Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

[as corrected]

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Bruce A. DeVantier, Mark J. Dolan, Anthony T. Fleege, Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Holly S. Hurlburt, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes (ex officio), John T. Legier, James A. MacLean, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Nicole K. Roberts, Yasuko Taoka (for George E. Boulukos), Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Yu-Wei Wang (for Michelle Kibby-Faglier), Rachel B. Whaley, S. Jonathan Wiesen, Terri S. Wilson, Belle S. Woodward, Mingqing Xiao.

Members absent without proxy: Terry Clark, Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, Douglas W. Lind, Diane Muzio.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Pat Manfredi (University Core Curriculum).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on April 10, 2012, were corrected under "Reports (cont.)", to delete the second paragraph. Minutes were approved as amended. The minutes from the 2011-2012 meeting on April 24, 2012, were approved as presented. The minutes from the 2012-2013 meeting on April 24, 2012, were corrected to reflect that James Phegley was present and that Prema Narayan was in attendance as James MacLean's proxy. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. K. Asner-Self reported that the Senate Executive Council would like the standing committees to review last year's final reports in order to identify unfinished business and orient themselves for the coming year.

2. Chancellor Cheng thanked Senators for the service in which they are embarking, stating she looks forward to working with them all. She reported: a) Congress is expected to vote today on continuing the low interest rates on Stafford loans, which will allow students to obtain a college education at an affordable and obtainable level. There have been a number of changes relating to financial aid that are affecting students. For example, students will no longer be able to use current financial aid packages to pay past due bills. SIU was a member of approximately 84 experimental sites at universities across the country. These sites were disbanded, affecting how students might use financial aid packages. Unless the above is reinstated, students will be unable to register. Also, Pell grants have been reduced to 12 semesters from 18. Time to degree becomes more important as other financial aid dries up faster than it has in the past; b) the Board of Trustees will meet on May 10, when they are expected to approve a 4.8% increase in tuition (scaled back 7%). There is also a request to increase fees by 3% to fund programs that students have requested. Campus proponents believe student programming helps contribute to retention; c) over the last few weeks, the University has been asked to resubmit a budget to the state that is 6.14% less than the budget submitted in February. It has been viewed as either an exercise or as an a fate accompli; the Chancellor believes it is somewhere in the middle. The budget reduction is slightly over $9 million for the whole University; around $2.5 million of that is the School of Medicine. The other uncertainty is the solution for pensions and pension reform. The presidents and chancellors sent a joint message to the Governor and the legislative leaders reiterating the need for maintaining a sustainable pension, preferably the one guaranteed for all employees and one that would not put a burden on any particular individual or group. It should also address both retirement and health care benefits; d) early indicators are that fall enrollment for new freshmen will be up. Graduate education marketing is needed as well. Marketing and follow-through is a priority; e) there will be several construction projects going on this summer, including the Student Services building; beginning the architectural planning for finishing up the six and seventh floors of the library and getting the books back to the basement; and cutting the ribbon on the new Transportation Education Center building. Provost Nicklow and Vice Chancellor Koropchak will prepare a short list of priorities for the teaching and research labs. The Housing plan is a 12-year process; f) the strategic planning website will remain open until the end of May. Faculty are encouraged to provide input; g) much work has been done to make commencement a special event. She asked that faculty consider attending; h) Chancellor Cheng congratulated former Faculty Senator Jim Garvey (Fisheries and IL Aquaculture Center) and his colleagues for the renewal of their $1.7 million grant for Fisheries.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. A. Karnes commented that there are many students now who will be unable to register because they have holds for carrying accounts higher than $500. Students unable to clear these holds over the summer independently will not be able to register for the fall. He asked if there has been any thought to using a third party to sell the paper, so to speak. Chancellor Cheng responded that there are a lot of restrictions on that. Provost Nicklow added that the University would find itself in an odd situation if it were to do so. Students are being offered a payment plan which is divided into four equal payments throughout the term. If they sign up for the payment plan and make the first installment, the University will allow them to register. This will apply to those students who first get their bill balance down to $500. When they make their first payment, then they will be exempted and allowed to register.

2. B. DeVantier asked if the University has looked into the option of offering employees the right to go into Medicare. Chancellor Cheng responded that such an option has not been explored, but could be. B. DeVantier indicated that he checked into the possibility and believes [employees] would need 32 or 36 quarters. For current employees who plan to be here a while, that might be an option.

3. K. Anderson commented that the number of people considering retirement, at least anecdotally, has skyrocketed. He is aware of some departments that have gone from possibly one to possibly four or five who are retiring. Current projections are around 299 compared to 160 who either retired or left the University last year. Many senior people are leaving--people with stature in the faculty and experienced staff. Such dramatic change will have an impact next semester with very short turnaround to address the situation. Chancellor Cheng encouraged people to take a wait and see attitude and not make a retirement decision based on fear of the unknown; it is a life decision. Additionally, SIU has been actively addressing legislators to recognize and deliver employee benefits agreed upon by the state. The cost of living adjustment will have an impact not only on current employees, but current retirees.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) freshman applications are currently up 1% and admissions are up 9%. Last week, registrations for fall were up; they are now down slightly. This varies depending on when orientations occur, so it is too early to pay close attention to that number. He is enthusiastic about the admissions number because Illinois State and Northern are down 3.2% and 4.3%, respectively; Edwardsville is down 2.4%. The state average on freshman admits is down .7%, so he is pleased with the 9%. There is still much work to do over summer, however. Transfer admissions across the state are down 6%, and transfer admissions here are down 3%. Community college enrollment has been fluctuating. Graduate applications are up 9.5%, but admissions are down 6%. Another item to watch closely is new student orientation registrations, which are a good indicator; they are up 1%. Housing contracts (another indicator) are down slightly; b) the College of Science now has an interim dean, who will begin August 16. The new dean for the College of Agricultural Sciences, Dr. Mickey Latour, will begin on July 1. Both appointments are pending Board of Trustees approval. The Colleges of Applied Sciences and Arts and Education and Human Services dean searches are in the decision-making phase, and the final dean candidate interview is today for dean of the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts. He has a meeting with the Library Affairs dean candidate this evening.

Provost Nicklow reported that there was an issue raised in the Executive Council meeting that he wanted to clarify. It involved an issue he had discussed with the deans. Provost Nicklow explained that he had asked the deans to consider moving chairs to 10 or 11 month contracts. Across colleges, chairs tend to have variable appointments. Some have 12-month chair positions with no research or teaching requirements, while others are on 10 or 11 month contracts. He is aware of one chair who is teaching four classes and doing some research. Consequently, he asked deans to reconsider chair commitments across across the colleges. He stated the next step is to look at administrative positions at the University level. As an incentive, any administrative savings associated with chair assignment would be put back into faculty lines in those colleges. Those colleges receive higher prioritization on the hiring plan he presents to the Chancellor for tenured and tenure track faculty. As of now, three colleges have agreed to move in that direction--Business, Engineering and Liberal Arts. This year, he has produced a hiring plan based on the hiring plans the deans were to submit by April 1. Those have been presented to the Chancellor and are now with the Position Request Review Committee. The committee met for the first time this morning. Provost Nicklow added that it is not that chairs cannot be on 12 months. If a chair wants to be on 12 months, with a month on soft money to teach a distance education course, then that is no problem. The point is that there are 12-month state-funded chair positions that are very different across the institution, and it is not entirely equitable.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

K. Asner-Self commented that this priority rearrangement, from all colleges are equal to Business, Engineering and Liberal Arts receiving priority for faculty hiring, seems a bit coercive. Provost Nicklow responded he has considered the top priorities from other colleges in his list as well. He believes there were close to 80 requests for tenured and tenure track positions. K. Asner-Self asked how lines from Business, Engineering, and Liberal Arts that potentially might be funded rank against those lines related to programs from the other colleges with accreditation issues? For example, would Business be able to fill a line that would not necessarily have something to do with accreditation, while MCMA would be unable to hire and lose potentially an accredited program? Provost Nicklow responded that accreditation is the key to the criteria they are looking at with the new position request protocol, and it is a consideration. He cannot say this for all positions, but there might be a position that moves up from Business by so many spaces higher than it would have been; but, by putting those administrative savings back into the college, [the University] is essentially getting a better return on its investment.

T. Chu asked if there would be an acting chair for one month in those instances where chairs are 11 months. Provost Nicklow responded that he has discussed with the deans how that would work. There would need to be flexibility. For example, a chair might be on an 11 month contract, with 2 months in the summer at 50%. There would not be an acting chair. J. Wiesen commented that there in fact might be no one there as chair. Provost Nicklow responded that there are departments now in Liberal Arts where there is no one for a whole month. The dean's office handles any issues that may arise. Again, there would need to be flexibility so that the deans can meet program needs.

S. Graves made note that, when talking about line prioritization, while colleges like Liberal Arts have many chairs, the library has none. Chancellor Cheng stated that if a college can demonstrate the need for a 12-month chair, the administration is open to discussion. She stated all chair positions need to be examined. Other institutions give chairs course reductions and a month's summer salary, depending on size and workloads. She suggested faculty call their colleagues and find out what is occurring at other institutions.

D. Johnson wondered if chairs' salaries are being cut, will other administrative salaries be cut as well? Provost Nicklow responded that at this point, only chair workloads are being examined. Chancellor Cheng added that it is not a cut in salary, but a cut in workload. The University is trying not to pay anyone for not doing work. Provost Nicklow indicated the challenge to the deans is to examine what the chairs are doing. The fact is, there are chairs who work hard all summer and are doing a multitude of extra teaching. On the other hand, he comes from a college where chairs do not teach; it is not equitable. K. Asner-Self asked Provost Nicklow if he is suggesting that if a college goes through a self- examination and determines that, for example, 50% of its chairs' contracts can be reduced while there are excellent arguments for why the others cannot be, will there still be a carrot? Provost Nicklow believes that because the college demonstrated that it has prioritized, the carrot would be there.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. P. Mandredi, director of the University Core Curriculum, explained that a few months ago, he and Lori Merrill-Fink (University Honors Program) were discussing the common reader which, in the past, had been primarily a freshman reader. They both believe it should really be a campus-wide reader and should have the characteristics expected for a research institution. P. Manfredi indicated that he would like the Faculty Senate to join the initiative by forming a committee consisting of Faculty Senate members, members of the Graduate Council, and members of the University College. He believes the Senate's involvement is very important because he wants students to realize that research plays a prominent role at this institution, and the research that faculty do is relevant to many contemporary issues. In order to do that, they need to move beyond the confines of English 101, Speech Communication 101, University College 101 and have more of a pervading presence across the curriculum. He wants to include the voice of those faculty who are doing research in areas that pertain to the common reader. The reader selected for next year is "Reclaiming Our Food: How the Grassroots Food Movement is Changing the Way We Eat." It has generated quite a bit of enthusiasm already. He believes it connects with many of the activities on campus currently, such as the rooftop garden on the Agriculture building and the Sustainability Counsel and expands out to include such topics as growing food in the city and honeybee farms in Chicago. P. Manfredi explained that the committee he is asking the Senate to form would work to plan events and speakers to showcase research for next year. In addition, the committee would be in charge of selecting a common reader and planning events for 2013 and beyond, as well as long-term funding.

K. Anderson asked P. Manfredi whether he wants the Senate to take ownership of the common reader committee, or should it be left outside the control of the Senate. He pointed out that if the Senate wants to take ownership, it will fall on the Committee on Committees to make appointments, preferably from the faculty at large rather than from the Senate membership. [B. Bartholomew] questioned why this would need to be in the [Senate's purview]. P. Manfredi responded that the Senate represents the faculty and what SIU is as an institution. They need to be able to tell students, "Here is our common reader; here is how research faculty at this institution approach a contemporary issue. We want you to know that at the beginning of your education."

K. Anderson asked if P. Manfredi is proposing that the Senate would take responsibility for the formulation of the committee, or if the Senate would appoint members to the committee. P. Manfredi responded the former because he believes this is a University common reader. Unless the Senate takes ownership, he believes it will simply degenerate into, "That's the book our freshmen read. I don't teach freshmen; I don't have anything to do with that." K. Anderson believes that, procedurally, there would need to be a motion that the Senate appoint a committee that would be responsible for the selection of the first year reader. B. Bartholomew commented that he is not convinced it makes logical sense for the Senate to take responsibility for the common reader. Committees can be cumbersome; he questioned why and how it would work. P. Manfredi responded that he knows of no other way to have an academic discussion across the University on topics and introducing students to SIU as an institution without actually having this kind of committee. K. Anderson pointed out that the committee already exists and was not constituted by the Senate. The question is: does the Senate want to take ownership? He personally believes it probably should, but his concern is what Senators are dealing with is nebulous. They do not know who might be needed on the committee, how large it is or anything about the appointments to the committee. The Senate is just being asked to form a committee with no structure. He would like to know more about what exactly is being voted on by the Senate. P. Manfredi responded that he did not want to make the proposal too specific because he believes it ought to be up to the Senate to determine exactly the form under which it takes ownership. This will be an ongoing task, another committee the University will maintain, likely for a prolonged period.

The question was raised about committee funding. P. Manfredi responded that their approach has been to ask people if they would like to be a part of the common reader and whether they might use their own funds. He believes once this is underway, the activities will justify the need for the funding.

T. Wilson commented that faculty may have classes or research related to a common reader in one year, but then the next year may not, depending on the topic. Would it be more appropriate to have an annual task force with a broad-based group of faculty and graduate students? Task force membership would change annually, depending on the topic. There would then be another group with a more consistent membership to determine annual topics. P. Manfredi believes what he is asking for is the latter, the one that provides consistency. Part of what the committee will need to do is identify faculty across campus who might be involved in the topic that is selected and be sensitive to choosing topics for which there could be broad-based faculty participation.

B. Thibeault asked if this is an important enough issue that it should become a standing committee of the Senate. The common reader committee would need a great deal of attention, not only selecting books but also identifying and approaching appropriate faculty for each year. K. Anderson questioned whether B. Thibeault means a standing committee of the faculty that the Senate oversees, or a standing committee of the Senate, much like the Budget Committee, UEPC, etc. If it is the latter, then he would disagree because it could double the workload for some or all Senators. He asked for clarification. B. Thibeault responded that, from what she understands, the committee is something in which the Senate needs to be very involved, and having it be just a University committee will not accomplish that.

J. Wiesen favored P. Manfredi's suggestion for the common reader committee, believing this is an opportunity for the faculty to be involved not just in issues directly related to governance but related to a major component of the University, which is, in part, recruitment and retention. While it may burden the Committee on Committees a little more, he believes it would be a good idea to advocate for at least this kind of committee under the auspices of the Committee on Committees, perhaps as a gesture at first, to say the Faculty Senate is involved. He agreed with K. Anderson that membership should come from the faculty at large rather than from the Senate itself. A. Karnes suggested something similar to the Judicial Review Board, where it is a Senate organization but is not necessarily comprised of Senators.

K. Anderson agreed the Senate should be involved, but the body needs something more concrete to vote on so it is not voting on something nebulous. He asked which standing committee should be charged to address this issue. J. Wall suggested the Executive Council may be the appropriate place to start and to vet some of these questions. P. Manfredi indicated the reader for next year is underway, and it will continue to move ahead. J. Wall moved to refer the issue of the campus reader to the Executive Council for further clarification; seconded by B. Bartholomew.

Motion carried on a voice vote.

P. Manfredi indicated he would be available if there are further questions.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL --

K. Asner-Self reported the new CIO has stated that the University's technology is 15 years behind. His plan is to get the campus up to date.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES --

1. K. Asner-Self presented for approval Motion 1 to appoint Alice Noble-Allgire (School of Law) as chair of the Judicial Review Board for the 2012-2013 term (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). K. Anderson noted that A. Noble-Allgire is vice chair of the Board and is stepping up as a result of Farzad Pourboghrat's resignation. J. Wiesen also noted that the word "move" should be "moves" in both motions. This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Motion, as amended, carried on a voice vote.

2. K. Asner-Self presented for approval Motion 2 to appoint Jason Greene (College of Business) as vice chair of the Judicial Review Board for the 2012-2013 term (also included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

Motion, as amended, carried on a voice vote. [see appendix for both amended motions]

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Anderson, Chair

1. K. Anderson reported the committee met to determine standing committee assignments, noting the committee was able to give most Senators their first preference. He presented for approval the Standing Committee Assignments (included as Attachment B to the Agenda).

Standing committee assignments were approved on a voice vote.

There was a brief recess so the committees could meet briefly and elect their chairs. After re-convening, it was noted that the following Senators were elected to chair their respective committees: J. Wall, Budget; D. Johnson, UEPC; H. Hurlburt and J. Kapur, Faculty Status and Welfare; and I. Altman, Governance.

2. K. Anderson reported that it has been the practice of the Senate for the last few years to appoint the Vice President of the Senate and the Chair of the Budget Committee to serve as representatives to the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. Although the two nominees being presented for approval are currently serving in these roles, it was not the determining factor for the committee; rather, they both have had previous experience in financial matters and have served on the committee in the past. K. Anderson presented for approval the nominations of Terry Clark, Professor, Marketing; and James Wall, Senior Lecturer, Radio and Television to serve on the committee.

Nominations were approved on a voice vote.

3. K. Anderson reported the committee was asked to find a replacement for the faculty at large representative for the Position Request Evaluation Committee, the committee the Provost convenes to review requests for new hires. Last year, the Committee on Committees (CoC) went through the process and appointed a member of the Senate and a faculty at-large member. The at-large member recently accepted a position as department chair and had to step down. The CoC was asked to find a replacement, so they vetted a group of names from across the University and selected three. Those names will be forwarded to the Provost immediately following the meeting, and he will make the final selection. K. Anderson also reported that everyone will shortly receive a flyer, which is being sent to all faculty in order to solicit volunteers to help fill committee vacancies. Every year, the CoC has had to beat the bushes to find volunteers. He strongly encouraged Senators to make sure people in their departments/colleges have received the flyer and consider sending back the completed form.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported he received information that the 6.14% budget reduction may be an exercise.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- No report.

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

J. Kapur reported the committee is working on the survey, which is unfinished business from last year. They have collated and evaluated all the responses and are currently working on writing a narrative.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- I. Altman, Chair

I. Altman asked whether the non-tenure track issue presented by the previous committee will need to be addressed this year (yes).

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

1. A. Karnes encouraged faculty to keep a close eye on the retirement situation. If something happens, he believes it will happen quickly, and it will not be good. He suggested writing legislators with pen and paper because they tend to pay more attention to that kind of correspondence. J. Wall asked whether the Senate should consider writing a letter similar to what the chancellors, presidents and the organization of Faculty Senates (Council of Illinois University Senates) sent to legislators. It was suggested that the Executive Council could write a letter that could be ratified by the full Senate in July. K. Anderson commented that the current retirement benefit is part of faculty's compensation package and is now being withdrawn.

2. M. Dolan commented that he personally dislikes not having a plus/minus grading system. He is aware that the issue is being discussed by a group somewhere. He is curious how people feel about it and what the Senate as a body can do. S. Graves responded that the Academic Policy Review Task Force, which met all of last year and on which she served as a representative from UEPC, looked at all the academic policies on campus that applied to undergraduates. That committee is still meeting, so if the Senate would like her to raise the issue, she will see what she can found out. It was noted that there is a possibility the plus/minus system cannot be supported by Banner. S. Graves believes it may have something to do with the grade point system. She explained that quality points are associated with the grades students receive, which are associated with GPA as well as quality points necessary for graduation. If the plus/minus were to be added, then there would have to be decisions made on the associated quality points. A grade is not the total sum of the GPA; there have to be a certain number of quality points in order to graduate. A quality point means for every A, a student receives four points times the number of credit hours for that course. For a B, it is three times the number, etc. An example would be a student who has the required institutional GPA of 2.0, but may have been so far under that 2.0 in quality points that they would not be able to graduate.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba