Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Gary Apgar, Vice President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Lisa B. Brooten, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Scott Collins (for Sandra K. Collins), Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, Steve Esling (for Ken B. Anderson), James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Stephanie Graves, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, James A. MacLean, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), Diane Muzio, William Recktenwald, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Matt Schlesinger (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), Gerald R. Spittler, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James Wall, Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Members absent: Ruth Bauner (ex officio), Don Rice (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Ronald A. Caffey, Sanjeev Kumar, Marla H. Mallette, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Jose R. Ruiz.

Visitors and guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Susan Logue (Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor), Gary Minish (Office of the Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor), Farzad Pourboghrat (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Pamela Smoot (Africana Studies).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on November 9, 2010, approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. M. Lamb presented the Senate President report on behalf of S. Kumar, who is in India receiving an award from the SP Foundation--an international organization--for outstanding contributions in geotechnical engineering practices. [Report included as appendix 1 to the minutes.]

2. G. Apgar reported he attended the Board of Trustees meeting held on campus December 9. There were a number of SIUC items on the agenda, including: a) facility demolition, project and budget approval (student services) and preliminary planning and naming of a golf facility; b) approval of a Legacy tuition program for alumni (80% tuition rate offer for FY11) and an altered fee structure for distance education classes to improve competitiveness (removal of on-campus fees and addition of an IT fee); c) a presentation by Assistant Provost John Nicklow on "Recruitment and Retention Initiatives." The defined student focus flowed smoothly with the proposed new student services building. G. Apgar indicated he has slides from the both presentations, and will share them after the meeting for those who are interested. G. Apgar also reported on a constituency heads meeting he attended in which the new procurement rules were discussed. Anytime a purchase requisition is needed for items not covered by a P-card, and there is interaction with a provider (either through speech, email, etc.), it must be reported. This will be problematic for PI's and has been the focus of joint Illinois research university discussions with the legislature, as yet to no avail.

3. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) she has convened the first meeting of a steering committee to begin the process for strategic planning on the campus. The University's accrediting body has specifically asked that the University engage in planning, although this needs to occur, anyway, because of the changing environment. There is a smaller group looking at data that will then be provided to a larger group. Constituency groups will be asked for recommendations for participation; b) the budget situation remains the same. The administration is engaged in conversations with all the bargaining units, and those conversations are productive and progressing; c) the legislature is expected to go into a lame duck session the first week in January, and that could be a time to pay attention to the news because what is happening with the state has significant impact on the University; d) research numbers have hit an all time high of $78.5 million; students and faculty continue to win awards and be recognized for their activities and talents; e) a very detailed presentation was given to the Board of Trustees on enrollment. That presentation is posted on their website, but can be posted on the Chancellor's website as well. The University has been very intentional and aggressive in recruitment and has aligned many programs around student success in the academic affairs area. Mark Amos and Julie Kirchmeier (Saluki First Year) have taken on a broader set of programs to support student success, and J. Nicklow has done the same to insure recruitment and transition of students. International Programs has been moved back to the Provost's office because there needs to be a clear link to academics in order to move that program forward. The dean of students will be retained; Judicial Affairs and all the other units related to student activities will be retained by that office, but it will also report to the Provost. Her office will be assessing the interim structure and setting out for more permanency in the next few months to make sure that the changes do indeed work well; f) there have been some questions about the university college model. Certainly, the University is moving in that direction. She is looking at the transformation of Saluki First Year into a bonafide university college model and has a very small group that is meeting with her on a bi-weekly basis to sort out what is the best model to propose for this campus; g) with respect to enrollment, it is still very early, but applications are up. Admissions are also up, both in new freshman and transfers. Housing contracts are up (they were negative at this time last year); and four times as many individuals are being contacted than were last year. Having more people as the yield comes in should result in more people at the end; h) the new Provost, Gary Minish, will begin his position on December 15.

3. F. Pourboghrat reported on the activities of the Judicial Review Board during the past year (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

4. A. Karnes reported on the December meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (see appendix 2 to the minutes). He added that what the FAC understood from the IBHE staff was that until universities engage in reducing program inventories across the state, there is little likelihood that there will be large additional increases in revenue. He believes the University needs to carefully consider how it exercises program reduction and begin doing it now before being forced into this activity. J. Kapur asked whether salary inequity was raised during the discussion about efficiencies. A. Karnes responded it was not. The kind of efficiencies discussed were the kinds of things being done now, such as combining administrative units. The University may want to do that at the program level, possibly combining small departments that have a small amount of majors into one administrative structure to save money.

5. N. Mundschenk reported on the December 9 Graduate Council meeting: a) the passing of Dan Dyer was announced. He was a member of the graduate faculty and of the Graduate Council; b) grants were up in FY10, and FY11 seems to be on the same trajectory; c) a recent meeting of the National Council of Graduate Schools was attended by John Koropchak and David Wilson. One thing they learned in terms of demographic growth is that India appears to be a good place for recruitment. This will be a conversation in the Graduate Council with respect to the recruitment of students; d) the research committee continues to look for ways to recognize research productivity and is also looking at whether there might be ranks beyond full professor; e) one new program was approved, with no request for additional funding or staff. There was also a first reading of the Master of Arts in Art History. It is a very interdisciplinary program with other departments, including History and departments within Mass Communication and Media Arts. There was again no request for additional funding. A vote on this issue will be taken at the next meeting; f) most of the internal program reviews have been completed, and it is hoped the external reviews will be completed early in the spring semester; g) the Educational Policies Committee is still reviewing the operating paper, and the committee continues to welcome feedback. J. Allen asked how long it will be before Mark Kittleson, who has left the University,will be replaced on the Program Review Committee. N. Mundschenk responded the Council is working on his replacement.

6. G. Apgar reported that he serves as one of the Senate representatives on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. He was unable to attend the November 19 meeting, so M. Lamb attended in his place. M. Lamb gave a brief report on the meeting (included as appendix 3 to the minutes). B. Thibeault commented on the plans to build the new Student Services building where the parking garage now sits. Her understanding was that the garage location was selected so students would not have to cross the street; however, will they not still have to cross the street if they park in the stadium lot? Chancellor Cheng responded that the parking garage was selected as the site for the new building because it has structural issues and will have to be torn down, anyway. There will be an even swap of spaces in that parking lots A and B (north of Anthony Hall) will be expanded, and there will be some surface parking behind the new student building. Additionally, there will be temporary parking on the south side of McAndrew Stadium. L. Brooten asked if any action has been taken on the Communications building, which was one of the three RAMP projects put forth. Chancellor Cheng responded that the request was for FY12, and no action will be taken on the FY12 budget until the spring. They did hear from the Governor's staff that there is likely to be support for not only new buildings but for deferred maintenance on university campuses.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. G. Apgar congratulated Senator Stephen Ebbs, who was awarded the 2010 Course Developer Award from the Association of Distance Education and Independent Learning for development of two online biology courses. G. Apgar also formally expressed the Senate's gratitude to Interim Provost Don Rice for his supportive and approachable attitude and action. He served this body for many years as an information conduit during various administrative changes and events.

2. G. Apgar reported that at the last Executive Council meeting, M. Amos was invited to give an update on the "University College" and Saluki First Year/Student Success Course efforts of implementation. There were three areas of concern: 1) funding, which was initially $400K from the Chancellor's office; 2) when implementation would begin; and 3) will it integrate into the core? Currently, Pat Manfredi (University Core Curriculum) and M. Amos are working on curriculum placement and integration and will be invited to present their recommendations to the committee in the future.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

1. G. Apgar presented for approval the candidates for Judicial Review Board (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He noted that there are four three-year terms and one two-year term to be filled. The person who receives the least number of "yes" votes will serve for two years. Ballots for the Judicial Review Board election were then distributed to Senators. After a tally of the votes was taken, the following four faculty were elected to three year terms: Daren Callahan, Library Affairs; Jon Davey, Applied Sciences and Arts; Alice Noble-Allgire, Law; and Karl Williard, Agricultural Sciences. Kounosuke Watabe, Medicine, was elected to serve two years.

2. G. Apgar presented for approval Motion 1 to reappoint F. Pourboghrat as chair of the Judicial Review Board for the 2010-2011 term (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

3. G. Apgar presented for approval Motion 2 to appoint Elizabeth Klaver (Liberal Arts) as vice chair of the Judicial Review Board (also included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Proposal for Modification of the College of Liberal Arts Requirements (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). S. Ebbs asked if the courses that are expected to fill this requirement are specific to any particular academic level. A related question is whether they anticipate that core curriculum courses would be used to fill the requirements. S. Ebbs indicated the majority of [the courses] are taught out of the departments and not the Core Curriculum. L. DiLalla indicated that is correct; the idea is that it should be interesting to students, [and they should not have to take a class in a department outside their major. B. Rodriguez asked if there was a procedure for determining what counts as a global course. L. DiLalla responded that Dean Vaux is very interested in many classes being able to fulfill this requirement. If someone has a class in psychology he believes addresses some global issues and asked for approval, there is a good change that it could meet the global requirement. Wiesen asked if these are only for majors in Liberal Arts. L. DiLalla responded that the requirement is only for Liberal Arts. J. Kapur asked if the classes students can take are limited to courses offered by Liberal Arts, or can they take courses offered by other colleges that address global issues. L. DiLalla responded [the classes are not limited to Liberal Arts]. J. Kapur suggested amending the final whereas reflect that courses addressing global issues are offered across campus. O. Agrawal suggested adding, "including CoLA" so that the whereas would read, "...a huge number of courses across campus, including CoLA, currently are offered...."

G. Spittler asked if he heard correctly that literature and philosophy were mentioned as possible courses. L. DiLalla indicated they were, as well as those in art, economics, etc. J. Allen explained that departments themselves are being allowed to define and sort out those courses that have the most appropriate international content, such that they alert students to different global perspectives. J. Wall asked how students who want to partake go through the process of waiving that departmental prerequisite. L. DiLalla responded that if there are any prerequisites, they would have to stand. J. Wiesen asked if CoLa sees any effect, perhaps negatively, on recruitment into the majors within CoLA if the college tacks on another requirement. L. DiLalla responded that it was very obviously the perception that this is such an easy requirement to fulfill that it would not in any way make people less interested. One of the main points is to make sure students get a little bit of global exposure and to make them aware. Chancellor Cheng asked if the committee had any discussions with P. Manfredi about the core and any possible overlap. L. DiLalla responded they have not. When the proposal was presented, the sense was that the number of classes from which students could choose already there, and that it was not an issue with the core because the available courses are classes students are choosing from already.

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

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- L. Brooten/J. Kapur, Co-Chairs

1. J. Kapur presented the committee's Comments/Modifications on the Proposed University Overload (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). She reported the committee discussed the document at length. The basic position of the group, and the faculty as a whole, is between balancing the desire to earn extra money; to answer the needs of students who want to register for the distance education classes; and to remain a research university. The committee believes faculty should still be doing research, as well as service, and that there should not be an entrepreneurial, individualistic ethic.

2. J. Kapur reported that the same concern as above was expressed in the Comments on the Distance Education Steering Committee Initial Report on Centralized Administrative Oversight (Dated May 2010) (included as Attachment F to the Agenda). The committee wants it to represent the educational mission of the University very clearly and not just be a business plan. L. Brooten indicated she received extensive feedback on the steering committee report. Attachment F is being provided because after her presentation to the Senate last month, the committee was asked by Associate Provost Susan Logue to forward the minutes of their discussion/comments on the proposal. Basically, Attachment F is being presented to the Senate to be forwarded on to S. Logue.

With respect to Attachment E, J. Kapur clarified that the committee's comments are only suggestions and advice, as these [issues] have to be collectively bargained. S. Collins commented that he understands the two-course limit, but preferred wording that would address the 120% limit because there are programs in which faculty are responsible for having one or two courses per semester as an overload. If there is an emergency, and someone is already at 120%, something would need to happen that would allow that person to teach the course and be compensated. L. Brooten responded that the committee had a lengthy discussion with Sandy Collins (Allied Health) about that very issue. The document does already allow 140% of salary because the University currently allows one day a week of consulting practices. The committee added in part 2b, "This annual maximum compensation for overload does not apply to internal and external consulting allowed by SIUC." Thus, it actually allows for more than [the 120%]. Also, Sandy Collins indicated that in cases when she had courses that went over the unofficial policy of the University, it was handled under the consulting practice clause. L. Brooten was unsure as to who would make the call as to what is internal consulting. S. Logue responded that the current policy on consulting exempts classroom teaching. She believes if there was an emergency situation, administrative approval would be needed to override the overload policy as opposed to calling it consulting. The consulting policy is for [actual consulting activities]. The administration has to have the flexibility to override the policy in emergency situations. L. Brooten pointed out that another thing about [teaching overloads] is that it is voluntary, and wording to that effect was added. She believes that would protect faculty from being required to teach an overload. J. Kapur noted that the document still favors teaching over research. Research can count as an overload under the policy only if the faculty member gets an external grant. The committee was unable to come up with a way to measure research because it gets into a more subjective area. S. Collins questioned whether faculty would be limited to two a year and teaching at overload or whether they would have the option to teach more; there are several people doing that now. If this is happening, then it will force programs to hire extra faculty, which will increase costs.

B. Rodriguez reported that one of his constituents expressed a concern that under the two course a year policy, her department would actually have to offer fewer online courses, which is counterproductive towards the desire to have more online offerings. L. Brooten indicated the committee was under the impression that the external consulting clause fixed that problem. S. Logue responded that the intent is not to change current practice. She has heard from a number of areas that the two course limit is less than the 20%, so her suggestion was to change [the language] to something like two courses or 20%, whichever is greater.

B. Rodriguez added that another issue that has been raised involves teaching of University Honors courses. If a faculty member offers a UHON course, it is considered an overload, and the faculty member receives other than salary dollars (OTS) rather than the class counting against the course load. The normal teaching load is not affected. He asked whether this would fall under the overload policy as well. J. Kapur indicated her understanding is that the policy only applies to distance education. S. Logue responded that the policy could apply to on campus teaching, although she is not aware of any situations where someone is teaching an overload course on campus. She would have to talk with Lori Merrill-Fink (University Honors Program), as she is not familiar with how University Honors [operates]. B. Rodriguez indicated he brought the policy to L. Merrill-Fink, and she was not aware this was being discussed. It was noted that the committee's comments will be forwarded on to S. Logue.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- A. Karnes, Chair

A. Karnes presented for approval the Resolution to Encourage Faculty to Take Prudent and Responsible Measures to Prepare Themselves Financially to Minimize the Impact of Proposed Unpaid Administrative Closure on Themselves and Their Families (included as Attachment G to the Agenda). S. Ebbs reported that he was asked by Faculty Senator Ken Anderson to present the resolution and comment [on its intent]. He believes K. Anderson would say that the core message of the resolution is simply to be prepared. K. Anderson recognizes that collective bargaining is an ongoing process, and it takes time to resolve issues such as the unpaid closures. K. Anderson's concern is the time it will take to resolve the issue. The original plan to distribute the days over [three] pay periods may not be possible if the negotiations are protracted. It may force some of those closure days to be taken in a single pay period, and that could amplify the effect it would have on individual earnings. Lastly, S. Ebbs believes K. Anderson would be emphatic that the resolution not be interpreted in any way as a partisan statement and that there is no finger pointing and no blame being assigned. It is not a commentary on any of the participants in the collective bargaining process. It is simply a request that everyone be cognizant of one possible repercussion of the collective bargaining and to be prepared should that come to pass.

M. Lamb spoke in favor of the resolution, believing prudence is always a very good idea. She has some serious questions about the administrative closure days, although the resolution does not address the pros or cons to the closure days. It only speaks to prudence. J. Wiesen believes the resolution could be misread as a signal that it is happening or not happening, which may affect the way both sides comfortably negotiate. J. Kapur spoke against the resolution because she believes it is patronizing in tone. She believes the Senate should not be talking down to colleagues. Several Senators commented that they had no problem with the resolution itself, but did not find it necessary, as faculty are well educated and able to assess what the impact would be on themselves. G. Spittler believes the resolution could be used as a wedge to fractionate faculty as a group and interfere with the rational conduct of negotiations. A. Karnes commented that there are recognized bodies deciding this question, and the issue itself has already taken up much of the Senate's time. J. Ferraro believes everyone's comments are justified and reminded Senators that "when pickings are sparse, people tend to turn to cannibalism." The thought is that fractions and opponents are being created, most obvious is the administration versus the faculty. A recent editorial in the paper suggested that since the School of Medicine was not involved in the closure days that maybe it should provide resources [to help the rest of the faculty]; however, what that person failed to mention is that the School of Medicine has not received raises over the last few years, whereas the rest of the faculty did, because the School of Medicine is not part of the Faculty Association. The point is that whenever there is a split, there are many different ways to look at things and not everyone sees the same fact. The bottom line fact is that the University does not have enough money; how should that fact be handled. He would prefer [the faculty] not attempt to place the administration in a negative position, nor should faculty be put in that position. [Everyone should be working together as a group to try and resolve the matter.] B. Thibeault mentioned that her constituents are already worried and the resolution will make them more so. If anything, the Senate should be giving out information rather than [issuing warnings]. D. Muzio believes the way the resolution is written, it speaks to the inevitability of furlough days, which the faculty and other organized associations have not accepted as an inevitability.

Resolution failed 5-19-5 on a show of hands vote.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- None.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba