Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by William Recktenwald, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, Lisa B. Brooten, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Stephen D. Ebbs, Qingfeng Ge, Stephanie Graves, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Meera Komarraju, Timothy Koschmann (for Lisabeth A. DiLalla), Mary E. Lamb, John T. Legier, James A. MacLean, Diane Muzio, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), William Recktenwald, Nicole K. Roberts, Jose R. Ruiz, Matthew Schlesinger (for Benjamin F. Rodriguez), Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James A. Wall, S. Jonathan Wiesen, Terri Wilson (for Stacy Thompson).

Members absent: Ruth Bauner (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Sandra K. Collins, James E. Garvey, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Douglas W. Lind, Marla H. Mallette.

Visitors and guests: Carl Bloom (Graduate and Professional Student Council), Lauren Duncan (Daily Egyptian), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on November 8, 2011, were presented for approval. L. Brooten, J. Kapur, O. Agrawal, D. Johnson and J. Wiesen objected to being considered absent without proxy; rather, they were absent because they were participating in the faculty strike. W. Recktenwald pointed out that the minutes correctly reflect attendance/non-attendance. The minutes of this meeting will reflect their objection. The minutes were approved, with five abstentions, as presented.

REPORTS

1. W. Recktenwald reported: a) there have been a number of changes taking place with commencement, and the Chancellor will discuss those in her report; b) a monetary component has been restored to the [excellence] awards; c) on February 3, there will be a presentation by the Executive Director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education about performance funding; d) the Strategic Planning Committee is working on its final plan, and the Chancellor and Provost will discuss the new procedure for hiring new faculty.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) she convened a task force in the fall to study best practices across the country for graduation ceremonies in order to bring more tradition and ceremony to graduations. W. Recktenwald and S. Ishman represented the Faculty Senate and Graduate Council, respectively. She has shared the report with the Dean's Council and hopes to implement the recommendations in May. The task force recommended having two graduations a year, in May and December. Her plan is to put together an implementation team with representatives from each college so there will be a group of people coordinating graduation activities. She would like to begin a tradition of inviting top name speakers; b) a group was formed in the fall to find a way to bring back [the excellence] awards with some monetary component. Suggestions include retaining the campus-wide awards and returning the college level awards to the colleges to administer. Her office will focus on the key campus-wide awards and look for some monetary component. The awards program has been renamed the Excellence Award, and will now include a new early career award, as well as the awards for teaching and research. Her hope is to implement the new awards program in the spring; c) the Strategic Planning Steering Committee believes it has developed a framework that will be useful for campus-wide discussion and input. She would like to get the final report from the Steering Committee by early January and bring it to both the Senate and Graduate Council for discussion and input. She will also solicit feedback from the vice chancellors, deans, chairs/directors and use that input to engage the campus community in focus groups and web-based discussion; d) a plan to address deferred maintenance has been presented to the Board of Trustees. The Board would like the University to be more aggressive on this issue; that would entail some borrowing, as early as summer, in order to accomplish some of the "to-dos." A. Karnes asked if it will be possible to retrofit classrooms. Chancellor Cheng responded that the small amount that remained of the [classroom improvement fee] after budget cuts was used for technology improvement in 20 classrooms over the summer; the facilities maintenance fee was used to do other kinds of improvements, such as painting and the unseen mechanicals of buildings. The Board wants the curb appeal and cosmetics of buildings to be addressed. K. Asner-Self asked if there will be a priority list. Chancellor Cheng responded that there is a priority for academics, balanced with the condition of building. The Physical Plant staff knows what cannot wait; e) she and A. Karnes are continuing to stay close to the performance funding conversation. A. Karnes has dual role, as he serves on the steering committee for planning and also has role in the IBHE vote on the final plan; f) the marketing/branding effort is in full swing. The first phase is focused on making people more aware of what is happening on campus. The key tag line is, "This is SIU." Additional campaigns will break through some of the negative gaps in perception about the institution; g) enrollments for spring continue to be soft. There is a lag in students signing up for courses. It is clear where faculty and staff have made efforts to encourage students to register; h) the master housing plan has been presented to the Board and is focused on four areas: the traditional freshmen on the east side of campus; Thompson Point; Greek Row and Southern Hills. The plan is to build more modest four-story traditional freshman-style housing on the east side in stages and then take down the towers one by one. Thompson Point will be renovated and Southern Hills and Greek Row will be torn down and replaced with graduate and Greek housing. Thompson Point renovations will be paid for out of the Housing reserves. Housing anticipated the needs and believes the renovations can begin fairly quickly. Work will take place in the summer so that residence hall monies, which are needed to afford everything else, will not be lost. There has been talk by alumni and retirees of moving forward with some options for Southern Hills. That would require some thought about international and graduate housing, likely in the current re-grow area rather than Southern Hills.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. J. Wall questioned whether the problem with enrollment is being perpetuated by the fact that students can now register anytime they want, and classes do not make until the last minute. K. Asner- Self commented that when she was a graduate student, she waited until the last minute because she would immediately have to pay [her tuition]. She is unsure whether SIU does that, but if so, it makes sense not to register until the last minute. Chancellor Cheng responded that all policies are being examined to see if there are issues that could be getting in the way.

2. S. Ebbs asked if there is any information on when the FEMA funds [from the May 2009 storm] will trickle back down to investigators. Chancellor Cheng responded that it is very frustrating dealing with FEMA; the University is still awaiting payment. She will check with Kevin Bame (Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance).

REPORTS (cont.)

Chancellor Cheng reported: i) the pension reform discussion continues and is fully expected to be a hot topic in the spring. The very latest is likely to be some hybrid model that would combine defined contribution and defined benefit. The defined benefit portion will probably require more contributions by both the employer and employee. There are clearly cost share issues expected because continuing the way it is now is not an option. Tier I (staying at defined benefit) will likely be an option presented to everyone (this is what new employees now have). However, even at Tier I, it is expected that both employer and employee will have to pay more. It is widely recognized that employees of the state have been in public service for a long time without paying into Social Security, so there is an expectation that the state will stay with their contractual and moral obligation to employees; but, there is no contractual or moral language about who pays. Chancellor Cheng indicated they are looking at hybrid models in other states, but if that model does not come through, there will be more cost sharing because there will be more defined benefits components to the liability. They are trying to offload some of the liability.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (cont.)

3. J. Ruiz commented that he has been approached by several faculty and students about the fall break. He asked the Chancellor if she has received any feedback on how well the fall break was received [by students]. He added that some of his students contend that because of the fall break, and then the Thanksgiving break being reduced, they do not have as much time to spend with their families. He has quite a few students in his college from Chicago, and they spend a lot of time traveling. Chancellor Cheng responded that feedback on the break has been mixed; some students were very upset, and others were fine. She indicated the administration will take a look at retention. As she recalls, faculty set the calendar, so she believes an assessment is needed. The calendar is already set for next year, so everyone will need to be conscious of that. She believes the calendar committee did a good job in determining what might best meet students' needs, as far as their academic studies. She did hear that students liked the long week. Though it was found they came back, they did not necessarily study during that week, which was the purpose of the change. She believes the calendar committee could be charged with collecting data to determine what to do with the calendar.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) there is now a position request form for faculty hiring, which will take the place of letters written by deans and chairs that included different criteria. The form can be used for new or vacant positions and asks for responses to seven different criteria, ranging from how the position is related to the research mission of the University to information on majors and credit hours over time. He attempted to give himself a good idea of how the position compares to other positions in other colleges. The committee that developed the form is discussing the possibility of a central committee so that after these forms leave the dean, they go to this committee with some kind of recommendation. That recommendation would be to him, and his would go to the Chancellor on whether or how to fill the position. The makeup of the committee is being discussed by the task force. Additionally, he expects that every college would submit a hiring plan according to a defined template. The first one would be in March, with the plan being updated every six months. He noted that these are not firm plans, but it gives everyone an idea of the overall direction of the colleges' planning as a whole--where demands are showing growth and where to focus additional resources; b) SIU has the first debate team in the country and the top debater. They continue to bring home awards; c) the Academic Policy Review Committee has brought forth its recommendations in a first draft. The draft will be reviewed over the coming month with the idea of then sharing with the campus; d) the Program Review Committee, chaired by Todd Winters (Agricultural Sciences) and A. Karnes, continues to move ahead. He has seen a draft and believes the committee is finalizing its report. At that point, it will be shared campus-wide. This committee was charged with looking at how to flag weak programs; e) a consultant came to campus in September to look at campus-wide advisement, and that report has come in. The consultant described advisement here as chaotic and disorganized. Chancellor Cheng commented that there are seven models of good advising; this campus has the eighth. Provost Nicklow indicated that advisement is not too bad if it is looked at by college; there is just a range from every college. The report will be unveiled in January, and then campus-wide discussions will begin on how advisement is done; f) the CIO search is ongoing, with the second interview scheduled for December 15. There are also three dean searches advertised, and he is meeting with those search committees this week to get the process underway. The dean in Mass Communication and Media Arts is retiring in June, and an interim dean search will take place in the spring. The two associate provost searches are completed. Jim Allen (History) is the Associate Provost for Academic Programs, and Mark Amos (English) is the Associate Provost and Dean of University College; g) there are approximately 1700 students registered for online courses in the spring, which surpasses expectations. Most of the revenue (70%) associated with those courses is shared back with the colleges/units; h) it is still too early to tell on enrollment for fall. New freshman applications are currently back to 1.5% from this time last year. He pointed out that, in terms of this year's data, those departments that got involved with recruitment and those faculty who made calls and sent messages, etc., grew in enrollment. He encouraged faculty to get involved, noting it means a lot to students to hear from an expert in the field in which they want to study.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. K. Anderson asked how soft is enrollment. Chancellor Cheng responded that spring is off by approximately 3% (400 students). Fall overall enrollment was down from the previous fall. There was new student growth, but overall, juniors and seniors are smaller than previously. The decline is across the board continuing students.

2. M. Lamb asked how many positions were vacated over the past year, and how many hires have been approved. Provost Nicklow believes there are currently 652 tenured and tenure track faculty; the number may have been higher last year, though he does not have the number at this time. For next fall, 30 searches have been approved for positions to start next fall.

3. J. Wiesen asked, in terms of calling and contacting perspective students, if there is a way that different units/departments should be getting access to perspective students beyond those they meet in at open houses. Is there a way faculty could better communicate with the enrollment managers. Provost Nicklow responded that is absolutely possible. Each college has a recruitment and retention coordinator, and if it is unclear who that is, ask dean's office. If that does not work, contact him and he will provide the name. Provost Nicklow explained that the enrollment managers have access to something called Hobson's; they can run large databases of students with any filter imaginable. J. Legier asked if the database is just high school students or if it includes community colleges. Provost Nicklow responded that, at this point, it is just high schools. The names of transfer students are in another pool.

4. T. Wilson asked [how decisions are made when hiring]. Provost Nicklow responded that previously there was no hiring plan, so he is unsure how they were approved in the past. When he came in, he asked the deans of each college to give him a hiring plan what were their priorities; where did they see opportunities for growth--and he took that plan and compared subsequent requests with it to make sure it would align. Often, he would compare data on enrollment or research productivity, depending on the position. Generally speaking, it has to be in line with the vision of that college and their defined hiring plan. There are always opportunities for improvement, and the opportunity here is to better define the plan. It is something that needs to happen this coming year because every dean has a different process for defining priorities. Some had simple tables of positions and priorities on a page, while others had a more qualitative evaluation of the vision of the unit and on what hiring should be based. S. Ebbs asked if the number of hires for fall is set. Provost Nicklow responded that he is not sure there will be any tenure/tenure-track faculty positions hired from here on out, as most start in the fall.

K. Anderson questioned whether evaluating research productivity on a position that was filled by someone who was not research productive might be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Someone coming into the position might take the subject and make it completely productive. Provost Nicklow agreed, pointing out that any one criteria cannot be taken and evaluated on top of the others. That is why there are seven or eight criteria. He believes the way it is worded is, "how does this serve the research mission of the University?"; so it is not necessarily numbers. He noted that the form is being used for civil service positions, as well as some of the non tenure track positions. What it does for him is create a level playing field where different positions/colleges can be evaluated on at least some of the similar criteria. Some will be more research-based; some will be strictly teaching; and some will meet a different aspect of the University mission than others. Chancellor Cheng commented that she and Provost Nicklow are also talking with John Koropchak (Vice Chancellor for Research) about the academic analytic data that is available for all the departments and that are now being used in program review. They believe it will be helpful here as well to see where the different departments are at compared to national norms and where changes are occurring over time. So, a hire might be a prospective look at research productivity rather than a reward for past performance.

5. J. Kapur asked if the Chancellor is looking at [public/private collaboration with respect to housing] as a way to raise revenue for the University. Chancellor Cheng responded that it is a way to get things started faster; public/private partnerships generally allow for housing to be done somewhat faster because the developer could lease the land from the University rather than go through the state purchasing bureaucracy; or, the University could enter into a contract to manage adjacent private land so that students are under the residence hall environment. There are different models of public/private, but the notion is to get the actual development and construction done in a timely manner.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. G. Apgar (for F. Pourboghrat) presented the Judicial Review Board report (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

5. A. Karnes reported on the December 12 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as an appendix to the minutes).

6. S. Ishman reported the Graduate Council is discussing the inclusion of tuition on proposals that are submitted. It is in the very preliminary stages at this time.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL - None.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

1. G. Apgar presented for approval the candidates for Judicial Review Board (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He noted that there are four three-year terms to be filled. Ballots for the Judicial Review Board election were then distributed to Senators. After a tally of the votes was taken, the following four faculty were elected to three year terms: Joan M. Davis, Applied Sciences and Arts; Jason T. Greene, Business; Jonathan J. Bean, Liberal Arts; and Daniel V. Overturf, Mass Communication and Media Arts.

2. G. Apgar presented for approval Motion 1 to reappoint F. Pourboghrat as chair of the Judicial Review Board for the 2011-2012 term (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

3. G. Apgar presented for approval Motion 2 to appoint Alice Noble-Allgire (School of Law) as vice chair of the Judicial Review Board for the 2011-2012 term (also included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

ELECTION TO COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

K. Asner-Self reported there is a vacancy on the committee as a result of the resignation of Ronald Caffey from the Senate. M. Lamb volunteered to serve. Hearing no other volunteers/nominations, a motion was approved to have M. Lamb fill the vacancy.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported there are some major issues being discussed within the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee that the Senate Budget Committee may want to take up. Some issues cross over to other Senate standing committees that those committees may want to look into.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Asner-Self, Chair

K. Asner-Self reported: 1) the committee selected Samir Aouadi, Professor, Physics, to serve on the Search Committee for Dean of the College of Applied Sciences and Arts; 2) M. Lamb was elected to fill the vacant position on the Committee on Committees.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

W. Recktenwald presented for discussion the Resolution for the Faculty Senate to Study the Issue of Promotional Lines and Titles for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). He reported this issue arose from a side letter that was included in the recently-approved labor agreement with the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Association. A. Karnes questioned why an ad hoc committee was needed, as this issue seems to fall under the purview of the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee. G. Spittler responded that he originally believed it was the purview of the Governance Committee, but heard an equally cogent argument that it fall under Faculty Status and Welfare. He believed the best solution was to form an ad hoc committee whose sole task would be to address this issue and that it be composed of people who are particularly interested in the issue. G. Spittler then moved that the Senate approve the resolution; seconded by D. Johnson. A. Karnes questioned the need for a resolution since the Senate President can assign the issue to a standing committee. K. Anderson commented that, although he has no objection, he also sees no need for a resolution since the Senate's Operating Paper allows for the creation of committees at will. L. Brooten believes that if there are people who are expressly interested in the issue, an ad hoc committee would be a way to get people involved. S. Ebbs noted that the Senate needed to be careful in how committee members are selected. There should be balanced representation of tenure/tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty so as not to give off the appearance or action of deriving a study of something that benefits only [one group] specifically. W. Recktenwald commented that the Senate has dealt with items affecting its membership directly, and he is confident that the Committee on Committees Chair will come up with a proper number and good selection of people who will represent both sides. S. Ebbs believes committee selection should be based on more than who is interested in serving. J. Wall commented that there are six NTT faculty on the Senate who act on the interests of the tenure track faculty.

Resolution was approved, with five abstentions, on a voice vote.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
S. Jonathan Wiesen, Secretary

SJW:ba