Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

[as corrected]

Meeting convened at 1:09 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Blaine Bartholomew, George E. Boulukos, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Terry Clark, Bruce A. DeVantier, Mark J. Dolan, Anthony T. Fleege, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Holly S. Hurlburt, David M. Johnson, Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes (ex officio), Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Carolyn G. Kingcade, Punit Kohli (for Qingfeng Ge), Meera Komarraju, James A. MacLean, Douglas W. Lind, Kitty Martin (for Diane Muzio), John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Nicole K. Roberts, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Rachel B. Whaley, Terri S. Wilson, Mingqing Xiao.

Members absent without proxy: John T. Legier.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Matthew McCarroll (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Matt Paray (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

G. Boulukos asked that more information be added to the minutes of July 10, 2012, to clarify the discussion under Question and Answer, item 1, regarding the number of faculty who retired. It is unclear as to whether the 75-77 faculty included both tenure and tenure track lines. Chancellor Cheng responded that there were 60 tenured faculty who retired, and the 41 new faculty hires were all tenure line hires. The numbers include both tenure and tenure track faculty. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported: a) she attended the July 11 Board of Trustees meeting in Springfield. Highlights from the meeting included the approval of several dean positions, approval of purchase agreements for Head Start bus service and vending machine services and approval of projects and budgets, such as improving the HVAC system in Parkinson. The School of Medicine presented data collected from 72 selected graduates' employers responses regarding SIU Med School graduates' performance. The report was very positive. One Trustee was interested in the possibility of increasing Med School class size. Such an increase, however, would require more faculty; b) at the Chancellor's Executive Council meeting on July 25, discussion ensued over increasing faculty involvement in Saluki Startup Week (August 13-19). Two barriers included: not all faculty are on contract at that time, and faculty convocation attendance may be hampered by such things as the cost of regalia, etc.; c) on July 26, M. Komarraju met with the Chancellor regarding common goals for SIU and how to work collaboratively to improve [things] for students and faculty. The Chancellor noted that since M. Komarraju interacts with a considerable number of students and faculty, the Chancellor would be glad to learn of any areas of concern that can be addressed before they become serious. M. Komarraju responded that she would keep the Chancellor posted; d) M. Komarraju plans to attend the Board of Trustees meeting in Edwardsville on September 13; e) the fall faculty meeting/luncheon is scheduled for October 18; email information to follow. The topic will be Online Distance Education at SIU. Suggestions for speakers included Karla Berry (Center for Teaching Excellence) and Stephen Ebbs, who has been doing a lot of online education and could discuss some of his experiences. M. Komarraju indicated she is open to any other suggestions for speakers; f) Jonathan Wiesen from Liberal Arts and Belle Woodward from Applied Sciences and Arts have resigned from the Senate (J. Wiesen is on sabbatical and B. Woodward was named director of her department). Senators were encouraged to encourage colleagues in their respective colleges to agree to be nominated (it normally takes more than one nomination).

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) regarding the State of the University address last week: She thanked those who were in attendance; for those who were not, there is a video posted on the website, as well as a text version of the address. She discussed enrollment; the budget and the work being done to improve the infrastructure of the campus; engaging with faculty groups to review academic policies and programs, as well as the efforts to sustain and strengthen the research mission; b) the strategic planning process should be coming to closure soon. Staff is redrafting the plan based on campus input and hopes to have a penultimate document soon. She announced her intention to schedule listening sessions every week--listening sessions will comprise a random collection of senior faculty one week and untenured faculty another week in order to get better communication into Anthony Hall from the faculty perspective. Faculty who receive an invitation may join her in a brown bag lunch and discuss whatever is on their minds, strategic planning or not; c) the task force charged with reviewing campus life and safety earlier this year submitted the report yesterday (Monday). She would like to present it to the Senate after a chance to review the report; d) key items on the upcoming Board of Trustees agenda include both operating budget and capital RAMP. The capital request priorities include the renovation and expansion of the Communications Building. It is a significant project that has maintained its status, and it is expected that over the next several years, there will be a release of funding for that project. Also on the Board agenda is the salary increase request for non-represented staff and a request for alternative tuition for high-achieving students beyond the border states. This is a direct result of increasing competition and a way to encourage high achieving students to consider SIU; e) the budget is being approached using a three-pronged approach--for example, all units will be asked to find a way to self-fund upcoming salary increases. In terms of buffering necessary heavy cuts as a result of the decrease in state appropriations, she is trying to offload what she can to other sources of funding. Therefore, a second prong is to work through hundreds of open positions in terms of fairness in charges across the campus and reorganizing/restructuring/realigning in order to buffer those cuts to units. She believes most of [the $7 million in cuts] can be achieved by not filling open positions, offloading some state appropriations to grants or other activity, and reorganizing and restructuring. The third prong: Enrollment! The budget assumed a flat enrollment. This is did not occur. A subcommittee of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee is looking at student credit hours, headcount and completion and is using a rubric to allocate cost reductions out based on unit enrollment performance.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. M. Kibby asked Chancellor Cheng about the alternate tuition for undergraduates. Chancellor Cheng responded that there is a cap in the amount of institutional aid that can be given for undergraduates. Graduate programs have tuition remission authority over and beyond the cap for undergraduates. The only way the University can advertise to high-achieving freshmen or undergraduate transfers would be to request to have an alternative tuition. [No criteria, such as a cutoff score,] has been established because she does not want to have to go back to the Board every time there might be a change in the competitive environment. Having the alternate tuition will help the University to recruit in areas beyond the border states where there are a lot of alums. A. Karnes asked if the alternate tuition includes [high-achieving students] who are in-state. Chancellor Cheng responded that, at this point, the institution is allowed to do more in institutional aid for Illinois veterans, so there are other strategies to approach a high ACT or a very high-achieving student in-state. The Chancellor noted the alternative tuition is a way to become more competitive in an increasingly aggressive market environment (the Big 10 schools' enrollment drives were referenced).

2. B. Bartholomew asked Chancellor Cheng to address the development of the Tuition on Research Grants Policy, as well as how she is addressing the concerns of some faculty who believe this policy will neither increase the number of graduate students nor increase the number of dollars coming to campus. Chancellor Cheng explained that the proposal came out of the Research Committee of the Graduate Council. Her understanding is that the committee researched and collected data on several institutions, 13 of which charged tuition to grants. She also understands from attending Graduate Council last week that the committee is reviewing what they see is a potential negative; that is all she knows about the issue.

B. Bartholomew asked if the policy is [fixed] or if it is still in the negotiation stage. Chancellor Cheng responded that the policy is [fixed], but if there is another proposal coming out based on research, then it will certainly be considered. She noted that the policy went through several layers before it was signed off on by her. B. Bartholomew indicated that from what he was told, that particular committee on the Graduate Council did not have much input. Their task was only to collect information from institutions; [they did not collect] input on the policy or how it impacts the University. His concern is that input from those who know on campus was not asked for or sought. He has heard this from several people, including those in the School of Medicine. Chancellor Cheng responded that she attended Graduate Council where there were presentations and discussions with a broad group of faculty, and she did not hear any of those concerns at that time. The Provost stated that the School of Medicine was consulted.

M. Kibby asked for clarification on several concerns she had about the Tuition on Grants policy, including, but not limited to implementation, graduate student work load, and tuition rates. Chancellor Cheng responded that these kinds of details have not been discussed in her office, and she believes it would be an appropriate discussion for the Graduate Council. To sustain the University research mission, SIU will have to do what other research universities have done to grow research, support graduate students and celebrate faculty success. The policy may need to be revisited, but the concept is a good one. M. Kibby stated there has been considerable confusion: For example, she was originally told that any grant over $500,000 (not $50,000) would have to pay tuition. Provost Nicklow clarified the limit is $50,000 on federal grants; however, this was deemed an audit risk. The University is not permitted to have a tiered tuition system on federal grants. M. Kibby used an example, if a grant is $289,000 and the limit is $300,000, what happens to the four graduate students supported each semester? Chancellor Cheng recommended using the indirect funds available in the departments and throughout campus. In addition, the Chancellor suggested faculty contact the research subcommittee of the Graduate Committee, as it is continuing to consider the issue. B. Bartholomew suggested it needs to come before the Senate as well.

J. MacLean distributed a handout on the Tuition on Research Grants, explaining that Scott Ishman (Graduate Council Chair) did ask for the School of Medicine's response; Medical School faculty held two or three committee meetings during the summer and drafted a composite report on how the policy would negatively impact research. The report was submitted 10 days in advance of the deadline, but the policy was still put into effect without any indication that their response was received and no dialogue was generated. As the first person to have submitted a grant under the new policy, J. MacLean discussed his experience with the process. Using an NIH grant as an example, he explained how the new policy actually reduces the amount of the direct costs to the University, as well as reduces the amount of funds available for GAs.

B. Bartholomew, who has been funded at SIU for 20 years with NIH funding, pointed out that if this policy goes into effect, there would be no incentive for him to ever hire a graduate student because for the same cost he could, for example, hire a post-doc, who could work full time and need not take courses. There may be other institutions that have done this; however, what they have actually done is reduce the number of graduate students they hire. He saw this happen at the University of California. Additionally, this new policy actually reduces the amount of direct cost that goes to the University; it penalizes those who are successful in getting funding; it penalizes the [researcher] because they never see their money come back to them; rather, it goes somewhere else on campus to be used. B. Bartholomew suggested the policy be seriously reconsidered because it will have outcomes that will ripple for years. It could impact the viability of the research component of this University.

Chancellor Cheng noted that she did receive a communication from the School of Medicine, but it was after formal approval of the policy. B. Bartholomew pointed out that, according to the Graduate School, their deadline was later in July; the policy came out the first part of July, and the School of Medicine was not even aware of the change happening until a notice came by way of someone at the end of June. There was no time to respond. As it was, the School of Medicine faculty threw together [a response] as quickly as they could, but even then it was too late to meet the deadline. Chancellor Cheng believes there should be discussion about this with the Graduate Council and their research committee. She asked B. Bartholomew if he is objecting to any tuition or the non-residency. B. Bartholomew responded that the policy needs to be revisited and needs to have a little more intelligent design. He believes that, as a policy right now, it does not accomplish her goal at all. J. MacLean indicated his grant was required to use the foreign student rate no matter what. He was told this by the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA). Also, the tuition budget is not flexible and the tuition is charged [when the budget is funded]. K. Anderson mentioned that the information reaching him from all over the College of Science echoes all the aforementioned concerns almost verbatim.

H. Hurlburt commented that she served on Graduate Council last year, and she is troubled by how things got to this point. She believes there were a series of discussions held in Graduate Council, and this issue never came up; that concerns her, particularly given that the people who are responsible for crafting the policy in the first place may now potentially be in jeopardy by the issues being raised. She is also troubled by how little the Senate and the Graduate Council talk to each other. She pointed out that a member of the Senate sits in on Graduate Council meetings, and a member of Graduate Council sits in on Senate meetings. If the kind of domino effect or ripple effect described above could occur over the long term, and this was not considered by those involved, then both groups need to figure out how to better talk to each other.

In terms of the alternate tuition, M. Kibby commented that it was her understanding that out of state tuition was going to be charged, noting that most of the students in her department are from out of state. Chancellor Cheng responded that the tuition rate has to be real, and that was a proposal she believes came later from the Graduate School. It is not possible to charge a rate somewhere between residency and non-residency because it is not within the University's authority to do so. That was the only change she was aware of, and she believed that was the issue--out of state versus resident. She noted that this should only be the case for international students because domestic students establish residency after they have been here six months. Chancellor Cheng explained that the committee wanted to incentivize by taking three-quarters of that tuition back and give it either to the PI, the lab or the department. That pool of funds could be used to offset grants so that a future grant would only have resident tuition; the pool could be used to supplement in order to meet the non-resident requirement (that is in the policy).

M. McCarroll stated that he was on the Research Committee when they developed the Tuition on Grants policy. He clarified that the committee was asked to recommend whether a policy should be developed. The Graduate Council actually recommended developing a policy, and there were several caveats written into the policy that he believes would have prevented some of the problems that have developed. The Graduate Council itself would not have been further involved in the development of the policy; it was done by a special committee or task force that was put together.

3. T. Wilson asked Chancellor Cheng if she knew what the breakdown is on the enrollment declines per unit. She wondered how units would be asked to give back funds. Would this be based on credit hours generated, head counts, retention, graduation...? Chancellor Cheng responded that the committee's work is not done. She has not seen the report, but is aware that a heavy weight is on credit hours because of the concern that Liberal Arts, in particular, and certain departments in Science would be unfairly hit because of the core. T. Wilson asked if the give-back would be at the college level or department level. Chancellor Cheng responded it would be at the college level.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) the program review changes [protocol committee], with which the Senate was involved last year, is now implementing that protocol. The Senate is represented on each and every review committee. He indicated that K. Anderson is currently working to have Senate involvement on each committee. Provost Nicklow encouraged everyone to be involved as they go through those recommendations; b) there are approximately 70 different degree-specific accreditations on this campus. When accreditation reviewers are on campus, the need to meet with the Provost's office to indicate institutional support. It is also a Higher Learning Commission requirement that his office maintain documentation, including self-studies and reports back from the reviews. What he has found over the last few years is that there is no documentation--no evidence of self-studies or reports. It is very difficult to even prove a department or program has a particular accreditation, so that is being cleaned up in a very aggressive fashion; c) form 90s, 90As and RMEs for catalog changes are due October 1 for the coming year; d) the search for prospective students for fall 2013 is starting earlier than he can ever remember. There will be search pieces in the mail to 540,000 seniors. He believes getting information out this early will put the University ahead of its competitors; e) patience while classroom renovations are taking place is much appreciated. They are in the process of doing groups of 20, then 12, then 60. The 20 and 12 are primarily technology upgrades in existing classrooms. The 60 will start later this term and through the winter and involves anything from new floors to paint to furniture with technology. The idea is to make classrooms a place where students are happy to be and a place where instructors are happy to be teaching; f) Touch of Nature has reported to the Provost's office for several years; however, effective October 1, they will begin reporting to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. A new director has been hired, and an announcement will likely come this week. He encouraged collaboration with Touch of Nature because it is a wonderful place to have retreats and is also a great place for environmental education opportunities, field trips, etc. He would really like to explore synergies between the academic affairs side and Touch of Nature; g) the Associate Provost for Academic Administration search was announced earlier this month. The application deadline has passed, and notices about interviews should be coming within the next few weeks; h) a task force is currently working to redesign the instructor course evaluation (ICE). This is coming out of a larger group on which the Senate had representation last year. This smaller task force will be developing the questions. There will be a section on course evaluation, instructor evaluation and then on assessment that can be used in discipline-specific accreditations but can also be used by the University for accreditation. It will focus on learning outcomes, which is desperately needed and would help the University across the board in accreditation; i) over coming weeks, there will be two RFPs (Request for Proposal) sent out. One is from the Center for Teaching Excellence, which will focus on development of distance education courses in gateway courses (primarily Math and English). The second is by the Office of Distance Education and Off Campus Programs to develop distance education courses primarily for core courses and for masters programs. They are attempting to incentivize some development in those areas. The entire core, in addition to an undergraduate studies major, are very close to being completely online.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (cont.)

1. K. Anderson asked what the logic is to having Touch of Nature report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. Provost Nicklow responded that Continuing Education currently reports to that vice chancellor area. He believes there is synergy to be had between Continuing Education and the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. Most of what they do has a continuing education nature to it, and he would like to encourage collaboration with the academic affairs side.

2. M. Komarraju asked if the online courses will be available to on-site students. If so, her concerns would be a) are students going to be sitting in the residence halls taking classes rather than going to a classroom and b) is the opportunity to engage and retain these students being lost? Provost Nicklow responded that if what M. Komarraju is asking is whether the University will be cannibalizing its population, then the answer is "maybe." He explained that a group of individuals from around campus had put together the new finance model, which was an approximately 70/30 split for distance education courses. The question M. Komarraju raised came up, and at that point, it was determined the finance model was wrong and needed to change. He does not believe the campus is anywhere close to that, but it needs to be monitored to make sure that kind of thing is not happening. Students are only counted one place; it is not necessarily a problem if they are taking one class that may not fit into their schedule on campus, so they take it online; however, if they are sitting in the residence halls and taking four or five online classes and not getting out of bed and going to class, then there is a problem. His office is working with Gayla Stoner, director of the Office of Distance Education and Off Campus Programs, to pay close attention to those students who are duly enrolled or have residence and are taking online courses to make sure that if and when that becomes a problem, then something has to change, likely, the finance model. Chancellor Cheng commented that if the University does not offer that flexibility, then students will seek it elsewhere. Provost Nicklow added that although open classes online currently do not have a credit value, the University of Colorado has recently agreed to offer credit. There is going to be a very rapid change in the online environment, and it has to be watched closely. They need to discuss what can be done.

3. B. DeVantier asked how the online course evaluations would be monitored. For example, will a student who gets a WF still be able to go online and do course evaluations, and how do faculty make sure there is good participation. K. Anderson responded that the committee has not yet reached that point; however, many of those kinds of questions have come up. The committee has not yet decided how those will be addressed.

4. K. Asner-Self commented that [faculty] have some idea about how faculty hires are being handled; she asked what is being done to scrutinize administrative hires. Chancellor Cheng responded that there is an organizational plan showing how the hire is a priority and is a result of reorganization to operate with less people. For example, the director of exploratory students is a combination of two previous director positions--director of the Center for Academic Success and director of Pre Major Advisement. It is not a combination of two positions and a large salary; only one of those positions under a new title is being recruited. In the Information Technology area, there are approximately 70 vacancies. [She] has authorized 20 technical people mostly, but only after an organizational chart and a review and sit-down with the Provost and CIO about what he (the CIO) absolutely needs to operate. Other examples are in the Provost area, such as 50%, rather than 100% appointments, in the OSPA and Graduate School. They are reorganizing and reworking what can be done more effectively. Those are only a few examples.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. M. McCarroll reported on the Graduate Council's first meeting of the semester, held on September 6: a) the Research Committee is considering the effects of the final policy on Tuition on Grants; b) the move of the Physician's Assistant Program to the School of Medicine was considered for approval; c) the Educational Policies Committee introduced a resolution to accept unofficial transcripts for the purposes of admissions. A policy is being developed and will be recommended, the idea being to speed up the admission process. M. Kibby asked who is chairing the Research Committee. M. McCarroll responded that Judy Davie (School of Medicine) is the chair. Anyone with questions or comments about the evaluation of the Tuition on Grants policy can contact her. K. Asner-Self asked, when unofficial transcripts for admission are submitted, how much grace period is allowed untilthe official ones show up? M. McCarroll responded that it will be part of the policy that is developed. The general idea at this point is that official transcripts will need to be presented before registering for the next semester, but the timing of it will be developed. K. Asner-Self asked if the same applies to things like GRE scores. Her [department] has students whose official GRE scores have not come in, so they have the same kind of issue. M. McCarroll responded they can take a look at that, but he believes the policy is specific to transcripts.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. T. Clark reported the Executive Council discussed the Tuition on Grants policy, along with many of the concerns raised by K. Anderson. They also discussed the fall faculty meeting. There were lengthy email conversations over the summer about the idea of addressing the atmospherics at the University. The result was the drafting of a resolution. T. Clark presented for approval the Resolution to Urge Trustees and Senior Administrators to Protect and Enhance the Reputation of the University (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). K. Anderson explained that the resolution is an inoculant. It is intended to be an effort to make it clear that the Senate and the faculty as a whole expect certain behavior to occur. It is hoped that with the passage of the resolution, there will not be a need for any further action. The resolution is not specific as to who or what it is addressing, but simply states that the Senate expects a certain standard of behavior. There have been instances where those standards have not been applied, and the result has damaged the University. He pointed out that anything that damages the University damages the entire faculty and student body. The resolution is a modest way of saying, "keep it civil."

M. Komarraju reported that once the resolution went public, she received a call asking why the Senate is getting involved in this issue and if it was within the Senate's charge. She noted that the Executive Council was not unanimously in support of the resolution, and there were differences of opinions as to whether the Senate should get involved. Since it was not distributed to Senators in a timely manner, D. Johnson moved to waive the five day rule in order to consider the resolution; seconded by M. Kibby.

Motion to waive the five-day rule was approved 23-0-4 on a show of hands vote.

D. Johnson then moved to postpone the resolution indefinitely; seconded by C. Kingcade. D. Johnson believes it is better not to vote on the resolution at all because the Senate is wading into an issue it does not need to wade into; additionally, it could be interpreted as a no confidence-like vote. The coyness of the phrase "senior administrators" implies that there is more than one involved, and he believes there is only one target that the resolution addresses; however, the language as written may be construed to include other administrators, such as the Provost and Chancellor. D. Johnson also reminded Senators that there have been issues about censorship on campus recently and who is allowed to talk to the press; the resolution could be seen as squelching free speech. K. Anderson responded that free speech should not be confused with public speech. For example, higher administrators, trustees, etc., have not only the right, but the obligation to ask difficult questions; they have to be prepared to challenge each other on whether or not certain priorities should be priorities, whether or not things should be done the way they are being done; but there is no requirement that such things have to take place in public.

A. Karnes believes the Senate should vote on the resolution. [These senior administrators] are embarrassing the University. He pointed out that the IBHE has a blog that picks up news from various universities around the state. When these blowups occur at Board meetings, it ends up in the IBHE daily blog and consequently, in all the papers that publish academic news. He believes it has a negative effect on the University, including recruitment of students. He believes the Senate should stand up for the University to insist on a certain degree of civility. H. Hurlburt commented that she did not disagree with everything that has been said, but her concern is that negative perceptions are subjective.

M. Dolan agreed with many of the comments, but saw nothing positive coming from the resolution. Rather, it could potentially be a huge PR black eye for the University and could negatively impact the Senate. K. Anderson agreed to a certain extent, but questioned whether the Senate would have the courage to pass a resolution condemning someone if that person does something really embarrassing to the University at some later point. C. Kingcade believes waiting until that happens and having a vote on censure makes a lot more sense than passing a resolution that will likely do more to give [the Senate] a bad reputation than to let people have their say without interfering at this point. She believes taking a vote now would be seen as a vote of censure, and it will not be a very effective way to do that because the resolution has no teeth. J. Wall moved to call the question on the motion; seconded by H. Hurlburt. It was clarified that calling the question would cut off debate.

Motion to call the question was approved 26-2-0 on a show of hands vote.

Motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely was approved 19-7-2 on a show of hands vote.

2. M. Komarraju reported that another item the Executive Council spent time discussing was the lack of free flowing information between upper administration and faculty. Examples of this would be the 5/10/15 rule, the restructuring and reorganization and the tuition on grants. The common thread across those issues is the perception that faculty are not getting the rationale for why these decisions are being made. In the discussion that followed, they found that the upper administration did believe they had passed on the rationale to the next lower level (the deans); however, it appeared that perhaps some of the information is not trickling down to the chairs and then to the faculty and staff.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Anderson, Chair

1. K. Anderson presented for approval the University Committee Assignments (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He explained that a flyer was distributed to faculty last semester asking for volunteers. The committee matched up as best it could the volunteers with the committees of their choice.

University Committee Assignments were approved on a voice vote.

2. K. Anderson reported the committee sent forth nominations for representation on the Search Committee for Associate Provost for Academic Administration, the Financial Conflict of Interest Policy; and the Complimentary Practices and Academic Efficiencies Task Force. Nominations for the Student Conduct Code Review Committee are ready to be forwarded. The committee was also asked to come up with as many as 20 names for appointment to five or more program change review committees. These are the committees that will look at programs that are undergoing IBHE-mandated performance reviews. The committee needs more volunteers and will send out another solicitation to the faculty in order to fill the openings on those committees.

M. Komarraju asked Senators that when they go back and report on the Senate's activities to their faculty, please make them aware that there are opportunities for them to shape policies on campus. She commented that just from her own committee work, she has found that people from different disciplines bring different perspectives; oftentimes, the faculty perspective may not be presented when committees are largely made up of staff members. She acknowledged that it is more work, but believes it is worth it to be able to have a say and influence. She asked Senators to encourage colleagues to volunteer.

The question was asked as to whether the Committee on Committees would be appointing people to the various program review committees based on which committee it would be, or are they just collecting names and sorting them out later? K. Anderson responded that the committee will have information about the program review committees; however, at this time they do not have a pool of faculty to even begin the process. There needs to be a deep pool because there are a whole variety of parameters that have to be met. The Committee on Committees has to make sure that people nominated for particular committees do not have conflicts of interest. He also believes they should be tenured faculty, as some recommendations could be controversial. They want to make sure as broad a spectrum of points of view across campus are represented. Filling these positions is a new task for the committee, and will be a substantial one.

C. Baker wondered why non tenured faculty are being excluded from the pool when numbers are needed. She believes each person could make it known as to whether or not they feel vulnerable on a committee. J. MacLean asked if this group of people will help the department come up with a plan on how they are going to reach compliance, or is this the group that will judge whether or not the plan is sound. K. Anderson responded his understanding is that it would be the latter.

G. Boulukos commented on the pre-tenure/post-tenure question, suggesting it might also be good policy to exclude new hires. It would not be a good idea to ask people who have just arrived to take on a whole lot of committee work. K. Asner-Self suggested when soliciting volunteers, the flyer should indicate an on-going need for volunteers should people agree to be on a standing list. K. Anderson noted there is always committee work to be done and always opportunities for people to serve.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- No report.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- No report.

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

H. Hurlburt reported the committee met and discussed two issues. The first involved the faculty survey that was sent last spring. The committee hopes to have a report to present to the Senate at the October meeting, at which time they hope to have some kind of recommendation on the data that was gathered.

The committee spent the bulk of its meeting discussing the second issue, the Instructor Course Evaluation (ICE) report. She expressed appreciation for the feedback the committee received and believes they had a fruitful conversation. Everyone agrees that this is a long overdue change, and just making it shorter would be taking a step in the right direction. The committee believes there were two sets of issues to be addressed. The first was the makeup of the ICE itself, and then second was the issue of what happens when it is implemented. The committee believes there were a fairly large set of questions, so they dedicated themselves to thinking about and generating some suggested changes to the draft they had received. At that time, they were unaware there was already an ICE implementation committee, on which K. Anderson serves. She noted that K. Anderson has already seen the committee's suggestions. [For] the design that would be used for everyone, her committee strongly believed that it ought to have a section dedicated to self-assessment. There were other revisions made as well that will be forwarded on to the implementation committee. At the end of this month, the committee will take up the issues generated by questions of implementation--will this be online? Will it work well online? Will the results be online? What are the implications for academic freedom, privacy, etc., if it is online? H. Hurlburt indicated that these and other issues will be reported on next month; then, once a report is generated, they will need Senate approval to forward it on to K. Anderson and the implementation committee. K. Anderson noted that the implementation committee has already received comments from the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee, and the ICE committee is grateful for having received those. He indicated the committee is not working in a vacuum; they are open to suggestions and input.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

G. Boulukos reported he has heard rumors that the University Ombudsman office closed. M. Komarraju responded that this issue was part of the discussion at the recent Executive Council meeting. It is another one of those items the Council believes had the underlying theme that the rationale for the decision had not trickled down. Chancellor Cheng explained that over the last several years, the utilization of the Ombudsman office has been very light. It was staffed with a director, an office person and two graduate students; before that, there was an associate director. The students who had used the office have been predominately referred to the Dean of Students office. The Dean of Students is officially the ombudsperson for students on this campus. The handfuls of faculty and staff over the last five to six months have been referred most often to Linda McCabe-Smith (Office of Associate Chancellor-Diversity) for questions of discrimination or harassment. She believes there were one or two A/P and civil service who would go to their respective constituency group. The office had been monitored over the last few years and was closed for lack of business. It is one of many offices that have been reconfigured and closed. She supposed the question is how to communicate that when it is really day to day conversations about how to get the work done with less people. J. Allen added that, in addition to the Dean of Students, any students who are having academic problems can first approach their instructors; if that is not satisfactory to the student, then the chair or director of the program. The third step would be the dean's office. If there is still a problem, students can go to the Provost's office. There are multiple avenues for students to address their concerns.

D. Johnson believes the decision to close the Ombudsman office was likely correct; however, He suggested there was some failure in communication. Chancellor Cheng responded that if it was a failure, it was because there were few complaints being handled in that office. With the director retiring, and it being the beginning of the year, it was just a good time to make that change. K. Asner-Self commented that this issue was discussed in Executive Council--the concept of failure to communicate or failure in the process of communication. It is hard to have any input when information is either not going to the administration from faculty's on-the-ground experiences, or it is not coming back down. She believes open communication is essential to check out assumptions prior to things becoming unnecessarily negative.

ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba