Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:12 p.m. by William Recktenwald, President.

ROLL CALL

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

Members absent: Rita Cheng (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: David M. Johnson.

Visitors and guests: Carl Bloom (Graduate and Professional Student Council), Lauren Leone (Daily Egyptian), Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on July 12, 2011, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. W. Recktenwald welcomed C. Bloom, President of the Graduate and Professional Student Council. He also welcomed Faculty Senator N. Roberts and proxy T. Koschmann, who drove from Springfield to attend the meeting in person. W. Recktenwald reported: a) Chancellor Cheng was unable to attend the meeting, as she is out of the country; b) he attended the September 8 Board of Trustees meeting in Edwardsville. Following that, he attended an alumni event in Chicago. Responses to the new view book were very favorable; c) he is a member of a task force studying commencement and whether there should be changes made. A report is expected within the next two months; d) many faculty attended the convocation ceremony, which he believes was a very nice event. A. Karnes commented on the commencement study, stating that he would favor consolidating the ceremonies if the University brought in a nationally known speaker.

2. Provost Nicklow reported: a) USA News and World Report, which ranks the top 200 universities in the country, ranked SIU at 170. Last year was the first time SIU made the list, coming in at 183. The University also received a top ranking from Diverse Issues in Higher Education, a magazine that focuses on issues of diversity. SIUC was recognized in 29 undergraduate and 15 graduate categories. The University was also recognized for the third straight year in GI Jobs magazine, which polls 8,000 schools nationwide on being military friendly. The magazine honors the top 20% of colleges, universities and trade schools in the nation that focus on filling the needs of, specifically, military veterans and active duty personnel; b) total enrollment on campus is at 19,817, a decline of 1.1%. On-campus undergraduates are down .8%. Positives are that new first-time undergraduates are at 2,344, an increase of 5.2%. Retention held at 69%. New graduate enrollment is down 10.5%. He believes the message overall is that there are positive signs that the efforts being made at the undergraduate level are working. The expectation is that two or three years of this should turn things around overall; c) the new finance model for distance education will have a portion of the revenue being returned to the colleges. There are 30 courses and 349 students enrolled in distance education courses that follow that model. In the spring, all courses will flow into that model; d) there are two new deans on campus. John Warwick was named dean of the College of Engineering, and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard is now the dean of Liberal Arts. Searches for the associate provost and dean of University College, as well as for the associate provost for academic programs, are underway. The goal is to begin interviews late September/early October and have the positions filled by early October. There has been a large number of applications for the chief information officer (CIO) position, and the hope is to have candidate interviews on campus in October as well. Additionally, there will be three dean searches occurring this year in: College of Applied Sciences and Arts, College of Agricultural Sciences and College of Education and Human Services. An official search for an interim dean will be conducted to have someone in place for the remainder of the year. Concurrent to that search will be the search for a permanent dean; e) there were 134 faculty present for convocation, which was very impressive. He believes the students were in awe of what they were seeing; f) new faculty orientation was held on August 19. There were 18 new faculty welcomed to campus; g) there will be a research grant workshop sponsored by Chancellor Cheng on October 17. Approximately 120 faculty have already RSVP'd. Anyone wanting more information should contact their deans. Also, the third technology and innovation expo is scheduled for October 28 at the Dunn-Richmond Center; h) the University [recently] had its full tenure accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission. One of the stipulations was that a progress report be prepared on the state of the budget, given the state of the University's cash flow and finances. The report was submitted August 15. Feedback on the report was extremely positive, and no further reporting is required; i) there was an announcement about a recent economic impact statement that the Chancellor sponsored; it was completed by Subhash Sharma from the Department of Economics. The report, released on August 29, shows that SIUC contributes approximately $2.3 billion annually to the Illinois economy; j) the campus is transitioning away from Blackboard to Desire2Learn (D2L). Faculty should start to receive information about training sessions. In the spring, the idea is to begin transitioning all current courses into D2L, and everyone on campus will have access, just as with Blackboard. There will be additional tools available, which will give faculty some added capabilities in terms of assessment; k) the University has received approval from the Board of Higher Education to offer a masters of science degree in fire service and homeland security management. This is the only curricular change since the last time the Senate met; l) he requested information from Financial Aid on how much aid was disbursed this fall and what that does, in terms of refunds, to the local economy. The latest figures show that just over $95 million in aid was given this past month and more than $26 million in refunds; m) the last time the Senate met, he mentioned Senate Bill 1883, which focused on reporting requirements of programs that have low enrollment. There were some changes made to the bill, and then it was signed by the Governor. It is now known as Public Act 97610. It requires the University to report annually to the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) any additions or deletions of programs. This kind of reporting has always been required, but now the University has to report programs of low enrollment and high expense ratios--basically, weak programs. The criteria for defining some of these programs have yet to be determined. The IBHE will then put that information in a summary statement and provide it to the General Assembly. His concern is that now there are legislators and politicians looking at academic programs and deciding what needs to go and what needs to stay without fully understanding the academic mission. Simply looking at cost ratios and enrollment does not always tell the whole story. There are programs with low enrollment that have very unique missions and that serve very important roles. He believes it is important to get that message across. As part of the effort to preempt some of this, there is a program review committee that was put together, on which the Senate has representation, to look at developing a rubric for program review. It would likely look at enrollment and retention of programs, graduation rates and other items that are more qualitative in nature, mission oriented, etc. The goal is to develop a rubric and begin looking at programs early. If some weaknesses are identified, then they can be strengthened before some external force takes them out. Parallel to that committee is an academic policy review committee, which will consider academic and administrative policies and efficiencies on campus to make sure they are aligned with student success.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. W. Recktenwald asked Provost Nicklow to address his idea to take control of faculty lines centrally. Provost Nicklow responded that the initiative is being called "strategic realignment." G. Apgar serves on the committee with him, and the group has put together a small committee to evaluate what has been referred to as "position control" across campus. The idea is to pull funds from vacant lines back centrally and then strategize growth based on a level playing field. The way it works now, there are requests from the various colleges, which vary quite a bit in terms of the justification. There is a draft form for realignment and allocating positions that would be have to be submitted. There would be a committee that would look at the logistics, how it would work and who would evaluate the positions. It has to be more than the Provost and Chancellor. The committee would provide a recommendation to the Chancellor on positions. G. Apgar added that this is as far as the committee has gone. He was going to discuss the issue more under Executive Council because that was the main portion of the report. He wants to try to initiate some kind of response from the Senate body as to what the committee should look like, who should serve on it, and how to get a global perspective on the committee so that it is not just programmatically-based. Committee member(s) should take into account the impact and the overall efficiency and efficaciousness of that position.

2. A. Karnes commented that Provost Nicklow deserves a lot of the credit for the job he has done on enrollment, particularly in the current environment in Illinois this year. He noted that the number of high school graduates is down and will be down next year as well.

3. J. Wiesen commented that he shared the new view-book, which he was given at the Executive Council meeting, with other faculty, and they were duly impressed. He believes it has a ripple effect in terms of morale to see these efforts. The Provost might want to consider providing copies to departments and have staff place them where faculty can see them, rather than distributing 800 copies, as he understands that would be cost prohibited. Provost Nicklow responded that the deans were given an allotment of the view books, with the idea that they would be kept in the college. He believes that they were given instead to perspective students, which is fine. He will see about getting more of them out.

4. T. Koschmann asked Provost Nicklow if he had any idea why there was a decline in new student enrollment. Provost Nicklow responded that there are some specific areas undecided that have taken massive losses on the front end; part of that is due to external forces and the perception in education with respect to the job market. He is not sure he can explain the undecided student piece. He and J. Koropchak have been attempting to pull out some of that data to try and determine what is happening. Over the next year, they will be looking at changing some strategies. Much of what is done on the graduate side is very decentralized. He believes there should be that flexibility, but there should also be support centrally because not everyone has someone who can be sent on the road or allocate significant time to go and recruit; so, some level of centralized support is necessary.

5. Q. Ge asked Provost Nicklow if he has found any correlation with the budget cutting [and reductions in undergraduate assistantships]. Provost Nicklow responded that the cuts are very focused in [areas where there is a perception that the market is down]. Some is carryover from the undergraduate level. W. Recktenwald asked if there has been a decline in the funding for GAs and TAs. Provost Nicklow responded that there has not been.

6. B. Rodriguez asked if the University will be closed the Monday and Tuesday of fall break and if staff will have to report. Provost Nicklow responded that staff will have to work on those days.

7. J. Ruiz commented that [some faculty] feel territorial about centralizing positions to the Provost's office. He feels the same way, stating he is unsure the Provost would have a better idea than he does of what is required in his department. Provost Nicklow responded that the approach takes an institutional view of strategic growth rather than college or department level growth. The idea is that the department and college would have to justify the position. What is happening currently is that colleges that are down at all levels and that have a large number of open positions, would prefer to simply fill all the existing positions. On the other hand, there are colleges across campus with no open positions that are bursting at the seams with enrollment, and he does not have the ability to realign funds to support that growth. If the institution is going to grow, it needs to strategically invest funds in programs that are growing and support that demand. J. Ruiz questioned what the consequence would be. Will faculty workloads increase? What will happen if there are no faculty to teach the courses that are required? Provost Nicklow responded that, first of all, he would not be making those decisions; rather, there would have to be a committee. He acknowledged that there will be winners and losers to this; however, if the University is to grow as an institution, it needs to be able to invest in specific locations. He noted also that there is more to the justification than just demand, such as core courses that are important to the mission of the University, accreditation issues, etc. It does not make good financial sense to fill positions because they exist. Other issues the committee is discussing include the implications of implementing [position control] during a hiring freeze, and what [the University] will look like when it is in better fiscal condition and there is no hiring freeze. Provost Nicklow explained that over the last few years, his office has paid much of the contingencies of the colleges. There is approximately 2.5% of the college budget that has to remain in contingency. Most of the colleges are holding less than that, so his office has to come up with the rest out of his budget. Additionally, when an individual retires in a college, his office pays the sick leave and vacation payout. With what is happening in the retirement system, his office last year did not have near enough funds budgeted to cover those payouts, and he expects the amount will grow significantly this year. The colleges retaining funds [from unfilled lines], while his office funds the payouts, results in a massive deficit for the Provost's office that is not sustainable. Rather than permanently taking those positions from the colleges, he would like to centralize it so that if/when there are additional reductions, they would be taken centrally. His office would continue to pay vacation and sick leave payouts centrally. The goal is to hold the colleges harmless and then look strategically at where he can invest in those positions. Provost Nicklow added that they have been looking at models at other universities, noting this is how Edwardsville came out of their fiscal situation about a decade ago.

8. M. Lamb expressed her concern about a comment Jake Baggott (Chancellor's office) made about the large number of retirements being good for the University because it will save a lot of money. Her thought is that people should be hired to replace those that are leaving. She asked Provost Nicklow if he could give some insight as to what the administration is thinking about the hiring freeze, and at [what rate will people who are leaving be replaced]. Provost Nicklow responded that the University is still under a hiring freeze, but hiring has not stopped. They are looking at critical positions, of which there will be more and more. There are accreditation issues involved. The University cannot go without filling positions, but they will need to be ranked in terms of priority (is it critical to that college's mission or to the accreditation of the units involved, etc.). M. Lamb asked in what proportion would he plan to rehire--half? 10%? Provost Nicklow does not believe there is a particular percentage, and he suspects that would vary by college.

9. K. Anderson pointed out that when the issue of centralizing positions was discussed at the last Senate meeting, the Provost reported this was one of several options he was considering. Now, it sounds as if this is the only model being considered. Provost Nicklow responded that they are headed in that direction and are looking at all the details and how it would be implemented. K. Anderson surmised that the Provost is not looking at other models, but only at how and when to implement this one. Provost Nicklow responded that the other models at this point would be looking at whether to implement the centralizing of positions for faculty only or for all positions over the entire University.

M. Kibby expressed concern that the emphasis now is on growth, and budgets will go to departments based on that; however, there are some departments that cannot grow further because they are already at capacity. [She is concerned that these departments will lose funding as a result.] M. Kibby asked if that would be taken into account in the brainstorming. Provost Nicklow responded it has been. No formula has been defined as yet, but there has to be more than just that quantitative metric of growth and enrollment; there is far more to the equation. G. Apgar noted that this discussion points to the immediacy of who will be involved in this committee, which is why he brought the matter to the Senate. He asked Senators to call or email him to give their input. Provost Nicklow commented that it is important because he would like broad representation in order to get the perspectives required to make the appropriate decisions.

J. Kapur asked how the committee is constituted. G. Apgar responded that the original committee's charge was to come up with how to make a committee; so, a subcommittee was formed, with faculty representation) to define that. The Provost charged him with bringing it to the Senate body to insure there was comfort in this setting with how those decisions are made.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. A. Karnes reported the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) to the IBHE has not yet met this fall. However, he gave a general review of the work being done at the Performance Funding Steering Committee, which will meet in Carbondale on October 24.

4. S. Ishman reported the Graduate Council held its first meeting of the semester on September 1. The meeting was mostly organizational, with committee memberships being assigned. There was also brief discussion as to what kinds of issues the committees might discuss through the year.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

W. Recktenwald reported he has been working to schedule a date for the annual fall faculty meeting. He will also attempt to provide some information on the October 24 meeting. A. Karnes mentioned this so that faculty might be able to attend. J. Wiesen commented that A. Karnes will be clarifying a lot in speaking about performance-based funding issues as a theme of the meeting.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported the committee met and discussed identifying and prioritizing a number of potential budget-related discussion items for the future. He asked for and received guidance as to the role of the committee and the procedure for initiating a larger discussion among the full Senate and the introduction of specific resolutions. The committee identified several budget-related issues and initiatives that may directly or indirectly affect University faculty. Some are interrelated and may lead to a larger discussion with other Senate standing committees and the entire Senate. Some of the issues identified are: open faculty lines; faculty-to-student ratios; credit hour formula for marginal tuition and retention revenue distribution; centralization and shared services; fiscal officer of grants shifting from PI to dean/chair; revenue enhancement (i.e.. entrepreneurism); July 2012 retirements; Agility and Efficiency Task Force recommendations (rightsizing); and performance based funding.

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

K. Asner-Self reported the committee was asked to submit nominations for the position of Vice Chancellor for Institutional Advancement. The following names were submitted for consideration: Kavita Karan, Associate Professor, School of Journalism; and Lyle White, Professor, Educational Psychology and Special Education.

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

1. S. Graves presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of the Specializations in the Chemistry Major, College of Science (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). She reported that at the last Senate meeting, the committee brought forth an RME from Science for Chemistry that had two separate proposals; one was a modification to the organization of the specializations; the other increased the number of credit hours for a minor in chemistry. After concerns were expressed [about the increased hours for a chemistry minor], the resolution was returned to committee for further consideration. The committee decided to bring forward the piece dealing with the specializations in the chemistry track and is working on the other as a separate piece. The committee was fine with the realignment of the other specializations.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. S. Graves presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of the Specialization in Wildlife Habitat Management and Conservation in the Forestry Major, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She noted that there were some errors in the catalog copy, which have now been fixed.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. S. Graves reported that in the last Senate year, the committee received a proposal to make a change to the number of required senior institution hours. The proposal is outside of the normal RME process, so the committee needed to determine how this would be handled. What they did was review, vet and review the proposal again. The committee eventually drafted a letter of response to the proposed change. What they would like to do is forward the letter to the Provost; however, they would first like to give the Senate an opportunity to offer comments/suggestions before it is forwarded. S. Graves asked that anyone who has any feedback should email either her or S. Ebbs. W. Recktenwald noted that any feedback received will be appended to the final document that is going forward.

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

S. Collins provided an update on some of the issues that had been raised previously, one being travel funds for faculty to attend presentations, posters, etc. Some colleges are extraordinarily underfunded in this regard. She believes Chancellor Cheng has asked Provost Nicklow to place the issue on the Dean's Council agenda for discussion. [The committee also asked for clarification] on the Provost's response to the off-campus distance education programs. There are negative ramifications [that could result] for some programs that have connections to off campus distance education programs, and the committee asked that [several sections be added?]. However, the Provost has apparently already created a committee to examine the academic quality of some of the off campus academic programs. S. Collins indicated she spoke with J. Allen, who is in charge of the committee but not actually the chair. Provost Nicklow explained that there are two parts to the issue. One is that they will conduct a program review of the off campus military programs similar to how J. Allen coordinates program reviews for on campus units of instruction; however, the review will examine not so much the curricular elements, but the structure, organization, process, financials, etc. A second group that was put together includes the deans, unit directors and some of the distance education people, who will discuss the quality of the off campus programs relative to those on campus. He is currently leading the committee, as there is no chair. What they would like to do is link these two processes together, at which time it will likely become a broader committee. They can point to quality issues where off campus programs are significantly different than what is being done on campus. Some of those off campus programs are accredited based on what is being done on campus.

J. Wiesen commented on the issue of research and travel money, which is a huge issue for many faculty. He believes the way the Provost has discussed the issue with regard to tenure and promotion is all significant; however, faculty are, themselves, paying thousands of dollars a year to keep active in their respective fields. It is effectively a pay cut. He realizes that issues of pay belong in other venues, but wondered whether this has come up in the Provost's deliberations. S. Collins responded that it has not, and that is a perfect statement to make. It was mentioned in Executive Council that by the time faculty pay for those things they are required to do, they actually are paying quite a bit to work at SIU. Provost Nicklow commented that one of the issues he would like to address in Dean's Council is the disparity between colleges. He was surprised to learn how little some colleges have, while there are other colleges that [use] 10 times as much, at least.

S. Collins raised another issue that relates to off campus online instruction. It was mentioned that the College of Business has [an online program] that works quite well for them. She would like to use them as a model for her college (Applied Sciences and Arts). She asks that the administration be very cautious about how they prepare online off campus programs because some of them are widely different, as opposed to how Business is set up. For example, her understanding is that almost 70% of the revenue generated from their online classes goes directly back to the program for its online off campus program. This does not happen in her college. There is also a significant difference in the way their online classes [are delivered], as some are on military bases and some are not. Provost Nicklow responded that the 70% rule will apply to all distance education courses beginning in the spring. Military sites are the only exception on campus, and that is because of the federal cap on the whole (program delivery charge, tuition, etc.). It will not help her college, but that is why they are moving things over. The military will get a special review.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported the committee is scheduling a meeting for next week. Topics for discussion include: 1) voting privileges, i.e., who can and cannot vote. The problem is that there are a few people who hold faculty appointments, but not within a degree-granting unit. This has raised the issue of whether the committee should at least clarify, if not redefine, the current definition of what constitutes faculty membership; and 2) whether faculty who share administrative appointments should be allowed to sit on the Senate. One argument is that they would represent the viewpoint of the administration; on the other hand, most of these are senior faculty who could contribute very valuable viewpoints to the Senate's deliberations. G. Spittler reported that another issue raised related to faculty voting privileges. This was brought to the Senate's attention last semester, and the committee received some very valuable feedback for consideration.

OLD BUSINESS

L. Brooten reported that [the Executive Council raised the issue] of adding a link to the library to the SIUC homepage.

NEW BUSINESS

B. Rodriguez asked if the Senate will have an October meeting. W. Recktenwald responded that the meeting is scheduled for the third Tuesday (October 18).

ANNOUNCEMENTS

B. Thibeault commented that the open house postcard [sent to prospective students] is very well done.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
S. Jonathan Wiesen, Secretary

SJW:ba