Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

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

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary A. Apgar, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Joseph A. Brown, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Eric Hellgren (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Diane Muzio (for Brooke H. H. Thibeault), Michelle Perez (for Marla H. Mallette), Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Thomas H. Tarter, Kay M. Zivkovich.

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Sandra K. Collins, Mary E. Lamb, David A. Lightfoot.

Visitors and Guests: Anthony Fleege (Allied Health), Jonathan Nabe (Library Affairs), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Ryan Voyles (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

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

REPORTS

1. P. Howze reported: a) incoming Chancellor Rita Cheng has been invited to attend the Faculty Senate meeting on April 13; b) the Faculty Senate will host a spring all faculty meeting with President Poshard on April 12. P. Howze asked that all Senators be in attendance; c) Judicial Review Board Chair Farzad Pourboghrat has been invited to attend the Senate's April 13 meeting to give a brief presentation on the activities of the JRB since it has been reconstituted and reactivated; d) also at the April 13 meeting, a proposal on the "Help Haiti Fund" will be brought forth for consideration.

2. Chancellor Goldman reported: a) the NCA Accreditation Team will be on campus March 22-24. The help and presence of the Faculty Senate would be much appreciated; b) textbook rentals will be implemented this fall, though not across the board; c) enrollment numbers are positive, with those from the border states coming in strong; d) the legislature has asked universities to provide information on what they would look like with a 10% budget cut (approximately $15 million) between now and June 30. He has requested that all units provide him their impact statements by March 17. He believes a 10% cut in FY10 would literally shut the University down, something this region could not bear; e) much planning is being done for a possible reduction in FY11. One planning template asks each unit to prepare a budget that is 10% less beginning July 1; another template looks at furloughs and another addresses layoffs. A fourth template looks at closing the University for a day or two on various days, such as before a holiday. Program reductions are also being examined, though realistically, that payoff will not be instant because of teach-out, etc. The only area that is off the table is graduate assistantships. Information is still being collected, so no decisions have been made. He will share with the University community what options are available; f) he received late yesterday a memorandum from the President that included 18 specific questions being asked by the Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. They want clarification on the narrative portion [of the planning document the University provided to them], and they want it by tomorrow. The committee wants to know how and why the University spends its money; g) he will be sending two scenarios to President Poshard with respect to income. One is a tuition increase of zero, and the other is a tuition increase of 3%, the latter of which he believes would have little effect on the University's rating on tuition. Additionally, he reported that funds have been budgeted in for faculty promotions and a 2% salary increase [for all staff].

3. Provost Rice reported that it is unclear if the possible rescission in FY10 would be permanent, although the rescission for FY11 would be a permanent reduction. The Provost and Vice Chancellor area was asked to submit scenarios for FY10, as well as answer the 18 questions to which the Chancellor referred. This information will be delivered to President Poshard, who will be meeting with the Senate Appropriations Committee tomorrow. Provost Rice believes the exercise was done to show the impact, which would be that there would be no University left. He also believes it is clear from the 18 questions that were asked that the Appropriations Committee has read very carefully the University's RAMP and non-RAMP proposals and that they are paying very close attention to what SIU has done and is doing. If they are doing this for consideration in FY10, then likely the information will be necessary in FY11 as well. With respect to FY11 reduction planning, the academic units (deans) were asked to provide college-specific plans that show how they might make a 10% reduction and what that impact would be in terms of providing programs to students; the implications for the long-term viability of programs; and projections on programs that should be considered for either reduction or elimination. It will then be up to the constituency groups and central administration to determine how to make these plans work.

4. A. Karnes submitted his written report on the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as appendix 1 to the minutes).

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- A. Karnes, Chair

A. Karnes reported the committee is attempting to gather information and examine general revenue and tuition dollars that go to the non-academic units on campus. The committee is beginning to question whether those allocations are appropriate and whether those units should take a disproportionate cut should larger cuts come. Also, the committee has requested information on the number and dollar amount of 12, 11, 10 and 9-month contracts to see if something can be done about the length of those contracts.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

P. Stockdale recalled that six or eight months ago, there was some conversation about looking at teaching loads and the 5/10/15 policy. She asked if that has yielded any opportunities [to increase efficiencies]. Provost Rice responded that his office has been tracking the 5/10/15 using data from Institutional Research. Workloads are a matter between hiring administrators and their staff, though he has emphasized to the deans to be vigilant on this issue. There has been some positive impact in that violations of the rule [have dropped], possibly because it is being looked at as people discuss curricular changes, teaching load, etc. C. Mogharreban asked how the rule helps when often [faculty] do not know until the first week of class [how many students will be in the class]. What happens when [a class can be cancelled] but there are no dollars that are recouped? Provost Rice responded that when a class is cancelled, the department is obligated to have that faculty member teach something else. The oversight is more about looking at the violations to determine if there is a particular course that consistently under-makes. If so, then is it important to the curriculum. Or, is there a particular faculty member who consistently teaches or produces too few student credit hours. If so, then there has to be a conversation about what is being taught, teaching style or any number of things that could be affecting that situation. He believes that is where the difference is being made. The problem lies with those courses that are simply not critical to a curriculum and are not being taken in large numbers by students, or are courses offered by faculty that students do not want to take. That is where the intervention has to come in from the deans, chairs and directors. R. Hughes asked Provost Rice if he has a sense of what proportion of these courses might be 550, 400, etc. Provost Rice speculated that about a quarter of them are courses that [must be exempted because they are essential to the curriculum].

J. Davis asked about the possibility of bringing back adjunct faculty. In her program (Dental Hygiene), they have to have a 1 to 5 ratio of faculty to students for their accreditation. Provost Rice responded that he has encountered nothing during his time as provost that suggests those types of relationships cannot be forged. He indicated he would investigate the issue.

P. Stockdale believes that if faculty are involved in the budget conversations and planning, they will step up, even if it means having to consolidate courses and teach bigger sessions or find novel ways to deliver courses more efficiently. Faculty should be allowed to be part of the solution. A. Karnes noted that faculty want to be involved in the decisions on how to allocate any cuts before those decisions go to the dean.

P. Howze expressed thanks to all those in Springfield who campaigned to get House Bill 4706 pulled. He noted that there is still much work to do on House Bill 174. On another matter, P. Howze commented that, at some point, the bottom will fall out [of the budget]. He believes the sooner [faculty] can get high quality information, the better prepared they will be to deal with the shortfall. The Faculty Senate took [an earlier] action by recommending that the current [Chancellor's] Planning and Budget Committee] be called something else and have a different role. He added that there is, in fact, a group of individuals who are examining the numbers. He believes the faculty would like to know what is happening before they read it in the Daily Egyptian. Lastly, he believes it is critical to remember the power of collective bargaining when it comes to wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. The question of what is financial exigency has to be resolved, and if it comes to that point, [the faculty] will need a voice at a formal table to speak on their behalf. Therefore, his advice to the Senate is to stay focused and aware of what is happening because things could change at a moment's notice. Provost Rice mentioned that the deans have been asked to provide their plans to him by March 24, and then they will be forwarded to the Chancellor's office on March 26. He pointed out that there will not be the kinds of data from the academic units that is needed in order to begin looking at bargained or changes items until the end of March/beginning of April.

REPORTS (cont.)

5. A. Fleege reviewed some of the proposals that have been discussed by the Parking and Traffic Committee, noting they have been tabled until next year (see appendix 2). He also reported that Parking will add speed bumps in front of Pulliam Drive in an effort to slow down traffic. On behalf of the Senate, A. Karnes expressed thanks to A. Fleege for representing the faculty on this committee. He added that he is against all of the proposals, especially considering the possibility of furloughs and reducing people's salaries. A. Fleege responded that he understands the sentiment, which is why the proposals will not be raised again until next year. He added that without the fees, Parking will run out of money. As a consequence, the roads will not be fixed, paved or cleared of snow, etc. C. Mogharreban asked if the survey that A. Fleege sent out is still available for people to provide feedback. A. Fleege responded that the committee met a few weeks ago, and all the feedback he received at that point was brought to the committee. They likely will not hold another special meeting again soon. C. Mogharreban asked if he received much feedback. A. Fleege responded that approximately 10 faculty commented, with only one person complaining about the sticker increases. Most of the complaints were about the guest passes.

6. E. Hellgren reported that at the March 4 Graduate Council meeting, the Open Access Committee brought forward the two resolutions that are included on the Senate agenda for this meeting. Also, the Council approved a resolution requesting "the Chancellor include representatives from the faculty and deans in his current budgetary working group and any budgetary decision-making group"; and "provide said representatives...with the budgetary information for non-academic units." The resolution further reminded the Chancellor that such a committee already exists in the form of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee. E. Hellgren suggested that, since the deans have now been given some directives on the 10% planning and from where it will come, [faculty] should talk with their chairs about where cuts will be made. Input should come at the grassroots level. A. Karnes agreed, pointing out that by the time it gets to the department, there are no good options. There is nothing left in departmental budgets now except people; so, if it gets down to the department level, it could mean firing someone. Provost Rice commented that he would far prefer the discussion of options for an academic unit or college come from the bottom up. The only thing [the administration] has really done that may seem dictatorial is to suggest a 10% target. The rationale is that if the percentage is lower, they can back off; but, if it is higher, the deans will be asked what the possibilities are and what the impact will be. At that point, everyone will have the same data to inform whatever decisions may have to be made centrally. He added that he understands the sentiment expressed by A. Karnes. At the Dean's Council meeting earlier in the day, he confirmed that they have maximum flexibility. Almost to a dean, they suggested that they are already talking with their chairs and directors. If there has not been a conversation between chairs and their faculty, he believes that to be a two-way street. Everyone has a vested interest and should ask questions.

R. Hughes believes that one of the points A. Karnes is making is that faculty are never going to have a very adequate say about budgetary questions if they are only looking at a small portion of the University's budget rather than the budget as a whole. There is a whole other story that is not being conveyed that they need to know. Provost Rice did not disagree and apologized if he seemed myopic; however, his responsibility in Academic Affairs. Every vice chancellor was asked to go through the same exercise. The real question--and where the Faculty Senate, Graduate Council and others need to weigh in--is whether whatever cuts occur are distributed disproportionately in order to salvage as much as possible is Academic Affairs. He noted that he is the largest proponent of doing so, and would rather not cut the grass at one interval than fire or lay off someone. This is the reason why everyone needs all the data because he does not see the other vice chancellor budgets and does not know where they are planning to make their cuts. He only knows that they have been given the same target. P. Stockdale believes faculty are willing to work with their chairs on what can be done with their budgets, but it would be more effective if faculty can be part of the conversation at all levels.

J. Ferraro agreed with A. Karnes that most departments are down to the nubs now, and being more efficient or doing more work per person does not help the problem. The problem is money, and there is no other money in the academic units except people. If cuts are made from the bottom up, which is what has been proposed, then that means the least salaried people will go first, making the smallest amount of [financial] impact. Often, it is those people who are carrying the most courseload. As a result, the conversation devolves into research versus teaching, with the aftermath being a university that looks nothing like is does now. Provost Rice responded that the deans did discuss whether to start at the bottom of the food chain or if they have the flexibility to examine the curriculum and faculty productivity. He believes some deans may in fact prefer to lose their non-tenure track or probationary faculty, but those are decisions that have to be made at the college level. What will be havoc is how to implement what the colleges believe is the best plan for them. This is an instance where everyone has to see the data because it will be very difficult and cannot be done by a group of six people sitting in the Chancellor's conference room. P. Howze agreed, pointing out that it will, however, be done in collective bargaining.

On another issue, P. Howze asked if the promotion and tenure letters have been mailed. Provost Rice responded that they have not. There are three letters he has not yet finished, and he wanted them all to go out at the same time.

7. [T. Tarter] reported that the Governor has provided an operating budget for the SimmonsCooper Cancer Institute, which he believes is scheduled to open for patient care in July. T. Tarter emphasized that a cancer institute is not just a building. What it does is consolidate all those in cancer research and patient care into one place, making the multidisciplinary program easier to manage. He reported that their [external] research funding has increased year by year since the program began and has attracted a truly world-class clinical and research faculty. They are all pleased to be in one place.

8. J. Allen discussed the upcoming NCA Accreditation site visit and reviewed what the Senate might expect from its meeting with the Accreditation Team on March 22.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. P. Howze presented as a first reading the Joint Resolution with the Graduate Council on Open Access (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He asked Senators to review the information that was distributed at the Graduate Council, noting the only change would be to incorporate the Senate into the relevant sections. P. Howze then introduced J. Nabe, who explained that the two resolutions were developed by the Open Access Committee. The committee was charged by Vice Chancellor Koropchak to draft some language in support of open access on this campus. The original idea was to mandate the use of Open Access; however, it became clear that there was not enough support for the idea. The committee instead developed two different resolutions, both of which impact only journal articles--no other scholarly research or creative output. There is a definition of Open Access in one of the resolutions that can be shortened to simply state that open access is freely available to anyone with an internet connection. J. Nabe further explained that faculty are being asked to take advantage of the publisher policy that allows them to make their research articles available openly in a repository such as OpenSIUC. Most publishers will allow faculty to take advantage of such repositories, and staff in the library can help identify which publishers and journals use Open Access. One of the benefits to using Open Access is that it makes faculty research more visible to citizens and legislators, who would be able to see full text as opposed to citations. P. Howze added that many, if not most, of the major publishers of scholarly works already make provisions for the duality of traditional publishing and Open Access.

A. Karnes asked if someone else will handle the administrative side to allow participation in Open Access. P. Howze responded that the proposed resolutions are to support the idea. The question raised by A. Karnes has yet to be resolved. J. Nabe indicated that it is not a demanding process; it takes about five minutes to submit a document to OpenSIUC. The library can offer some help, but [the committee] would prefer that departments designate someone in their office who would be responsible for handling submissions. If individual faculty members cannot do it, then a student can be trained on the process.

G. Boulukos commented that the original version of the resolution had very strict mandates, with the consequence that any work not included in Open Access would not be considered for tenure or promotion. There were also no exceptions made for journals that do not allow Open Access for fields in which book publication is the primary mode of publication. He added that he has no objection to the resolutions as currently written; however, he would like faculty to be aware that there are people involved in this project who very much prefer a strict mandate that makes no accommodations for faculty who are unable to participate in Open Access. G. Boulukos then asked about the funding sources for Open Access and what it might cost [to implement]. J. Nabe responded that [the library is already using Open Access], and the cost is not unreasonable. P. Howze noted that the first resolution never made it to the Senate because he knew it would not pass. The current resolutions are a much more conciliatory attempt to persuade individuals of something that is already a phenomenon.

P. Stockdale asked if anyone has studied the long-term economic impact of Open Access and what will happen to those [non-supported] journals. J. Nabe responded that there has been a study of the underlying impact of journal cancellations, and the library itself recently cancelled 900 journals, [saving $500,000]. Every institution is doing the same because journals typically increase at an average rate of about 8% a year. The library's budget increase over the last 10 years has been 0%, so journals are being cancelled, anyway. The question is, will anyone be able to access them and read a person's research. The scholar communication landscape is changing. P. Stockdale questioned what will happen to the quality of publications and to journals that no longer receive funding. She understands that cancellations are occurring already, but she would like to know more of the bigger picture. P. Howze responded that what they are discovering is that the rate of change is so great, compounded with serials cancellations, that [libraries] have had to develop hierarchies within each institution for what they absolutely cannot do without. [Morris Library] has several of those internal protocols that are used on a daily basis, until it comes to the point when they are told there is no more money; then, those protocols will go out the window. It is the same for books.

R. Hughes believes it is reasonable to suppose that the result [of Open Access] would be [a reduction] in the number of refereed peer-reviewed journals. Secondly, the costs for [writing journal articles], as well as the cost for a faculty member's own professional association journals will, in the long term, be shifted to the faculty member. In response to R. Hughes's first statement, P. Howze pointed out that there has been much written concerning the state of refereeing and how academics have less and less confidence in their referees. It is not faculty who have instigated these studies, but the caretakers of the faculty's own professions. The literature on it is scattered and varied. Refereeing is needed for anything involving human intervention and interaction, so faculty will never see its end and hopefully will see a strength. The literary landscape is changing, and so are the trajectories of refereeing. J. Nabe explained that Open Access repositories like OpenSIUC are not [in competition with] journals. Whatever impact there is on the number of journals, their expense and how much the society charges its members is happening irrespective of Open Access. That is just an economical decision. With [decreasing] library budgets and increasing journal prices, cancellations and [membership fees for societies are the end result].

2. S. Kumar reported the referendum on the Operating Paper of the Faculty and the Faculty Senate was approved by the faculty. The question on increasing the number of non-tenure track seats on the Senate from 2 to 6 was approved 77% to 22%. The next question on how the non-tenure track members will be selected was approved 81% to 18%. S. Kumar also reported that the spring elections are in progress, and balloting will begin March 31. P. Stockdale asked if the response rate has improved by using electronic voting. S.Kumar indicated that the response rate is actually worse than previous elections.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- None.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES --None.

OLD BUSINESS - None.

NEW BUSINESS

ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba