Minutes of the Faculty Senate

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

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Mark A. Amos, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald A. Caffey, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Scott Collins (for Sandra K. Collins), Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, Stephanie Graves, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Meera Komarraju (for Benjamin F. Rodriguez), Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, James A. MacLean, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), Diane Muzio, William Recktenwald, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy Thompson (for Cathy C. Mogharreban), Eileen Waldron (for James Wall), Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Members absent: Ruth Bauner (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Connie J. Baker, James E. Garvey, Marla H. Mallette, Thomas H. Tarter.

Visitors and guests: Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Pat Manfredi (University Core Curriculum), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on March 8, 2011, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) the Research Town Meeting is currently taking place. He will attempt to keep the meeting short so those who wish to can attend; b) the Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for April 14 in Springfield. One of the Board items is approval of the University college; c) the campus climate appears to be somewhat tense. He has heard from many tenured/tenure track and non-tenure track faculty members about the enforced working document. There is already talk of a strike, which he believes will negatively impact enrollment efforts; d) there will be another Senate meeting on April 26, at which time there will be final reports and any final items of business. Officers for the next year will also be elected.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported that this is a week of celebrating the excellence of the campus. She attended the outstanding scholar presentation, which is a reflection of the many contributions made by faculty. She encouraged faculty to attend as many of the activities as possible this week. The showcase on students was a great start to the week; the weekend will showcase the University's 25 distinguished seniors, and Honors Day will cap the week.

Chancellor Cheng reported: a) she spent the morning on a conference call with the presidents and chancellors and the IBHE staff. There are serious conversations going on in Springfield that may impact the campus and the faculty and staff. There is widespread acknowledgment that the current pension funding formula is not sustainable, and adjustments will need to be made. That could mean paying more, as well as cuts to the operating budget of the University so that more money can be put into funding pensions. The presidents and chancellors are very concerned about what this means. The proposal that would give the state the ability to set tuition is also troubling, as is control of the income fund. This would have an incredible impact on SIU right now because tuition is being used to pay bills since the institution has not been receiving its state appropriation (the University is currently owed $96 million). There are also other aspects of legislation, such as automatic acceptance of community college credit and the "conceal and carry" law, which could mean guns in the classrooms and buildings; b) the Board of Trustees will be discussing tuition and fees. The University is asking for a tuition increase and a modest fee increase. In other business, a design of the proposed third building of the Research Park will be presented, as well as repairs on buildings and approvals on contracts for roofs and other repairs. There will be a new Board by the May meeting when tuition is set. [She] is looking carefully at giving as much information as possible to the new Board members; c) graduate and undergraduate enrollment is still strong. There is some softness in transfer and sophomore numbers, but increases in masters, new freshmen and continuing students. She has asked all the deans to work with the faculty to encourage students to register for fall so they will have a better handle on continuing students; d) there will be candidates coming to campus for the Liberal Arts dean search and candidates for provost will soon be announced. She hopes to have recommendations soon on the Engineering dean search committee; e) the lens groups are working to engage many people on campus around strategic planning; f) a workshop is planned on how to do a better job in working together to insure more students are completing their bachelors degree; g) in March, the campus exceeded grant funding last year by this time by $3 million ($60 million already this year); five patents have been filed, and the University may be taking equity on a company on one of the faculty; h) plans are moving forward on the housing master plan. Consultants are on campus to determine how the campus might use its housing reserves to make repairs. Private/public partnerships are also being formed in order to use private dollars to jumpstart new housing to replace the Southern Hills and Greek Row housing that is at the end of its useful life; i) she would like to thank everyone for the shared sacrifice of the four unpaid days. She realizes it is coming at a difficult time, and it was not her intent or plan that the days be squeezed into such a short time. She does appreciate the fact that the University will end the year with a balanced budget; that means whatever comes in FY12 will not also be compounded with a catch-up of problems.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

M. Lamb mentioned that there is an issue on which a number of faculty would like the Chancellor's perspective. She explained that the Board has declared an impasse on Faculty Association negotiations, so negotiations have ceased. She believes it is now appropriate to bring some of these issues forward. In all previous contracts, the term "financial exigency" was required for laying off tenured faculty. In the mid-70s, there were 104 faculty laid off, including a number of tenured faculty, because of financial exigency. Three years later, many of those faculty were hired back and given back wages because it was determined that the University did not follow the legal definition of financial exigency. The term has now been softened to "if the Board considers a need for reduction in force," which is much weaker than the term financial exigency. She asked what the Chancellor's thoughts are in general and asked if she might influence the Board to break the impasse and add the term financial exigency back into the contract.

Chancellor Cheng responded that [the administration] did not declare an impasse; there was an impasse. When there is no ability to have an agreement, an impasse exists. Last, best and final conditions were then imposed. She added that she values tenure and has no intention or interest in having a discussion about a degrading of tenure. She does believe that someone someday will need to have language about process. If the University is ever in a situation like the state of Pennsylvania, with a 54% cut in the operating budget, there needs to be the ability to have a conversation. She pointed out how long it took with the four days, as well as to come to an understanding that there would be no agreement. She indicated the language is about process and brings the University into line with every other Illinois campus that has a faculty bargaining unit. She believes the campus needs to prepare itself to have a process in place should a [bad] situation come along, as did the other campuses in Illinois. O. Agrawal commented that many people in his college are concerned with the language and see it as an abolition of tenure. Chancellor Cheng responded that she told the Executive Committee that the administration is very interested in sitting down and working out a contract for 2012 as soon as possible. They are interested in meeting over the summer to get something in place so that they are not in a position next April of continuing to be without a contract. She encouraged people to read the full contract, have input into the process and express an opinion. She believes there is room for language to be discussed if that is a concern. It was draft language that was put in, she believes, very early in the process (sometime in the fall) and was certainly not negotiated at the last minute.

A. Karnes reported that the SURS Board has adopted new actuarial assumptions. There is not yet a date of implementation, but it will be sometime in 2012. What this means is that the formula for money purchase will be lowered by 7.5%; that is a major hit. Employees could beat that by getting out before the effective date; if not, they should realize that the money purchase formula is not going to be as attractive as it has been.

J. Allen asked the Chancellor what she believes will happen with the legislation on performance-based funding. Chancellor Cheng responded that she believes it will pass. [Universities] are working hard to get politicians not to establish the metrics, but to leave it to the IBHE and the institutions. She also believes that the work on learning outcomes will be very important because it will definitely include some of the easy measures like retention, graduation, time to degree and other kinds of metrics that would ease transferability of students from community colleges to institutions. Those things are not bad if there is learning that is happening. She believes it will be the future. A. Karnes noted that the IBHE will determine what the metrics will be. [The IBHE] will need to put people on the committee to come up with metrics that are attainable and fair.

K. Asner-Self noted that SIUC has a large percentage of first generation (i.e., poor and unprepared students) who need funding to come to school but cannot get it because it has been cut. They end up dropping out and working and do not do as well in the classroom. As a result, the institution's time to degree is adversely affected. A. Karnes indicated that there are ways to deal with that, such as institutional aid, to help those students. Chancellor Cheng indicated she is convinced that the state of Illinois cannot get to their goal of 60% of the population having a college degree without SIUC. They cannot meet that goal without educating poor, rural kids and inner city minority kids, and SIUC does that more than anyone else.

Going back to M. Lamb's question, J. Kapur asked the Chancellor what her personal response is to the softening of conditions that are required to be fulfilled before people are laid off. She noted that M. Lamb's point is that the new conditions weaken tenure, and tenure is related to academic freedom and to faculty's ability to actually ask difficult questions. Chancellor Cheng responded that her personal thought is that [faculty] are connecting it to tenure, and she is not. She suggested reading the draft language that was part of the imposed conditions. She already stated that the administration values tenure and recommends more discussion about this. The language in this process does not say anything about cutting tenure; it says this is a process, and if there are not funds to continue to deliver particular services on campus--for example, if there is a 50% cut in the operating funds or something similar-- what can be done to resolve that. They are already looking at finding a role in another department or looking at people who would not be renewed because of performance being asked perhaps not to stay all seven years but ending in a shorter time like other institutions. This is language that is in the bargaining contract of all the other institutions in Illinois. If there is something [faculty] do not like about the language, then there needs to be a discussion. Chancellor Cheng noted that she is uncomfortable discussing the issue any further because this is the Senate and not the Faculty Association; however, in her mind, she is a tenured faculty on this campus; she values tenure and has spent all her academic career as a faculty member. She does not see the language in any way degrading tenure.

J. Kapur believes the term financial exigency was there to balance the need for maintaining and securing tenure and to deal with financial difficulties if they arose. She believes removing the term softens the conditions. M. Lamb believes the issue is who decides there is not enough money or so little money that there is a need to lay off tenured faculty. There is nothing in the process that describes how the Board comes to this decision. Chancellor Cheng believes the key in the draft language is that it says, "Nothing in this article shall be a [contravention?] of University policy," so at this point, it is the Board who decides. There is nothing in this process language that suggests anything other.

S. Kumar agreed that the Senate does not want to get into contract negotiations; however, as he stated in his report, there is some tension in the climate and some anxiety that this language has created. The Chancellor had mentioned that there is still a possibility for more negotiations with the Association. Is there a way to remove that anxiety by taking Article 19 back to the bargaining table and bring it only when everyone is comfortable that negotiations are going well [and the faculty's confidence is restored?

Chancellor Cheng responded that the last, best and final offer was given; this was done to allow for four [unpaid days] in this academic year. It was certainly not something the Association was going to agree to, so there was an impasse. The administration is willing to get back to bargaining for FY12, as the imposed contract runs through June 30. K. Asner-Self agreed that this seems to be the wrong place to be arguing Association viewpoints through the guise of Faculty Senate. J. Allen noted that in 1999, the Senate unanimously ratified an agreement to have a working relationship between the Graduate Council and the Faculty Association. Each group defined their mutual responsibilities very clearly, which is that working conditions, salary and any matters pertaining directly to the bargaining unit are the sole purview of the Association. The Senate has a different purview as defined by the [Employee] Handbook.

I. Altman asked what the long term plan is for [faculty] hiring. Chancellor Cheng responded her goal is to begin replenishing the faculty. The deans were asked to prepare their lists of priorities for hiring. If the University gets its tuition increase and does not get too big a hit from Springfield, then it has to begin replacing people.

J. Wiesen asked if there is any chance of actually getting the money the state owes. Chancellor Cheng responded the campus has not received anything for two weeks. She assumes that on the months the University will not meet payroll, and that will happen June 1, there will be an influx of funds in May. She believes what the legislators will do is plug holes, but does not believe they will not let the University meet payroll. It is possible they will lapse the money after the tuition influx in the fall, but right now the campus needs infusions in May, June and July to keep going because in August the tuition dollars will come in.

J. Davis commented that the University of Illinois took seven furlough days; given what they are going through and what SIU and the other universities in the state are going through, she has to thank the Chancellor for navigating the campus through this dicey time. The fact that employees only had to take four days, she believes, is amazing. She is thankful to have her job and believes the University is doing pretty well considering the other institutions in the state. K. Anderson asked how bad FY12 is looking. Chancellor Cheng responded that there will be a cut, likely somewhere in the range of 3-10% of appropriations; appropriations are about half of the operating budget, so that could be as little as 1.5% to as much as 5% of the operating budget. She noted she is more troubled by the fact that everyone will be paying more into their pensions and more for health insurance. Also, as A. Karnes reported, those near retirement will have to make some choices quicker than they wanted to because of the changes that are happening.

With respect to K. Asner-Self's earlier comment [about first generation students], N. Mundschenk indicated she did not disagree with the comment; she only wants to reiterate that [the campus] guards against it becoming a euphemism. The Honors program, as a part of University college and undergraduate research in a University college model itself should play in the conversation about equity and access so that it does not become an opening of the floodgates to students who are not prepared.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. N. Mundschenk reported: a) there were first readings on a number of resolutions, which are available to read on the Graduate Council's website; b) there was brief discussion about the recommended amendment to the Graduate School's operating paper. They are done with their process and the final recommendations will be posted by the end of the week. A ballot will then go out to all graduate faculty, with a deadline of May 15 to vote; c) a presentation was given by Dean David Carlson, who presented, "From Print to Digital." There will be an extension of that conversation at the next meeting (e.g., what are the implications for that kind of evolution in the library for graduate education).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. G. Apgar reported: a) it has been almost four weeks since the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee has met. [At its last meeting], [the committee] asked for an 8.9% tuition increase this year. The Chancellor noted that the campus may not get that much. There will be new Board members coming in, and he is unsure whether they will be comfortable with anything over the 6.9% that U of I received; b) there were discussions with a major NFL team for potentially using the stadium as a summer practice location.

2. G. Apgar reported that he has the data back on the elections that took place in Applied Sciences and Arts, Education, Engineering, Liberal Arts, Medicine, Science and the NTT Faculty Voting Unit. Those who were elected have not yet been notified.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of Women's Studies to be Renamed Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). J. Wiesen asked whether these programs across the country are indeed changing their names. L. DiLalla responded that according to [the department's] paperwork, there are name changes taking place--not to this particular title, but broadening into those specific areas with different names.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Motion by the Core Curriculum Executive Council for the Student Success Course Core Curriculum Requirement (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She noted what the Senate would be approving is the motion by the Core Curriculum Executive Council (included as page two of Attachment B). J. Kapur asked for clarification as to why the interdisciplinary requirement was selected to be waived. M. Amos responded that [the requirement] will be moved to the [disciplinary area] of the course, so it will satisfy core requirements. P. Manfredi added that the reason the interdisciplinary was chosen was because, try as he might, he could not find another workable solution to the problem. That is why it is coming to the Senate now instead of October. He attempted every possible way to find another alternative, and this was the bestone. J. Kapur indicated that the students who take these courses find them to be the most interesting; there has never been a complaint about that as a course offering. P. Manfredi agreed that they are great courses; that is why he sent out to deans/chairs/instructors of those courses proposals for relocating them to other areas of the core curriculum. He does not want to lose the courses. The strategy is to eliminate that as a particular requirement. S. Graves indicated she is in support of the resolution, noting she taught University 101 before, as well as teaching some of the new objectives that were put into the course Foundations of Inquiry. It is an amazing course and ultimately life-changing for the students. She believes they have done an excellent job of just moving the courses that are also important courses while still maintaining the ability to offer a required Foundations of Inquiry courses.

S. Kumar asked how many colleges are offering this course currently because the resolution says there are several. M. Amos responded that Engineering and Liberal Arts offered courses last semester; Engineering, Liberal Arts, Science, the library and MCMA are offering them in the fall. S. Kumar commented that it is good that the number of credit hours is not increasing. He asked if this change will need more resources and how are the resources going to be given to the colleges offering the courses. M. Amos believes that these courses will be incorporated into the student credit hour generation model the Chancellor is working on with the deans; so increasing student hour production actually [funnels] back to the colleges at a certain percent. Increasing the student credit hour for a particular college will give them more resources. As far as he knows, Engineering 101 is exactly as it was before this was done. The colleges that are having more success at filling their courses at the moment are those who take courses that are already [small] and add the student success to those courses rather than designing an entire new course and trying to fit it into a model that does not work. There are a number of different models being considered. Colleges were given the parameters of the course and were helped with designing them. There is a team of people who would be happy to meet with individuals/colleges/departments that are interested in offering these kinds of courses [to help] work out how to make it work for other universities.

S. Kumar asked if the requirement of senior faculty members teaching only 20 students in a section was still a requirement. M. Amos responded that they were [generally supposed to require] mostly senior faculty. The point is the [FAC] wants long-term people, faculty who will be at SIUC [for a while], because part of what they are attempting to establish is not just the academics, bonding the students into a community in the University. Therefore, the faculty member should be set up as someone who will be a resource person for these students two years down the road when they suddenly have a dilemma or delight that they would like to come back and report. They do not want second year masters students teaching the courses because then would be no long term relationship. For some programs, that may be first year Ph.D students; for some programs it may be lecturers or senior faculty. His hope is that it will not be front-loaded for people who are brand new and trying to get tenure because it is labor intensive. There may only be 25 students, but the instructor really needs to know them. First generation students need a little more guidance early on and someone to be there for them throughout the four years--not to hold their hand, but as a reference point.

K. Anderson commented that his department (Geology) invests very heavily in 300-I courses, and it is not accurate to say that this will not affect colleges and departments that [have not] invested heavily in these courses. The Senate needs to know that departments that have put a lot of time and effort into developing 300-I courses are going to take this where it hurts; it will really affect credit hours generated for these departments. He also expressed concern as to what extent this is making the same mistakes that the "No Child Left Behind" [made]. The University is saying all students who come here have to take this "how do you learn at university" course. There is a larger portion of students who typically need and will benefit from that guidance; but, there are a lot of students that do not need that guidance. He is not entirely comfortable with forcing every student to take this when they do not need the course. M. Amos responded that moving [the courses can be rewritten] as Saluki First Year or University 101 courses. They are working on a transfer year experience course because all the research says transfer students have a difficult time transferring. They also go through the same kind of developmental stages as first year students, but go through them a lot faster. So, there are other options for the 300-I courses. He agrees there will be an impact; however, Dartmouth has courses like this, as does Harvard. The courses can be as stupid or as challenging as the instructor makes them, and they will not know that until they start teaching and engaging with the students and then when the program is assessed. As for the other courses and why everyone has to take them, it is because it is the rising tide. This is what helps all students, even at Dartmouth and Cornell, to become better students at those institutions. Some colleges do not seem very interested in teaching the course; other colleges are very interested in teaching the course with as many freshmen as they can move through. A number of colleges are looking to get more majors out of it as a result. It really depends on the approach of the college, department and individual. If someone is not interested in teaching these courses, then stay far away from them because they will not accomplish what he needs them to accomplish. He wants people who want to do this.

J. Allen commented that this is probably the most radical thing the University has done in 15 years. They have been working with the same core curriculum for 15 years and continue to lose students year after year. If the institution continues without serious efforts to retain students who come here, there will be a continued erosion of financial stability. It is a radical step that has worked at other institutions and, in fact, it was modeled in large part on Indiana University [and] Purdue University. If it does not work, in three years there will be an opportunity to re-do it and do something different. P. Manfredi commented that there is one possible advantage that has been overlooked about the redistribution. Moving these 300 level courses throughout the core will provide an opportunity for some of the students who are well prepared to satisfy some of their core requirement of upper division courses rather than courses at the 100 or 200 level. It will also provide an opportunity for students transferring into the institution who may have 60, 80 hours but do not have their general education requirements complete. They can satisfy some of those requirements at a more appropriate level of coursework rather than the 100 or 200. S. Kumar asked what the indicator is for looking at whether it worked or not; is it retention rate or enrollment? J. Allen responded that [the Senate] determines as a body what parts of the curriculum it owns and [what needs to be fixed]. The curriculum is changing for every single undergraduate at this institution starting August 2012. They want to make sure this is worthwhile.

S. Graves noted one of the benefits to small class size that [is certain to happen now] with University 101 courses is that it is highly relational. What her [teams] come back and tell her is the relationships they have formed in their classrooms or what kept them here and kept them going was the friendships. She is aware that things like living/learning communities on campus work for retaining students; this forms the bond in their class that the living/learning communities form as well, and she believes attention should be paid to that because it is not happening in the large lecture hall classes. K. Anderson commented that he took over a course in his department that now has 62 students. It is much more difficult to get to know everyone because he only sees them a few times a week. A few years ago, he asked whether faculty could get access to photographs of students that are taken as part of their ID. He was told they could not associate pictures with names. He now asks his students to put their photo on Blackboard, but not all do. He believes that as part of their tool as teachers, if they could put faces to names, [they could getter connect with their students]. K. Asner-Self noted that one of the reasons pictures were discontinued was because they were being used to screen out minorities.

Resolution was approved, with one abstention, on a voice vote.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

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

L. Brooten reported the committee is still organizing a follow-up meeting with Associate Provost Logue's office regarding the implementation of the committee's [recommendations on distance learning.]

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- No report.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported the committee was asked to submit at least two names for the RFP Review Committee for a Learning Management System (only one would be selected). The committee submitted the names of Stephen Ebbs (Plant Biology) and Garth Crosby (Technology). S. Ebbs was selected to serve.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

M. Lamb asked if the loss of tenure is not something the Faculty Senate wants to address. Hearing no comments, she wanted it on record that this issue was not something the Senate wanted to address.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

1. Chancellor Cheng thanked the faculty for their showcase [submissions]. A long list of student names was also given that the deans and faculty suggested might be showcased in the Southern Illinoisan as the months go by. She thanked [faculty] for those nominations.

2. M. Kibby-Faglier reported she is one of the Faculty Senate representatives to the SIU Strategic Planning Committee. They are currently in the lens phase looking at various issues pertaining to the future of SIU in relation to their lens. She is on the Finance Committee, as is A. Karnes. L. Brooten is on the Climate Committee and J. Davis is on the Research Committee; K. Asner-Self is on the Teaching Committee, as is M. Komarraju. She indicated if anyone has issues, she welcomes that feedback.

3. M. Komarraju invited everyone to the second in the series of teaching pedagogy seminars, which will be held on April 25. The first seminar was well attended, and the hope is the second one will be as well.

4. S. Ebbs reported that the current Blackboard system cannot be supported and must be replaced. The first meeting of the RFP Review Committee that is examining the RFPs will make a recommendation. One issue discussed was the need for the people who bid for the contract to come to campus and have an open session where they demonstrate their product and have an open question and answer period. The two platforms are very different than what is now available. Even though Blackboard is one of the vendors, the product the University uses currently is not what Blackboard offers, so both systems are very different. Anyone who is a heavy Blackboard user or LMS user will find this an excellent opportunity to see the product and see how it will transition to a new LMS. Both promise very smooth transitions of content, so input will be valuable. B. Thibeault asked why they are not considering one of the other services, such as Noodle. S. Graves responded that she is on the LMS task force, and they did evaluate Noodle. It does not offer all the functionality that people would be used to with Blackboard. It is open source and something that could be developed. The LMS task force indicated they would like to continue to try and investigate the open source products, but to implement Noodle on the scale that the University needs would require a team of programmers, several years and many servers, etc., just to get it up to the level of where Blackboard is now. They do not have that time to develop an open source product at the level it is needed in the next year or two years. It was suggested that there be a team that continues to investigate possibly transitioning into an open source platform; again, it takes development time. Chancellor Cheng added that the University is also very thin on the number of staffing at the central campus level and at many departments to be able to support that. These systems are not only being evaluated on the bells and whistles, but also on the usability and having someone on campus who can keep everything running so that there is not down time. J. Ferraro hoped that [the committee] was looking long term so that they are not switching systems all the time. Everyone already has several different things they have to sign into with different codes that change; so, for some people, [the change would be difficult].

5. G. Apgar announced that the College of Agricultural Sciences is having its Agriculture Industry Day on April 16. He invited everyone to come out and have a free lunch.

6. G. Spittler announced that Women in Aviation is staging a fund raising event for the Air Race Classic pilots again this year. The event will be at Tres Hombres this evening and everyone is invited to attend.

7. Chancellor Cheng reported that Tom Mortenson from the Pell Institute will be lecturing on Education Policy later in the evening. She believes he has interesting opinions about state and federal funding for higher education and particularly research institutions.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:36 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba