Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

[as corrected]

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by William Recktenwald, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James E. Garvey, Qingfeng Ge, Stephanie Graves, David M. Johnson, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Usha Lakshmanan (for Meera Komarraju), Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), William Recktenwald, Nicole K. Roberts, Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, 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: Scott Ishman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Om P. Agrawal, Gary Apgar, Sandra K. Collins, John T. Legier, Marla H. Mallette, Diane Muzio.

Visitors and guests: Jake Baggott (Office of the Chancellor), John Koropchak (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Dean), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), James Allen (Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on February 14, 2012, were corrected to show that Benjamin Rodriguez was in attendance. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. W. Recktenwald reported that the proposed law that would eliminate the 50% tuition waiver for dependents of university employees will be addressed under the Faculty Status and Welfare report. J. Koropchak will also be providing an update on what is happening within the Graduate School.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported that the administration is paying particular attention to the legislative session. The Governor presented to IBHE a flat budget for higher education, but there is concern that it may not hold. The big item on the agenda is pensions and what impact it would have if universities had to absorb more of the costs. She discussed with the deans all the steps for additional realignment, structuring and cost containment to prepare to absorb those costs without holding back on faculty hires in particular. The institution is down approximately 505 full-time equivalent positions from a few years ago (415 staff out of a base of 2,929; 89 faculty positions have not been replaced out of a base of 1,140). A majority of those are in the recent year, as people have left, and restructuring/realignment, as well as not hiring, has occurred. Most of the positions are in the civil service area (labor, trades, clerical), but A/P and faculty positions are vacant as well. Chancellor Cheng reported that other legislation of concern are the tuition waiver benefit and a mandated transfer credit bill. Early language in the bill called for accepting all credits from community colleges. This would not leave the ability for individual institutions to review whether those credits had equivalencies. SIU volunteered and was accepted to be a case study. A sample will be taken of the top ten transfer institutions, and transcripts will be pulled to find out how many of them can transfer in and graduate in two years, and if not, then why. The data will be used to drive for a change. Chancellor Cheng also reported on some of the celebrations happening on campus, including faculty competitions, Research Week, Undergraduate Research Day, the new authors event and concluding with pre-commencement activities, final exams and commencement ceremonies.

Chancellor Cheng provided copies of the draft strategic planning document. She asked that Senators review the document and make some time to discuss it at the next meeting. She explained that there were four questions that were asked of the leadership team in February; those same four questions are at least a starting point for the Senate discussion, but deeper thought should be given than just those bullet points. She would like thought to be given as to what might be missing, whether there are other things that need to be incorporated, how would success be measured, and how can the budget be realigned to make sure the goals can be affected. Chancellor Cheng believes there will be opportunities for various groups on campus to have input. Her goal is to have another version of the document that is very near completion to offer up in the summer, then, next fall have a path for where the University is headed in the next decade.

3. W. Recktenwald introduced G. Boulukos, who is completing the term of J. Allen as Faculty Senator from Liberal Arts.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. [A question raised about the types of positions that remained unfilled]. Chancellor Cheng reported that there are civil service, A/P and faculty positions, with the highest number and percentage being in the civil service area. She indicated she could supply the numbers and percentage to W. Recktenwald.

2. K. Anderson asked if the state legislature has voted on legislation that would require universities to pay a greater percentage of pension costs, and how much of a financial [burden that would be]. Chancellor Cheng responded that the state [currently] pays 12%, and employees pay 8% into the pension system. If the University were to pay the 12%, that would be approximately $36 million. The institution only receives approximately $115-$118 million in appropriations, so it is an unreasonable request. K. Anderson asked if there is discussion in the legislature about what might be a reasonable amount. Chancellor Cheng responded that the idea being embraced most by the legislative leaders, the Governor's staff and, she is told, the union leadership, is 3% for the universities; the state would keep approximately 6%, equivalent to what would have to be paid if there was social security in the state. The Chancellor noted that there is a 12% gap, and even if the state picked up half, there is still a 6% gap. If it is all given in one year (rather than being phased in), that is a $9 million cut. W. Recktenwald noted that this is the time for faculty to let their representatives know how they feel about this issue.

Chancellor Cheng commented that what has not been discussed is that the legislators have committed to not taking away benefits that have already been earned. Employees may have to pay in more to keep the system alive, but they will not see a system that has fewer benefits.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. Provost Nicklow reported: a) enrollment is up 5.5% on freshman admits, but transfers are down by 5.5%. There are approximately 7,600 freshmen admitted for fall, which is up by half a percent. There are approximately 1,400 transfers, so there is progress being made. He talked with the deans earlier, and they are going to launch three new late-cycle strategies; one is to have esteemed alumni [from] several key majors with high growth potential write letters to prospective students; b) approval of the chief information officer (CIO) is scheduled to be approved by the Board of Trustees on March 22. The position begins April 1. There are three dean searches that have reached the interview stage this week (Agriculture, ASA and Interim dean of Science). Information is available on Saluki Times, and the vitas and open forum dates are on the Provost website. Provost Nicklow expressed appreciation to all those who helped with the Harrisburg relief efforts. Well over 500 hours of service was donated from the campus.

5. J. Koropchak reported: a) the spring 2012 10-day enrollment number was 3,981, which was 19 less than at the same time last year (,5% less). However, there was a faculty member teaching a class of 24 graduate students who were never registered and were not included in the 10-day. if they are included, then they would be up by 5 for spring. There is a national trend for some decline in graduate enrollment, and they started seeing that two falls ago. This fall, there were significant increases in applications for the campus. He is unsure of the reason, but one thing they did do was provide programs with funds to purchase [GRE] names. Applications are up approximately 10% this month (200-300 applications). There is concern that admissions are lagging from this time last year. There was a surge last week, but they are still a little behind from where they were this same time last year; b) grants and contracts are currently at $50.6 million, which is barely above last fiscal year. There are a number of factors that suggest to him there will be significant growth this fiscal year; c) like many areas on campus, [his office] has had a lot of retirements, and they are projecting many more in the next few months, which will present another challenge; d) a search is being held for the OSPA director. Four candidates are scheduled for interviews on March 21. The search for a Coal Research Center director is in the final stages, and the search for an image facility electron microscopy [director] is getting final approval. There are also excellent candidates for director of the Materials Technology Center, and interviews are being scheduled for that position; e) the week of April 15-20 will include a whole series of events related to research, starting with Honors Day and an Undergraduate Research Symposium on April 16. The research town meeting is scheduled for April 17. The Chancellor has initiated a new event, Authors Day, on April 18. There are a number of intellectual activities taking place on campus.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (cont.)

1. J. Garvey asked J. Koropchak if he knows when a search will be conducted to replace the associate dean of the Graduate School. J. Koropchak responded that he is working on the process.

2. J. MacLean asked what the ratio is of masters to PhD for incoming graduate students. J. Koropchak believes the PhD applicant level is up significantly (16% compared to 4% for masters) and up 8% overall. This is something they have seen on this campus for last 10 years, not just in the applicant pool, but in students that matriculate. The fraction of students that are PhD has risen from approximately 22% 10 years ago to approximately 31% currently. There seems to be a continual shift to more emphasis on the campus with greater representation among doctoral students. As far as admissions of PhD students, the numbers are roughly even to last year. It is the masters area that is down.

3. W. Recktenwald raised the issue of the Vice Chancellor's office possibly having funds for faculty travel. J. Koropchak responded that the Graduate School has maintained a travel fund program for 10 years, which is funded from indirect cost returns from grants. The line has been maintained, and the program has not been cut. Typically, around February all the funds have been expended. This year, for some reason, the number of requests is less than usual; so, there are more funds remaining at this time of the year than is typical. L. Brooten explained that she has noticed that people are not attending conferences in their areas [because the colleges have no available travel funds]. This could be why J. Koropchak is seeing less requests. For example, she believes her department's travel budget was cut from $1000 to $350; $1000 is good start, and faculty can attempt to get funding elsewhere; but, for someone presenting internationally, [that amount can go very quickly]. A. Karnes asked J. Koropchak how the request process works. J. Koropchak explained that there is a commitment from the department, and the faculty member may have a grant as well; then, it goes to the dean and then to his office. There is no requirement that the units below have to make a commitment, but they do attempt to make it convenient for a person to identify all the sources of support. A. Karnes indicated the problem is that people perceive that there [has to be a match]. J. Koropchak responded that there is nothing that states a match is required. If the process needs to be fine-tuned, they can do that. The bottom line is, they want faculty to travel, give presentations and have visibility.

J. Wall asked if travel funds are available to [current] students. He believes there is no better sales person than a current student, [particularly] if they are involved in a national or international organization, but cannot go for lack of funding. J. Koropchak responded that there is a separate track for graduate students. [The request] must first go to the Graduate and Professional Student Council, and the only requirement is that the student or faculty member must make a presentation at the conference rather than only attending. Provost Nicklow added that if it is an RSO, the request goes through the dean of students, who has established a protocol that essentially routes the request through [the offices of the Provost and Chancellor] so they all have an opportunity to support the event.

J. Wiesen commented that the last time the issue of travel was raised within the Executive Council, the more direct point with respect to faculty was that if they are indeed forsaking conferences, how would that affect things like promotion? He believes it might be worthwhile to find out how many people are not applying to conferences, or as many, because they have no money to travel. J. Wiesen asked if this is a question on the survey being done by the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee. L. Brooten responded that it is not, but it can be added. Chancellor Cheng noted that the OSPA report every year does list the number of presentations made. The trend on those can be reviewed to determine if there is a decline.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL -- No report.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- No report.

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 Renaming the Bachelor of Arts, Open Studies Music to Bachelor of Arts, Liberal Arts-Music in the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

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 Electronic Sports Media in the Radio-Television Major and Specialization in Sports Media in the Journalism Major, College of Mass Communication and Media Arts (included as Attachment B to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. S. Graves presented the committee's Response to Academic Policy Recommendations (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). She explained that the Provost convened a group, the Academic Program Review Task Force, on which she served as the representative from UEPC. The Task Force was charged with reviewing all academic policies to make sure there were no conflicting policies and to review them to make sure they were up to date, etc. Some policies had not been reviewed in quite some time. S. Graves indicated that rather than compose a very long memo, the UEPC added a column for comments. They wanted to follow the same model with this as with the senior institution hour and program changes review, i.e., ask that the Senate carefully review the document and submit any comments/concerns they have to the committee by the end of the month. The information received will be attached to the packet that will be forwarded to the Provost. S. Graves then reviewed and discussed the committee's comments on the proposed recommendations. Provost Nicklow noted that exceptions can be given on any of the policies when necessary. He would just need significant documentation when exceptions are done in order to satisfy any audits that are conducted.

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

1. W. Recktenwald reported that L. Brooten has prepared a resolution relating to HB5531 which, because of the break, was not sent to Senators in advance of the meeting. If there is no objection, the resolution will be presented for approval. Hearing none, L. Brooten read the Resolution on House Bill 5531. B. Thibeault asked if there is a bill to remove the tuition waiver for employees. If not, the wording in the first "whereas" is unclear. L. Brooten responded that the bill addresses the waiver for children of employees. She revised the wording to clarify that the bill addresses children of employees at Illinois public universities. K. Anderson suggested removing the name of the sponsor of the legislation. He also suggested that if there is actually data to show that the benefit would increase university income funds, such wording should be added. After some additional editorial changes were made, a motion to waive the five-day rule was approved (with one abstention) to allow the resolution to be presented for approval. W. Recktenwald then called for a vote on the resolution.

Resolution was approved unanimously on a voice vote. [see appendix]

W. Recktenwald indicated that the resolution would be sent to the Governor; the Speaker of the House; the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate; the Minority Leader in the House; the Lieutenant Governor; and the local representative and senator. A. Karnes suggested the resolution also be sent to President Poshard.

2. L. Brooten reported the survey being conducted by the committee will be sent to all faculty using the new learning management system (Desire2Learn). There has been some delay because everyone first has to be added to the system. The survey is ready, although it was suggested that a question on travel funding be added.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler reported he has been working with the committee via email to set up a meeting for next week. The purpose will be to once again consider the matter of who may and who may not serve as a senator and/or vote. He hoped to have something to report by the next Executive Council meeting. W. Recktenwald explained that there is concern on the part of some non-tenure track (NTT) members who are involved with units that do not grant tenure. His reading of the Operating Paper indicates to him that those faculty should be allowed to vote. If they do not have the ability to vote for their Faculty Senate representatives, then it should be made clear to them why they have been disenfranchised. G. Spittler responded that he has reviewed the verbiage on several occasions and would tend to agree. He hopes the language can be clarified without having to redefine the term "faculty" for the University. K. Anderson pointed out that there are two issues; one is who can vote for representation on the Senate and the other is who can serve on the Senate. Those two issues should be handled separately.

J. Wall asked what the Operating Paper says with regard to the six NTT seats that currently are allowed on the Senate. W. Recktenwald responded that the Operating Paper states: "For voting purposes, tenured and tenure track faculty members will be associated with only one voting unit, which will normally be that in which they hold academic rank. If tenured and tenure track faculty members hold rank in two or more voting units, they will be associated with that unit in which they have their major appointment or duties. Otherwise, tenured and tenure track faculty members will choose the voting unit in which they vote, subject to previous limitations. Tenured or tenure track faculty members who do not hold rank in a voting unit shall apply to the Faculty Senate Governance Committee for assignment to a voting unit. The assignment will be made to a related voting unit in accord with the wishes of the faculty involved to the extent possible. Tenured and tenure track faculty assigned to a voting unit will be counted as faculty associated with that unit. Non-tenure track faculty will be associated with the non-tenure track faculty unit." His reading of this is that all full time NTT faculty are allowed to vote.

J. Wall pointed out that the six NTT seats on the Senate are a voting unit, and anyone who holds an NTT appointment can vote on those six seats. This is not what is currently taking place, and that is the issue. They have been excluded from voting or serving because they are not in tenure granting units, which is the preamble for the entire document. B. Thibeault pointed out that the membership section of the Operating Paper defines the membership of the faculty as "Research, visiting, adjunct, and clinical categories holding the above mentioned ranks in academic units in which tenure can be granted shall also be considered faculty, providing faculty bearing those titles hold at least a 51% appointment through Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor or the School of Medicine." She believes that is where the problem lies.

G. Boulukos asked how a unit is defined. It was answered that the definition of "units in which tenure can be granted" can be found in the "Tenure Policies and Procedures." K. Anderson commented that the Operating Paper has evolved over multiple years and over multiple revisions. There are other problems in language, and this is only one example where of conflict and people getting disenfranchised. He does not believe that was ever the intent, but that is how it worked out. What the Senate needs to do is conduct a review the Operating Paper from beginning to end and clean it up, but that is a huge task.

J. Wall commented that the question remains as to the six NTT seats that currently exist, two of which are up for election, which [he believes] represent all NTT faculty regardless of whether or not the unit grants tenure. There are some who have been excluded from that voting roster. Additionally, the [wording] states that the current six NTT seats represent all NTT appointments; therefore, all NTT appointments greater than 51% are allowed to vote and serve. J. Wiesen pointed out that it is not clear that the NTT seats represent the broader subset, not if the definition stands as to what is faculty. L. Brooten clarified that J. Wiesen is arguing that the Operating Paper means to include representation only of those people in tenure granting units, in which case it would not be all faculty. J. Wiesen agreed. W. Recktenwald suggested the Governance Committee proceed as quickly as possible to address the issue [of voting and representation].

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported that much of the committee's discussions have already been reported by the Provost and Chancellor. The Senate Budget Committee met briefly after last month's meeting, and he was essentially charged with keeping them updated. The Chancellor's Advisory Committee met on March 19, and the Chancellor discussed the legislative issues extensively. The Advisory Committee was allowed to view a draft document that details all the efforts that have been undertaken by the various units on campus to reduce costs for FY12. It showed strictly state money and the resulting cost savings down to the dollar. J. Wall noted that personnel costs represent about 75% of state dollars. As a result, he expects to see another go around of the report; a summary document will be made available at some point. There is a non-academic program review, which is similar to the academic program review currently underway. They are looking at the efficiency of each unit/department/program, particularly areas that may receive state funding. J. Wall reported that there is an effort moving forward to reduce the number of fiscal officers; this is still under discussion. The committee has also been asked to look for synergies between goals and aspirations of the strategic plan and whether or not they are doable in terms of budget realities.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

C. Baker asked if there has been any information on the security breach. Provost Nicklow responded that it happened in November. His understanding is that there was one computer in Information Technology that was not being used, but was connected. The computer had not been updated, and a virus was found. There was no indication that any information was being released, disseminated or collected in any way, but there was no guarantee. Federal law requires that anyone potentially impacted be alerted.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

W. Recktenwald announced that the next Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for May 22 in Carbondale.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:36 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
S. Jonathan Wiesen, Secretary

SJW:ba