Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Sanjeev Kumar, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, Mark A. Amos, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, Connie J. Baker, Jonathan Bean (for James S. Allen), Ronald A. Caffey, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Stephanie Graves, Joey Helleny (for James Wall), Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Michael J. Lydy, Marla H. Mallette, Ryan Netzley (for Mary E. Lamb), William Recktenwald, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Gerald R. Spittler, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault.

Members Absent: Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), Don Rice (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Ira J. Altman, Kimberly Asner-Self, Lisa B. Brooten, Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Diane Muzio, Jose R. Ruiz, Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Visitors and guests: Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on May 11, 2010, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) he met with Chancellor Cheng and again emphasized the Senate's desire to have openness and transparency in the [campus] decision-making process. He also expressed his belief that it is now time to focus on the academic mission of the University (i.e., faculty hires). He and Chancellor Cheng discussed the possibility of developing an overload policy, quality of distance education courses and how to count the credit hours generated through Continuing Education; b) he attended the May 13 Board of Trustees meeting, at which the Board approved a resolution recognizing the contributions of former chancellor Sam Goldman. A report was also given by Vice President Sarvela on the findings from a "Four State Cost Study Report" (Florida, Illinois, Ohio and New York-SUNY) published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). The report can be found on the web at http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/SHEF_FY10.pdf ); c) he attended the July 8 Board meeting, at which time [it was announced] that the Illinois Board of Higher Education has approved the establishment of a B.A. in Africana Studies in the Black American Studies program. The minor has also been renamed Africana Studies. In other business, the Board approved the conceptual design of the Student Services Building. There was mention made about a building for Alumni Services/SIU Foundation; d) the fall faculty meeting has been scheduled for October 21. Anyone with suggestions on a format for the meeting should contact him; e) he received an article from J. Kapur about the research of Dr. David Gilbert (Department of Automotive Technology) that was published in the Huffington Post. The Executive Council will discuss the matter further and possibly propose a [statement of support]. The article can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/10/toyota- lashed-out-at-prof_n_642033.html.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported there are a number of serious issues to address in the coming year certainly, the budget, but also the undergraduate student experience as it relates to enrollment and retention; ensuring the research agenda continues to move forward; celebrating the innovation that happens on this campus in research and scholarly activity; and pushing forward with the infrastructure needs of the campus. She has been engaged in campus conversations within the community, state and region and will continue to do so for the benefit of the institution. She believes she can advocate for the institution wherever she goes, and she wants to make sure she is aware of the key issues so they can [be used to help shape the University's] agenda.

Relative to the budget, the University received what was expected from the Governor's budget. There are no alternative sources to fill the $7.5 million gap left by the lack of stimulus dollars. In expectation of this, there were conversations initiated with the unit directors, deans and vice chancellors around a budget reduction plan. There was a hiring freeze, a reduction of travel expenditures and a delay of purchases to allow as much flexibility as possible going into this year. Talks with the deans began in April about an approximately 4% budget reduction that would be necessary to address some of the shortfall. Those plans are, for the most part, being completed this week; they will then be sorted through to insure the institution meets the average of a 4% reduction across campus. Chancellor Cheng reported that the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee has been reconstituted. She has asked a subgroup of the committee to develop a website for communication on the budget and another subgroup to help come up with some kind of decision model about how to approach budget- cutting on the campus. The Senate has representation on the committee, and she will definitely engage them as [she] moves forward.

Even with the savings from last year and the 4% reduction, Chancellor Cheng indicated there is still not enough funding to support the budget for next year. Consequently, there have been conversations regarding the possibility of furloughs and layoffs. She anticipates there will be a need for limited furlough options heading into fall; how much will depend on enrollment numbers. Currently, there is a $2.5-2.7 million shortfall, which would equate to approximately four [non-paid] days for the campus. She will be talking with the constituency groups in early August about this possibility, as well as how the days might be spread out across the academic year so as not to impact significantly any one paycheck. Any new monies that might come in would reduce the number of days. Chancellor Cheng stressed that [the non-paid days] would not be an option if there was another strategy to consider. She will postpone as long as possible the actual implementation, but she did not want to postpone the conversation.

Chancellor Cheng reported that fall enrollment looks flat at best. New freshman numbers appear to be less than last year, which were less than the year before and less than the year before that. Transfer numbers are way up, which is a good sign, and continuing student numbers are so-so. There needs to be an effort not unlike the Enrollment Management effort, on retention, and she will be coming back to the Senate with more conversations about everyone's efforts in this regard. With respect to Enrollment Management, Chancellor Cheng indicated that changes are continuing to be made to sharpen everything the University does around admissions and to connect with prospective students and their families. There will be more focus on Saluki First Year and all the components of the first year experience, as well as engaging [the Senate] in the conversations about how best to retain students.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. W. Recktenwald asked if the four [non-paid] days would be over the course of one semester or over the academic year. Chancellor Cheng responded that the current thinking is to spread out the days as much as possible over the course of the academic year so that it does not all impact one paycheck. S. Kumar asked if the shortfall of $2.5 million is after the 4% cut. Chancellor Cheng responded that even with the 4% reduction, there is still a shortage of approximately $2.7 million; $2.5 million can be recouped with [furloughs/non-paid] days. B. Thibeault commented that it was mentioned at one time that lower paid employees would not be asked to take [as many days]. Chancellor Cheng responded that the discussions have not gotten to that point yet. They know that the University has a total payroll of $550,000/day; everyone taking four days would save approximately $2.5 million. Not including everyone would mean that some people would have to take more days. There is already a [gradient/graduation] worked into a day because the percentage may be the same for everyone, but the dollar value is not. There is also a fairness issue of two employees versus one family member that is employed and how that might work out; so, they need to work through some models. B. Rodriguez asked about closing the University on [Friday] to allow for a long weekend. It was also suggested to him about [re-instituting] a fall break, which could mean a savings in heating, electricity, etc. Chancellor Cheng responded that closing on a Friday is possible, though it is easier to have fixed days that everyone would take (such as adding a day to a holiday break). [Any closures] could still mean that an emergency crew would need to stay.

A. Karnes believes there is the additional consideration that people would notice if the University were to close for four days. Staggering the days would appear to be business as usual. There should be a [clear] impact if the campus has to implement [furlough/non-paid] days. K. Anderson believes the counterpoint is that it would minimize the impact on the teaching mission if not everyone was taking the days at the same time. Chancellor Cheng agreed that it is important to have minimal to no impact on classes and the ability of students to continue to be confident that they are receiving high quality. The Chancellor was asked whether it would be possible for faculty who have access to external grant dollars to buy out their day(s). Chancellor Cheng responded that such a possibility has not been discussed and may theoretically be possible; however, there could be an issue of fairness around those who have and those who do not have access to grant funds.

2. J. Ferraro discussed the good and bad PR the University has been receiving, [most recently] the beer bong picture in the Daily Egyptian and the University's [continued] acquisition of grants. He questioned whether the DE is aware of the [negative] impact such a picture has on recruitment and retention. Additionally, there has been a "sky is falling" mentality; the University has not closed, but it has been remarked in public that it could happen, and not just for a day but [forever]. As a parent, that kind of talk would not promote sending a kid to that school. He asked how closely the University watches its image and how does she see the impact of those things? Chancellor Cheng responded that she has had conversations with both the DE and the Southern Illinoisaneditorial boards about the need to promote the institution, to celebrate the excellent work being done here and the success of its graduates, and to emphasize the student experience that is unique to this institution. She, too, was distressed by the picture, but believes it needs to be kept in mind that the DE reporters are students; at the same time, however, there is a responsibility for the press to look at what is important to the region and the institution. She will continue to have those conversations. Chancellor Cheng noted that part of bringing forward the budget discussions in the summer rather than waiting for the fall is because the institution does have to get over the "sky is falling" and convey that it is moving forward.

3. J. Bean believes there are two [issues that need to be addressed] in terms of enrollment strategies; one is what many call a "run to the bottom" in terms of the University's admission standards--4% of incoming freshman are special admits--which, coupled with the low tuition (gambling that people will come to a low cost university), affects the academic reputation of the University. He likened it to the Yugo, the low cost car from Yugoslavia, which had reputation problems and went down in history as being a worse car than the Edsel. J. Bean asked the Chancellor how the University's run to the bottom, both academically and financially on the tuition and fees side, affects its reputation. Chancellor Cheng responded that she first wanted to address the academic side. She has not received a full report, but has asked for a distribution of ACT scores over time. SIUC's average has not changed over the last 10 years, so there is a perception of runs to the bottom; however, she is not sure things have actually changed very dramatically at all. Rather, she believes what is being seen in the core curriculum courses is what is being experienced at institutions all over the country; that is, that students coming into university today are not as prepared in many areas as they were in the past (an almost Swiss cheese preparation), and that is not always reflected in ACT scores. There are particular challenges in math and English, which are being addressed. The distribution itself is something that she is very interested in to see if indeed the average is staying the same, but the distribution is changing. Chancellor Cheng believes the other issue around academics and preparation is that there are many efforts on the campus around retention, but they are not necessarily organized and well coordinated. That is something that needs to be examined seriously to make sure that the efforts being put forth are having the expected outcomes. If they are not, then a change needs to be made in order to produce a better outcome. She pointed out that the tuition decision made by the Board was partly in response to the increases not only in tuition, but in fees on this campus over the last several years. It was a gamble and did not result in the University ending up as the low cost provider; it put the campus better in line with its competitors. That decision was made before she came in, so she cannot relay all the thinking that went into the decision. She is aware that there was some thought that the University had been a little too aggressive with tuition increases. She noted that Illinois does have somewhat high tuition, as well as high fees. The institution itself needs to determine where it should sit among its peers. The other thing was the five-state border initiative. There was some advertising done, but there were no recruiters on the ground in those states; there will be next year. It is very important that, if there is going to be an initiative, there needs to be effort put forth to make sure those students [get] here. The University has to send a message about what is unique about this place and about what a public research institution of this size provides to students. Chancellor Cheng believes the other component J. Ferraro mentioned about reputation and ranking is where the faculty and their work come in. There should be a celebration of the research and scholarly activity that occurs here; it needs to be capitalized on to continue the University's national reputation because that filters down to the undergraduate and graduate students, particularly graduate students' interests in coming here.

J. Kapur indicated her understanding is that in the last two years, there has been a cutting down on support for faculty research (e.g., travel grants, the monetary component for the outstanding scholar award). Where does faculty research fit in with the [discussions of the] Planning and Budget Committee? Chancellor Cheng responded that faculty research is clearly an important factor in defining the core of the institution and what to protect. Practically speaking, the funded research component of scholarly activity is vitally important to the bottom line of the institution. The institution can be passionate about research, as well as continue the commitment to hire excellent faculty. However, tuition dollars are also critical. If enrollment, particularly undergraduate enrollment, is ignored, then there will not be enough money to do what needs to be done; so, it is not one or the other, but both. Chancellor Cheng noted that A. Karnes sits on one of the subcommittees of the Planning and Budget Committee, and research has been a component. She is looking at how to get an average of [4%], while protecting some of the core growth areas of the institution. S. Kumar believes J. Kapur's concern was more about the elimination last year of the monetary award normally given to the outstanding faculty. It is a small amount of money given in recognition of the faculty members doing research. Chancellor Cheng responded that she does not expect to bring [the monetary component] back this year. After looking at the awards ceremony, the number of awards and the number of both monetary and other support came to approximately $150,000, and the campus does not have that to give out in this budget time. As a result, there will be a scaling back, although certainly, the recognition will be there.

J. Garvey commented that the Chancellor had mentioned two income sources: tuition and research dollars. He believes a third source would be Foundation dollars, which might be used to support outstanding faculty, if someone was willing to donate. Chancellor Cheng responded that the major donors have declined at this time, as their portfolios have been reduced significantly. They are not in a giving mode, but have not at all de-friended the institution. The annual giving is still acceptable, but is not growing. Surprisingly, the football stadium and Arena are coming along. The hope is to be able to quietly move into another campaign as early as 2013. The Alumni Foundation board members are very committed to a building on the corner of the campus entrance that would house all the advancement activities. They believe it would be the way to reach out to alumni and potential donors who have not yet given (people like to give to bricks and mortar). They could then [begin thinking about] a campaign for endowed faculty lines, more scholarship dollars, etc. S. Kumar found it unimaginable that a large university such as this would not have funds to recognize its faculty and staff; he agreed on cutting down on the celebration/ceremonies, but asked the Chancellor to reconsider a small monetary benefit. Chancellor Cheng responded that what she envisions doing is putting together a small committee to look at the practices of peer institutions to see what can be done to reconstitute [the awards/recognition].

4. K. Anderson asked for an update on the provost search. Chancellor Cheng explained that those who were selected to serve were sent a letter inviting them to participate on the screening and search committee. She believes it is still possible to begin the screening process in late July, although there was another run of ads because she did not believe the candidate pool was necessarily looking very strong (just in raw numbers). She would like to have campus interviews in September and a start date of December/January 1. She suggested that anyone who might have interested colleagues across the country or on campus should urge them to apply. She would like to have as wide and as open and as deep a pool as possible.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Reports were submitted by faculty representatives on various University committees (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). B. Rodriguez reported he was appointed to the Academic Calendar Committee last year, and the committee met for the first time in June. They are charged to consider the academic calendars for FY12 and FY13 and make recommendations on those to the Provost. Some issues that were raised for which he is supposed to get feedback are a) whether to bring back the fall break, resulting in a shorter Thanksgiving break; and b) what to do in semesters where federal holidays and/or University-recognized holidays disproportionately fall on Mondays, thereby impacting Monday/Wednesday [and] one-day a week classes. B. Rodriguez asked that anyone with suggestions can send them to him by email (benrodii@siu.edu).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. G. Apgar reported the Council met with the Chancellor and Provost to discuss a number of items, some of which S. Kumar discussed in his report. He expressed the Council's gratitude to Chancellor Cheng for her management style of open and transparent communication, which has been a refreshing change. G. Apgar reported the Council is continuing discussions on the Memorandums of Understanding with international institutions, as well as on distance education. He indicated that a steering committee on the latter issue has generated a confidential report, and the Senate has been invited to give its input at the appropriate time.

2. S. Kumar reported there is a resolution that was presented by A. Karnes which was unable to be placed on the agenda before it was distributed. He asked for a waiver of the five-day rule so that the resolution could be presented. A. Karnes noted the only reason the resolution did not make it to the agenda was because the Council wanted to make sure the Chancellor was aware that it is not aimed at any practices occurring on this campus. The Chancellor was out of town, so it was only a matter of missing the deadline to send it out. The resolution was then distributed to Senators (see appendix 1). A. Karnes explained that the first page is the resolution for consideration, and the following pages are the statement that was adopted by the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC). The FAC has had several reports of administrators at institutions in Illinois, because of the fiscal crisis, implementing policy changes without actually using shared governance. The FAC debated for two months before approving a resolution, the purpose of which is to remind administrators that shared governance is important and without it, major changes are difficult to make. With shared governance, there is a sense of togetherness, and everyone moves forward together. At the same time, administrators need to be reminded that there is a responsibility to act in a timely manner. The FAC is asking its member institutions to endorse the statement as a way to provide support to other institutions that may be having problems with shared governance. S. Kumar noted that the first question is whether the Senate is agreeable to waiving the five-day rule to consider the resolution.

K. Anderson questioned the urgency in approving the resolution at this meeting. A. Karnes responded that it did not matter to him whether the Senate voted now or in September; this is just the first meeting of the Senate [since the resolution was approved by the FAC]. K. Anderson believed it would be better to wait until September since there is barely a quorum now and since there is no real urgency. S. Ebbs suggested considering the resolution as a first reading. J. Ferraro commented that he is no fan of waiving the five day rule in general; however, this resolution is not something controversial, and he believes everyone at the table would agree that shared governance is laudable. Also, Chancellor Cheng comes from a state where it is the law, so she certainly understands and believes in shared governance. B. Thibeault agreed with J. Ferraro but believes that since there is no urgency, it is good to use the rule conservatively. J. Kapur pointed out that although there may not be an urgency, there are budget decisions being made in the summer. J. Bean commented that most of the language in the statement appears to be boilerplate, although item two is specific about elimination of academic programs, mentions preserving tenure, etc. He ask if A. Karnes could explain that section, as it is something he would want to have time to think about. K. Anderson agreed that Senators simply need time to review the statement. A. Karnes responded the statement itself basically came from AAUP, with some specifics from the Illinois State faculty governance or constitution they have there. The only reason [for the statement] is that there have been institutions that did not declare financial exigency but are using the financial crisis as an excuse to get rid of some people who have been problems to the administration. The FAC wants to give support to people so something like that is not as easy to do. A. Karnes indicated that, should the Senate approve the resolution, it will be forwarded to Ocheng Jany, associate director of Academic Affairs at IBHE. He will then inform the Board that the FAC approved the resolution and that it has been endorsed by the faculty senates of "x" many schools. S. Kumar called for a vote to waive the five day rule.

Waiver of the five-day rule was approved 12-8 on a show of hands vote.

G. Apgar presented for approval the Resolution on the Endorsement of the Faculty Advisory Council of the Illinois Board of Higher Education's Statement on Shared Governance in Budget Decision-Making and Policy Implementation. K. Anderson asked for an opportunity to read the document. S. Ebbs asked if the statement from FAC has already been formalized and released so that the Senate is only really considering the resolution. A. Karnes responded that the resolution is asking that the statement be endorsed; only the resolution itself can be edited. S. Kumar suggested a friendly amendment to add the word "Carbondale" to Southern Illinois University in the resolved. K. Anderson reiterated his concern about the lack of a quorum and the fact that Senators have not had an opportunity to discuss the statement with those who elected them. He believes the statement to be complex, somewhat controversial and certainly worthy of discussion. S. Kumar asked if there were objections to the statement by the FAC. He suggested if Senators need more time to consider whether or not to endorse the resolution, it can always be sent back to the Executive Council and then brought back. K. Anderson responded that the other option would be to table the resolution so Senators who are not present will have an opportunity to review both the resolution and the statement. He then moved to table; seconded by W. Recktenwald.

J. Kapur asked what are K. Anderson's initial concerns. K. Anderson expressed concern about the section that states, "It is the responsibility of the faculty to determine where within the program reductions should be made." He questioned what that meant; at what level does that occur (college, department)? M. Mallette believes it is vague for a reason, and they will never have an answer to that question. All the Senate is doing is supporting the idea if it so chooses, that faculty should be allowed to make decisions about shared governance [on budget issues]. The FAC is not going to change the document, so if anyone does not like [the wording], they do not have to vote in support. J. Bean supported tabling because, as a member of the Faculty Association, he would like to raise the issue when them. They have a role in collective bargaining, so that is an additional factor. Also, the non-tenure track people have concerns expressed about what impact this document would have on their issues. J. Bean would like to raise the issue with those constituency heads who are not present.

J. Ferraro wholeheartedly agreed with K. Anderson about the use of the five-day rule; however, what makes it easier for him is that there is nothing that can be done about what is in the statement because it will not change. What the Senate is voting on is whether or not to endorse shared governance. He cannot believe that anyone on the Senate or on the campus would disagree with that principle. K. Anderson responded that if the resolution simply stated support for the idea of shared governance, then he would be [agreeable]; but it does not. It states very specifically that the Senate would be endorsing that this and this be done, and the body has not reviewed those things. M. Amos suggested there may be a distinction between endorsing someone else's document and the Senate's adopting this as its own. It is not something the Senate has to live by; it is a completely symbolic act and therefore a little less restrictive than it is being treated. K. Anderson asked what, then, does the term "endorse" mean in this context. A. Karnes responded that it means the Senate agrees and puts its support behind [the resolution]. Then, if there are problems at a school, the faculty can look to the endorsement of this and other schools for support against administrations which did not include them in the decisions that are being made; that is the whole purpose of the resolution. G. Spittler called the question to table.

Motion to table the resolution failed 6-13 on a show of hands vote.

B. Thibeault indicated she was unsure whether it could be added to the resolution, but she would like it recognized that there are more faculty than just tenure track. This is something that needs to be said, so maybe A. Karnes could make the FAC aware. A. Karnes responded that the FAC has made several statements concerning non-tenure track faculty, which can be found on their website (http://www.ibhe-fac.org/). M. Mallette called the question on the resolution.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 17-2-2 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 2]

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

1. O. Agrawal presented for approval the University Committee Assignments (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He added one more name to the Chancellor/Mayoral Sexual Assault Response Committee: Jonathan Gray, Associate Professor, Speech Communication.

University Committee Assignments, as amended, were approved on a voice vote. [see appendix 3]

2. O. Agrawal reported the committee was asked [in May] to put forward nominations for the Search Committee for Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor. The committee forwarded the names of James Allen (History), James Garvey (Fisheries) and Mary Lamb (English). [J. Garvey was selected to serve.]

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. M. Mallette (for L. DiLalla) presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the Program Review Overview Procedures (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). M. Amos mentioned that Senators normally receive a strike-out copy of amended policies so they know what has been changed. M. Mallette believes this is [the first written document]. S. Kumar noted that J. Allen had indicated that no change is being made in how the reviewers are selected. J. Helleny asked why the external review clause has a provision for conflict of interest and the internal does not. J. Ferraro remembered [J. Allen] commenting about that, suggesting that if it is read in the strictest sense, then no one could be internal because they might be known in one circumstance or another. Obviously, the intent would be that if [there is a working relationship, there could be a conflict]. M. Amos believes many departments could suffer unduly if they are held up to standards of assessment that the University currently does not have; the institution has not been very good at assessment, but is getting better. S. Kumar indicated the Campus Wide Assessment Committee will play an active role in helping departments with the assessment; that is why he believes it is good to have it [in the guidelines] so departments know it needs to be done.

Given M. Amos's comments, R. Netzley asked whether the sentence, "without them, the review process is incomplete" under the second paragraph of "Purpose" should be excised. The rest appears to be fine, but that sentence is saying that if [there is no assessment data], then the process was not done. J. Ferraro believes it would depend on how assessment is defined. In his opinion, he assesses his students every four weeks; however, other people's ideas of assessment are different, so he is not sure. He would feel comfortable in saying that [faculty] have been assessing their students; they will be doing a better job and [doing the things they want to do correctly]. S. Kumar commented that if there is no assessment data, then the assessment is incomplete and [the program] will not be accredited; assessment is an important portion of any program review. Chancellor Cheng explained that this is not a qualitative assessment of how well the assessment activity has gone. It is just that an effort was made to put it in, and then there will be a judgment through the review process of how to improve on the assessment. M. Amos believes R. Netzley's point is that [the wording] is plural, "without these"; so either there is data or there is a plan. Hopefully, there is both; but, if there is not much data because [a department has only been doing the assessment for a year] but has a plan, then they are complete because there would be [one of each]. He indicated he is comfortable with the wording as written.

S. Ebbs pointed out that under the external review team, there is no involvement by the graduate dean if a graduate program is being reviewed; however, there is a statement for the internal review team, if it is a post baccalaureate program, that the third member of the team is appointed by the Graduate Council. He questioned whether there needed to be something similar in terms of external reviewers. S. Kumar responded it was not needed because the way the process is, the internal team has one person appointed by the Graduate Council; with the external, two members are selected by the department and dean and approved by the Provost's office.

Resolution was approved as presented.

2. M. Mallette (for L. DiLalla) presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the [2010-2011] Internal and External Program Reviewers (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). The committee reviewed all the names and attempted to determine if there were any conflicts of interest; changes were made as needed. M. Amos noted that there are two different teams reviewing English; he assumes that one is for the B.A. in English & Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing and the other is for the B.A., B.S., M.A., Ph.D. in English. He is unsure which reviewers go with which [review], but suggested they needed to be separated out in the final draft. M. Mallette indicated this typo would be corrected.

Resolution was approved as corrected. [see appendix 4]

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

J. Kapur reported the committee was charged with looking at a draft of the University Code of Ethics and University Code of Conduct. Most committee members are out during the summer, so they will review the proposed policies in August and then report back in September.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported the committee is continuing to look into the qualifications for voting in Faculty Senate elections. Most committee members are gone for the summer, so they have been unable to schedule a formal meeting. He hoped to have something to report in September.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- A. Karnes, Chair

A. Karnes reported the committee has not met over the summer. However, he and G. Apgar have been active on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. A. Karnes reported he serves on one of the subcommittees that has been meeting weekly. Additionally, A. Karnes reported he has been appointed to a state-wide blue ribbon committee on educational mandates. Its purpose is to determine whether there are unnecessary mandates that could be eliminated to save money.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. S. Kumar announced: a) a reception for former Faculty Senate President Robert Benford and Michelle Hughes Miller, who are leaving SIUC, will be held this afternoon at the Old Main Lounge; b) the Senate will have a group picture taken immediately prior to the September 14 meeting (location to be announced); c) Chancellor Cheng will give a presentation, followed by questions and answers, at the fall faculty meeting scheduled for October 21. If anyone has any other suggestions for the meeting, please let him know; d) the College of Engineering is running summer transportation this year for students in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades.

2. G. Spittler reported that earlier this month, the Air Race Classic was staged. SIUC had three air crews entered, who finished 9th, 12th and 21st. All are female Aviation faculty who are amateur pilots. The 9th place finish was the highest finish by a rookie team, and they also had two of the best time laps in the race. They all deserve congratulations.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba