Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by William Recktenwald, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Curt Brooks (for Connie J. Baker), Ashley Carder (for Gerald R. Spittler), Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Sandra K. Collins, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James E. Garvey, Allan L. Karnes, Meera Komarraju, Mary E. Lamb, John T. Legier, James A. MacLean, William Recktenwald, Nicole K. Roberts, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy Thompson, James Wall, S. Jonathan Wiesen.

Members absent: Scott Ishman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Gary Apgar, Blaine Bartholomew, Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald A. Caffey, Qingfeng Ge, Stephanie Graves, Jyotsna Kapur, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Douglas W. Lind, Marla H. Mallette, Diane Muzio, Jose R. Ruiz.

Visitors and guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Punit Kohli (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Sajal Lahiri (Economics), Michael Olson (Kinesiology).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on April 12, 2011, were corrected under Question and Answer Session, 12th paragraph, to change B. Thibeault to J. Davis. Minutes were approved as corrected. The minutes from the 2010-2011 meeting on April 26, 2011, were corrected to reflect that James Wall was present and did not have a proxy. Minutes were approved as corrected. The minutes from the 2011-2012 meeting on April 26, 2011, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. W. Recktenwald reported: a) he has been attending several meetings and just came from one with the final candidate for the College of Engineering dean search. He expressed appreciation to those of the Executive Council who could attend the sessions with each of the four candidates; b) the constituency heads met with Chancellor Cheng and discussed the importance of having faculty and student input into the new University logo and keeping current signage intact. The Chancellor also reported on enrollment, expressing concern about the figures for returning students. New and transfer student numbers were positive; c) he met individually with the Chancellor and discussed the Faculty Senate. The Chancellor does see a definite role for the Senate [in campus governance]; d) he invited John Jackson to attend the first Executive Council meeting since he is a past president of the Senate and also served as provost and acting chancellor of the University. J. Jackson reminded the Executive Council that [the Senate] is probably the most representative of any organization because they are elected by approximately 1,600 constituents. They need to work together to move in the right direction, especially in these times of financial concern.

2. Reports were submitted by faculty representatives who serve on various University committees (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). M. Olson, S. Lahiri and S. Ebbs provided brief reviews of their respective reports.

3. A. Karnes reported on the May meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) to the IBHE (see appendix to the minutes). He added that what the FAC expects to hear at its meeting in Kankakee next week is that Kankakee Community College has been working actively with its feeder schools and providing high school teachers input on what they expect their students to know when they show up on Kankakee's campus. [There is a grant to assist teachers in preparing students for college], the results of which will come some time in the future. A. Karnes believes this is something SIU may want to do with some of its main feeder schools because the faculty here are finding that students are coming to the University without the proper math or English skills.

4. Chancellor Cheng reported: An announcement on the selection of a provost will be made by May 12. She indicated that it was a difficult choice, as each candidate brought something special to the position. She consulted with the deans and the provost staff and spoke with individual faculty members, as well as reviewed feedback from the campus [at large]. The Liberal Arts and Engineering dean positions have to come to closure, and she hopes to announce those shortly as well. She wants to consult with the incoming provost to make sure their decisions are in line.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. K. Asner-Self asked if there is any information on the search for the College of Education and Human Services dean. Chancellor Cheng responded that she met with the chairs several weeks ago, and her intent was to have an internal search completed by the end of the semester; that did not happen, mostly because of the workload in the Provost's office with the other two dean searches. She sent a message last week stating that an interim dean would be appointed for the summer, [and that appointment] will be made in the next few days. A national search for a permanent dean will be conducted when faculty come back from the summer.

2. A. Karnes reported he has become aware that there are individuals who have served on search committees who are breaking confidentiality, whether because of a need to report to the group they are representing or whether it is a letter to the editor. He believes the Senate should reinforce to members who are assigned to search committees that they have agreed to be confidential and that it is something the Senate takes seriously. Chancellor Cheng responded that she hopes to put together a small group to review practices. The University is not in compliance with federal contractor regulations regarding fairness and transparency in the process, and there are some areas in which the University is at risk. What she hoped to do is get through the process this year and then collect some best practices and have a small task force put together recommendations.

K. Anderson pointed out that some of these search committee appointments are made by the Committee on Committees and are ratified by the Senate. Does the Senate have a code of conduct or [any expectations) for the people it appoints to these committees? If not, he asked whether the Committee on Committees could draft some language. W. Recktenwald noted that when someone serves on a dean search committee, they are told by the provost that certain information is not to be discussed. J. Allen commented that [there is a system-wide conflict of interest policy, which is for] people who are primarily on consultantships where money is involved; however, there are passages in the language that clearly address [situations where] judgement is rendered and, in fact, can be distorted by conflicting commitments. He questioned whether some of the language in that document could not be [adapted to address the integrity of search committees as a matter of University policy]. This would not preclude the Committee on Committees from [drafting its own language]. K. Anderson indicated that search committees deal with confidential personnel information. The Committee on Committees itself (on which he is a member) also handles personnel information on a regular basis. Members of that committee held to the policy that whatever is discussed stays with them, and he believes that is the appropriate policy. He expressed concern about the affect the lack of confidentiality will have on future searches. If candidates who are considering applying learn that their confidential information can be released without their consent or knowledge, they may decide not to apply. That will not only [chill] the pool of candidates who apply for these positions but [raise the threat] of litigation.

3. J. Wiesen indicated that at the town hall meeting, the Chancellor discussed promotional raises. He asked if it is possible those will be put on hold for the time being. Chancellor Cheng responded that she spent a good amount of time discussing what has been accomplished during the year, and that was not covered at all in the paper. She also discussed the challenges and the shared commitment to move forward with strength. Obviously, there is increased cost without a salary increase just with the promotions of faculty and staff, estimated at about half a million dollars. She made no comment that it was good or bad, just that it exists today and is not going away. O. Agrawal stated that at the town hall meeting, the Chancellor had also mentioned an increase of [20% in new enrollments]. Chancellor Cheng responded that there are approximately 166 more [registrations] currently than there were this time last year.

4. B. Thibeault asked whether the cash award to the scholar of the year will be restored. Chancellor Cheng responded that she has asked Vice Chancellor Rickey McCurry to work with her to see if the SIU Foundation could restore a more modest award program (as opposed to the previous award program, which had cost upwards of $160,000). She believes it should be possible to fund a smaller award, one that would accompany the peer recognition. Before it is brought back, however, she would like to look at best practices across the country. She is aware that there is also concern about what they will do about the two or three years when nothing was done, and that will have to be addressed as well.

5. K. Asner-Self asked what the expectations are for faculty searches this next year. Chancellor Cheng responded that the University is looking at anywhere from a 4% to a 10% cut in its appropriation. This means there will be budget cuts next year. Much of that can be softened by permanently giving up positions that are already open. The deans and vice chancellors were asked not to submit anything in the month of May because this is the time when the least is known about the future. Once something is known, she hopes to make some permanent cuts and move forward. W. Recktenwald asked if this is the time to encourage colleagues and friends to contact their representatives. Chancellor Cheng responded that now is the time; over the last few weeks, the alumni and Foundation boards have been encouraged to do so as well.

Chancellor Cheng expressed her thanks to the faculty, noting there are over 3,000 students graduating this weekend. She also expressed her thanks to those who attended the town hall meeting, adding her prepared comments are posted on the website. She believes the Q&A was very productive.

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

K. Asner-Self reported the committee met to determine standing committee assignments. She has also received a list of University committees with openings and asked Senators to encourage their colleagues to volunteer. The committee is also working on nominations to the search committee for the University's Chief Information Officer. K. Asner-Self then presented for approval the Standing Committee Assignments (included as Attachment B to the Agenda).

Nominations were approved on a voice vote.

With respect to the concerns raised earlier by J. Allen and K. Anderson, W. Recktenwald suggested the possibility of the Committee on Committees developing something to help make it clear that the Senate expects those people who serve on search committees [or any committee] to keep confidentiality. K. Asner-Self responded that she heard K. Anderson also express the concern about confidentiality within the Committee on Committees and that perhaps that committee could come up with a self-policing policy that would be good now [and into the future]. J. Wall commented that he served on one search committee for a dean, and it was made imminently clear to them the nature of the search and the need for confidentiality of that search. He is not certain [the Committee on Committees] needs to police itself. O. Agrawal was unsure if the issue of [creating a policy] should be discussed in Committee on Committees. His understanding is that the Governance Committee is the one that enacts the policies. He believes any kind of policy or procedure needs to be discussed within Governance Committee.

A. Karnes followed up on J. Wall's comment, noting that when he served on search committees, it was always made clear that confidentiality was expected and required. However, these violations of confidentiality are going on despite those warnings, and there seems to be no penalty for violating. There are some groups that expect it to be violated. He believes there needs to be some statement that makes it clear that the Senate is serious about this issue. A. Karnes agreed with O. Agrawal that the Governance Committee would be the correct committee to look at this issue.

K. Asner-Self believes she is hearing two questions; one is the concern raised by A. Karnes about how to put some bite into a policy, and the other is K. Anderson's comment about making sure the Committee on Committees keeps confidentiality. K. Anderson did not see the two issues as different. He believes the Committee on Committees does have an internal policy of confidentiality, and to his knowledge it has not been violated. He suggested there could be an umbrella policy that could cover the Committee on Committees and every committee to which appointments are made, either by the committee or the Senate as a whole. W. Recktenwald indicated this issue can be handled either through the Committee on Committees or Governance; he will let those two committees make that determination. M. Komarraju mentioned that another aspect [the committees] may want to examine is what to do when a person who is a member on a committee sees things happening that are not appropriate.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL -- None.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- S. Ebbs/S. Graves, Co-Chairs

S. Ebbs reported he and S. Graves will co-chair the committee this year. The committee will have an organizational meeting immediately following the Senate meeting to close out any existing business and handle any new business.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

O. Agrawal reported that G. Spittler was elected to chair the committee.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- L. Brooten/S. Collins, Co-Chairs

S. Collins reported that she and L. Brooten will co-chair the committee.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported he attended the first Executive Council meeting. In the interest of continuity of information, he [expects to] represent the Senate on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee.

OLD BUSINESS

B. Thibeault reported that in the final report of Sanjeev Kumar, the 2010-2011 Senate president, he raised the question of faculty who hold administrative assignments [serving on the Senate]. She believes this is something the Senate should discuss, as there are two sides at which to look; certainly, there are those [in administrative positions] who have something to offer, but at the same time there may be people who feel there is a conflict of interest. J. Allen suggested it may be that the Senate might want to define what leadership role those in administrative posts have on the Senate, e.g., elected officers, chairs of standing committees. He believes this is well worth examination. It is a very important issue S. Kumar raises, and it was an issue that was raised five years ago by then Senate President Rob Benford. S. Ebbs asked how it was resolved then, and what was the mood at the table at that time. K. Anderson noted this is not an issue the Faculty Senate itself can decide; it will require a change to the Senate Operating Paper. D. Carlson recalled that R. Benford raised the issue and that there was an actual motion on the table, which the Senate at that time voted down. O. Agrawal reminded Senators that any changes made to the Operating Paper must first go through the Governance Committee.

NEW BUSINESS

1. J. Allen requested that W. Recktenwald appoint a parliamentarian for the year. W. Recktenwald responded that he will ask for volunteers for that position.

2. I. Altman asked what is or should be the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Association. W. Recktenwald responded that there were some thoughts on that issue 10-12 years ago that the Faculty Association would be involved with issues of salaries and such and that the Senate would deal with other issues. Since that time, another labor organization has been formed, the Non Tenure Track (NTT) Faculty Association. He noted that although there are different groups, they should all be working together for the betterment of the University.

K. Anderson commented that he has heard of a memo being discussed a few times and is sure it is in the Senate archives. He asked if it could be found and a copy made available to Senators. I. Altman wondered whether there should be some more formal interaction between the Faculty Association and the Senate. W. Recktenwald indicated if that were true, then certainly the NTT Faculty Association should also be included. J. Allen believes it might be good to have the Senate review the memo to determine if the language is still appropriate, as well as [address the NTT Faculty Association's role on campus]. Chancellor Cheng expressed agreement and indicated that, in the spirit of a conflict of interest and a clarifying role, the Senate performs a very important function in shared governance, and that is in shared management. The Faculty Association plays a very important role in the negotiation of wages, benefits and working conditions. There is a distinction between the two and yet everyone wants the same thing: a strong and vibrant university. She believes it is important to dust off the document, update it and clarify the roles.

3. W. Recktenwald asked Senators to review the SIU System Consulting Policy, as there is a short deadline for return of feedback. He noted that one question that was asked was whether this policy is replacing a current policy. Chancellor Cheng responded that she was not sure because it was in draft form when she came to campus last year. She believes there was some form of a conflict of interest policy for the system and for the Board of Trustees, but nothing detailed. There were representatives from the Carbondale campus, from Edwardsville and from the President's office who worked over the course of the last year to put the document together. S. Collins noted that she has looked at the document before, and it is somewhat a revision of a current policy, but it is more detailed in that some of those things that were elusive or somewhat intangible have been put into writing. Chancellor Cheng added that it also forms the framework for other policies that are necessary for the campus and to be in compliance with the federal government for funded researchers; it is an umbrella. K. Anderson commented that when he saw the document this afternoon, he understood it to be a document basically related to consulting and some other things. He asked if it is replacing the conflict of interest policy. Chancellor Cheng responded that there was a system-wide conflict of interest policy that was circulated earlier this year; this one is an additional sister policy. B. Thibeault wondered if the Senate could see the old version, with the revisions of the document currently in place. Chancellor Cheng indicated she would have Susan Logue or Jake Baggott send a copy to the Senate office.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. W. Recktenwald reminded Senators that graduation is coming up, and anyone who has not been to a ceremony should attend. It will make them feel good about why they are here.

2. W. Recktenwald reported that over last few weeks, many friends and neighbors have been impacted very negatively by the flooding. He asked everyone to keep in mind that there are different collection places for clothing, food, etc.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
S. Jonathan Wiesen, Secretary

SJW:ba