Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Terry Clark, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present:  Philip Anton, George E. Boulukos, Joe Cheatwood, Terry Clark, Lucian E. Dervan, Bruce A. Devantier, Mark J. Dolan, Ahmad Fakhoury, Carl Flowers (ex officio), Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg (Spfld), Steven C. Goetz, Holly Hurlburt (proxy Jonathan Weisen), Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Andrea Imre, Carolyn G. Kingcade (proxy Eileen Waldron), Sajal Lahiri, John Legier, James MacLean, John McSorley, James W. Phegley, Nicole Roberts (Spfld), Stacy Sloboda, Rachel Stocking, Stacy D. Thompson, Lyle J. White.

Members absent without Proxy:  Connie Baker, Tsuchin Chu, Anthony Fleege, Belle Woodward, Laura Halliday, Allan Karnes (ex-officio), Rita Cheng (ex-officio ), Kelsy Kretschmer, Howard Motyl, Brooke Thibeault, Meera Komarraju, Mingqing Xiao

Visitors and guests:  James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Dr. Keith Wilson, Todd Headrick, Alice Noble-Allgire, Daren Callahan

Before the reading of the minutes, G. Boulukos wanted to discuss the order of the agenda. The Executive Committee sets the agenda and at the EC meeting there was no Resolution voted for by the UEPC to approve the CoEHS RME, so why was it on the agenda under UEPC.  T. Clark addressed Boulukos’ concern. The resolution was co-authored by T. Clark and another member of the Executive Committee, it was supposed to go under new business. T. Clark’s reason for moving the Resolution was to move it under C. Flowers discussion of the Graduate Council action and to have a quorum to discuss it among the Faculty Senate. The EC was divided right down the middle, so Clark proposed to bring forth the resolution on his own so that the senate could have a voice on the matter. After much discussion, and according to Robert’s Rules of Order any challenges should be brought up during New Business.  B. Devantier made a motion to move the resolution reading to right under C. Flowers discussion. S. Goetz seconded. There was discussion, B. Devantier added an amendment to the resolution, he wanted to move the CoEHS response with the resolution as part of the discussion. There was additional discussion about the position of the resolution on the agenda. S. Goetz brought forth a motion to move the resolution to New Business. T. Clark asked G. Boulukos if he was in favor of the Senate having a debate about the issue. G. Boulukos replied that he was in favor of the Faculty Senate following its procedures. The UEPC represents the faculty in regard to RMEs, they put in a lot of time and they made a recommendation that it be sent back to the college for further clarification on the justification. That recommendation is not reflected in this resolution. A resolution was brought forward at the EC meeting and also failed – there was a reason for that. The UEPC concluded that the RME was inadequate and needed to be revised. G. Boulukos felt that the Faculty voice is being muffled. The motion was to move it to New Business. It was seconded, 19 were for, 4 opposed, 1 abstention.  The resolution was moved to New Business. S. Goetz made a motion to move the resolution back up to under C. Flowers on the agenda. E. Holzmueller seconded. Vote was taken 3 votes for and 23 opposed moving it out of New Business, so it remained in New Business.  

MINUTES

Motion was made by P. Anton to approve the minutes from the 2013-2014 Faculty Senate meeting on November 12, 2013. T. Chu seconded the motion to accept the November minutes as presented.

REPORTS

1.   Terry Clark had no report after the discussion of CoEHS Resolution.

2.  Provost Nicklow reported that Chancellor Cheng was at an IBHE meeting and unable to attend. Nicklow discussed the article in the local paper and picked up nationally in the Complete College America, about 15 To Finish initiative that was launched over the summer. The initiative encourages students to take 15 hours a term (120 credit hours) and finish in 4 years. SIU is the only institution in Illinois that is identified in that Complete College America story. Two positive recognitions were received: service to military students – Military Times Edge magazine ranked SIU 18th in the nation out of 120 colleges, US News and World Report in December, Best National Universities for Vets, SIU ranked 46th out of the country and the only one in Illinois. Fall recruitment is looking positive, admission up 3%, for first time in long time – transfer applications are up slightly. New housing contracts up 11%, new freshman transfers up 63%. Spring enrollment still lagging everywhere except Master students.  Nicklow spoke about Theresa Farnum, retention specialist who came to do an assessment for SIU, full report is on Nicklow’s website, under links. She will be back in January and will have a retreat with a small retention committee. Big news is pensions – he has same information as what was in the media. This is a negative for the university and for recruitment of faculty/staff.  

Questions for the Provost:

E. Heist commented on the President cancelling the climate survey. Nicklow didn’t have any explanation other than it was cancelled by the President and Board of Trustees of the University.

J. Legier asked Nicklow for more information on the transfer student task force. Nicklow recommended that Legier reach out to Matt Baughman who is spearheading that committee.  They have put together a series of focus groups to get feedback.

3.       Alice Noble-Allgire gave the Judicial Review Board annual report. (Attachment A). There was an unusually large number of grievances this year. There were 6 tenure and promotion grievances filed and one non-tenure. There continues to be timing issues with the grievance scheduling. The limitation of the Provost calendar (not his fault), turn over in staff, and the unavailability of faculty during the summer exacerbated the problem. Allgire will be handing over the chair position to Jason Greene, if confirmed. There are several issues that need to be worked on by the senate.  The JRB Task Force committee is in place and has begun to work on the problems which include timing of filing, along with several other issues that came up last year. Other issues include external review letters and faculty candidate dossiers, there were requests to see these, but candidates had waived their rights and there are legitimate concerns on all sides, and also found that there is not uniformity on how that is dealt with throughout the departments.  Last issue of concern is the lack of a University Ombudsman for grievants. All of these issues could be turned over to JRB Task Force for discussion and resolution.

4.       Carl Flowers, Graduate Council.  Graduate Council met for its December meeting. Following the Faculty Senate meeting where Judy Marshall and Dean Warwick discussed the 70/30 model, they were invited to the Graduate Council meeting to explain the model.  They were at the end of the agenda under new business, so their presentation was short circuited due to the lateness of the meeting.  Council action included reading a Resolution for Fermentation Science that will be approved during the next meeting.  There was a second reading on a resolution to establish a Research Computer Advisory Sub-Committee.  There was discussion on the leadership of that committee, but approved the resolution with changes. The Grad Council took action on the CoEHS RME. They voted 15 against, 7 for and 1 abstention to approve the resolution. Chair Flowers mentioned that he asked the council members how they disseminate information from the meetings to others in their departments. There is no consistent mechanism to get the communication out that will be talked about further at February meeting. Flowers added that he serves on the President Search Advisory Committee and they have met twice so far.  There will be an Open Forum after the Dec. 12th Board of Trustees meeting here in Carbondale similar to the one held in Edwardsville in November. The committee will begin reviewing the names and narrowing down the field. The goal is to have 10 qualified applicants end of January to begin interviews.

Questions for C. Flowers

G. Boulukos asked for clarification of the vote on the CoEHS Resolution. Flowers stated it was 15 against, 7 for, 1 abstention to not support the RME.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- B. Devantier, Chair

B. Devantier stated that item no. 1 on the agenda was moved to New Business with the CoEHS RME resolution. The Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Add the Specialization in Parent Training for the Psychology Major, COLA (attachment B) was pretty straight forward with a small issue on 120 hours which is being resolved. The Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Add the Minor in Art Education for the Art Major, COLA (attachment C) was positive as well except it was not formatted according to the Form 90, so it was referred back and the corrected version was being resolved as well. After reading and discussing both resolutions, they were unanimously approved as amended.

          
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL / COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

J. MacLean stated that he had served on the committee to review around 16 worthy candidates for election. As a committee we brought forward four that we agreed would provide the best representation, in accordance with the current members as well as based on experience. Ballots were handed out to each Senator. J. MacLean and R. Ferguson collected the ballots and left the room for counting. The four faculty members were unanimously approved to serve on the Judicial Review Board.  The candidates are:

Timothy Koschmann, School of Medicine
Sajal Lahiri, College of Liberal Arts
Beth Lordan, College of Liberal Arts
Mary H. Wright, College of Science

J. MacLean read a motion to appoint Jason Greene Chair of the JRB, L. White seconded, motion passed unanimously. A motion to appoint Jonathan Bean as Vice Chair of the JRB, seconded by J. Leiger, was unanimously approved as well.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- L. White, Chair
No Report.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEES -- E. Heist/H. Hurlburt, Co-chairs

E. Heist reported all he had was already discussed with the Provost, the cancellation of the Climate Survey by the President and BOT.

BUDGET COMMITTEE – George Boulukos, Chair

G. Boulukos added to the Provost remarks about the pension bill. The bill will result in a constitutional challenge and M. Madigan suggests that it would not survive in its current form, so there is some hope. The Chancellor’s Planning and Budget meeting was cancelled. 

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- B. Thibeault, Chair 
No Report.

OLD BUSINESS - None.

NEW BUSINESS
T. Clark passed the gavel to J. MacLean to preside over the rest of the meeting. Clark read his proposed resolution to approve the RME to reorganize the College of Education and Human Services. (attachment D) The motion to vote on resolution was seconded by E. Heist.

Discussion followed. B. Devantier familiarized the senate with the UEPC stand on the RME and read the preamble of the response from the committee. The draft of that Evaluation from the UEPC was brought before the Executive Council, and was directed by the EC to meet with the Dean of CoEHS to get clarification on the 4 points of their evaluation.

R. Stocking brought up confusion over what was being voted on by the senate. Stocking said it doesn’t make sense.  Devantier suggested striking everything after “Therefore be it resolved that”, and go directly to “the faculty senate…..” line.

B. Devantier was questioned on the fact that after much work by the UEPC, the committee decided to not recommend this go forward. Devantier remarked that the UEPC felt that to bring it forward with a negative recommendation would be confusing; they felt there were deficiencies that should be addressed. The Dean in his response is trying to address those. As representative of the committee, Devantier added, the committee felt that the points were that the college had not cited anything in the RME relating to enrollment, but later discussed it but no plan was put forth as to how that was to be remedied. The committee suggests that this not be approved.

P. Anton expressed that the RME states what it states, we have these responses, are these responses now part of the RME? To rewrite the RME it would take too much time, should we rewrite it to incorporate these responses and then send it back to the college in order to be revised. Seems like that should be the next step. This is a very flawed RME – and as stated it has not received support at any entity where it was discussed.

G. Boulukos explained if we all feel that we should send it back, afraid if we vote with an overwhelming negative vote that loses its support. If we vote on the resolution now with an up or down vote, then going back to the college for revisions is no longer in our procedural toolkit. According to Roberts Rules of Order, if we make a motion to postpone indefinitely, we can still debate the topic and still have discussions as the president so chooses. Also the resolutions are not part of the RME document, they have no formal status. The responses are very long and we’ve not had adequate time to consider them.

J. Legier expressed concern with the divide that has happened at all levels, if the RME is not revised and goes back, where’s the accountability for increased enrollment and what is to keep the college from going by what the RME says right now. 

A. Imre pointed out that normally any revision to RMEs at UEPC level will go back to the college. G. Boulukos pointed out that this is an unprecedented RME and substantial revisions have to be voted on by the college. As Faculty Senate, its in our interest to have the document revised and brought back before the senate, he’s not sure what the rush is.

T. Clark commented that this RME has not been rushed, the first three whereas’ document and encompass the problems, declining enrollment, alarming declines in budget and faculty, and the impact of these cuts on the other colleges. This is not something that is contained within the college; every college on campus has been affected.

R. Stocking stated that she doesn’t understand why there is a rush to pass an RME that doesn’t address the problems.  Based on the figures there are some real problems in the college and the plan on the table doesn’t address the terrible figures in the resolution.

G. Boulukos made a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely; reasoning for the motion is to advise the UEPC to send back to the college for revisions. S. Goetz seconded the motion. Q. Ge asked for clarification on what happens to the RME if the senate does not vote. George explained that the senate is an advisory body and our power is over academic policy. The mechanism to ratify academic policy is to go through the UEPC, be vetted and be sent back for revisions and then brought back to be voted on.  If the senate votes on the resolution up or down, then the senate has given up its power to the central administration.  

M. Dolan pointed out that the people have spoken; the problem is the inefficiencies with the RME as written. It seems that as a body they would make a stronger statement if they vote it down, so why wouldn’t voting against it be better. G. Boulukos offer an explanation, and stated that the senate’s job is to provide the feedback in its clearest and most specific form. If voted down, the senate is not asking for further faculty involvement.

E. Holzmueller asked to hear from the Dean since he is in the room.

Dean K. Wilson reported this has been a tiring time for the college and the RME has intensified many of the feelings within the college.  Over the last 20 years faculty has declined to half, enrollment has dropped substantially. They want to move forward as a college. Dean Wilson encouraged the senate to vote if possible. The college has been in trouble for 9-10 years and it is going to take some time to turn it around. It is a pretty significant part of the university which makes it even more important. Dean Wilson says they have a plan – not a perfect plan but is there a perfect plan – don’t know.  Vote yes or no, up or down, please vote.  Wilson stated that there are mechanisms in place in the strategic plans of the college and within the university that will help move them forward. Wilson doesn’t see the college going away, they are too substantial a part of what we do here at the university, but they do impact other colleges.

G. Boulukos addressed Dean Wilson’s comments, he assumed some of the ideas and questions asked by UEPC was helpful, but doesn’t understand why, if the college is going to be in neutral for a while, why do we need to pass a plan immediately without revising it to reflect what might be helpful suggestions. Since the senate is asking for revisions to make the RME better, maybe if there was more positive input the faculty would get more onboard. If you’re going to be successful with a reorganization plan you need people to be onboard.  

Dean Wilson sees a lot of the issues as programmatic and should be determined by the departments – not the dean. Students and faculty will need to get together to move their department forward.

S. Goetz posed the question – “What happens if the administration or Board doesn’t think this RME is going to work, what will happen at that point?” Provost Nicklow answered the RME is a document developed by the IBHE. There’s no standard requirement about what is included in that document. There is an informal review when they are submitted. Anything others on campus may want to include is extraneous to what would be required by IBHE. The Board of Trustees has nothing to do with this process – it is the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the President’s office. The recommendations from the constituencies go to the Provost and he makes a recommendation to the chancellor, then the chancellor to the president’s office, and then to IBHE. The grad council and faculty senate are advisory boards and have been asked for input. If this is tabled that is certainly within their realm to do so.

T. Clark remarked that the college is in a catastrophic state – they need to move forward. There has never been, as far as he can recollect, a more controversial RME. They need to turn the ship around for themselves and for all faculty and colleges.  The RME is not perfect, no plan is perfect, the future is unknown. Regardless of what this body does – the college has to move forward and start correcting the issues.

P. Anton added that he hears what T. Clark was saying, that we need to move forward but, shouldn’t that be with a plan that is stronger. Nobody is opposed to changing but want to move forward in a way that is at least in a better structure or a more favorable setting. That doesn’t appear to be what we have.

Vote was taken on G. Boulukos’ motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely, by a show of hands, 14 for, 9 against, no abstentions. The motion passed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- T. Clark announced that the Faculty Senate would have a happy hour at 4:00 p.m. on Friday at Tres Hombres to celebrate the end of the semester.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mark J. Dolan, Secretary

MJD:rf