Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

[as corrected]

Meeting convened at 1:08 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, George E. Boulukos, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Terry Clark, Bruce A. DeVantier, Mark J. Dolan, Anthony T. Fleege, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Holly S. Hurlburt, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Allan L. Karnes (ex officio), Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, Matthew McCarroll (for Qingfeng Ge), John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Nicole K. Roberts, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Yu-Wei Wang (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), Rachel B. Whaley, Terri S. Wilson, Natasha Zaretsky (for S. Jonathan Wiesen).

Members absent without proxy: Ira J. Altman, Jyotsna Kapur, John T. Legier, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, Diane Muzio, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Belle S. Woodward, Mingqing Xiao.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs).

MINUTES

K. Anderson noted some typos in the minutes from the meeting on May 8, 2012. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju welcomed Senators, stating she is looking forward to getting to know everyone as the year progresses. She reported she attended the May 10 Board of Trustees meeting and plans to attend the July 12 Board meeting in Springfield. She also attended a Chancellor's Executive Committee meeting and two Faculty Senate Executive Council meetings. With respect to the Board meeting, she reported: a) student fees were increased 4.8%; b) it is expected that there will be a 6.14% decrease in state funding; c) there was discussion emphasizing the diverseness of the student body. One Trustee lauded SIU's s diverse student body and wants hard data on student success, performance, and retention. The Trustee also wished to know what resources are provided to improve student success; d) Edwardsville presented on how its Faculty Senate and Provost worked collaboratively to develop an academic quality improvement program. The collaboration focused on improving student engagement and curriculum. Faculty and Deans were polled to determine how student teaching evaluations were used. The collaboration has increased student engagement while improving curriculum and teaching. M. Komarraju suggested this might be something this Senate could think about doing; and e) there was discussion about some of the construction and relocating that is happening on campus, such as the School of Social Work moving into Pulliam Hall and the School of Art and Design moving to Quigley Hall. It was noted that there have been complaints from the community about no longer having access to the pool in Pulliam. The response was that there are plans to build a new open air public swimming pool in Carbondale; additionally, the Student Recreation Center will attempt to be more accommodating of the public so they will not feel that much of a loss.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) there were 331 retirements from the Carbondale campus and 104 retirements from the School of Medicine in Springfield. These were not all at the end of June, but through the entire 2012 fiscal year. The number is at least double what it was last year for both campuses. Close to $7 million was paid out to the retirees. This represents a one-time cash payment accumulated by holding positions open and planning ahead. The University continues to operate with many open positions and will continue to consolidate, reorganize and share across the campus in order to cope with less staffing. There are 41 new faculty who have either accepted offers or have offers pending. This is twice as many as were hired last year. Because of the number of retirements this year, there was concern about making sure the highest priority hiring continued to move forward; b) the budget was projected to be flat; however, there was a 6.14% decline in state appropriations, and the University is self-financing its own modest pay increases. The 1% that was implemented in January was not budgeted, so it will need to be budgeted for this year. The combination of self-financing salary dollars and the utility and maintenance costs on new buildings that are coming online, such as the Transportation Education Center, means the campus will be looking at a minimum of a $7.5 million reduction; c) overall enrollment is expected to be down from the previous year, although new student enrollment continues to grow. It will be one to two years before the [smaller] junior/senior classes move out of the queue and the stronger, larger classes begin, which puts more pressure on the budget. However, 80% of all budget cuts will be taken from open positions swept by the Provost. Since 80% of the budget is personnel, the Chancellor has asked the deans and directors to come up with budget cuts of between 1-3%. There is not enough salary to handle everything at the central level, so some adjustments will be made. Deans reported that cuts have been mostly in OTS budgets, primarily travel. In addition, 14 individuals' appointments were reduced, while both tenure track and non tenure track continues; d) plans are underway to kick off the new year. The Chancellor asked everyone to attend the New Student Convocation. The Saluki Startup events will be important, and additional student orientations have been added in response to increased interest in SIU; e) the Board of Trustees will meet July 12. There are a number of construction projects that will be on the agenda for the Carbondale campus. The $30 million being borrowed will jumpstart the deferred maintenance on campus and will be paid back with the facilities maintenance fee. Outside of that will be classroom upgrades, both physical and in technology, including to some high priority teaching and research labs that have been identified.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. G. Boulukos asked Chancellor Cheng if she had the figures on how many faculty have retired. Chancellor Cheng responded that there were approximately 75-77 faculty who retired. There are 41 new faculty coming in, so it will be an overall decrease. She noted that in the previous year, only about half were replaced.

2. D. Johnson commented that the Chancellor [asked for cuts from between 1-3%] from among the colleges. He asked if that range [has been decided on yet] or would it vary between one college, one unit [and the others?]. Chancellor Cheng responded that the 1% is what is needed for the state appropriations cut; the additional 2% is what is expected based on enrollment projections. All units are planning for 3%. If there is enrollment growth, then there will be a release of some dollars [at the Provost level] for hiring faculty.

3. M. McCarroll asked for clarification on the faculty hires the Chancellor mentioned based on increased enrollment. He asked if that is campus-wide or by college. For example, if a particular college has increased enrollment, would that turn into increased hiring? Chancellor Cheng responded it would. They are currently in the very early stages of planning and have been telling the deans that hiring will be across the board; however, it cannot be across the board. An analysis will need to be done on where the enrollment growth is, and adjustments will need to be made. That information will not be available until fall.

4. H. Hurlburt asked Chancellor Cheng to walk her through the decision-making process that led to the non tenure track (NTT) faculty layoffs. Chancellor Cheng responded that the Deans requested the discussion as part of their budget adjustments. The Deans have been discussing options since the early part of the summer. The Provost's office reminded the deans that if they were going to have any adjustments in staffing for fall, the new NTTFA contract required a 60-day notice to the union and a 45- day notice to employees. These decisions were made at the deans' level, and recommendations were forwarded to the Provost.

J. Wall asked if the Chancellor had any indication from Springfield regarding the Early Childhood Program. Chancellor Cheng responded [the grant for the program] has been renewed for quite some time. There was some concern that other grants have not been renewed, and there were also questions about the effectiveness of the Early Childhood Program. Funding has been confirmed by the federal government for Head Start, but confirmation from the state has not yet been received. The University had no choice with early childhood; it is a program that is 100% grant-funded and not something that could be absorbed at the institutional level. Most individuals who are on grants are on term appointments. [Those faculty in question] were on continuing appointments.

5. T. Clark asked if there were any units on campus that were disproportionately hit by civil service retirements. Chancellor Cheng responded that just as units have been hit disproportionately with faculty retirements, so have they been hit disproportionately by staff retirements, whether A/P or civil service. There has been no discussion about layoffs for civil service because there are reorganizations taking place, and individuals are being reassigned to different units. Where there is a unit that has been hit particularly hard, there have been discussions about how individuals can be reassigned to help. Hiring is being done in very limited capacities.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) he is getting weekly reports on enrollment projections, with applications up about a half a percent. Admissions this week are up 13%, and registered students are up about half a percent. At last check, SIUC continues to be ahead of almost all other Illinois public institutions in new student registrations. They have actually had to add one more student orientation and are debating on whether to add another. This information is being taken back to counselors and teachers across the state because that is impactful. Transfers are down, and that tracks directly with community college enrollment. Smaller high school populations means smaller community college enrollments, and this poses another challenge that must be overcome. Off campus enrollment numbers are currently at 65% for fall. Graduate and Law School admissions are weak, and work continues in those areas. The Graduate School is up about 2.5% in admissions, but those students need to get registered. Yield campaigns for all students have been done at multiple levels, but he would still like to have more faculty involvement in that activity. He believes having a faculty expert in a particular field call an 18-19 year old student and make that connection will get those students off the fence; b) he met with the new CIO, David Crain, to discuss IT developments. The plan is to eliminate the old VPN and create a fully wireless campus starting over the next six to nine months and concluding in approximately two years. Other initiatives include having an active directory and a single sign-on so people can access their data from any machine on campus. D. Crain also did a consolidated buy of computing equipment in June, saving nearly $300,000. Banner equipment is to be updated and replaced as needed. A disaster recovery plan is in the works, as well. In many cases, IT reserves are being used, so many of the changes he is making cost the University no additional funds; c) in the spring, a group was formed to draft a report on the campus-wide instructor course evaluation (ICE) forms--what they should look like, whether these could be online, etc. The committee came up with a series of recommendations, and an implementation team will take some of those and begin moving forward on them; and d) part of the Program Changes Review Committee, which shared its report last year, has started to implement the protocol for program changes review. The report also recommended there be a complimentary task force. The Provost intends to appoint that committee in the Fall. Said task force will study a series of issues, including redundancies on campus within the curriculum; how to be more efficient across various disciplines and curriculum; and the efficacy of the 5/10/15 rule.

Chancellor Cheng encouraged faculty to meet the CIO, D. Crain, particularly researchers and those who are interested in technology in the classroom. She also asked that faculty who note any students who cannot register because they owe the University more than $500 should direct them to the Financial Aid office. The counselors there will be able to help students problem-solve through that issue.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

6. With respect to the new CIO's initiatives, M. Kibby asked about shareware to allow researchers to pull data [from backup storage]. Chancellor Cheng responded that having a Cloud for the campus is one of D. Crain's priorities and is on his to-do list for this year. Provost Nicklow added that D. Crain is looking to build a theme across campus of high performance computing, with high level researchers who would collaborate and acquire grant money for that effort. B. DeVantier asked if the current [VPN] will stay in place for off campus connections. Chancellor Cheng responded that it may not be the same configuration, but there will definitely be opportunity for remote access.

7. D. Johnson asked if there is any definite figure for how many students the University expects to be down because of smaller class sizes [from 2009-2010]. Chancellor Cheng responded there was a decline of 225 in 2009 and then another 100+ in 2010. In 2011-2012, there have been up-ticks, but not enough to make up for those big declines. It is difficult to get people to understand that retention is not the reason for the low enrollment because those students were never here.

D. Johnson asked if there has been a change in the 5/10/15 rule. He has heard it is going to be aggressively enforced. Provost Nicklow responded that there has been no change in policy. There are a number of areas on campus that have not enforced the rule. He is working with deans to make sure close attention is being paid; and if there is an exemption, there needs to be a good reason (e.g., it is a required course; the students are graduating). It has become very clear in looking at previous semesters that there have been classes filled that were dramatically under-enrolled. This makes no sense at a time of revenue shortfalls.

8. K. Asner-Self asked Provost Nicklow if there has been any more discussion on how he and the advisory committee are going to consider allocating faculty hires. Provost Nicklow responded that the advisory committee of five individuals is now reviewing the position request forms for tenure and tenure track hires. So far, the process is working very well. The committee does take a good look at the hiring plan of the college, and his hiring plan, and then their recommendations are sent to the Chancellor. In most cases, there has been agreement. The process has begun for putting through hires for next year. Many of the requests from last year for tenure/tenure track hires [are] going into the fall.

K. Asner-Self indicated she would like to know where the Provost is with those colleges he mentioned last month [as having been given a "carrot"]. Provost Nicklow responded that the carrot was that there was some extra priority consideration given to those colleges that would incur administrative savings. Those savings would be plowed back into the colleges for hires, and they would receive some priority consideration in the review process. At the time, Engineering, Business and Liberal Arts moved to a model that had 10 or 11 month chair positions. This is not to say those chairs could not have 12 month appointments; it was just that [month 12] would be on soft money or other money. Since the last Senate meeting, the College of Agricultural Sciences has moved to that model; so, at least half the campus is already there. Incurring a significant amount of administrative savings will allow the University, given what is happening with the budget reduction and the central salary reserve, to plow that back into faculty lines. Only the faculty from those four colleges will receive that priority consideration. This does not mean that hires from other colleges will not be made; they will just not receive the same kind of consideration.

K. Asner-Self commented that there has also been talk on campus about consolidating colleges. Provost Nicklow responded that it has crossed his mind, but he has had no discussions about doing so. There are some possibilities there, and some make sense, but some do not. In his conversations with leaderships at other institutions who have done this, it often does not save much if it is not very systematically laid out as to what the outcomes would be.

K. Anderson mentioned the rumor that the College of Science could be broken up and split between Agriculture and Engineering. He believes it would be very helpful for the morale in Science if the Provost could put that rumor to rest. Provost Nicklow responded that he has not had that discussion and has no intention of breaking up the College of Science.

9. J. Wall commented that one of the perplexing things to him in view of the retirements and the amount of strategic planning that has been done is the notion of hiring additional NTT faculty to "bridge" the gap. He found this somewhat puzzling to see layoffs when he personally was gearing up for an influx. Chancellor Cheng responded that five Math NTTs have been hired; however, not every program will have the same impact from the retirements or from the 41 new faculty coming in or from people who have been on the staff a long time and are staying. There are 14 individuals out of about 1,200 instructional staff who will be affected. Provost Nicklow added that, based on the contract requirement, if there was any layoff under consideration, the administration needed to make the notification. J. Wall noted the notification requirement [increased from zero] with the new contract.

10. M. Komarraju asked what faculty can do to help with getting admitted students enrolled. She commented that last summer at about this time, her department received a list of students who had been admitted, but had not registered. They were asked to make five or six phone calls across the summer and then provide feedback to the college. She has not seen such an effort this year and wondered if this is something with which faculty can still help. Provost Nicklow responded that this issue was raised previously, and he did bring lists that M. Komarraju may want to distribute [to Senators]. One list is prospective students who have not yet enrolled, although he believes the Admissions office is currently contacting those students. That office has not had much contact with non-enrolled students at this point, and they are starting to slide off. The biggest concern at this time is "melt," which means the student is admitted, enrolled or registered, but is not going to come. There are always a large number of those students who do not come. The goal is to make sure every student who is enrolled stays enrolled, and every student who is admitted and is interested in SIUC finds a way to get here. The information he is providing lists students by college, and he can provide other data for non-enrolled students. He reiterated that nothing makes an impact like a faculty member with common interests talking about those interests with students. Provost Nicklow gave the list to M. Komarraju to distribute however she wanted. He noted that the deans and chairs already have this information, and many are making calls, though some are not at the level needed. He added that faculty have a significant role to play; enrollment is the beginning of the solution to the [budget] problem.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. A. Karnes provided his report on the July meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). Chancellor Cheng noted that she nominated Terri Harfst, Director of Financial Aid, to the task force being convened to study criteria for student and institution eligibility.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

T. Clark reported there were two issues that were discussed at length at the last Executive Council meeting. One was the Tuition on Federal Grants Policy, which the Council believed was a matter best suited to the Graduate Council (because most grants relate to graduate research). B. Bartholomew disagreed, believing it was not an issue reserved to the Graduate Council. K. Anderson indicated the Executive Council was not deferring entirely to the Graduate Council, but suggested that group take the lead because it primarily affects them. T. Clark reported the second issue discussed was the fall faculty meeting. Topics for the meeting ranged from the future of universities to online education. The Council decided on a broad-ranging examination of the nature, direction and trajectory of online education, as well as a discussion on models that do and do not work. A suggestion was made to bring in a speaker who is well qualified to address these issues. M. Komarraju added that the faculty meeting will take place some-time in mid October. She would like to present a balanced, thoughtful and critical approach to online education so that people who are already for it can get more ideas; those in opposition could begin thinking about it a little more critically. M. Komarraju asked that anyone with ideas for speakers should let her know. T. Clark indicated that the Executive Council discussed inviting people who have crashed ahead into the future of online education and enlighten faculty rather than rehash or reinvent the wheel. M. Komarraju mentioned that they want the presentation to be something that could be applicable to SIU and its faculty and students rather than something that is more idealistic.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

M. Komarraju reported there are two vacancies on the Judicial Review Board (JRB) for terms ending in December 2012. There were three candidates that were the top nominees in their respective colleges in the previous JRB election and who were vetted by that year's Executive Council and Committee on Committees. The three agreed to serve, if elected. A paper ballot was distributed to Senators and then counted. The following individuals were elected to serve: Kevin Wise, Education and Human Services; and Andrew Wood, Science.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- No report.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported that he hopes to have a meeting of the committee early in the fall semester. He also reported that the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee has been active throughout the year. Both he and T. Clark are the Senate's representatives on that committee. Issues that have been discussed include: a) the status of pension reform, particularly the budget implications down the road. All indications are that this obligation will push into 2014, but will not affect the current year's budget. If obligations come up, they will have to be dealt with before FY2014 in terms of payouts; b) the 2013 Budget and Planning Document; c) in-process academic program reviews; d) Information Technology; and e) the overall strategic plan. The committee has been asked to determine how to create metrics quantifying final strategic plan goals and objectives--how those are measured; do they make sense; and are they achievable in terms of what is available in the budget.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- No report.

1. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval to Change the Name of the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education to the Department of Counseling, Quantitative Methods, and Special Education in the College of Education and Human Services (included as Attachment B to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Elimination of the School Health Specialization in the Department of Health Education and Recreation, College of Education and Human Services (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the 2012-2013 Internal and External Program Reviewers (included as Attachment D to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved, with one abstention, on a voice vote.

4. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the New Specialization in Radiology Education/Management in the School of Allied Health, College of Applied Sciences and Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). He offered two friendly amendments to the first Whereas so that it read, "Whereas there is a demand among entry-level radiologic science/imaging professionals and holders of non-baccalaureate credentials in radiologic sciences/imaging technology for further education; and...." D. Johnson explained that this is a program that allows Radiological Sciences to offer degrees to students without having to place them in clinical internships. A. Karnes asked if the committee sought concurrences from the College of Business or the Department of Management [since the term "management" is used]. D. Johnson responded that, to the best of his knowledge, neither were contacted. A. Fleege indicated he is the representative from the School of Allied Health, in which Radiological Sciences resides. He explained that these are classes for students coming out of community colleges with their x-ray degree. They are not exactly management people, but are managers in a health care setting. The program director for Radiological Sciences has stated that there is a difference between a regular manager and someone who is an x-ray tech who wants to move up through the ranks in a hospital setting versus a business setting. A. Fleege pointed out that they are different; it is a health care management degree versus a basic management degree. The specialization is for those who went through a community college and received an associate's degree; or, it is for those who went through the program several years ago, have an associate's degree and are already in those positions, but want a bachelor's degree to move up. The course would be taken through continuing education so those individuals would not have to leave their positions. A. Karnes suggested that an opportunity was missed to offer stronger programs. He believes there are certain basic business skills that students need, and the College of Business offers those on an online basis. [D. Johnson] pointed out that there is already a department called Health Care Management, so to him that bridge has already been crossed. A. Fleege agreed, adding that some of the classes for these professionals will be taught by the Health Care Management faculty. Working in a health care setting is different than working in a business setting because in a health care setting, much of the funding comes from government grants, and some of the services are free. It is not like working in a corporation where someone can be fired for not meeting an expected profit margin.

J. Wall believes there is a larger discussion here, and he concurs with some parts, but not with others. He questioned why there was no objection to the prior resolution from Educational Psychology to use the words "quantitative methods" because all faculty teach quantitative methods. [If it is the language that is the objection], then perhaps that deserves further discussion; however, he would hate to quell the movement on this particular issue just for that reason at this point. B. DeVantier indicated that part of the discussion that came up in the committee meeting had to do with the fact that name changes are primarily for marketing purposes to let students know more clearly what is available to them. That is not really curricular in nature.

K. Anderson commented on the word "most" in the third Whereas, asking from where the remaining funding would come and how the specialization would be sustained if it does not have full funding. D. Johnson responded that he did ask the Radiology Department if they have faculty who are interested in teaching the courses on an overload basis at the start. They have identified individuals who would teach a couple of additional courses to begin with. K. Anderson indicated that as far as he can tell, the Senate is being asked to approve something that is not fully funded. J. Allen responded that all colleges are aware that any changes to degree programs and the creation of new degree programs must be budget neutral; that is to say, that they have found the money to offer them without asking the Provost or Chancellor for additional funds by reassigning loads in such a way that the program students' needs are addressed in a budget neutral manner. K. Anderson asked if that means, then, that the specialization is budget neutral. J. Allen responded he believes that is what he was assured. He added that he also deals with concurrences. It is a judgement call on his part, and he takes responsibility for deciding who to contact about where a program might in fact affect such things as expertise, accreditation and administrative oversight. With a term like "management," which is broadly used in many degree programs, he did not feel concurrence was needed.

T. Clark commented that it has been a longstanding beef within the College of Business that a number of these courses and courses like them are taught with textbooks used by the College of Business and frequently using its PhD students. Although he would not disagree that the terms management, marketing, etc., are used in a general sense, he believes in this case it is used in a rather particular sense. He believes it makes more sense for these students to get their technical training from [Radiology] and get a business minor from Business, which is their area of expertise. A. Fleege responded that some students do; however, this is a bachelor's degree that the associate degree students are completing. It would take them a lot longer to do that if they got their associate's degree in Radiological Sciences and then did 18-20 hours to get a minor. They would still have an associate's degree. T. Clark questioned why [Business] textbooks and PhD students are being used if it is so specific to radiology. He would contend it is not. A. Fleege responded that his understanding from the program director of Radiological Technology is that these students are practitioners in the health care setting who have learned how to do x-rays and imaging. They now want to move up in their careers, and the Health Care Management degree is for those specifically working in a health care setting. He agreed that they do get a general business background for that, but these are students learning health care economics and health care marketing. It is a specific population and not the whole country.

A. Karnes believes if the scientists teach science and business teaches business, etc., then everyone is better off. By working with each other across colleges, it seems like programs could be designed that would benefit students. Provost Nicklow commented that the interdisciplinary approach is obviously more efficient. He hopes that this will be part of the task force discussion that he mentioned earlier and that this is something they will examine. He wondered aloud if it is necessary to have a degree program in every application when there could be significant overlap?

M. Komarraju questioned whether someone with a degree in Health Care Management would have a better chance at getting a job in that field than someone with a general bachelor's degree in business. The same could apply to sports management; would someone with an MBA be preferred or someone with a master's in sports management. This could set up how to make the argument that this is more specific to specific kinds of jobs. A. Fleege added that if it was just business specific, why is there a Health Care Management degree in the college? Chancellor Cheng believes the stronger degree would be one that has the core concepts taught by the business school and the technical taught by the technical department, along with experiences and capstone courses that integrate the learning. That kind of collaborative model can be found at many institutions. One con for people who graduate with a Health Care Management degree may be that they are not automatically ready for an MBA. They cannot adapt themselves in a graduate program, and so what is the institution preparing them for? She believes there is an opportunity to examine ways to better collaborate.

A. Karnes suggested the Senate postpone action on the resolution to give Business an opportunity to review the program to see if they might be interested in making any kind of contribution. If not, then the issue can be brought back to the Senate for action. T. Clark moved to table the resolution; seconded by K. Anderson. D. Johnson believes the question is much larger than just this one program. Rather, the issue seems to be whether there should be a health care management umbrella at all for all these programs. He is unsure whether this is the correct way to address the issue. B. DeVantier asked if there are any significant repercussions to tabling the matter. A. Fleege responded that he would have to talk with the program director, but he assumes the specialization would not be implemented as soon as the program would like. He believes they were looking to implement for either fall or spring. If this is postponed until September, then implementation would be bumped back at least until spring or fall of 2013.

Motion to table failed 8-13-0 on a show of hands vote.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 16-1-5 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 2]

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- H. Hurlburt/J. Kapur, Co-Chairs

H. Hurlburt reported that she has received no feedback from Senators on the instructor course evaluation (ICE) form. She asked Senators to read the material in the next month and send comments to her so that when the committee meets in August, they will have data with which to work. H. Hurlburt also reported that the committee hopes to have a final presentation on the faculty survey ready for the September meeting. M. Komarraju reminded Senators that they represent their colleges, so it would be a good idea when they go back to their departments and faculty meetings to let colleagues know that there are going to be changes to the student evaluation form. It is important to look at what changes are likely to occur; and if anyone has strong feelings about the changes, they need to let the committee know because they will summarize the comments and present them to the Provost. She noted that the Provost had wanted a response during the summer, but she requested more time since many faculty are away over the summer. The Provost has given the Senate until the end of September to respond.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

J. Wall asked what is happening with the Physician's Assistant Program. A. Fleege responded that as far as he is aware, they are moving to the School of Medicine. The School of Allied Health (in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts) voted on the move a year ago, and the School of Medicine voted to accept the program. Chancellor Cheng explained that the School of Medicine had actually proposed a physician's assistant program many years ago. It was determined at that time that the School of Medicine was not authorized to offer a baccalaureate degree. The program was then housed in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. It is now a graduate program, and across the country they have been closer aligned to the traditions of medical schools because of the preparation and independence that these individuals have in practice. This issue was under discussion when she arrived at SIUC, and both sets of faculty were consulted. When the Provost came on board, it was pretty much complete; however, it was determined, budget-wise, that the move needed to occur at the beginning of the year. Notice has been given to the bargaining unit, and some discussion has been going on there, although she has no details.

J. Wall indicated his question relates more to the role of the Faculty Senate on the move. He does not recall this being discussed within the Senate and is unclear whether it needed to be or not. Provost Nicklow responded that his understanding is that it has not come before the Senate or Graduate Council. There is some discussion now as to whether it should since it essentially is an administrative reassignment. However, the recent contract contains some language that may require the action to go through the Senate and Graduate Council. General Counsel is looking at what may need to occur.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

M. Komarraju requested Senators' help with increasing student enrollment. She asked that they take the list of names from their respective colleges, bring them to their deans and convince them that the Faculty Senate supports this effort. The deans should already have received their lists by email, and she would appreciate if they could pass on the lists to chairs and faculty so they can help make the calls.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba