. G. Spittler noted the committee does not have a resolution on electronic voting at this time, but hopes to have one in the very near future.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler presented for approval the Resolution to Propose Revisions to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and Faculty Senate (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). The [Senate] has discussed this issue a couple of times before, and there were objections to the particular verbiage that was used. What is being presented at this time is effectively the same resolution, except that there was verbiage added to explain why the committee is recommending this particular apportionment. It also clarifies how membership will be limited from any given college or academic unit so as to prevent any one unit from having excess leverage in this body. P. Stockdale suggested removing the word "written" in the event the Senate chooses to conduct elections by written ballot. G. Spittler accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Resolution was approved 22-1-0 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 4]

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

1. O. Agrawal reported the committee needs to fill vacancies on two committees. For the first, the Academic Calendar Committee, the committee is presenting for approval B. Rodriguez.

Nomination approved on a voice vote.

2. O. Agrawal reported the committee is working on submitting representatives to serve on for the Strategic Enrollment Planning Committee.

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

G. Apgar reported that a few weeks ago, a student in his laboratory fell and hit her head on a table. He contacted his supervisor, who read the standard operating procedures that the college created for emergency purposes. He was told the student should be brought to the Student Health Center, which he proceeded to do (but which opens another risk management conundrum). Upon arriving at 4:50PM, there was no one in the facility. When he called and spoke with someone in appointments, he was told the Center promptly closes at 4:30PM. G. Apgar believes this raises a very large concern for him when there are labs on campus that last until 9PM without any medical oversight on campus. He would like to propose that the Senate invite perhaps a [representative] of the Student Health Center, as well as a representative from University Risk Management, to address some of these concerns. P. Howze indicated he would do so.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- A. Karnes, Chair

A. Karnes reported the committee has not met in a while; however, he has been, and will continue, investigating the idea of attempting to reduce student fees.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS

J. Garvey introduced K. Anderson, a faculty member in the Department of Geology, to speak on the procedural issue of five-day rule waiver, and to propose a resolution on behalf of several members of the college, as well as possibly other faculty within the University. P. Howze noted that K. Anderson did contact him on this issue beforehand, but the agenda had already been posted.

K. Anderson read a prepared statement on behalf of himself and some colleagues in the College of Science (see appendix 5). J. Garvey then read the proposed resolution (see appendix 6), which suggests changes to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and the Faculty Senate that deal with the conduct of meetings (Section II.D.2). P. Stockdale moved that the proposed resolution and discussion of the issue be referred to the Governance Committee and then brought back to the Senate; seconded by G. Spittler. P. Howze indicated the proposed changes would be treated as a first reading and, if all are in agreement, it will be sent to the Governance Committee for consideration and then brought back to the Senate. K. Anderson asked what the basis is for the referral. P. Stockdale responded that the [resolution] is very long, and the Senate will run into the same problem as before, i.e., hearing the matter in an unprepared way. K. Anderson pointed out that the resolution is not being offered for urgent action; rather, it is being introduced [now] for action at the next meeting. A. Karnes noted that the Governance Committee customarily presents changes to the working paper. K. Anderson responded that he is not necessarily objecting, but there is no requirement in the Operating Paper that changes be forwarded to the Governance Committee. The Operating Paper is for both the faculty and the Faculty Senate; the Senate cannot therefore preclude the faculty from proposing modifications to the document. A. Karnes called the question.

Motion to refer the resolution to the Governance Committee and return it to the Senate was approved on a voice vote.

P. Howze explained that [K. Anderson's resolution] represents some procedural steps that are being asked of the Senate with regard to how it conducts its business. There is much in the text, however, that is an indictment of the Senate when he recalls no sinister intent. J. Ferraro believes the two issues are separate. He objected when [the College of Science issue] was raised so late at the last meeting. Additionally, he raised an objection because he is in both the School of Medicine and the College of Science, and like two-thirds of the college, he had heard nothing of the [the problem]. Now, [K. Anderson] believes Robert's Rules, under which the Senate operates, does not allow the Senate to act as it did. J. Ferraro was not sure the Senate needed to change the Operating Paper so much as to listen to what its procedures say, and that did not happen last time.

P. Howze explained that there is a difference between the procedural and the substantive; the procedural is what the Senate just voted on, so that matter is put to rest. The substantive, however, that there is a division in the college and the specific nature of that division and who constitutes a majority and minority, is something else that has not been dealt with as yet. He questioned whether the Senate would be satisfied if there is no discussion. K. Anderson commented that it is the pleasure of the Senate as to what it discusses, though he would prefer to see a discussion of the issue. P. Howze mentioned that he has been working quietly behind the scenes on behalf of the Senate to effect a happy resolution in the College of Science. In fact, the Senate has no interest in fostering or promoting discord in a college. It was simply a question of whether or not a group could be heard and whether they could meet with the Provost. K. Anderson pointed out that the resolution approved by the Senate called for a meeting between the Provost and the College of Science rather than just the three departments; was that the intent? P. Howze responded that he wrote a letter on behalf of the Senate and delivered it to the Provost requesting that sort of meeting. It contained explicit language that the Senate was not taking sides in the matter but only honoring the resolution to cause the meeting to happen. The Provost subsequently agreed to have such a meeting, and asked him to set it up. M. Lamb noted, in response to one of the statements made, that the Faculty Association wants to reassure the Senate that there was no nefarious plot to be divisive in the College of Science. She believes it was inappropriate and misleading to mention that organization, as no such intent was ever discussed in the Faculty Association.

R. Hughes commented that, as the person who brought the resolution to the Senate in September and as someone in one of the departments involved, he cannot say that all the members of the College of Science necessarily agree with many of the members of his department with respect to the goings-on in that college. However, that was not the issue. The issue was that there was a sizeable group of faculty who had a real concern, and the particular concern brought to the Senate was that the Provost had done nothing to address those concerns. What they wanted was for the Provost to be involved and to respond. In fact, the Provost [had been speaking] to faculty throughout the college, so they believed it was appropriate that if the Provost was going to investigate the situation, then all the faculty in the college should be included. J. Ferraro believes the objection was that the resolution represented the college when the majority of the college was not represented in the vote. He spoke to department chairs on his side of the campus [who are in Science], and none had any knowledge of the [concerns]. Out of 123 faculty in the College of Science, there were apparently only 40 who did. J. Garvey asked if it was certain that the Provost consulted with some of the other departments in the college. P. Howze responded that he is aware such discussions took place.

K. Anderson indicated it was not his intent to ask the Senate to undo anything it has done. The resolution he is offering is boilerplate language in the operating papers and bylaws of most large organizations. In fact, the requirement in the current Operating Paper that states a two-thirds majority is needed to suspend a standard operating procedure, but only a simple majority is needed to suspend a bylaw, is very odd. J. Ferraro believes there are only two substantive issues. One is whether the college was represented as a whole when it should not have been; and the second is whether the Senate followed procedure. P. Stockdale pointed out that she is the Senator who moved to suspend the five-day rule early in the meeting (she believed it was to deal with the academic calendar issue). She voted against the resolution that was presented, but even so, she misread it because she thought it dealt with only the three specific departments and not the whole college. So, the haste of having to deal with the issue is why she believes the Senate needs to take what is now being presented seriously, and she would like the Governance Committee to take up the matter and bring it back for discussion. P. Howze believes that Governance is only part of the issue. The other issue, which moves to the substantive, basically begs the question as to whether or not the maker of the motion and speaker on the floor deserve an apology and of that he will need to be convinced. K. Anderson responded that he is not asking for an apology; he is suggesting that there are, at least on some grounds, procedural irregularities. He is asking that the Senate consider looking at the way it does business to try and prevent similar occurrences. P. Howze commented that what is meaningful to him is that all parties have had their opportunity to be heard. K. Anderson expressed thanks to the Senate for accommodating him.

NEW BUSINESS - None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.