Minutes of the Faculty Senate

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

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Ruth Bauner (ex officio), 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, Steve Esling (for Ken B. Anderson), James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Stephanie Graves, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Meera Komarraju (for Benjamin F. Rodriguez), Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, James A. MacLean, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), Diane Muzio, William Recktenwald, Matt Rendleman (for Ira J. Altman), Jose R. Ruiz, Matt Schlesinger (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James Wall, Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Members absent without proxy: Marla H. Mallette, Thomas H. Tarter.

Visitors and guests: Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Julie Payne- Kirchmeier (University Housing), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Sarah Schneider (Daily Egyptian), Pam Smoot (Africana Studies), Jess Vermeulen (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on December 14, 2010, were corrected under the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee report, second paragraph, fifth sentence, to read, "L. DiLalla responded that if there are any prerequisites, they would have to stand." Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) at a recent Chancellor's Executive Committee meeting, Chancellor Cheng announced that she has initiated a review of Southern at 150. Members of the planning committee include: Peggy Stockdale (Psychology) and Tom Britton (Law), who will lead the effort; John Koropchak (Vice Chancellor for Research); Laurie Achenbach (Microbiology); Allan Karnes (Accountancy); Mark Wetstein (Broadcasting Service); Peter Gitau (Dean of Students); Holly Hurlburt (History) and Jake Baggott (Chancellor's office). The Chancellor has indicated that all constituencies will be involved, and the committee is likely to expand to 30 individuals. There will be specific action items and realistic and attainable goals; b) he attended a meeting with Lipman-Hearne, the marketing team that visited the campus a few months ago. They have been retained by SIU to help with the development of a University-wide marketing plan, new recruitment materials and the defining of a brand name; c) he received a request to provide input on the Distance Learning Restructuring Plan. He charged the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee and the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee with reviewing the plan and developing recommendations; d) the Board of Trustees is scheduled to approve the creation of a University College at its meeting on February 10. M. Amos and J. Kirchmeier gave a presentation on University College to the Chancellor's Executive Committee and then to the Faculty Senate Executive Council. S. Kumar commented that these were the first presentations he had seen on University College. It is his understanding that University College has been working for over a year. He personally believes the Senate should have been involved in the marketing plan. He requested that M. Amos and J. Kirchmeier give their presentation to the Senate.

2. Since Chancellor Cheng was unavoidably delayed by another meeting, M. Amos and J. Kirchmeier gave their presentation on University College (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). J. Ferraro asked how long the First Year Experience had been in planning and how many non-administrative faculty were involved. M. Amos responded that the concept began in 1999 with a re-accreditation report, and the Saluki planning process began in earnest in 2008-2009. Some attrition among faculty participants has put their numbers somewhat below the 50% mark.

J. Kapur inquired about how academic substance and intellectual content could be insured. M. Amos responded that there are only a couple of components that are academic; the rest are academic support programs. Placement testing is up and running; Math has redesigned its lower level courses to insure student success. Saluki 101, or "Foundations of Inquiry," is a student success course taught through any college that wants to and is based on a proposal they submit, as well as on eight learning objectives that are necessary for a student success course. Two colleges participated the first year, and next year MCMA and Science will teach a version of the course.

J. Wall asked how University College would help with the big drop [in enrollment] at SIUC after the second year rather than the first year of college. He also asked for ideas as to why this was happening. M. Amos responded that transfer students may be part of the problem, and that a First Year Experience is needed for those students as well. Tools learned in the first year should help retention rates throughout the four-year experience. Chancellor Cheng noted there are two things unique to the campus; one is that the first year retention numbers are artificially high because a large number of students in the Center for Academic Success (CAS) do not take Math in their freshman year, which is very unusual across the country. They are, in a sense, [coddled through] the second year and they fall off after. She believes the other reason is about half of the freshman are in Pre Major Advisement, which has not been connected to any of the resources in place to try and get students into a major. Those students are left floundering to try and figure it out themselves. All the research suggests that students be placed into credit-bearing Math classes as quickly as possible and get them up to college level as quickly as possible, and the University is not doing that.

O. Agrawal related that he has heard some nervousness from colleagues about what is a University College. He recommended that this presentation be widely available to set some of these fears to rest. Chancellor Cheng noted that aspirational peers are also using the University College model. A. Karnes recommended that Senators forward this presentation to the faculty in their departments.

M. Amos addressed the concern that the University College may cause grade inflation. He noted that no faculty will be asked to inflate grades. Better placement will decrease the 80% DWF grades for some classes because students who take a course at a lower level will be better prepared to succeed in classes where they currently tend to fail.

2. Chancellor Cheng agreed that there has been a misunderstanding about the University College. It is an administrative structure that brings under the same umbrella offices that are charged with student success across the campus. Accountability will be high on the radar to make sure that any adjustments that are made are made as a result of the data on student success or lack thereof. Chancellor Cheng then reported: a) the Board of Trustees will be responding to two items pertinent to the campus: design guidelines for a proposed public-private partnership and a third party building in the Research Park; and the request to eliminate Student Affairs, which is now in three components--auxiliaries were moved to business administration; the dean of students will report to the provost; and components related to Saluki First Year will be under the University College model; b) the Board will hear a presentation by honors students who will discuss their experiences on campus; c) the dean searches in Engineering and Liberal Arts are going well. The searches are confidential rather than "undercover" as reported in the Daily Egyptian. There is a call for an acting dean of Engineering, as well as for a provost. The call for provost will be on campus rather than nationally to create the necessary stability in the position. She will work with the campus constituency groups to field a search committee; d) the marketing team Lipman-Hearne was back on campus to assist the enrollment team in recruiting students. The Distance Education proposal has been submitted to be assigned to the appropriate Senate committee. She also expects to get the overload policy on her desk sometime in the next few days. She believes it is also ready for her approval; e) there is good and bad news concerning Spring enrollment. The good news is there are 104 new international students, both graduate and undergraduate. There is some stability in the junior/senior years and a slight upward growth in freshman retention. The bad news is that new freshman and transfers are down. Off-campus enrollment is also down seriously due to the softness in enrollment offered to military bases. Her hope is that the distance education courses will help to alleviate those numbers in the future; f) there is a call out for members to join the Strategic Planning Committee; g) funded research is down, possibly in part as a result of the loss of stimulus and state funding; h) a housing master plan is to be signed with an outside firm to help improve housing on campus. The plan needs to include an environmental scan on what the demand is for housing and how to address that need. Southern Hills, Greek Row and traditional freshman and sophomore housing all need to be addressed.

3. N. Mundschenk reported: a) there are two reports posted on the Graduate Council website; one is a presentation that was given by Vice Chancellor Koropchak to the Strategic Planning Steering Committee on Research and Graduate Education. The report summarizes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The second report is a re-analysis of the Research Climate Faculty Survey. Council members asked for an analysis of the survey, separating out those who had been successful in receiving grants compared to those who had not. The results were not any different, except that grant recipients tended to believe there was too much emphasis on teaching while non-grant recipients believe there is too much emphasis given to research. All wanted enhanced administrative procedures; b) the April edition of the Southern Illinoisan will showcase research and creative activities across campus; c) a resolution to add an M.A. in Art History and Visual Culture was approved, as was a resolution to accept an RME to change the name of Geology to Geosciences. An M.S. degree in Fire Service and Homeland Security will be considered next month; d) Kimberly Leonard (Criminology and Criminal Justice) is the new chair of the Program Review Committee; e) the Educational Policies Committee will be reviewing [the Council's] operating paper, as well as the Distance Education report; f) the next meeting of the Council will be held on April 7 in the basement of Morris Library.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. G. Apgar reported on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee: a) in an effort to maintain the University's marketing brand, all materials released will be subject to the Lipman-Hearne marketing group's scrutiny; b) there are IVG conversations regarding how to formulate something that supplements the federal benefit rather than being independent and state funded; c) subcommittee reports included further discussion regarding health care access; concert opportunities in the new stadium and the potential for a "Saluki-Palooza" concert series; and alcohol provisions during events (i.e., concerts or acts of interest); d) the IT committee discussed refining the organizational structure. They also conducted a LAN administrator survey of perceptions, job function and classification. The Course Software Committee expressed a desire to replace Blackboard with a more flexible system (Desire to Learn). Additionally, there are currently major support issues for IT oversight; e) the Efficiency Report is being finalized, and a report on that is scheduled for the February meeting; f) discussion continues on the evolution of budgetary savings potential, including [the option for] early retirement; g) there was initial discussion about the potential distribution of increased revenue from new students. This issue was sent back to committee for further discussion.

2. G. Apgar reported that it has been a busy few weeks for the Executive Council (EC), with numerous challenges and some changes. In January, the EC released a statement after significant discussion and input. He noted that the last EC meeting was refreshing in that discussion regarding University College was as it was today--transparent and open. The EC would like to request continued action such as this in the future.

G. Apgar introduced the Statement on Shared Governance (included as Attachment B to the Agenda), noting it was penned by eight concerned Senators. The statement asks that the Faculty Senate reconsider the statement issued by the EC regarding the decision by Gary Minish to leave his post as Provost and the allegation that the Chancellor relies on a small inner circle of staff for all decisions made. J. Wiesen commented that, as someone who was not privy to the EC's deliberations or to the deliberations on the statement being presented, it seems to him that both are good faith efforts to respond to the resignation of G. Minish, which is unsettling to everyone still and very confusing to the University community. He believes both statements attempt in different ways to move in a positive direction; however, he does not believe the Senate should do anything at this point that would prove more divisive to the body or the faculty more broadly. He did not think the EC statement spoke for him as a member of the Senate, and there are things he disagrees with; but, he is glad that it belongs to the EC. He moved that the statement included as Attachment B and the EC's position paper stand simply as statements by some of our colleagues in the Senate and not as statements on behalf of the Senate as a whole; seconded by C. Mogharreban.

J. Ferraro noted that most people interpret the EC statement as speaking for the Senate. It was public and in the press. The statement being presented is not public and so it has a different weight and perception. He believes it is appropriate for the Faculty Senate to agree or disagree with the statements. K. Anderson agreed, noting that the EC statement was not discussed by the Senate; it should either be ratified or rejected by the Senate as required by the Senate's operating paper. S. Kumar clarified that the EC statement was sent only to Senators; the statement by the eight Senators was placed on the agenda, so both statements are public.

J. Wiesen stated that he does not agree with the entire EC statement, but respected it as an attempt to work things out. He does believe the wording in Attachment B about issuing a formal rebuke of the leadership should be revisited. He agrees [the Senate] has to take a stand, but he does not feel comfortable moving to the point where they are formally reprimanding those who have heard and know more about the situation. G. Apgar indicated that the EC made a dynamic statement and felt pressured to do so. The approach would be different today. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, and he believes everyone in the body recognizes the value of that. J. Ferraro responded that he did not want to rebuke the EC, but pointed out that the first sentence in the EC statement is a rebuke of the Chancellor. Such a statement can have a destructive effect on a brand-new chancellor. A. Karnes noted his disagreement with the EC statement in its perception that the faculty does not stand behind the Chancellor when in fact they do.

K. Asner-Self asked if it was necessary to rebuke the EC; rather, would it be possible for the EC to issue a different statement on how the EC, with the Faculty Senate, supports the Chancellor. S. Kumar clarified that the EC's statement is based on what they learned and heard during the lengthy discussions they had with G. Minish and Chancellor Cheng at that time. K. Ashner-Self asked if there is a way the Senate as a whole can come up with something that would not be a rebuke of one another but is healthy for the University. It could go out to the press to show [the faculty] are all on board.

C. Mogharreban asked when something comes out of the EC that has not received feedback from the full body, is that a representation of the Senate? K. Anderson responded that the EC can act for the Senate between meetings, but those actions are subject to review by the Senate. C. Mogharreban explained that the reason she seconded the motion on the floor was so that the Senate would not have to patch through this and come to an agreement, because she is unsure there would be agreement, and that they would not have to make a public stand one way or the other. If the Senate makes a statement that says neither statement represents the full body, would that put things to rest? S. Kumar clarified that the EC statement was not made on behalf of the Senate; rather, it was a statement made by the EC.

J. Allen noted that the purpose of the statement in Attachment B was to urge the Faculty Senate to reconsider the EC statement; how the Senate decides to deal with the statement is up to the Senate. He believes that, procedurally, J. Wiesen's motion is out of order because it addresses an item not on the agenda (the EC statement). S. Kumar indicated the reason the statement is not on the agenda is that the EC is not looking for endorsement from the Senate; the other statement was put on the agenda at the request of some Senators. K. Anderson understands that the actions of the EC taken on behalf of the Senate automatically are subject to review of the Senate; should have been on the agenda. M. Lamb indicated it is difficult to put on the agenda something that involved sensitive meetings. They were there and heard a lot of information that has not been conveyed. It would be difficult to retract some phrasing because it is a group document. It would also be difficult to retract the entire document on the basis of what they heard and believed to be true. M. Lamb believes the EC is very willing to work with the Chancellor and is willing to move forward and leave the whole unfortunate events behind. The EC heard a lot of things that they do not want to talk about or make public.

J. Ferraro indicated he is a signatory on the statement in Attachment B, and he does not believe it is a rebuke of the EC; it is a rebuke of a statement by the EC. Also, if in fact everything in the document is true, it should not have been said or made public. J. Allen noted there are two visions of shared governance implicit in the two statements; he believes the EC statement is ill-advised and untimely. J. Kapur linked shared governance with a respect for truth. The EC based their statement on the truth as their findings indicated in the spirit of academic freedom rather than politics. There was evidence presented to the EC that was not available to the Faculty Senate, and she stands behind the EC statement because that is what they found based on an honest and fair attempt to talk with both sides. She would hope that the Chancellor would not take this as an unwillingness to work with her. Disagreements are part of being an academic. O. Agrawal noted that the EC had attempted a balanced statement and that there were 40 to 50 e-mails issued back and forth as it was being written. G. Spittler suggested the Senate table the motion for further consideration and come back to it at the next meeting on a more objective level. W. Recktenwald called the question.

K. Asner-Self expressed the opinion that the original EC statement lacked transparency for the Faculty Senate and that in fact the EC was conveying a feeling of paternalism on the basis of information not available to the entire Senate. B. Thibeault noted that there was no copy of the EC statement in front of Senators, and she is not entirely certain about its exact content. S. Kumar pointed out that the Senate is not discussing the content of the EC statement, but the motion currently on the table. He asked J. Wiesen to re-read his motion, which is "that Attachment B and the EC's position paper stand simply as statements by some of our colleagues in the Senate and not as statements on behalf of the Senate as a whole." S. Kumar reiterated that the statements themselves are not being discussed but that the statements stay as statements made by the respective groups and not by the Senate.

M. Komarraju shared the perception that people outside the Senate can only guess that the EC reflects the Faculty Senate and that, in fact, Senators are in a similar situation, for they must guess what their constituencies think. J. Wall noted that his role on the Senate, along with the other non-tenure track Senators, is to represent the approximately 630 NTT faculty. He sees this as part of his role of keeping them informed. Attachment B was sent to the NTT, as was the EC statement. He did not receive any feedback either way. W. Recktenwald again called the question; seconded by G. Spittler.

Motion to call the question and close debate failed 11-16 on a show of hands vote.

A. Karnes indicated he did not ask anyone in his college for comments, but he did receive many comments from people who were not happy about the statement. M. Komarraju inquired as to whether people who were happy about the EC statement would approach him. K. Anderson believes it is not correct to say that when the Executive Council of the Senate acts between meetings, they are acting for themselves and not the Senate. The statement that was released was from the Executive Council of the Senate. He agreed that people were not happy with the EC statement and that it should be rescinded.

J. Wiesen believes whether or not his motion is approved, it should not preclude the Senate from showing a much more formal gesture of support for the Chancellor. Everyone he has talked with believes that whatever happened with G. Minish, they support the Chancellor; he supports the Chancellor and believes it is good to have strong leadership at the top in cooperation with shared governance. He believes there is a way of proceeding beyond this as a body, and in that regard, he would be happy to support something further than his motion as a way to show that, as a body, the Senate does support the Chancellor.

G. Spittler noted that his experience has been contrary to that of A. Karnes. Most of the people he is associated with were more curious than unhappy. R. Caffey commented that he understands all the discussion, but it did not appear that a decision would be made to resolve any of these issues. He asked if J. Wiesen would consider amending his motion to state the Senate rejects rather than accepts both statements; then, Senators can actually decide on what statement (if any) they might like to make. J. Ferraro believes it is imperative to either support or reject the EC statement.

N. Mundschenk raised the question of what it means to be a representative on any constituency body. What is clear is that any body has transparent, inclusive and deliberative dialogue and that its response is measured. She believes some of the issue is what is the representative thought and what should the measured response be, that is, either based on evidence or not. It is not just internal communication; it is also external communication. There might be a consensus about how internally [the statement] is perceived, but it has been transmitted outside the campus. She noted the perception is this is what the Faculty Senate--read by some as the faculty believes. That may not have been accurate or intended, but she believes that is the reality.

J. Allen offered to withdraw the statement in Attachment B if the EC withdraws its statement. B. Thibeault believes if the Senate is asked to vote on this, she and other Senators may have to abstain because they do not have the EC statement in front of them. It is difficult to make a judgement on a statement they cannot really remember. L. Brooten, as a member of the EC, indicated she supports the suggestion by J. Allen, and that the discussion should be tabled until the EC takes up his suggestion. J. Ferraro opposed tabling because the document has been out in the public for weeks, and people are expecting the Faculty Senate to respond. It is required by the Operating Paper to either support or reject what the EC has done in the Senate's absence. K. Anderson agreed with J. Ferraro, noting the irony of the EC acting unilaterally in a Senate based on shared governance. B. Thibeault noted this all happened shortly after 95 NTT faculty received layoff notices. These people were devastated. She wondered, when J. Wall indicated he sent the statement to the NTT faculty and received no response, if that might be part of the reason. A lot of people were feeling disenfranchised.

S. Kumar asked the Senate how it wished to proceed. At this time, only J. Wiesen's motion is on the table. He asked if there is a motion to close debate. W. Recktenwald so moved; seconded by G. Spittler.

Motion to call the question to close debate carried 15-8 on a show of hands vote.

J. Wiesen again read his motion:

That the statement included as Attachment B and the EC's position paper stand simply as statements by some of our colleagues in the Senate and not as statements on behalf of the Senate as a whole.

Motion carried 20-5-2 on a show of hands vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla reported that the resolutions included in Attachments C, D, E and K all run together. Last semester, the committee approved a large number of majors for Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems in the College of Agricultural Sciences. As it turns out, there were five minors embedded in with the majors that the committee did not see. They have now reviewed the minors, and four of the five are ready for approval. The following four resolutions are simply minors that correspond with the majors and require no extra resources:

Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Horticulture in the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment C to the Agenda)

Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems in the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment D to the Agenda)

Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Crop Breeding, Genetics and Biotechnology in the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment E to the Agenda)

Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Agricultural Systems and Education in the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment K to the Agenda)

Resolutions were approved on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Fashion Stylist Specialization to the Fashion Design and Merchandising Major in the School of Architecture, College of Applied Sciences and Arts (Attachment F to the Agenda). She noted that there are no budgetary concerns at this time.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Air Traffic Control in the Department of Aviation Management and Flight, College of Applied Sciences and Arts (included as Attachment Gto the Agenda). She noted there is no anticipated budgetary issue and there is good hiring potential. G. Spittler commented that it is a very strong minor.

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 Television Studies in the Department of Radio and Television, College of Mass Communication and Media Arts (included as Attachment Hto the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

5. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Elimination of the Interdisciplinary Minor in African Studies, College of Liberal Arts (Attachment I to the Agenda). She noted that this resolution is a needed housecleaning item. There is a new major available, and currently there are no students in this minor.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

6. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Proposal from Enrollment Management to Revise the Current Admissions Criteria (Attachment J to the Agenda). S. Ebbs asked which office would make the case-by-case decisions. L. DiLalla responded that it would be the appropriate committee at the college level. K. Anderson asked [whether the Senate] is submitting carte blanche to adjust the mark it voted on or will it have to come back to the Senate to be revised. L. DiLalla responded that committee members were very clear that they did not want these set in stone; rather, they wanted them to be evaluated and make whatever changes are necessary. Committee members did not necessarily want them to have to come back with every change, unless it was something major (e.g., ACT score or GPA).

J. Allen added that the [committee] cannot delegate its responsibility. They are not talking about requirements, but the review process the rubric of evaluation relative to different colleges' needs and the adjustment of those rubrics. He indicated he could suggest a friendly amendment to insure the Senate is not giving up its responsibility to review and assess and actually have control over the criteria. He then offered a friendly amendment in the last "whereas" to change the word "benchmark" to "rubrics."

Resolution, as amended, was approved on a voice vote. [see appendix]

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler noted that the NTT Faculty Association has reached a tentative agreement regarding a contractually guaranteed schedule of advancement in rank. In order to do this, the NTT had to agree with the Board of Trustees that such rank and criteria for that would be prescribed by the Faculty Senate. He assumes this issue will first go to the Governance Committee and then to the Senate as a whole. S. Kumar questioned whether the matter would go instead to the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee. It has not come yet, but it may be that both committees will work on the issue.

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

J. Kapur reported the committee has not met. S. Kumar noted that he forwarded the distance education report to the committee for consideration.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- No report.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported there will be a call for nominees to the Strategic Planning Committee.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba