Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

[as corrected]

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by William Recktenwald, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Tsuchin Chu, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, Stephanie Graves, David M. Johnson, Usha Lakshmanan (for Meera Komarraju), Mary E. Lamb, John T. Legier, Douglas W. Lind, Diane Muzio, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), William Recktenwald, Nicole K. Roberts, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Thomas Shaw (for Sandra K. Collins), Rob Spahr (for Jyotsna Kapur), Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Yu-Wei Wang (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), S. Jonathan Wiesen.

Members absent: Rita Cheng (ex officio), Scott Ishman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Om P. Agrawal, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, James E. Garvey, Qingfeng Ge, Allan L. Karnes, James A. MacLean, Marla H. Mallette.

Visitors and guests: Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), Tom Britton (Law), Karla Rankin (Budget Office), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), James Smith (Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor), Peggy Stockdale (Psychology).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on March 20, 2012, were corrected under the first paragraph of the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee to clarify that the motion made was to waive the five-day rule. Also, the comment attributed to L. Brooten under the second portion of the Question and Answer Session was corrected to read that it is her department's travel budget for tenured faculty (not the college's) that was cut from $1000 to $350. The minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. W. Recktenwald reported: a) the legislation to do away with the 50% tuition waiver failed by a large margin in the House; b) he attended the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee meeting in the absence of G. Apgar. He noted the possibility of some dire cuts, especially if the legislature puts more of the pension expenses on universities; c) Chancellor Cheng is attending the IBHE meeting and will not be in attendance this afternoon.

2. Provost Nicklow reported: a) freshman admissions are currently up 5.5%, and registered students are up 20%. Graduate applications are up 8.5%, but admissions are down 12.5%. He has been discussing with the Graduate Council and graduate dean what can be done to increase and speed up admissions; b) Katherine Suski has been appointed as the director of Admissions. Additionally, the searches for dean of Agricultural Sciences and interim dean of Science are in the decision-making phase. The first two candidates for ASA dean will be on campus today and tomorrow, with the third candidate following shortly after. The colleges of Mass Communication and Media Arts and Education and Human Services and the dean of the library will closely follow; c) he is in the final stages of assembling the Position Request Review Committee. The Senate has nominated six individuals, three of whom are members of the Senate, and three are from the faculty at large. At this point, he is connecting with those individuals to confirm that they will serve. He will send W. Recktenwald a note so he can announce to the Senate who has been selected; d) the Program Review Task Force chaired by A. Karnes and T. Winters (Agricultural Sciences) has incorporated the suggestions/comments/feedback received from the campus, the Senate, Dean's Council and Graduate Council. A final document has been drafted, and he and Chancellor Cheng are going through it, with the hope of releasing the final implementation plan within the month; e) next week is Research Week. There will be an undergraduate research forum on April 16, and April 17 is the research town hall meeting. The Authors Day event will be on April 18.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. K. Anderson asked about the status of searches for the Materials Technology Center (MTC) and the Coal Research Center (CRC). Provost Nicklow responded that the interviewees for the MTC search are on campus currently. J. Baggott added that the Board of Trustees is expected to approve the CRC director [in May].

2. J. Wiesen commented that Provost Nicklow has impressed upon the faculty the importance of making calls to accepted students in order to have that personal touch and possibly make a difference in whether or not they attend SIU. He has attempted to pursue this issue with his undergraduate director using the program the Provost mentioned, Hobson's. However, the undergraduate director had never heard of the program, which means there is a breakdown in communications. J. Wiesen wondered if the Provost could get the word out that down at the department level, there is not the knowledge of this program. Provost Nicklow responded that there has been training at the college level, and everyone [in the colleges] were invited to attend. He indicated that if he is sent the name of an individual who would like to participate, he will make sure that happens.

3. D. Johnson asked about the status of the program review process and what is the next step. His impression in the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee (UEPC) was that there is not an understanding of the process and of how it is going to work. He believes it is difficult to give meaningful feedback [on much of it] because the process has not been spelled out very clearly in terms of what is going to happen. He asked if there would still be consultation because he would find it troubling if not. Provost Nicklow responded that he had not heard that concern. The group that [collected and reviewed] the comments--S. Ebbs, A. Karnes, J. Allen and T. Winters--worked to revise the document and incorporated all those suggestions and comments that could be incorporated. At this point, the revised document is under review, and no further comments will be solicited. He believes the group did a very good job--as reflected in the number of comments they received--and the feedback they received was good. S. Ebbs agreed, adding that, as one of the first units to be reviewed, he believes the comments received and the procedure that was spelled out very clearly [allowed them] to address a lot of issues about ambiguity. There were heated discussions about how to make sure the information was transparent He believes there are plenty of other elements that make sure the document represents a proactive process to protect programs rather than being a budget cutting exercise. He believes that when faculty see the document, they will see the sentiment that was voiced several times in terms of a nurturing, protective environment in the process. Provost Nicklow added that they want to be clear that as the process is implemented, comments will be invited to make certain the process is working the way it was intended. He asked that any comments/suggestions anyone has as they go through first cycle be shared with [him].

4. B. Rodriguez reported that he was approached by some constituents who are concerned about the large number of A/P staff who will be retiring at the end of June, specifically in the Graduate School office. They were wondering if those six or seven individuals will be replaced in a timely fashion. Provost Nicklow responded that this issue was discussed at length in Graduate Council. Vice Chancellor Koropchak is working on a plan to potentially reorganize the Graduate School based on function.

M. Lamb asked Provost Nicklow if he had a sense of how many faculty are retiring and how many of those he intends to replace. Provost Nicklow responded that there are 40 faculty searches going on this year. The Position Request Review Committee is now in place, and the deans have submitted hiring plans for tenure/tenure track faculty that were due Aprii 1; he is reviewing those and will present his hiring plan to the Chancellor. There is still much uncertainty about the state budget and the number of retirees there will be. They are looking at what they have in terms of signed, irrevocable forms of resignation and retirement; yet, there are a lot of rumors and a lot of people on the fence. Those who are seriously thinking about retiring may think more seriously about it come April 17 when the legislature shares its report on pension system reform. Provost Nicklow believes there will be many late year and last minute retirements. He cannot know how many retirements there will be until those forms are signed and processed into the system. [The deans] will have to work hard to prioritize, and the Position Request Review Committee will have to look at priority needs based on a number of parameters discussed early on. M. Lamb asked how many irrevocable forms have been signed. Provost Nicklow responded that retirements have already exceeded projections, and the numbers are across all classifications.

5. W. Recktenwald returned to the program review questions, noting that after the discussion at the faculty meeting, S. Ebbs and S. Graves had asked for written comments from members of the Senate. He asked if those were forwarded with the committee's response. S. Ebbs responded that there were no comments from Senators.

6. D. Johnson asked if there was something that could be done to ask people not to retire. Provost Nicklow responded that Human Resources has been encouraged to provide as much information as possible to potential retirees about their benefits. He believes many people may believe they are losing something when, in fact, they have many more years of earnings. There may be some people retiring without having thought through what they are going to do. It is not a decision to take lightly, but employees are encouraged to talk with Human Resources so those sentiments can go into the retirement discussion. M. Lamb asked what will happen in August when classes are not covered; is there a backup plan? Provost Nicklow responded that his plan is to talk with the deans and attempt to determine, based on rumor, where emergency NTT hires might be needed and where demands need to be met; then, the tenure/tenure track hires will be prioritized. The backup plan is to understand where these gaps will occur and then expedite NTT searches to fill them.

B. Thibeault asked if consideration would be given to current NTTs who are working [in departments where there may be a shortage of tenure/tenure track faculty as a result of retirements]. Provost Nicklow responded that he made that comment to the deans; obviously, it would depend on disciplinary area and expertise, but yes, consideration would be given.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. P. Stockdale and T. Britton distributed an outline of the strategic plan in process that will allow them to see what they were thinking, what want to discuss. She discussed the process of how they got to where they are and also trying to collect feedback from a variety of groups. The draft that was posted was the January version and have had feedback since then but will not be incorporated yes because is in the gathering stages.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL -- No report.

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

S. Graves presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Chemistry Honors Description, College of Science (included as an Attachment to the Agenda). K. Anderson suggested the word "minimal" in the second Whereas be corrected to "minimum."

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

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported the committee is continuing to examine the Operating Paper in order to address the issue of who can and cannot vote and/or serve on the Senate. In going through the current rules, the committee has found a number of contradictions imbedded in the document; so, they are less and less clear on exactly what it does say. For right now, they are looking for more data as to who is affected and what specific units of the faculty are affected by the lack of representation and why. Since the end of the semester is near, this issue will likely be carried over to the next Senate term.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee continues to watch the pension legislation. As the Provost mentioned, more on that will be known after April 17. On an editorial note, J. Wall believes it is time that the Senate becomes more proactive on the budget. There are a number of impending issues that are of concern.

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

L. Brooten reported that approximately 70 faculty have responded to the survey sent out by the committee. A reminder will be sent out again with an extended deadline of April 20. She asked Senators to encourage their colleagues to take the time to respond to the survey. The committee has some good data to start with, but more responses are needed. W. Recktenwald commented that he has been hearing concerns about the anonymity of the survey because some of the questions, such as asking for job titles, length of time, departments, etc. [could act as identifiers]. L. Brooten responded that the department question is optional, and most of the 70 who responded did not indicate a college; so, people are doing what they want, anyway. W. Recktenwald indicated that one person he talked with could not send in the survey until s/he typed something in the blank. L. Brooten suggested anyone having problems with submitting the survey should contact her or JP Dunn (SIU Online Administrator).

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

W. Recktenwald reported that the first meeting of the 2012-13 Senate takes place on April 24, and officers for the new year will be elected. Anyone interested in one of the offices should send a short bio to the Senate office.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
S. Jonathan Wiesen, Secretary

SJW:ba