Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Sanjeev Kumar, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Ruth Bauner (ex officio), Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald A. Caffey, Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Stephanie Graves, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), Diane Muzio, William Recktenwald, Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James Wall, Greg Whitledge (for Michael J. Lydy), Jonathan S. Wiesen, Tony Williams (for Mark A. Amos).

Members absent: Rita Cheng (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Jyotsna Kapur, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Marla H. Mallette.

Visitors and guests: JP Dunn (Library Affairs), Brian Klubeck (Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems), Susan Logue (Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Todd Winters (College of Agricultural Sciences).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on October 12, 2010, were corrected as follows: the second sentence under Reports was corrected to read, "Vice President Stucky commented that he is aware there will need to be negotiations." Under item 4, second paragraph of Question and Answer, "M. Kibby" was changed to "S. Graves". Also, under item 3 of Reports, the sentence beginning, "J. Wall asked..." was changed to read, "It was asked...." Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) there was a good turnout for the fall faculty meeting. He thanked those who participated; b) Larry Schilling (Institutional Research) attended a recent Executive Council meeting and provided some additional data on employment numbers and costs that he had requested. Once he has reviewed the data, he plans to invite L. Schilling to a Senate meeting to present that data; c) the internal deadline for ethics training is November 12. When he took the training, there was a question about the use of University email on Facebook. He has been asked whether or not people are allowed to use their SIU email address for personal use. An email has been sent to the ethics officer, but there has not yet been a response; d) he sent some information to Senators about the anticipated number of tenured and tenure track faculty members in the various colleges. Some of the numbers are very startling. He would like the Provost to discuss how the numbers were developed for each college and how that fits in the University's strategic plan for marketing the SIUC brand and enhancing enrollment.

2. Provost Rice reported: a) Chancellor Cheng is in Taiwan meeting with university presidents and will be back this weekend; b) notification has been sent that the Chancellor will hold a town meeting on November 16. He does not have an agenda for the meeting, but assumes it will be about the budget, personnel issues and any other issues that faculty/staff wish to raise; c) there is a leadership breakfast on campus on November 16. Secretary of State Jesse White is the guest speaker. ESPN will also be televising a Saluki basketball game that morning; d) the search committee for an Engineering dean began its work today, and the search committee for dean of Liberal Arts will begin its work next week.

Provost Rice was unsure what S. Kumar was referring to in terms of faculty numbers. Under normal circumstances, they report the number of individuals who are on the payroll and also do a monthly report to the Faculty Association on any changes of status, so the numbers are fairly current. S. Logue indicated the report is prepared in compliance with the Faculty Association contract and uses 10 years worth of average data to predict what they expect to happen. The anticipated number of faculty is based on 10 years worth of data per college that shows separations, i.e., the average number of retirements or resignations that occurred in each college. Provost Rice added that if there was not a hiring freeze and searches were being conducted, then it would be fairly predictable how many searches would succeed. The figure is actually relatively high, in the 60-65% range. Also, they have been using 5-10 year data on how many people the University tends to lose every given year, and that tends to be fairly consistent as well. These are only estimates; this year will be different because decisions have not yet been made on how many searches will actually go forward. As soon as he has that data, he will provide it.

S. Kumar pointed out that the figures shown for the anticipated number of faculty in the next fiscal year is fairly specific, ranging anywhere from about a 4% to a 26% reduction. In his college, he does not see seven faculty members retiring in the next fiscal year. He asked how that anticipated number will be achieved. Provost Rice responded that S. Logue has indicated that the averages were only used on losses. They could have the deans' self-report on these. S. Kumar indicated he checked with some deans, and his understanding is that they were not consulted about the numbers. Provost Rice responded that the data is not coming from the deans; it is coming from S. Logue's office. S. Logue explained that the numbers are simply an estimate based on 10 years worth of data. They were required to predict what they expected for new hires and based it on as much data as they could.

S.Kumar noted that the document shows some searches for 2010 and 2011. S. Logue responded that normally in a fiscal year, there are 60 faculty searches. They are aware that some searches will be conducted, but they do not have them moving forward. S. Kumar was unclear on how the 10 year data helps. The numbers are startling and are creating some anxiety among the colleges. It is possible to do the same exercise by asking the deans whether they are expecting any retirements. S. Logue agreed, noting that if S. Kumar wants clearer data from the colleges about what they expect to do, it would be best to ask them specifically. The report is provided to be in compliance with the contract. It is not reactive to the current budget situation. Provost Rice agreed that the numbers are not pleasant and indicate there will be much attrition. As has been said before, attrition is not planning, and he urges that solutions be found that will allow adding to the faculty. S. Kumar questioned why the Associate Provost's office was looking at 10-year data rather than what really is going to happen in terms of the anticipated number of positions. S. Logue responded that she was unsure, as she did not make that decision. The language was likely put in at the beginning of the contract. Without an explanation, the numbers are disturbing. She believes it is best to look at how the report relates to actual figures over the course of several years, and that might be a little more informative; standing alone, she does not believe it works.

J. Ferraro did not understand the concern. The data is not a stated goal by the administration; it is only showing what generally happens every year if there is no hiring and with people leaving the University. Provost Rice agreed, pointing out the report shows history predicts this kind of loss. The faculty database is current, so why take just a portion of that when they have to report possibilities; why not take the long term trend. That is all they have done, and it is a matter of reporting that will continue. If the Senate wants more specific data (self reporting), he can set aside a Dean's Council meeting and have them discuss the issue. S. Kumar indicated that the report came with no explanation, so no one was aware of what it meant. That is why he believed it was important to have discussion and clarification. N. Mundschenk asked if there is any information on the possibility of additional searches. Provost Rice responded that the Chancellor has asked for current budget information from three or four colleges. A number of colleges have stated that they have lines they would like to fill. His staff is conducting budget reviews to make sure the funds are actually there. The hope is that they will open up searches.

3. A. Karnes reported on the November meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (see appendix 1).

4. N. Mundschenk reported: a) at the end of October, external awards were up from $37 million to $38 million; b) the Graduate Council approved two resolutions of non-support of the University Code of Conduct and the University Code of Ethics; c) the Council is in the process of revising the operating paper for the Graduate School. Any input is welcome; d) the overload policy was discussed at the November 4 Council meeting. Council members were asked to provide her feedback by November 15.

N. Mundschenk was asked whether there was discussion in Graduate Council about overload for research or creative activity. N. Mundschenk responded that some of the concerns expressed relate to whether or not this is an overload policy that has generalized ability to overload issues or whether or not it is more appropriately focused on distance education and online offerings. There is the issue of online courses versus a typical overload course and discrepancies about what is a typical load (2-2 versus 3-3).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

G. Apgar reported the Executive Council and Committee on Committees met to determine the five Judicial Review Board members. Those names will be released by email, along with the CVs on each candidate for perusal. Any comments or concerns can be emailed to S. Kumar. The slate will then be finalized, and the Senate will vote on the candidates at the December meeting. G. Apgar reported that the Council also discussed concerns raised about the implementation of the Saluki First Year and student success courses. He reviewed the Faculty Senate minutes of November 9, 2009, which include some of the discussion that took place when the Senate initially agreed to the resolution on the First Year Experience. He believes it is at the point now of implementation and not just the institutional support. There are three areas the Executive Council will be more concerned about investigating: 1) funding of the courses; 2) how those courses will be scheduled; the estimate for the incoming freshman class will require approximately 170 sections of classes; and 3) integration on the core curriculum and how that will serve everyone.

S. Kumar asked Provost Rice if he had anything more on the First Year Experience course. Provost Rice responded that it is an ongoing conversation. The deans have questions about how to structure and implement those courses and how they will work in relation to the core requirements. There will be discussions on how to resolve these issues. S. Kumar indicated he talked with Saluki First Year Director Mark Amos, and he mentioned the original plan was to begin implementation for fall 2011. Provost Rice responded the courses may be taught, but they will not be a requirement.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

[Resolutions are being presented out of sequence.] 
1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of the Plant and Soil Science Major to the Horticulture Major for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She noted that this RME and the one following came from the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, which has a plant and soil science major with a number of specializations and concentrations. The department is proposing two new majors; rather than a plant and soil science major, they will have a crop, soil and environmental management major and then a horticulture major. The horticulture major takes about two-thirds of the old specialization and pulls it into a horticulture major; the crop, soil and environmental management major would focus on crop production and management [in] soil science.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of the Plant and Soil Science Major to Crop, Soil, and Environmental Management Major for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of the Agricultural Systems Major to the Agricultural Systems and Education Major for the Bachelor of Science Degree in Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

4. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in American Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). L. Brooten pointed out that the minor is in U.S. Studies, but America is bigger than just the U.S. J. Allen responded that the field of American Studies can be found at every major public, and many private, universities. Given the consensus of the people in the field, to call it something other than what other institutions call it would run the risk of students not understanding what it is and therefore not signing up for the course. The comment was made that there are people involved in American Studies who are very keen on pointing out that their understanding of the United States is very much as a country linked to its American surroundings. It is a critical position based very much on rejecting the idea that the U.S. is somehow separate from its surroundings. There is a reason why it is not called U.S. Studies because it does somewhat recognize its position in a broader geographical setting.

Resolution was approved, with one nay and three abstentions, on a voice vote.

5. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of a Minor in International Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). She explained that when she took over as chair, the committee approved a resolution recommending an International Studies major within the College of Liberal Arts. Embedded in that packet of information was a minor as well, which was inadvertently overlooked at that time. The committee would now like to recommend approval for the minor, which parallels the major that has already been approved.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported that last month, the Senate approved Ruth Anne Rehfeldt to replace David Lightfoot on the Outstanding Scholar Award Selection Committee; however, like D. Lightfoot, R. Rehfeldt may also be a nominee for the award and so needs to be replaced. O. Agrawal presented for approval the nomination of Christopher Lant, Geography and Environmental Resources, to serve on the committee.

Nomination was approved on a voice vote.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported it was brought to the committee's attention that there are a number of faculty who are barred from voting or holding office on the Senate because they do not hold rank in a tenure- granting unit. The Senate's Operating Paper (Section II.A.2) allows tenured and tenure track faculty members who do not hold rank in a voting unit to apply to the Governance Committee for assignment to a voting unit for the purpose of voting. However, the non-tenure track faculty are not given this option. After lengthy debate and insight into how to address the issue, the committee is proposing to incorporate non-tenure track faculty into the relevant section of the Operating Paper (see Attachment F to the Agenda).

S. Kumar noted that, when talking about tenured and tenure track faculty, there are many different voting units; however, there is only one voting unit for non tenure track faculty. Therefore, regardless of which unit the non tenure track faculty member is from, s/he will be assigned only to the non tenure track voting unit. He questioned the need to assign that person a unit if the unit is already assigned. G. Spittler responded that the issue was raised, and he was assured that this would still be the case. Rather than argue the point, he believed it should be put to the Senate for further discussion. S. Ebbs asked how many people this change encompasses. B. Thibeault responded that there are several people who are assigned to units that do not grant tenure; they teach classes, but because of the nature of their assignment they cannot get tenure. Two of those faculty approached her and expressed concern that they could not vote or hold office, which is why the committee looked into the issue. B. Thibeault added that she realized as she was reading through the proposed change, that Section II.A.2.e. begins with, "For voting purposes...." She questioned whether the change will only affect the ability to vote and not the ability to hold a Senate seat. She explained that the problem is in the definition of faculty, which is found at the beginning of the operating paper, because it states the person must be in a unit in which tenure can be granted. L. DiLalla asked whether the same is true for tenured and tenure track faculty in that they cannot stand for election if they do not hold rank in a voting unit. If that is true, it is a whole new issue. B. Thibeault responded that the clause is current wording that gives tenured and tenure track faculty in a non-voting unit the opportunity to vote. L. DiLalla believes if they cannot stand for election, then, like the non tenure track faculty, they should also be given that opportunity.

K. Anderson commented that a trap people fall into when changing bylaws is the law of unintended consequences. This needs to be revisited carefully because it is opening a can of worms. He suggested the matter be returned to the committee for further review. It was noted that the problem is not one of representation; the problem is the right. There are 30, 40, perhaps even 50 full time faculty members who do not have the right to vote nor to serve on the Senate; it is not an issue of the number of seats but of the right to choose to run for the Senate. D. Muzio remarked that many non tenure track faculty are at a disadvantage because they do not receive communications from the Senate. People who are not in units where they are automatically contacted then have to initiate the contact and are probably much less likely to participate if they are not solicited directly. She would ask the committee to take it a step further and make recommendations as to how those who are affected by this change in policy will be made aware that they have this right and are invited to use it. J. Ferraro questioned whether the committee was going about the matter in a convoluted way. If the committee simply redefined what a faculty member is, they would not need to change it later in the document. If that is what they are attempting to do, then do it up front where it belongs rather than defining it once and then redefining it later.

B. Thibeault reported another issue she has attempted to handle carefully is those non tenure track faculty who do not teach college level classes, e.g., people in Headstart. J. Ferraro believes if the committee puts together all the comments, the discussion should be what is the definition of a faculty member; that would actually be a very different discussion, but would encompass what the committee is attempting to do. S. Kumar pointed out that it is very important that whatever changes are made to the operating paper, they not be done piecemeal any related issues should be reviewed at the same time. He agreed it would be a good idea to send the issue back to committee for further discussion.

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

L. Brooten reported the committee met to discuss three agenda items: 1) a University-wide mentoring program anyone with ideas/comments should contact a member of the committee; 2) the proposed overload policy; and 3) the Distance Education Steering Committee report. The suggestions for changes that were sent to Senators are being withdrawn at this time because the committee has had some significant discussion since then. She would like to have discussion on the overload policy first, and then they can comment on the steering committee report.

S. Collins discussed the overload policy from the perspective of faculty members she works with in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. There is concern about the statement, "No person shall be assigned more than two overload credit courses per fiscal year. Two overload credit courses per fiscal year may be either two sections of the same course or two different courses." She explained that the off campus academic programs in ASA have a variety of military bases that offer health care management courses. Faculty within that program are offered the opportunity to teach those courses in an overload capacity beyond their normal contract. There are some states that require 50% of the courses be taught by on campus faculty. Currently, she is the only Health Care Management faculty member that is willing to teach an overload capacity. If she were to go to the two per fiscal year, that could potentially cause a problem if they are unable to get a faculty member to teach the core courses, for example, on campus. Another example is if a faculty member, for whatever reason, does not show up for classes. That actually happened a couple of semesters ago. On most military bases, the programs are accelerated, so the classes are six weeks every other weekend, all day. The adjunct faculty member showed up for one weekend, but did not show up for the second or third. She agreed to finish up the course and was put on a kind of emergency contract. If she had already taught the two courses allowed by the new policy, she would have been unable to do that. S. Collins cautioned about changing something that may present itself as trivial, but end up with very negative consequences.

S. Kumar noted that S. Logue has given a deadline of November 15 for comments on the policy. He asked if more time could be given. S. Logue indicated it was possible; she has heard from a number of people that the two-course restriction also conflicts with the 20% cap, so they are taking that into consideration as well. J. Allen suggested the committee may find it valuable to check with accrediting teams to make sure this particular overload policy and procedure does not fly in the face of accreditation standards. According to the Higher Learning Commission, outsourcing instruction to a third party is prohibited if it involves more than 50% of the total instruction for the degree program. S. Kumar asked if the Senate could have more time to submit comments to S. Logue. S. Logue offered December 15. D. Muzio asked why the urgency. S. Logue responded that the distance learning and overload are connected in that the intention is to take distance learning programs and courses and return those to the colleges to administer. When that happens, the faculty who teach the distance education courses cannot be paid through the Division of Continuing Education because there is no policy to pay people outside of their 100% workload for teaching credit-based courses. Faculty will continue to have the opportunity to do consulting activities and non-credit activities through Continuing Education and receive payment for those; that is why the overload policy does not address those activities. D. Muzio asked if there is a time line on the distance education as well. S. Logue responded that she hopes to have a final report to the Chancellor at the end of the calendar year. D. Muzio commented that the calendar does not take into consideration the demand to bargain the overload policy. S. Logue responded that the bargaining would come after the Chancellor agrees to the policy to be bargained. S. Kumar asked where the 20% limit comes from. S. Logue responded that SURS will calculate a person's benefit up to 120% of a 12- month contract; they do not calculate any accrual of benefits above that. Also, 120% is justifiable as a standard outside the academic community for something over a 100% appointment.

J. Wall commented that the policy only appears to be addressing distance education as an overload. Provost Rice responded that the policy provides a vehicle by which people who do in fact teach distance courses as an overload can be paid. S. Logue added that there are people teaching distance learning courses as part of their load now, and there is no intention to change that. S. Collins noted that a faculty member in another college wanted her to mention as well that they are able to use the up to 120% salary as a significant recruitment and retention avenue for faculty coming in or faculty who want to increase their income by a different means. There are also people who question how effective someone can be if they are teaching that many courses. There is also the argument that it could potentially breed competition between faculty. K. Anderson noted that the overload policy has been around for a while and is being revised; however, it does not include anything on research and creative activity. That issue should probably be addressed as well. S. Kumar believes there was some discussion about that within the committee. L. Brooten believes at this point, the committee needs more feedback. Anyone with comments/concerns should send them to her. S. Kumar asked N. Mundschenk to let the committee know if she has feedback from the Graduate Council.

L. Brooten reported that the other issue the committee examined was the Distance Education Steering Committee's initial report on centralized administrative oversight. As with the overload policy, they understand that these are issues that need to be bargained; but the committee had some debate about the actual document because it appears to be primarily an economic model. The committee had some concerns because the basic nature of the language is very entrepreneurial; there is no discussion of a larger mission in terms of education and educational merits of this project. There was also limited discussion of assessment. She believes what the document is doing is justifying why the University is moving away from a centralized administrative oversight model to a more distributed model where the colleges themselves would be responsible for oversight of the programs. Related to that is the issue of overall quality control. The model appears to pit programs to be more competitive with each other. The benefits appear to be couched purely in revenue terms and not in a discussion of quality.

There is also confusion regarding the meaning of the word "program" in the actual document. The committee was unclear whether it meant program as it is normally understood--as a unified or coherent course of study--or if it was solely referring to a financial model that could be used to designate single courses. Finally, the committee had a question about the role of the Faculty Senate because the language states the Senate will be "reviewing and approving the academic programs applying for designated status." Does this mean that every program, however program is defined, submitting an application for a designated program needs to be reviewed by Faculty Senate? Additionally, the committee did not believe they could have a real in-depth discussion without consultation with the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee and the Graduate Council. The committee is unclear at this point where it should go with this. Provost Rice responded that the original ad hoc committee was intended to focus primarily on alternative budget models; it was intended to get away from cost recovery as a mind set and to begin looking at what the Chancellor calls "incentive-based programs." The primary focus of the ad hoc committee, which began its work before the Chancellor arrived, was to determine if the University could budget in such a way and move everything to the colleges so that the income they generate stays in those colleges. The Chancellor strongly favors an incentive-ized budget modeling system. It has not been fleshed out, and since that report was written, the Distance Learning Committee has both expanded and moved into areas such as what will it take to have intensive online programming, IT needs, instructional support, how people will be remunerated, etc. A final report has to include the financial aspects in order to address these needs. A. Karnes believes the campus has to move to these kinds of models. If it does not, the private, independent, for profit institutions will make tons of money doing this, and they are doing a bad job. The University ought to make the money and do a good job. L. Brooten did not believe the committee had a problem with the financial aspect; the problem was with the fact that it was the only issue discussed in the policy. Actually, there was a concern about what moving to an incentive-ized based budget model would do to the programs that are traditionally at the core of an institution such as this one, which is devoted to a good, solid liberal arts education; those programs generally do not make money and are subsidized by those that do. Provost Rice responded that the deans have been informed that until a fuller set of variables is provided, the name of the game is student credit hour production and FTE in terms of reallocation of resources. It is not a negative for any of the colleges if they work within their scale to increase the number of students that are in classes and retained in the programs. J. Allen added that if the committee was working from the report the preliminary committee finished in June, one element to keep in mind is the ongoing conversation as to what extent the faculty continue to own and operate the curriculum, wherever the modality of the delivery--on campus, off campus, electronic, face to face or some hybrid, the latter of which many faculty are already doing by using Blackboard and teaching face to face.

L. Brooten indicated that at this point, the committee can provide feedback on what it has discussed or can meet with the UEPC. The overload policy can be re-worked after she has received everyone's comments, and a new version can be sent out. She is unsure, however, what to do with the Distance Learning Steering Committee report. S. Logue responded that she is looking for input from the Senate so that she can revise the document and send another draft to the Chancellor, who will then distribute it again to the community for review. The committee did not mean to overlook the concerns raised, but quality was one of the reasons they wanted to move the programs and courses back to the colleges. They would like to make distance learning a part of the academic units' overall operation; they just need to articulate that better.

S. Kumar suggested that the UEPC review the steering committee report and that L. Brooten compile all the comments and forward them to the Chancellor. Provost Rice pointed out the committee was likely looking at the very first document, but committee has moved beyond that. Also, the initial steering committee was a small group of people who had some expertise in one area or another, including someone who had already done some distance learning course design; and they did focus on finance. The committee is larger now and working on many other different questions. S. Logue noted that the document the committee should be examining should be dated October 2010. She will make sure they are working on right document and will send the correct one to S. Kumar.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

S. Kumar reported that K. Anderson has asked that the administrative closure policy be discussed, as he has thoughts he would like to share. K. Anderson distributed and reviewed his six page discussion paper (included as appendix 2 to the minutes). J. Wiesen called for a point of order, indicating he only just received the document and thought the Senate's bylaws require that senators should receive items a certain number of days in advance. K. Anderson concurred and apologized for not sending the document sooner; however, the document is not an action item, and no vote is being requested. He is only bringing an issue up for discussion. The document represents his views and the data he has analyzed, as well as to show there are other voices out there who may not be speaking as loudly as the Faculty Association but have other views. He believes the faculty need to step up and let those voices be heard. He believes the Faculty Association is wildly out of touch with the faculty on this issue.

L. Brooten asked what percentage of the faculty actually belong to the Association. It was noted that it is over 50%. S. Kumar commented that there is an established memorandum of understanding between the Faculty Association, Faculty Senate and Graduate Council, and it clearly states that the Faculty Association has legal jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to wages, hours and working conditions for all faculty within the bargaining unit, and that these matters will be negotiated. He believes K. Anderson's point is well made, but at the same time he needs to recognize that the faculty have a body that is responsible for doing what they are doing--right or wrong or agree or disagree. S. Kumar indicated that at the last Senate meeting, there was a question about what faculty can do, and the Chancellor mentioned going back to the college representatives so they will know what the faculty are thinking. M. Lamb commented that she would prefer furlough days to layoff, but whenever she sees a binary (furlough versus layoff), she questions whether there might not be a third option. As she understands it, that is what the Faculty Association is doing; they are looking to see if there is some other option beyond those two. T. Williams thanked K. Anderson for his counter arguments but questioned the use of his terms, "sacrifice" and "hurt," which are mentioned in very general terms.

J. Ferraro believes K. Anderson's best argument is what is going to happen this year if something is not done. When push comes to shove at the end, there may not be any paychecks. People need to refrain from taking sides and attempt to look at the holistic aspects of anything that is said. He would like the faculty, as a learned body, to be able to at least look at the situation and realize that administration is not the enemy. They have a problem and need to solve it somehow. At a Senate meeting a month or two ago, he suggested to the Chancellor that maybe the University should take the hit and fire people. That is a long-term solution to the problem. Furloughs will not fix anything, but will only get the University through the year.

J. Wiesen pointed out that it the issue was raised last month about whether a more progressive system could not be put into place. He is aware that the University of Illinois did something a little less regressive, so he believes it is an issue that deserves some discussion. A. Karnes believes that idea was discussed; however, limiting the number of furlough days for the lower-salaried employees meant that the number of furlough days for the high salaried employees becomes very high. For example, limiting or eliminating furlough days for employees under $30,000 would translate into 10, 12 or 15 furlough days for the higher salaried employees.

G. Spittler remarked that much of what is underlying this issue has to do with how it was presented. It was presented to the campus as a fait accompli. He believes everyone around the table is here because they feel a very strong attachment to the principle of shared governance, and he believes it has been trampled upon. However, faculty need to overlook that and attempt to establish a meaningful dialogue in order to find a reasonable middle ground that will solve the problem and that will allow faculty to feel they have ownership.

C. Mogharreban mentioned that two meetings ago, before any closure days were even allowed by the Board of Trustees, it was noted that the issues from various academic units across campus were multiple and complex. At that time, there was some discussion about getting information to deans, who would get it to the Chancellor; and, of course, the other route was getting it to the Faculty Association. From what she understands, Chancellor Cheng is getting direct emails from people about these issues; faculty should send their comments to her. Faculty Association members will also take comments directly. She noted that "there is not this side and that side; we are all on the same side."

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba