Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, George E. Boulukos, Joe Cheatwood (for James A. MacLean), Tsuchin Chu, Terry Clark, Bruce A. DeVantier, Mark J. Dolan, Anthony T. Fleege, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Edward J. Heist, Logan Park (for Eric J. Holzmueller), Holly S. Hurlburt, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Farid Kadyrov (for Blaine Bartholomew), Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes (ex officio), Punit Kohli (for Qingfeng Ge), Meera Komarraju, John T. Legier, Douglas W. Lind, Kathryn Martin (for Connie J. Baker), Nancy L. Martin, Diane Muzio, James W. Phegley, William Recktenwald (for Carolyn G. Kingcade), Nicole K. Roberts, Matthew Schlesinger, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Terri S. Wilson, Dashun Xu (for Mingqing Xiao).

Members absent: Rita Cheng (ex officio), John W. Nicklow (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Rachel B. Whaley.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Pat Manfredi (University Core Curriculum), Matt Paray (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

H. Hurlburt wanted to clarify under the second Question and Answer Session that the word "complimentary" should be "complementary." G. Boulukos pointed out that although the spelling is incorrect, the minutes correctly reflect the actual spelling of the committee circulating the survey. J. Wall wanted to clarify that under the first Question and Answer Session (second paragraph of item 3), where the Chancellor reported that the budget shortfall "is now down to a million, a million one...," indicating that the amount should actually be $4.8 million. G. Boulukos noted the minutes are again correct; the presented fact is incorrect. D. Muzio wanted to clarify under Reports, second paragraph of item 1, that she was speaking of those non-didactic courses not conforming to the 5/10/15 rule and if wondered it the committee was taking that into consideration when evaluating courses that may conflict with that rule. The minutes of the meeting on October 16, 2012, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported: a) she attended the Chancellor's Executive Committee meeting on October 24. They discussed the overall reduction of $4 million in the operating budget and what needs to be done to deal with that reality. A presentation was given on the various ways the campus is being advertised in an effort to increase enrollment. There was also discussion about how some of the colleges are dealing with their reductions. One example given was that the College of Liberal Arts (COLA) has reduced its chairs to 10 or 11-month contracts and civil service staff are sharing positions. It was noted that there are 1,000 fewer students on campus, so it cannot be business as usual. The campus has to think about how to change the way courses are offered and be as cost efficient as possible; b) she has been attending weekly meetings of the 5/10/15 rule subcommittee of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. Discussions have centered around the idea of allowing departments to look at the portfolio of courses they offer, as opposed to looking at enrollment course by course, to determine if the department as a whole might meet the rule. Also, if any courses are cancelled, it should be done with enough notice so departments can determine what the faculty and students will do. The subcommittee looked at some of the data of peer institutions, and several do not have a university-wide policy that is uniformly applied. They also discussed the difficulty in scheduling classes when they are needed because departments will float courses, which ties up classrooms and reflects zero enrollment for the class. In terms of cost analysis, the subcommittee also suggests that the non-academic units that are funded by state appropriations should also have to do a cost efficiency analysis of how they are contributing to the University's mission.

2. K. Asner-Self, who attended the November 8 Board of Trustees meeting held in Springfield, reported: a) the state still owes the University $9.396 million from FY12 and still more for FY13; b) in terms of financial stability ratings, the Moody rating has SIU as A2-Stable; and S&P rates the University as A+ Stable; c) the President spoke on pension reform, stating that the pension and health benefits discussions and actions in the legislature may occur in the lame duck session in January. He suggested that universities may be picking up more costs at 1% per year for six years; d) enrollment is particular problem for this campus. In terms of research universities in the state, the University of Illinois Chicago and in Urbana-Champaign are up. SIU is only ahead of Northern Illinois University; e) the Chancellor's report included her trip to Cuba, which resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding; the opening of the Transportation Education building; and a $10,000 gift that was awarded to a professor in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts, which was one of only ten in the nation; f) the Board approved a policy that will no longer allow the use of search firms for anything below the vice chancellor level, unless agreed to by the Board.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. K. Anderson asked for clarification as to whether the portfolio approach being discussed by the committee reviewing the 5/10/15 rule is just an item of discussion or a proposal coming from the committee. M. Komarraju reported that at this time, it is an issue under discussion.

2. H. Hurlburt commented that [faculty] continue to hear about numbers and declining enrollment. She asked if there has been any sustained conversation about academic quality. K. Asner-Self responded that she has not personally heard that in any of the meetings she has attended. M. Komarraju responded that during the last 5/10/15 rule meeting, it was mentioned that if only numbers are being examined, then the campus would likely have to drop a lot of those activities that bring in quality students, such as the Honors Program. The question arose: why take full professors and have them teach 15 students when they could be teaching 300 students in order to balance out their higher salaries. K. Asner-Self indicated that there are two contexts in which she has heard academic quality come up; one is in terms of attempting to enroll good quality students with the tuition reduction or the alternative tuition; second is in terms of the UCOL courses in that the original idea was to have high quality and experienced professors teach those; that has not necessarily happened as yet. J. Allen commented that the Chancellor and Provost have not spoken officially about the concerns the faculty all share about changes in the budget or in programs that will result in further conversations about reorganizing those that meet IBHE metrics. They have not yet had the conversations among deans about shared programs; however, the Provost has repeatedly told him and the Deans that he supports efforts to remain accredited in all degree programs that have accreditation now.

3. G. Boulukos asked about the Code of Ethics that was approved by the Board of Trustees on November 8. He was forwarded documents that indicate the Graduate Council approved two resolutions stating extremely serious objections and reservations about the Code. As far as he can tell, the version that apparently passed did not address the spirit of those objections. He would like to know if the Board was made aware of and considered those objections. He commented that the Chancellor believes the Code to be a great monument of shared governance on which constituencies contributed; however, one group strenuously objected, and he does not find where their objections were resolved. G. Boulukos noted there are some "odd moments" in the document that all employees are now working under. For example, among the principles that are listed is the principle of continuous improvement. One of the regulatory apparatuses is that everyone is responsible to report any failings to meet these standards. If taken literally, it would mean that anyone who sees colleagues who are failing to continuously improve themselves would be required by this document to make a report. Also troubling to him is that the disciplinary measures include everything up to termination of employment for breaches of the Code. B. DeVantier believes the wording "continuous improvement" refers to programs--not individuals. As units, they are to set objectives and continuously assess whether those objectives are being met and then respond appropriately. G. Boulukos responded that he is not suggesting a sinister design, but this is a code that nonetheless binds all employees. Possibly, it is just a writing problem. In any case, these concerns were pointed out to him; possibly, this was lost in the shuffle and no one addressed those exact issues, but he believes they are serious and faculty need to be aware of these issues.

REPORTS (cont.)

2. A. Karnes reported on the November 12 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (see appendix to the minutes).

3. S. Ishman reported that at the last meeting of the Graduate Council, a resolution on the incomplete grade policy was introduced and discussed. A vote on the resolution will be taken at the next meeting. The major modification to the policy that was suggested was to extend it for a year instead of one semester. A. Karnes asked if the change applied only to graduate [students]. S. Ishman responded that was correct.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

T. Clark reported the committee met on November 2 and discussed a number of issues, some of which have been discussed at this meeting--the 5/10/15 rule; cross-listing of courses, which is more complicated than it seems at first glance; and the elimination of the health requirement. He said that the Chancellor also discussed some budget issues.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. Johnson, Chair

1. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Adoption of the Learning Objectives of the Association of American Colleges and Universities as Goals for the University Core Curriculum (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). P. Manfredi explained that the LEAP initiative was launched in 2005 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. It stands for Liberal Education and America's Promise and is designed to champion the importance of a liberal education in the United States, as well as to correct two major misconceptions along the way: 1) that a liberal education has something to do with politics; and 2) that there is a disconnect between a liberal education and a practical education, that somehow these two stand in opposition to one another. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is working closely with other major national partners like Complete College America and Complete College Illinois to educate the legislature and public that a liberal education is key to the nation's future in the 21st Century so that the country has a well educated populace, citizens who are prepared to take on the responsibility that a democracy demands of them; and to participate fully in employment opportunities that will sustain the country's economic health. Approval of the LEAP objectives will allow him to use the LEAP and AAC&U materials on the Core Curriculum website and integrate more fully their assessment materials into the assessment of the Core Curriculum program.

S. Graves asked if there is any [benefit to their materials] where they benchmark based on these objectives. P. Manfredi responded he has not seen any benchmarking at all yet. K. Anderson indicated there is nothing in the resolution about changing the Core Curriculum. P. Manfredi responded that nothing here changes the Core at all, nor are there any changes contemplated as a result of the document. K. Anderson asked where the discussion is coming from about the health requirement. P. Manfredi responded that the health course is a separate issue, but is one he can address. He explained that all programs across the University were asked to reduce to 120 hours. The health requirement is the only requirement in the Core Curriculum that is not included in the IBHE documents, aside from the student success course. Hence, the health requirement needs to be considered.

H. Hurlburt commented that since changes are being made to the Core's goals, this seems like a good opportunity to look at the Core through the lens of what seem to be categories and seeing if the Core needs updating, changing or streamlining. P. Manfredi responded that the Senate can, if it wants to, have that conversation. He suggested two reasons why this may not be the time to do so. One of the things they have attempted to do over the years is tailor the Core Curriculum to match the Illinois Articulation Agreement General Education Core Curriculum, and they agree almost 100%. This means that the transfer process from community colleges to SIU is very easy; deviating from that model would make that more difficult. Also, SIUE just completed a 10-year process of revising its general education core curriculum. The result of that process is that the provost there adopted what the faculty recommended; now, the faculty are screaming about why the provost is forcing them to do this. P. Manfredi believes what they adopted is entirely unmanageable. He does not believe the same thing would happen here, but if it is opened up and discussed, it would take a long time and likely result in what the campus has now.

It was noted that the Core Curriculum has not been substantially revised since 1994-95. P. Manfredi indicated there was a major revision last year when the interdisciplinary courses were swapped out. There are things that are "in the hopper," but they are more or less tinkering around the edges. The health requirement was an issue that came up; another issue is many of the programs are desperately attempting to get down to 120 hours. He has been exploring with those programs--Engineering in particular--about ways that various programs can meet Core Curriculum requirements; but, that does not change the basic structure.

J. Wall asked to what extent are these going to migrate to the college and department operating papers to be a part of their philosophy. P. Manfredi responded that it will occur only if colleges or departments choose to adopt them to become part of their operating papers.

Resolution was approved 28-0-1 on a show of hands vote.

2. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the New Online Certificate in Journalism and Mass Communication, College of Mass Communication and Media Arts (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). A. Karnes commented that 30 hours is a healthy certificate; why not just a degree? D. Johnson responded that the same question was raised in committee. He indicated it is not yet a full degree. The RME states that the School of Journalism would like to work toward that, but they are not quite there yet. A. Karnes asked if the certificate is "transcriptable." D. Johnson responded affirmatively. M. Komarraju asked if the certificate is something someone with a high school degree or a bachelor's degree can obtain. W. Recktenwald responded either would be eligible. M. Dolan believes the certificate is geared more towards professionals to give some added value. A. Karnes asked whether Journalism considered chunking up the parts and making separate certificates; for example, three classes gets a certificate; another three classes, another certificate; and then if everything is completed, they give a final certificate. M. Dolan responded that the department has been discussing various possibilities, and this is one on which they felt ready to go forward. There is so much attention and emphasis being put on online courses, and there is a group of Journalism faculty who have a strong interest in this area, so they are exploring everything.

J. Wall asked if the University has a standard in place for certificate programs. D. Johnson believes it is 18 hours minimum. J. Legier asked if they follow all the IBHE requirements with respect to certificates. S. Graves responded that, technically, IBHE does not have anything on the books for 18 hours; the 18 hours is just kind of happening. D. Johnson indicated it is an area the IBHE is still working on, so it is still a bit unclear.

J. Kapur asked about the cost recovery model and the idea that faculty should be discussing this as a model of education. She questioned whether a certificate program that fails to sustain a cost recover model would be shut down. W. Recktenwald responded that there have been a number of questions raised, one of them he believes was cost recovery. He indicated that Journalism has people who are interested. Those faculty look at journalism sites and see plenty of competition offered, and they would like to be a part of that action. D. Johnson explained that all RMEs have to be cost-neutral; such wording has been in previous resolutions as well. Departments either have to increase staff or pay for [the program internally]. This has campus policy for some time. In the Journalism RME, there is a question as to whether it is [cost neutral] , and the answer was yes.

D. Muzio asked if 30 is the same number of credit hours needed for the major. D. Johnson responded it is not. The requirements for a major in journalism are slightly different than what is required for the certificate, although it could be clarified that someone who receives a certificate and then wants to obtain a degree in journalism could use some of the courses towards the degree. W. Recktenwald indicated the certificate could be used towards a journalism degree, but it would also be a free-standing certificate so that a person in the business--and there are people in the business who need additional training--would be able to get training in different media fields.

T. Wilson asked to what extent, if any, would the courses count. If someone had an undergraduate degree and took the certificate course, would s/he then be able to transfer in on a graduate level? Or, would there be so many courses for a graduate degree in journalism? W. Recktenwald responded that he would think that if there were 400-level courses that there would be the possibility of transferring courses into [the]graduate program. What they are looking at is the certificate as such, for which they believe there is a market.

J. Wall suggested that from questions being raised, there perhaps needs to be a larger discussion about certificates in general and perhaps some involvement of the Senate as to what they should be, to what extent and how, process and so forth. He believes the Senate is going to see a deluge of certificates in the next year, and they need to have answers to these questions already in hand before the certificates come forward. D. Johnson responded that the committee has had these discussions, but that does not mean the Senate as a whole should not have a discussion. The committee has been giving these certificates a fair amount of scrutiny to make sure they make sense, to make sure there is a plan in place and courses are in line with [prerequisites]. In Journalism's case, he believes they thought it out pretty well, but it was not all clear, and the committee had to keep going back to the department with questions; but there is a certain amount of quality control occurring.

D. Muzio indicated that when she raised the issue of whether 30 hours was the same for the major, it was not because she wondered whether those hours could be applied to the bachelors degree or an advanced degree; rather, she is concerned about students coming out of high school and attending the University only to get a certificate. What message, then, is the University sending--that it is not an institution of higher education, but an institution of certificates? She believes it begs the bigger question, as J. Wall mentioned, of what is the purpose of the certificate programs and what does that mean in terms of how they convert to enrollment? There is also the issue of performance funding. She asked what is the bigger picture? G. Boulukos also agreed with J. Wall, pointing out that when the Senate considers certificates, a lot of time is spent discussing what a certificate is, what it should be, the pitfalls, etc. He suggested possibly tabling the generalities now, and adding the issue to the Senate's agenda officially at some point. He also asked if the Journalism certificate is earned online (yes). A. Karnes believes offering certificates is the right thing to do and that the market is there for something less than a degree; and, if the University can provide that in a quality manner, why would it not? It would expand market share, and he believes that is a good thing. After further discussion,

H. Hurlburt suggested taking a vote on the resolution, but also believes the Senate needs to have this conversation. However, there should be some kind of framework in which to have that conversation, whether it is in the form of a checklist or some other form, is beholden on the Senate to come up with language that protects academic quality and makes that the primary goal rather than just getting people here for the sake of having them here. She suggested the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee (UEPC) could generate a document that would provide a framework to have that conversation. M. Komarraju agreed and charged the committee with coming up with such a document and then bringing it back to the Senate. W. Recktenwald called the question; seconded by G. Boulukos.

Motion to call the question was approved, with one abstention, on a voice vote.

Resolution was approved 27-0-2 on a show of hands vote.

3. M. Komarraju reported that the Executive Council was asked by the Core Curriculum Executive Council (CCEC) whether or not the health requirement should be dropped from the Core. The Executive Council had discussed, and then rejected that idea. The context of the discussion was that the University has more credit hours in its courses than what is common across the Illinois Articulation Initiative (120 credits). [There are two programs, Engineering and Teacher's Education, that are more than one credit .] To bring them into alignment to 120, one solution was to reduce the number of credit hours in the Core Curriculum; and one way to do that was to take away the health requirement. Some discussion was generated about removing the UCOL course because it is not common across the Illinois Articulation Initiative; also, it is three credits, and health is two credits. During the discussion, there was some sentiment that making students who are of good quality, who come in with strong ACT scores, go through UCOL could actually be a disincentive because it is more of a remedial course. Another thought was to send the issue back to the Core Curriculum and ask them to find a way to fix Engineering and Teacher Education or make exceptions just for them and let everyone else take the fall; or, if they want to drop something, drop UCOL or make it optional. P. Manfredi responded that it is not as simple as it sounds to just take two credit hours away. There are probably six courses across three colleges that are used to satisfying health requirements. Although curricular matters and personnel matters are separate, he believes they both have to be waived in a decision like this. He was asked by the Provost to look into what could be done in terms of removing the health requirement as a separate requirement, as they did not want it just dropped. P. Manfredi indicated he prepared a proposal for the CCEC to consider that involved moving as many as possible of the current courses in the health area to life science; the course would be called Life and Health Sciences and would go from being two credit-hours to three. This proposal was discussed at length, but failed because 1) the CCEC believed that the two primary courses that would be moved into life science were not quite life science courses, but could be with a lot more tweaking; and 2) many on the CCEC believed it was important to get as many students as possible to take something in the health-related disciplines because of the close relation between healthful behaviors and academic success.

K. Anderson indicated to P. Manfredi that he is the one who spoke against eliminating the health requirement. He explained that several months back, P. Manfredi came to the Senate, and this same proposal came up. P. Manfredi's comment at that time was that they could not attack the health requirement and that they had to eliminate the i-courses; now, 18 months later, the i-courses are gone, and the CCEC wants to eliminate the health requirement. He believes what they are really doing is protecting UCOL 101, and UCOL 101 does not belong in the core. P. Manfredi responded that at that time, he did not believe the health requirement was a good substitute because it is a two-credit requirement, and UCOL was designed to be three credits. It would have increased the number of Core Curriculum hours, and the problem would be the same, only worse because they could not simply have instructors switch over from teaching the health requirement to teaching UCOL. Most UCOL courses occur over the fall semester, and it would have left graduate teaching assistants and instructors with little or nothing to do in the spring semester; he therefore did not believe the proposal was a workable solution in that case.

K. Anderson pointed out that UCOL basically swallowed the i-courses; now the proposal being floated is that it swallow the health requirement. The comment he made at the Executive Council meeting was, "how long are we going to feed this monster?" He pointed out that they are trying to reduce the size of the core, so any course in the Core Curriculum should be necessary for any student coming to the University to be an educated person. The problem with UCOL 101 is that for students who come in well prepared, with decent ACT scores, it is a remedial class. The University is taking 3 hours out of the 120 hours students have to get their degrees and basically making them pay to waste those hours. P. Manfredi believes that is a fundamental misconception of what happens in UCOL 101. K. Anderson responded that he has talked to some of the instructors, noting that when UCOL 101 was sold to faculty, it was going to be taught by the best classroom performers and was going to be a great introductory experience to university life. Then budget reality hit; the best classroom performers are already fully committed, and departments were not willing to let them go off and teach UCOL 101. P. Manfredi believes UCOL is being implemented unevenly, and the College of Science (K. Anderson's college) is one of the worst. He suggested the college should look at the way UCOL is being implemented there. K. Anderson responded that his point is that UCOL is a course that should not be required of every student; it should be available to any student that needs and will benefit from taking the course; however, it does not belong in the core. S. Graves pointed out that UCOL 101 was not created in a vacuum; it was implemented after years of study and has documented success. If it is not working here, then there is something wrong with the way it is being implemented. So, attack the implementation, but not the concept. M. Komarraju indicated the Executive Council has asked the Core Curriculum Executive Council to go back and discuss the health requirement again.

The question was asked as to who has the authority to make these changes. P. Manfredi responded that it can go through the CCEC, which is charged primarily with implementation through a recommendation to the UEPC and then to the Senate; or, the Senate can request changes be made to the structure of the Core Curriculum. D. Johnson indicated that from the perspective of the UEPC, [it is not curricular, but rather the objectives of the health course]; are those objectives that faculty agree are important for students? D. Johnson asked if those objectives are recognized in the LEAP objectives. P. Manfredi believes they would fall under "civic and personal responsibilities." D. Johnson suggested it would be helpful for the CCEC to look at those and see how many of them are being met in UCOL 101, and is the rest of it enough to justify it being a two credit course. P. Manfredi responded that since the CCEC has already voted down the resolution, he did not see a reason for them to take it up again unless the Executive Council of the Faculty Senate or the Senate as a whole requests that they try again to find a way to do this. S. Graves asked if it might be possible to attach UCOL and health in some way, maybe look at other institutions that have a successful UCOL implementation at one credit hour and still have a two-hour health? P. Manfredi responded that there is a lot that is covered in UCOL, so it would be very difficult to do. He commented that students in UCOL are not particularly Internet savvy in terms of being able to use it for learning or communicating with instructors/colleagues. J. Kapur pointed out that if that attitude is actually getting to the students, that UCOL students are thought of as incapable, then that is a problem. If they want UCOL 101 to succeed, that needs to be fixed. T. Wilson added that, at the same time, that could be one of the reasons why many faculty members do not want to teach UCOL 101 because that is the perception. P. Manfredi agreed, commenting that faculty are hired to do research and teach their disciplines. Many of the things covered in UCOL 101 are preparatory for that, but are essential; it is one thing to be academically well prepared and another to be prepared for the academic culture. M. Komarraju suggested P. Manfredi take this issue back to the CCEC for discussion. If there is any sort of re-thinking about it, let the Executive Council know, and then it can be brought back for a longer discussion.

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

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Anderson, Chair

K. Anderson reported the committee sent out another solicitation for volunteers and was able to generate enough names to fill the current vacancies. The committee is always open to new names because there are always new committees for which they need nominees. He appealed to Senators to beat the bushes because faculty are needed to participate on committees. K. Anderson then presented for approval the following nominations: Leslie Freels Lloyd, Associate Professor, School of Allied Health, to Honorary Degrees and Distinguished Service Award Selection Committee; Scott Comparato, Associate Professor, History, to the Teaching Excellence Award Selection Committee; and Holly Hurlburt, Associate Professor, History, to the Staff Excellence Award Selection Committee. He noted that there is one more committee for which he has names; however, he has not yet received confirmation from those nominees, so those names will be presented next month.

Nominations were approved on a voice vote.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall reported the committee met on October 29, and he discussed with them the most recent budget snapshot documents and activities/initiatives emanating from the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (CPBAC). He reported that colleges were assigned a budget reduction target in proportion to one year's credit hour generation weighted at 70% and new student growth weighted at 30%. The specific formula and metrics were developed by a subcommittee of the CPBAC. In addition to the approximately $4.5 million resulting from that formula, colleges are also assuming the cost associated with general salary increases for all University employees (1% on both January 1 and July 1). Three colleges were particularly hard hit, with some cuts in excess of $1 million: Education and Human Services (COEHS); Applied Sciences and Arts (CASA); and Liberal Arts (COLA). Three colleges were made good because of enrollment growth and FTE: Science, Business and Engineering. Colleges implementing this particular round of cuts were due to the Provost on November ??. J. Wall reported that in a possible consequence to the budget reductions, he received a letter yesterday notifying the Non Tenure Track Association representatives of the possibility of layoffs among NTT faculty, full and part-time. While the letter is procedural in nature, there are strong indications that there will indeed be full or partial reductions in force among faculty. Based on what little information he has on the budget specifics, and any specific knowledge about the budget situation, he is not personally convinced that every possible budget-cutting measure has been exhausted, including cuts in administrative and non-academic units. It is his opinion that the Faculty Senate should not accept the notion of any faculty cuts or layoffs until such time as the Senate can be clearly convinced that it is truly the only alternative.

G. Boulukos reported that, as a member of the Budget Committee, he received the snapshot document, which he finds "incredibly perplexing" and on which he has some questions. For one example, he believes the big problems that are being billed back to the units is a [preventive] method of budget management. In particular, there are salary commitments and enrollment shortfalls; the salary commitments are listed as being for both academic years 12 and 13 without explanation. He questioned why salary commitments require emergency measures, especially considering that the workforce has shrunk dramatically from last year to now. It seems logical that an approximate 8-10% reduction in faculty would result in a reduction of salary costs. He also found the 70/30 distribution formula confusing. The hardest hit colleges are Education, ASA and Liberal Arts; it is unclear how these figures were generated and what kind of sense they make. He has heard from people in ASA who question why the 70/30 formula is only taking into account one year of decreased enrollment. Also, ASA has an online program that is not being counted and has been shifted into a different line; so that enrollment in those on-line courses are totally excluded from the formula. He asked where the money from that online program has gone. It is very clear that it is not being accounted for in the cutting formula. An enormous amount of time is being spent running online programs, and students are in fact registering and paying money for those courses; why should that be completely ignored? The system of the allocations seems unclear, and he believes there should be more justification given to how they play out. J. Wall clarified that the original amount was approximately $12.8 million; after that point, some measures were identified, as he mentioned in last month's meeting, to minimize that in some respects. For example, the School of Law will pay its own way for various things. Also, there was approximately $1 million in the "kitty" that was earned from distance education. Those funds were applied, along with a number of other minor factors, to bring the amount to around $4.5 million. G. Boulukos pointed out that the budget shortfall document lists a number of items, including the two years of salary [increases, which totals $12,798,892. Mitigating factors add up to approximately $9.5 million, and the bottom line total is $4.5 million. That actually is not the difference between those two figures, but is a totally different figure.

J. Legier indicated that ASA's hit was a little over 9% across the board, and that was just because the units were being collegiate. Some units would otherwise have taken a much more severe hit. With respect to the 70/30 split, they have off campus students who are not counted as part of ASA's enrollment. His unit has not been able to find any documentation of when the [70/30 formula was applied] and how their students would count as on campus enrollment for those periods. As far as the picture given here, that is not taken into account. Additionally, the University has suffered an approximately 22% reduction in transfer students; has that been taken into account across the University? For his program alone, that is 30 students because it is a degree completion program that works with transfer students. By that value alone, if looking to his unit's averages, that is pretty significant. The University is suffering, not just his unit. He does not believe that is being taken into account.

T. Wilson commented that she understands the 70/30 formula but does not understand how the formula was applied to rank the colleges and just how the cuts were assigned. For instance, Liberal Arts was asked for a total rescission of $1.25M and Education $1.015M. Even keeping in mind that these total cuts include the salary increases; this seems like a significant portion of the overall cut. Were some colleges not given any cuts? She can see rankings and having proportional cuts, but what was the rationale for some colleges assuming huge amounts of the rescission and some having none at all? G. Boulukos responded that the document he has actually shows some colleges having a negative cut. He would like clarification because what it looks like is that [funds are being shifted from colleges whose cuts are so drastic that layoffs are inevitable and given to other colleges mid- year]. J. Wall noted that negative numbers mean positive growth.

A. Karnes commented that there are a couple of misconceptions. He explained that the colleges were responsible for their own salary increases, including promotional increases. Depending on what happened within a particular college, the number could go up or down. The 70/30 formula was only applied to the remaining balance of the tuition shortfalls, which was added to the salary increases to come up with the final number. The 30% number was for new students, and online students were counted, if they were a new online student. Transfers were part of that as well. He believes there was a college that was up in transfers despite the general trend. A. Karnes further explained that the reason colleges had to absorb the salary increases was because the Board of Trustees backed off of the 6.9% tuition increase they had agreed upon during contract negotiations with the Faculty Association. The tuition increase was to be for the next two years in order to fund the salary increases. Basically, [the administration] has an unfunded mandate it has to somehow cover. With respect to the question about what happened to all the savings from the reduction in force, A. Karnes explained that a good amount of last year's $13.5 million budget shortfall was covered by the reduction in force. There were no reductions at the college level last year because the University used those empty lines. Empty lines have been used to cover much of this year's budget shortfall as well. What ended up getting allocated was just a portion that the empty lines would not cover. There was nothing done last year because there were no cuts needed at the college level. Looking back two years, there was a very similar method used to allocate. So, it is not just one year of data they are looking at, but a series that is going forward. If tuition goes up or if revenue (tuition) goes up, then that same formula can be used to give those funds back to the colleges.

M. Komarraju suggested moving forward with the agenda, as this is an issue that can be further discussed at the next meeting. J. Wall pointed out that faculty are facing layoffs. H. Hurlburt agreed, stating that J. Wall made as close to a motion as he could in his report, and she believes it is something the Senate has to take up--that this body cannot tolerate layoffs; and, it is not just layoffs. In her radio interview, the Chancellor stated that it would probably be around six. This is not just about layoffs, but reductions in hours and people's health care statuses changing; these are not acceptable. N. Martin clarified that online students are not counted in [her unit's] credit hours. She also expressed concern that there is no consideration given to retention.

S. Graves commented that it appears that in some ways the University is working at cross purposes. This issue was raised with the Journalism RME earlier in this Faculty Senate session, that those hours would not be counted. Students taking the certificate program in Journalism are not listed as Journalism majors. When it comes time to count new students, they could have, in a formula such as this, 100 students in that certificate program that would not count. They would only count in the course credit hour generation. If departments want to move towards something more inclusive to offer badges, certificates, etc., then they have to be able to give all this credit for doing so; it is a problem. A. Karnes agreed that online credit hours should be counted. S. Graves added that another issue that has been raised is how A/P and civil service are viewing the salary increases and the resulting cuts in their units. They interpret this as being the loss of a staff member. S. Graves believes the academic mission of the University is being undermined if that is the message being sent.

G. Boulukos asked about the kind of tuition increase the Board did pass. A. Karnes responded that it was 4.9%. G. Boulukos pointed out that there is a 2% difference between 4.9% and 6.9%, but it appears that 100% of the increases are being billed back. A. Karnes responded that, comparing this year to last year, the University was actually down. G. Boulukos indicated that A. Karnes was at the CPBAC meeting and understands the information they were provided; however, what the faculty have been given does not explain the situation being as dire as it is being portrayed. There really needs to be some transparency.

D. Muzio commented that she appreciated G. Boulukos asking the hard questions that, unfortunately, do not get asked at these meetings. She believed it was unfortunate that the Chancellor was not in attendance because only a few hours ago, she was listening to the Chancellors Tuesday morning address on WSIU. The interviewer commented that there was talk that some places were taking cuts and others not. She asked the Chancellor how she decides where the cuts are going to be and where they are not. The Chancellor's response was that everyone is participating in the cuts. According to what G. Boulukos is saying, however, some colleges are not participating. D. Muzio indicated she would like clarification on that and would like the Executive Council to ask these questions of the Chancellor. With respect to the online distance education, she explained that her unit was asked to find courses that could go distance education. She does not know about the other programs in the Rehabilitation Institute, but in her program, she is aware of at least one course that is not a distance education course--students are sitting in the classroom--and it is being changed to a distance education course. She is concerned that courses are being misclassified. Finally, there is the letter from the Chancellor about the NTT layoffs. The NTT have a collective bargaining agreement that calls for the NTT Faculty Association and the administration to sit down, talk about the budget, show the evidence of need and talk about when cuts are going to take place; that never happened. They always get the pink slips and then have to go back and wrangle over why and to whom it happened. As a body, she would like to see the Senate be a better advocate for itself.

J. Kapur read a resolution she drafted and expressed the hope the Senate would consider it as a resolution: "Faculty Senate resolves we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs of faculty ...[inaudible]...we recommend that the Chancellor make a convincing argument about the necessity of such layoffs before putting [it] in force as a solution in a public forum." J. Legier would like to go back to what S. Graves mentioned [and include A/P and civil service]. The question was raised as to whether a resolution could be presented and voted on at this meeting. W. Recktenwald indicated the Senate could waive the five-day rule in order to do so. K. Anderson pointed out that he has opposed to waiving the five-day rule in almost every case it has been raised since he has been associated with the Senate. He believes there are good reasons for having the five-day rule, stating that the Senate, by definition, is a deliberative body. When it acts in haste, mistakes are made. Another alternative would be to call a special meeting of the Senate. He believes it would make more sense to get the facts straight, get all the information in front of everyone and act; it can be done in a week. He reiterated that the five-day rule exists for a very good reason.

K. Anderson indicated that, in addition, there are two competing arguments being raised. One is whether the cuts are equitable; the second is that there should not be layoffs. No one likes layoffs, but if the Senate approves a motion stating it cannot afford layoffs, then the money to pay for those staff has to come out of other programs. There is a finite amount of money in the kitty, and faculty do not like the way it is being divvied up; but, no new money is being added. G. Boulukos commented that what he was attempting to point out is that there needs to be a transparent accounting of why these cuts need to come now and why they need to come in the way they are coming; the Senate does not have that. If there needs to be an emergency meeting in order to gather information and request a serious accounting that explains it, then that is fine. He does not believe that, based on the documents given to the Budget Committee, there is a basis for understanding that there in fact is no money in the kitty.

M. Komarraju indicated there are two things the Senate can do. There can be a vote to waive the five-day rule; then, if that is approved, take a vote on the resolution. H. Hurlburt asked J. Kapur to re-read her draft resolution. J. Kapur read: "Faculty Senate resolves we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs [being presented as a solution ...[inaudible]...to the budgetary shortfall. We recommend that the Chancellor make a convincing argument about the necessity of layoffs before putting these forth as a solution in a public forum." J. Kapur believes the resolution aspires to what the Senate has heard. It is simply asking for transparency. H. Hurlburt questioned whether there would be enough Senators in attendance if a special meeting were held. Also, would the Chancellor and Provost be able to attend. There is no point generating all these questions if they cannot attend. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the NTT faculty. J. Wall commented that it was not his intention of seeking a resolution at this point. He mainly wanted to point out, as a matter of fact, the mission and role of the Faculty Senate, and he certainly believes this is a matter of faculty status and welfare, despite it emanating from the Budget Committee.

M. Komarraju reported that there is a quorum and a vote can be taken on waiving the five day rule. H. Hurlburt then moved to waive the five day rule; seconded by G. Boulukos. T. Wilson asked whether the Senate could vote to both have a resolution and call for a meeting where to possibly get answers to some of the questions being raised before the November 30 deadline. G. Boulukos suggested tackling the five day rule first. M. Komarraju called for discussion on the motion. K. Anderson repeated that waiving the five day rule is a bad idea under any circumstances. The Senate by definition is a deliberative body, and if they do not deliberate, they are not doing their jobs. W. Recktenwald indicated that having a special meeting has nothing to do with waiving five day rule; they are discussing the resolution. He likes J. Kapur's idea, but as an editor would play with words here and there and possibly add in something. He pointed out that several Senators have already left, so he would vote against the motion. G. Boulukos called question.

Motion to waive the five-day rule was approved 14-8-2 on a show of hands vote.

J. Kapur moved to approve the following resolution: "The Faculty Senate resolves that we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs presented as a solution to budgetary shortfalls. We recommend that the Chancellor make a convincing argument about the necessity of layoffs before putting this forth as a solution in a public forum"; seconded by G. Boulukos. It was noted that the second sentence somewhat contradicts the first one. H. Hurlburt responded that the second sentence is more having an emergency meeting to discuss this; the second sentence is about opposing layoffs. J. Wall wanted to clarify that there is no certainty to any of this; it could be 2 people or 200. No names or units have been identified at this point, and no one will know until November 30 for those on continuing appointment. H. Hurlburt pointed out that the possibility is out there because the Chancellor mentioned it on the radio. J. Wall agreed that it is likely to happen, and the administration is legally obligated to give notice, which they did. But no one knows how many at this point.

G. Boulukos suggested an amendment to strike the second sentence and add at the end of the first sentence [something like, "without full and compelling documentation of their necessity."] K. Anderson commented that the Senate is writing this on the fly, and he still believes it is a mistake. He asked who would decide whether it is full and compelling? Who decides whether it is convincing? G. Boulukos responded that what they are saying is they want to be convinced. T. Wilson indicated that the way the formula was applied makes it all but certain, at least in her college, that they will have NTT layoffs. There is nothing left to cut. She believes the Senate is justified in asking that the formula as it exists be fair and equitable. J. Kapur re-read the resolution: "The [Faculty] Senate resolves that we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs presented as a solution to budgetary shortfalls." A. Karnes expressed concern in that the Senate cannot change the fact that, bottom line, there are x number of dollars. If the Senate is going to unilaterally say it opposes layoffs, then it should propose a concrete solution or a substitute to make up those dollars. H. Hurlburt noted that at other institutions, upper administrators have taken pay cuts in order to prevent layoffs. She is not proposing that, but only saying that there need to be more conversations.

K. Anderson requested a quorum count; it was noted that there were 21 Senators still present (quorum is 19)]. After brief discussion during which several people spoke at once and could not be adequately recorded, G. Boulukos asked if a vote needed to be taken to cut off discussion. D. Johnson responded that the body as a whole can vote to cut off debate. G. Boulukos asked if voting now would mean voting on the one sentence version. D. Johnson indicated yes, if someone moves to call the question. K. Anderson so moved; seconded by W. Recktenwald.

Motion to call the question failed 9-11-0 on a show of hands vote.

H. Hurlburt [asked] to go back to the amendment suggested by G. Boulukos so that the resolution would read: "The Faculty Senate resolves we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs presented as a solution to budgetary shortfalls absent a full and compelling documentation of their necessity." M. Dolan indicated that he agreed with the concerns expressed by K. Anderson and W. Recktenwald. He believes the Senate needs time; it is voting on something important, and Senators are not even looking at a piece of paper. He believes it is wrong to be voting so quickly. S. Graves believes that what G. Boulukos is asking for [with the amendment] is for a special meeting, and a resolution is not necessary to do that. Rather, the Executive Council can be requested to call a special meeting and then there would not be a need for a resolution. If, after the special meeting the Senate wants to make a statement, it can.

M. Komarraju pointed out that in four minutes, the videoconference to Springfield will be lost, and then there will not be a quorum. G. Boulukos asked if he could move to have his amendment adopted. D. Johnson did not believe a vote was necessary. It can be accepted [by J. Kapur] as a friendly amendment. W. Recktenwald asked that the resolution be read again. J. Kapur read: "The Faculty Senate resolves we are deeply concerned about and oppose any potential layoffs presented as a solution to budgetary shortfalls absent a full and compelling documentation of their necessity."

Resolution was approved 14-3-3 on a show of hands vote.

[D. Johnson] asked if the consensus is that a special meeting be held. Several Senators responded in the affirmative.

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

H. Hurlburt reported that the committee met and is continuing to work on the faculty survey. She believes the committee did an amazing job in pulling together the report, and she thanked them all. She noted that ,unfortunately, the report was received by the Executive Council with very little time for it to be read, so it is a matter the Executive Council will take up at a subsequent meeting.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba