Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Sanjeev Kumar, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Ruth Bauner (ex officio), Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald A. Caffey, Scott Collins (for Sandra K. Collins), Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Stephanie Graves, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, James A. MacLean, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), William Recktenwald, Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James Wall, Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Members absent without proxy: Ken B. Anderson, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Marla H. Mallette, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Diane Muzio, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Thomas H. Tarter.

Visitors and guests: Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), Jon Davey (Architecture), Susan Logue (Provost and Vice Chancellor), Sandra Rhoads (Continuing Education), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Vanessa Sneed (Continuing Education).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on February, 2011, were corrected as follows: K. Asner-Self noted a typo in her name on page 3 ("Asher-Self" for "Asner-Self"); G. Apgar asked that the statement on page 3, "The EC made a dynamic statement and felt pressured to do so" should go on to include the phrase "by phone calls from faculty." N. Mundschenk stated that the April 7 meeting of the Graduate Council was not the "next" meeting as stated in her report, since there would be an intervening meeting before April 7. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) he attended the Board of Trustees meeting on February 10. Two students from the Honors Program gave an excellent presentation to the Board about how attending SIUC has helped in shaping their careers. Also, during the public comments section, a representative from Graduate Assistants United urged the Board to freeze fees for graduate students. He presented a chart showing that fees have tripled over the last 10 years. Additionally, since there was no quorum, the Board could not approve the restructuring proposed by Chancellor Cheng. Instead, the restructuring will be formally approved in April; b) there are early indications that enrollment for the fall is promising; c) there is a possibility that a convocation will be held for freshmen; d) the marketing firm, Lipman-Hearne, is back on campus. The Chancellor believes the campus will be pleased with the work of the firm; e) he invited S. Rhoads and V. Sneed to give a brief presentation to the Senate on Continuing Education's credit and non-credit bearing programs.

2. A. Karnes reported on the February meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (see appendix 1 to the minutes). J. Ferraro asked A. Karnes which committee he would recommend take up the issue of [program inventory]. A. Karnes believes that UEPC would be the appropriate committee to review the structure the Faculty Senate approved a few years back. K. Asner-Self expressed concern that if some programs are eliminated, she could see legislators wanting to do more. J. Allen indicated there is a process by which a program to be eliminated goes through (a subcommittee of the UEPC). However, [the subcommittee] does not have the same criteria [as the provost] for making that decision. In the past, degrees were identified and forwarded by the Provost; however, [the UEPC] was provided conflicting evidence as to why the degree(s) should be eliminated. It is difficult for the [subcommittee] to determine what is and is not a viable program. A. Karnes agreed the process will be contentious and will affect people, but it is something he believes is coming and will be forced upon the University. He also agreed the legislature may say that trimming is a good start; but, if the campus at least goes through the motions and does make some hard decisions, it will be what the legislature wants.

N. Mundschenk commented that oftentimes in discussions about programs or performance funding, the term "first generation college students" is used as a euphemism for weak academically and ill-prepared students. She is unsure if that is a euphemism [the campus] wants to use. The Honors Program is part of the college restructuring, and [faculty] are focusing on undergraduate research and scholarly activity. The University should be defined also in terms of the students it is attempting to recruit. G. Apgar asked if it would be beneficial to, instead of having a "hit list," come up with a rubric for evaluation so [the University] would have a defensible position to take no matter what the dictum is given from above? A. Karnes responded that he is asking for that exactly. There needs to be a process in place so that when the question comes up, the campus will be ready.

3. S. Kumar introduced S. Rhoads and V. Sneed, who discussed how the non-credit unit of Continuing Education can help faculty develop more programs (e.g.,conferences, workshops).

4. N. Mundschenk reported on the March 3 meeting: a) as a result of the research climate survey responses, a committee chaired by Susan Rimmer (Geology) is being formed by Vice Chancellor Koropchak to look at enhancing proposal awards and administrative procedures; b) the Council approved the M.S. Degree in Fire Service and Homeland Security, and three resolutions were presented for a first reading (Addition of Concurrent MD/Masters of Public Health; Addition of Certificate of Training in Histotechnology; and Modification [name change] of Women Studies to Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies); c) final edits and suggested language for the Graduate School Operating Paper will be discussed in April and then sent to the graduate faculty for a vote; d) the restructuring plan for distance education was discussed. A summary of issues was sent to Associate Provost S. Logue, and G. Apgar received a copy of the comments presented at the Council meeting. N. Mundschenk noted that the April 7 Council meeting will be held in the basement of Morris Library.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. G. Apgar reported on the February 21 Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee: a) there was a short discussion on the state of the University's finances; b) the Higher Learning Commission has required an August written report on the finances for SIUC. In the last report, they termed it "patch and pray." Jim. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Finance Kevin Bame and Budget Director Carol Henry will work with a subcommittee to draft a report that will be due in August; c) there was discussion surrounding consideration of a 3, 6 or 9% tuition increase for next year; d) the IT subcommittee reported on the need for expanded bandwidth. They also reported that a survey conducted of LAN administrators on campus shows a lack of a central approach; the subcommittee is considering a pod system. Currently, most positions are filled with one person that knows everything about that area, and then when that person is absent, there is no redundancy. The subcommittee is also looking at a best-fit model to evaluate the central [versus] local IT efforts and will report back at the next meeting; e) the Revenue Enhancement Committee is reviewing process management, the approach for prioritization of ideas and implementation of those ideas generated. Some ideas that have been discussed include rates for soda or beverages; some business presence on the campus, perhaps a campus brewery; and further discussion on alcohol sales on campus. General Counsel will address [these issues] with the subcommittee at the next meeting, as the subcommittee believes there are opportunities being missed for revenue generation. Cell tower usage and replacement on campus has also come up under the subcommittee; f) the budget subcommittee discussed those things that are fixed asset usage and that seem to be a revenue loss; for example, why hold three graduations? There was also discussion about advisement and University college overlap. How many times are similar services duplicated with differing outcomes?

2. G. Apgar reported that balloting for nominations for the Senate closed on March 11; balloting for MCMA will close March 16. Election ballots will go out after spring break. G. Apgar encouraged Senators and their colleagues to vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Certificate of Training in the Histotechnology Program in the Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Food and Process Engineering Technology in the Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She noted this is the last in a series and finally completes the packet the committee received a year and a half ago. Last year, the Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems approved a number of majors; the department was restructured very dramatically, and the Senate subsequently approved the majors. Six months later, it was discovered that there were five hidden minors in the packets. Last month, the Senate approved four of them, but one more still needed corrections. It has now been corrected and is being presented for approval.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported the matter of rank and promotion will likely come to the Senate after the non-tenure track faculty contract has been successfully negotiated. He pointed out that this would not affect the matter they are currently involved in, which is the eligibility for holding a seat in the Senate. The committee will meet as soon as it can to pick up where they left off.

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

L. Brooten reported the committee met on February 25 to review the latest draft of the Distance Learning Restructuring Plan, which was dated January 2011 (see Attachments C and D to the Agenda. The first thing committee members noticed was that the notes they compiled and discussed at the December Senate meeting were not reflected in the January 2011 draft. During the discussion, members again believed that the biggest issue was lack of an overall statement about the importance of distance education as part of the educational mission. Several concerns were raised about [fees, student access and revenue sharing]. L. Brooten indicated the committee benefitted from the attendance of Scott Collins at the meeting, as he has had much experience in distance education. He provided many details in addition to comments from colleagues who have expertise in distance education. L. DiLalla noted that the UEPC also met with S. Logue on this issue, and she only recently sent her notes to [the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee]; thus, they are not reflected in the agenda attachment.

L. Brooten indicated she wanted to clarify that her committee realizes the notes that were forwarded were forwarded in mid December. This could be why there is no reflection of them in the January report (because of the short amount of time). The committee would like to see some of these incorporated, but they are very extensive. There was also a concern raised at the meeting as to how many people on the actual committee drafting the report are involved in delivering online courses. She was informed that there are indeed two faculty members on the distance education committee who currently offer online courses. L. Brooten indicated her committee would like to forward all current notes, as well as the notes from December, to the distance education committee. She would also like to schedule a follow-up meeting with S. Logue and the committee to insure that all the concerns that are reflected in the notes actually end up in the final document.

S. Logue addressed some of the concerns raised by L. Brooten and her committee: 1) they are correct about the timeliness of the input. Also, many of the comments presented were raised by others as well. Some will be included, and some perhaps will not; but she can speak to [the committees] about all that; 2) the mission and vision are currently being drafted and are not yet finished. Whether it becomes part of the plan or part of a document that is the distance education mission is something they are still attempting to determine. There is agreement that it is something that needs to be articulated; 3) with respect to in-state versus out of state fees, the initial thinking was that off campus students would be treated the same as on campus students. If the University already has adjacency agreements with the states, those would apply on campus as well as online. There has been a lot of discussion about in-state versus out of state fees, and the Finance Committee is looking into it further. There was a question about student fees as part of the course fees to be charged either per credit hour or as a flat fee. She assumes the committee means the IT, student to student and student services fees. If that is the case, then they would be charged the way they are charged to on campus students; 4) there was a question as to what a "program" means. She believes they are referring to programs in the same way as the committee. It could mean degree programs, but they are interested in encouraging certificate programs as well; 5) there is no intent to try and circumvent the authority or responsibility of the Faculty Senate with respect to developing or revising programs; 6) she does not believe there will ever be a consensus on revenue sharing, but there have been many discussions about it, particularly about off campus programs versus online programs and how those might be different. Over the course of the next coming year, they will be studying the issue to try and come up with something that does not put the existing programs and courses in the hole; rather, it would provide a way to move forward with new programs and courses that meet some of the goals for increasing student populations. So, current programs and people that are currently enrolled in programs will be treated the same way throughout the program; 7) there are a couple of programs that are almost through the review process and ready to be started in the fall. Those will be grandfathered in as business as usual as well; they bought a year to have further dialogue on that one. S. Logue noted that she would be happy to meet with the Status and Welfare Committee at any time.

J. Wall commended [the administration] for seeking out the guidance of this body [on the issue of distance education]. He encouraged the Senate to let its role play out in the process in terms of letting what information is gleaned be known because this will be codified in the form of a contract. He believes they should all work together because everyone has the same end goal.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- No report.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported the committee received requests to nominate members for two committees: the Chancellor's Expanded Strategic Planning Steering Committee and the Screening Committee for Provost and Vice Chancellor (names included on the Agenda). S. Kumar asked if "senior" has been removed from the title of provost and vice chancellor. J. Baggott responded that it has been removed.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba