Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Phil Howze, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Laurie Achenbach (for Stephen D. Ebbs), Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Gary A. Apgar, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Joseph A. Brown, Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, 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, Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Kay M. Zivkovich.

Members absent: Samuel Goldman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Mark A. Amos, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault.

Visitors and Guests: Howard Carter (Library Affairs), Rita Cheng (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), Uche Onyebadi (Journalism), Farzad Pourboghrat (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Stile Smith (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on March 16, 2010, were corrected under item 2 of the Executive Council report, second sentence, to read, "The question on increasing the number of non-tenure track seats on the Senate from 2 to 6 was approved 77% to 22%." Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. L. Brooten thanked P. Howze for the opportunity to introduce the Haiti School Project for the Senate's consideration. She reported that the two basic goals of the project are to aid in the reconstruction of the devastated country of Haiti and to revive an old connection that SIU had with Haiti in the 1980s. She indicated that she and U. Onyebadi would like to formally seek the Senate's approval of the project as they move forward and attempt to build support among the campus community. L. Brooten then introduced U. Onyebadi, who gave his presentation on the Haiti School Project (see appendix 1 to the minutes for the Executive Summary). J. Brown suggested that when the planning committee is formed, it would be important to include one or two individuals from the East St.Louis/Edwardsville area. The campus connection is there, as is the ongoing legacy of Katherine Dunham, who not only taught here, but lived in East St. Louis and built a cultural center there. S. Kumar commented that his department, Civil and Environmental Engineering, will play a key role in Haiti's reconstruction. They can bring in the student chapter of Engineering without Borders, and possibly Students without Borders. S. Kumar asked that U. Onyebadi let him know if there is anything else he can do to help, from a civil engineering point of view.

P. Howze asked if it was the Senate's pleasure to support in principle, and when called upon, this selfless project. U. Onyebadi is asking for nothing but goodwill, focus and support and a basic desire to re- establish a connection with Haiti. P. Stockdale so moved; seconded by G. Spittler.

Motion of support for the Haiti Project carried unanimously on a voice vote.

2. P. Howze welcomed Chancellor-Designate R. Cheng, who reported that she has been visiting the campus approximately a week a month and has been interacting either with the President's office or the Board of Trustees--both of whom have been very supportive through her transition. She has also been engaged in some key conversations by phone regarding the budget and has visited four colleges thus far. She expects to have the remaining colleges on her agenda in May and June. R. Cheng reported she has been increasingly engaged in the community with alums, with the Foundation and with donors as she makes the transition. She is also attempting to engage in student, as well as academic, activities on campus and will continue to do so. She noted that she is now in countdown mode, and is winding down her current position at Milwaukee (her last day is April 30). R. Cheng is aware the SIUC campus has budget challenges, but it also has incredible assets. She sees the Senate as being an important [part] of the campus conversation with respect to how to get through the short-term challenges and begin to again think to the future. She believes the country's economic crisis has put too many people in a paralysis mode; the institution has to think about the long term, and she will challenge the Senate in their conversations to think about how the University can be stronger five years from now because everyone had to dig deep and share and work together.

R. Cheng hoped the President's message [at the spring faculty meeting] was helpful because she believes it is always good to have an honest presentation about what is known and not known. There should be a plan for the worst, but also a best case and middle ground area, where things are likely to end up. R. Cheng believes SIUC has a significant national and international reputation, and it is something everyone needs to hold dear. The University has to be very careful about its branding and messaging, and the Senate should look to her to send that message; additionally, she will look to the Senate to give her the examples of all their good work that she can take on the road.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. J. Ferraro expressed his pleasure at having R. Cheng on campus. He commented that [the faculty] have had some not-so-rosy scenarios presented to them. He realizes there is a value in showing the state, the legislature and the Governor, specifically, that the University really does need help; however, at the same time, he believes there is a risk of painting a more direr picture than it might be, especially as it pertains to recruitment and retention. There are some students who fear coming here specifically because it sounds like the University might not be open in August. He asked R. Cheng if it is as bleak as it is being playing out, or is it an unknown. R. Cheng responded that she believes the budget situation is serious. She also knows from her own experience in Wisconsin and from colleagues across the country that [the University] can get through this [crisis]. The sky is not falling, but there will have to be some things deferred until there are more state revenues in the form of income and sales tax which can go toward higher education. She is currently in a furlough mode in Wisconsin, having taken eight back-to- back days each year for the last two years. It was not pleasant to begin thinking about, but it also was not the sky is falling. Wisconsin instituted the furloughs to protect the cores of their institutions. They ended up with a portfolio of strategies so that they could protect the future with just some temporary cutbacks. R. Cheng pointed out that there have been indicators that the economy is coming back in Illinois. She believes it may be possible to get through this without furloughs. What she wants to avoid is layoffs because they affect individuals and cause hardship in a particular unit, whereas [with furloughs] everyone kicks in a little bit and jobs are saved. Certainly, there are deferred maintenance issues, lack of support for the research agenda and a need for more students. However, the message has to go out that this institution is high quality, that it is prioritizing students' education and that it will do all it can to protect the core.

2. P. Stockdale asked R. Cheng what kinds of opportunities the University might take advantage of in these times of crisis. R. Cheng responded that she is unsure she knows enough about the institution, though she does have a few ideas. For instance, a) this might be [a good time] to look toward cleaning up the curriculum and sharpening the University's message to students; b) really look at some market research why are students selecting another institution versus SIU [for] a particular program; c) are all these electives necessary or can things be sharpened; d) could there be collaboration across schools and colleges [to create] a new, unique interdisciplinary program that could be light years ahead of U of I or other kinds of institutions; e) it is time to look and see if the right incentives are in place. Share some of the successes in order to spark the students' interest--and again, branding, imaging, messaging and being careful about what is said and what is put into print so that the University is really sharpening everything it does.

3. G. Spittler asked R. Cheng to share her priorities for attacking the situation at SIUC. R. Cheng responded that, again, she is in the learning and discovery mode. Her priorities are to continue to learn and listen, but the overarching issue with any budget crisis is to make sure that there is open communication and transparency in the problem. Not everyone will agree on everything that is done, but giving people a voice in the process and then being very clear on what was done and why it was done that way [will allow for that openness and transparency].

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Rice commented that he has enjoyed beginning work with Chancellor Cheng and is very much looking forward to her being on campus on a permanent basis.

4. F. Pourboghrat, Chair of the Judicial Review Board (JRB), reported that generally, the Board chair reports once a year (in December) to give a report on the previous year's activities. He provided an explanation of the role of the JRB, as well as an overview of the JRB's most recent activities. He reported that before the union contract, the Senate made major revisions to the grievance document to make it more effective and acceptable to the administration so that the decisions of the JRB would be given the deference they require (i.e., the chancellor treats the decisions of the JRB in the same way s/he treats the decisions of the provost). The proposed changes were approved and accepted by the Faculty Association and the University administration; sections of the grievance procedures were written into the contract to give the procedures the necessary authority to allow its decisions to stand. F. Pourboghrat pointed out that there was a case last year in which the decision of the JRB was overturned by the Chancellor. The case went to arbitration, and the JRB's decision was upheld. The hope is that in the future, that degree of deference will be given to all decisions of the JRB. The chancellor can still overturn a decision, but only on the procedural errors or if some factual matters have not been known or ignored. The purview of the JRB is that it considers the procedural issues; they are not judges. With the amount of time the JRB members put into resolving grievances, the hope is that its decisions will be given enough deference to allow them to continue servicing the University. F. Pourboghrat noted that last year, the JRB suspended itself because several of its decisions were reversed, and not based on procedural errors of the JRB itself. The issue has since been resolved, and the JRB re-started in the fall. The hope is that there will be no conflicts; but if there are, they hopefully will be resolved at the lowest level possible [and any decisions made by the JRB will be given deference]. Provost Rice commented that since the JRB has returned to business, he has appreciated the civility that has been maintained by the JRB panels. He also appreciates the detail in which the JRB's arguments have been presented. He believes it has been very helpful for the process.

A. Karnes noted that he currently serves on the JRB. Having sat on a panel now as opposed to when he was on the Board previously, he believes the panels now are really independent. [The grievant] is getting an independent group of professors to hear the grievance, and it is a much better process now than before. S. Kumar commented that another important revision that was made was that members have to be full professors who have not filed a grievance against the administration, or have served in an administrative position, in the previous three years. This was done to minimize any bias and likely has resulted in the more independent decisions. P. Howze commented that he has served on a number of panels and believes it is a good process, though he does not find it entirely satisfying that the Board is barred from considering substantive manners. The JRB has to tread carefully on issues concerning denial of promotion and tenure and has made every effort to not get in the way of a substantive decision made by the experts in [a grievant's] field. However, procedurally, when sizeable parts of the [department's] operating paper are not followed--to the point that there is interpersonal acrimony, for example--the Board has to ignore what is clearly plain on paper. He is not proposing that it become easier to reverse a decision that is contrary to a department; but by the same token, why go to the JRB if it can do nothing for [someone in that kind of situation]. P. Howze believes the Senate in its next term should carefully examine these matters through its Governance Committee.

5. A. Karnes submitted his written report on the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as appendix 2 to the minutes). He reported he met yesterday with Representative Mike Bost, who indicated that he is not adverse to a revenue increase, but only under certain conditions. M. Bost wants cutbacks to 2003 levels for all state agencies and a three year freeze, which A. Karnes believes will not happen. M. Bost reported that he has been contacted by some people who are in favor of the revenue increase. A. Karnes urged faculty to do likewise. Provost Rice noted that Lobby Day is scheduled for April 21. P. Howze suggested people need to keep an eye on HB1237, a transportation bill that includes an amendment that was sneaked in which essentially lowers [the University's] appropriations by 10% in FY10. A. Karnes urged everyone to contact their legislators and tell them to vote for whatever it will take to keep the budget up, whether it is the hold harmless provision or a revenue increase. He noted that there is talk in the legislature about shutting down Chicago State. If one university is shut down, then others may follow. He believes most legislators would like to see [Illinois] go to a Missouri type of system where there is only one research institution, which would be the flagship, and then there would be everyone else. Most legislators view research as wasted money. Their model of efficiency is a community college because faculty teach 12-15 hours a semester, and that is all they do. Community colleges churn out a lot of credit hours for the amount of money they are appropriated, and the legislature would like to see most universities go that route.

Because he had to leave early, A. Karnes asked to present his Budget Committee report next.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- A. Karnes, Chair

A. Karnes reported that at the Senate's last meeting, Chancellor Goldman stated that he would involve the Senate in discussions on how the University will deal with the budget crisis. A. Karnes pointed out that the recommendations are due April 15, and the Senate has yet to be contacted. He also serves on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee, and that group has not heard from him. The faculty are not being involved at all. A. Karnes reported the Budget Committee itself looked at some numbers they believe deserve to be scrutinized (see appendix 3 to the minutes). These numbers are general revenue and income fund dollars that are being appropriated to non-academic areas. The committee is not saying that these numbers are inappropriate or that they should not be appropriated to those units. They simply believe the numbers should be examined and that the [Senate] should be involved in the discussions. There may be areas that could be disproportionately trimmed in order to save some other areas; however, until faculty are involved in the discussions, there will be suspicion on the parts of people.

M. Lamb declared herself a suspicious person for two reasons. First, when there is talk about attrition, in her mind it always seems to be directed toward faculty lines. She does not see attrition of positions above the dean's level; whether there is or not, she does not know because faculty are not being informed. Second, she believes one the failures of the current Chancellor is that he has not involved the faculty in very high-level and important decisions that involve faculty careers. She asked A. Karnes if he is suggesting a reconstitution of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee; what kind of involvement would he like to see for faculty? A. Karnes responded that the Senate approved a resolution earlier in the year asking that the current Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee be reconstituted and given decision-making, or at least advisory, powers to the Chancellor; but that was not done. He is unsure what else the Senate can do. M. Lamb asked Chancellor-Designate R. Cheng to help her not be a suspicious person. If the University has to institute furloughs, she (M. Lamb) needs to believe that the administration did all it could do above the faculty level. She does not hear students wanting to come to a university because of its great administration; they come because of its library, books, journals and especially for its faculty and programs. It concerns her when faculty and programs take disproportionate cuts. If she knew that the cuts are inevitable and are being shared above the deans level, then she might not be so suspicious. S. Kumar noted that the aforementioned resolution was approved and forwarded to Chancellor Goldman. His response was to defer the matter to the incoming chancellor.

REPORTS (cont.)

6. E. Hellgren reported the Graduate Council met and approved the Open Access resolutions. He indicated that support was not unanimous (20-5), as there is a core of opposition. E. Hellgren also reported that there are 23 program reviews that are close to completion. He expressed appreciation to J. Allen for his organization of the program review process.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar reported that Faculty Senate elections have been completed in seven colleges. There was a slight glitch in one of the colleges, but that election should be completed soon. As mentioned earlier, the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Voting Unit will have increased representation from two seats to six. In order to make sure an election occurs in that unit every year, the terms have been staggered so that one of the new members will be elected to a one year term; one will be elected to a two year term; and the remaining two members will be elected to three year terms.

2. P. Howze presented for approval the Open Access Policy: A Model of Action for Faculty Choice; and the Open Access Policy: A Statement of Support (both are joint resolutions with the Graduate Council and are included as Attachments A and B, respectively, to the Agenda). G. Boulukos explained that when the resolutions were discussed at the last Senate meeting, he just wanted to register historical concerns that had been expressed at the drafting of these documents. There are worries that the Open Access Policy may move back in the direction of the original drafting. He and many of his colleagues in Liberal Arts wanted the Senate to be aware of the issues (work not included in Open Access would not be considered for tenure or promotion; no accommodations made for faculty who are unable to participate in Open Access; etc.).

J. Brown questioned whether the operating papers of a department would have something to say about [submissions to Open Access] or would they be excluded from any commentary on the requirement of Open Access by [these resolutions]? P. Howze responded that this issue was raised at the Graduate Council meeting as well. They were argued as separate issues and not in conjoint with any operating paper or local requirement for promotion and tenure. There is not necessarily a tie or a local requirement. E. Hellgren added that the Graduate Council did not discuss at length the requirements for including publications in Open Access for promotion and tenure; rather, they focused on the two resolutions themselves. He believes if at some point [the requirements for Open Access] become coercive, then it can be stopped. He believes the Senate should consider the resolutions as they are currently. G. Boulukos agreed, noting he simply raised the issue because there are many people in Liberal Arts who are very aware of the original drafting and the history and are satisfied with the current document.

J. Allen commented that he supports the resolutions, though they are not perfect. He pointed out that for those like himself who are engaged in humanistic research and publish books, publishers and scholarly presses will have nothing to do with [faculty] posting entire volumes in Open Access. Additionally, faculty who publish chapters in published volumes and those who publish digitally are left out. He believes significant modifications need to be made to the web platform in order to make it more inclusive of scholars and creative activities, especially for those who are engaged in creative performances, exhibitions and the like.

S. Kumar commented that the resolution as currently written calls upon all faculty members to grant SIUC permission to make his or her scholarly journals and articles available in Open Access. He asked whether this would be a blanket permission that is given one time or is it on each individual article or on one journal; for example, anything published in a particular journal can be put in Open Access. P. Howze pointed out that [the resolutions] do not address the actual implementation of Open Access, though the impression he had from the Graduate Council is that it would be "do as you go."

R. Hughes expressed concern that the resolutions, because they are joint with the Graduate Council, did not have the opportunity to go through the Senate's committee process. He believes some of the concerns indicate there is a real need for evaluation by the Senate itself; he moved that the resolutions be sent to the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee for a thorough evaluation of what the Faculty Senate can contribute; seconded by B. Rodriguez. P. Howze pointed out that the resolutions have already been approved by the Graduate Council, so they do not need the Senate. Taking such an action would, in effect, push the matter into the next Senate term, and he doubts very much whether the issues on both sides will change. He believes the Senate at this time can either affirm or vote down the matter.

J. Ferraro indicated the resolution is only asking whether faculty want to be involved in Open Access. The Senate can address any objections and offer recommendations when discussion occurs about the procedures [for implementation]. J. Allen agreed, noting that the Senate can concur in the concept and then charge the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee (in concert with the Graduate Council) with investigating the implementation.

Motion to table both resolutions failed 10-12-1 on a show of hands vote.

Resolutions were approved 11-9-3 on a show of hands vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Specialization in Biology Education, Biomedical Science, and Ecology to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Biological Sciences, College of Science (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). She pointed out that the department proposes to go from a major in Biological Sciences as just a general concentration to three sub-tracks: biology education; biomedical and ecology. The primary concern of the committee was that for the education track, the number of required hours [are between] 138 and 140, whereas the others were more standard. This aside, they were very pleased with the proposal.

L. Achenbach explained that the current number of hours for a biology education degree is 160; what they did was cut it by 20 hours. The reason it is so heavy on hours is that students are currently required to fulfill all their requirements for the biology degree and a degree in education. The hours were pared down so that students are only required to take the science and biology courses that are required by the state of Illinois to be certified. The courses were carefully selected and aligned with current accreditation and certification requirements. L. Achenbach also explained that she has no information on the superscripts or on those issues the committee was concerned with, but she is certainly willing to look at any of the committee's concerns. Additionally, she wanted to note that the number of departments involved is four microbiology, plant biology, zoology and physiology.

O. Agrawal commented that he served on his college's curriculum committee at one time, and they were told the IBHE would not approve more than 138 credit hours. The complaint was that students were taking too long to complete the degree. L. Auchenbach responded that as it currently stands, students are required to take 160 hours. This is a joint program, so the hours are being pared down by 20. The IBHE approved the first program for 160 hours, and that has been standing for more than 20 years. O. Agrawal asked how many years it takes [students to graduate]. L. Auchenbach responded that it currently takes about six years or more. With these changes and with summer school, students could theoretically be done in four years, but it is usually five.

A. Karnes commented that what he hears at the state level is that they would rather see more hours in the content section of teacher's education than in education; so, it is odd to him that the content is being cut as opposed to the education portion of teacher's education. L. Achenbach responded that they are not cutting content; rather, they are accepting certain education courses as fulfilling some of the College of Science's requirements. They are making sure there is as much overlap as possible in terms of what classes the students take. They have actually added to the content because skills in geology, physics, math, chemistry and astronomy were not there before. A. Karnes indicated the IBHE would like the content area teach the content, not the College of Education. L. Auchenbach responded that the College of Science is teaching the science courses; what she means by overlap is that the core curriculum classes have been specifically chosen to fulfill the core in both the College of Education and the College of Science; that was not done previously. J. Allen noted that the reduction in the total number of hours in that area is primarily due to the use of advanced core courses that double-dip both in the major and in satisfying the core requirements; all they are really asking students to do above 120 hours is the module for student teaching, which is a fairly modest additional requirement.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of Specializations in Computational Physics, Biomedical Physics, and Materials/Nano Physics the Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics, College of Science (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). B. Rodriguez asked if additional funding would be required. L. DiLalla responded there would not.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Specialization in New Media Production to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Journalism College of Mass Communication and Media Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). She noted that two of the "whereases" point out some concerns by the committee; however, they were not difficult concerns, so the committee wanted to go ahead with putting the resolution through. One concern was that [the RME] was introduced with a request for a specialization in new media producer, which the committee thought was an unusual term. A request was made that it be changed to new media production; some people suggested perhaps to new media [direction]. A second pending "whereas" relates to concurrence with Instructional Technology and Instructional Design. There is evidence of overlap with those other programs, and given that those are not a problem, the committee is recommending approval of the specialization.

L. Brooten asked if there were titles that could be considered other than new media production so it would not be misconstrued in terms of the new digital media that [perhaps] is being done at other schools. There has been some concern in her college just because "media production" is broad; however, the way it was explained to her by the director of Journalism, the program itself is fairly narrow in that it is basically adding online journalism. She suggested a specialization in new media news production, for example, might work better. K. Zivkovich believes it also would be easier for students to understand since there are so many different digital news media courses popping up. She is aware there are several in the School of Art and Design as well. She suggested not confusing people who are looking for things online or in [print] and attempt to perhaps steer them in the right direction at the start.

J. Allen believes some clarification is evident from the title of the degree, which is in journalism; the specialization is in [new media production]. The concern is justifiable that there may be confusion with other programs elsewhere on campus because media production entails more than the [world] of journalism; that is why there is concurrent approval from programs that have questions about the degree program. Not having those concurrences would not foreclose approval of the RME, but it would foreclose the actual implementation of the program in the catalog until the concurrences are given, which is why it is framed in that way. L. Brooten indicated that she honesty was not aware of the [RME] or of any discussion regarding the specialization. She asked if the other departments in the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts (Radio and Television and Cinema and Photography) could be added as part of the concurrence. [It was noted that the committee was not familiar enough with the structure of the college to realize that the other departments needed to concur.] L. DiLalla asked to amend the resolution to include concurrence with the departments of Radio and Television and Cinema and Photography.

Resolution was approved, as amended, on a voice vote. [see appendix 4 to the minutes]

J. Davis expressed appreciation to L. DiLalla for the exceptional work she has done this year.

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

G. Apgar presented for approval the Resolution on Faculty Workload Distribution Among Academic Units (included as Attachment F to the Agenda). He prefaced it with background information that he came across and asked that Senators who are interested should review the "Strategic Plan for a Student- Centered Research University: Facing Reality First," which was a discussion at the annual faculty meeting given by Interim Vice Chancellor Thomas Guernsey in October 1999 (found here). G. Apgar read one paragraph of the speech because he believes it is germane to the conversation today: "Meaningful strategic planning assumes a structure that allows the efficient use of resources. To have an efficient use of resources you need to have control over the resources and a data base that allows you to make rational plans and decisions about the allocation of those resources. We currently have neither effective control of our resources or the data upon which to make decisions." G. Apgar questioned whether [the University] was any closer today than it was in 1999. He reported that the committee drafted the resolution in an effort to ascertain data by which to make some strategic efforts. The resolution states that it will go through the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee, though he is open to sending it through the Budget Committee as well. The committee just believes the data needs to be examined.

R. Hughes expressed concern about where this is going and who is being authorized to [collect the data]. He understands wanting the information to be provided, but he is [hesitant] about turning the process over to unknown individuals who are going to [interpret/make decisions] about strategic planning. P. Howze explained that the initial discussion, as he recalls, involved a couple of concepts that may be imbedded in the resolution and certainly may require additional discussion. One of them is workload creep, which is a clear phenomenon that happens when fewer people take on more work with no relief in other areas. The other concept has to do with budget accountability, which is embedded in the Guernsey piece. It, too, is a profound phenomenon in the sense that funds should be spent for the purpose for which they were intended. An example would be that a college is allotted funds to bolster the hiring of female faculty on a recurring basis. Those female faculty stay for a certain period of time and then leave, and men come in and take their place. That is a form of creep. The resolution, as he understands it, is meant to create a means by which to identify and locate forms of workload creep that occur on campus.

J. Allen pointed out that the Faculty Association has legal jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to wages, hours and working conditions. It sounds to him as if the resolution overlaps with the responsibilities of the Association. It also seems to him a bit awkward to be creating a commission consisting of unknown members, with no clear mechanisms for identifying how they will function, what recommendations they will make and to whom; how the data collected will be used and forwarded, etc. P. Stockdale believes the idea of a commission is actually in the preamble to the resolution and that the resolution itself speaks about the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee being the group that processes the data. She recommended that the last sentence of the preamble be stricken since it is nonessential and appears to be causing the consternation. The resolution itself asks that the committee be able to access workload issues and draft a report or recommendation of some kind. G. Apgar agreed to the revision. A. Karnes expressed concern that the resolution is basically calling for internal reallocation without saying who will do it or how it will be done.

R. Hughes believes many of the [workload issues] that might be identified will play out in terms of student/faculty ratios, what happens to faculty hiring, etc., and all of those issues are subject to bargaining. He believes the problem with the resolution is that it asks for so many things to be done without a very clear statement of who or how it should be done. He suggested maybe committee members themselves could examine the issue and see what can be done on their own to collect information; see what information will be provided by asking for it rather than giving it to someone else to do and then walking away. For that reason, he believes this issue should be placed at the beginning of the Senate's calendar year so the committee can actually take up the process in a reasonable way and study the issues. G. Apgar asked if the Association has these data. R. Hughes responded that they do not; however, what he is saying is that there is some data that is easily available and some that is not because of unknowns such as the numbers of retirements and resignations (though it may be available shortly). P. Howze asked if the committee would like to edit and reintroduce the resolution. G. Apgar responded affirmatively.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba