Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:03 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

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

Members absent: Scott Ishman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Terry Clark, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg, James A. MacLean, Nicole K. Roberts.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Anne Cooper Moore (Library Affairs), Matt Daray (Daily Egyptian), Todd Sigler (Public Safety), Rosemary Simmons (Counseling Center).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on December 11, 2012, will be approved at the March meeting. M. Komarraju explained that after the December meeting, it was discovered there was a malfunction with the microphones, so the meeting was not recorded. In addition, the Secretary was out of the room during key portions of the meeting. Therefore, only a very rough draft of the minutes was provided to Senate members. M. Komarraju asked that anyone who might have information to add to the minutes can send their recollections to K. Asner-Self.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported: a) she attended the Board of Trustees meeting on December 13, and on December 15 attended a meeting of the 5/10/15 committee. At the latter meeting, they discussed the idea of looking at course enrollments--not course by course--but more at the departmental or college level. Currently, the committee is considering how to determine an appropriate trigger or threshold that would flag a unit in trouble. Consideration would need to entail how efficiently the unit offers courses and whether there are enough courses in which students can register; b) she attended the Chancellor’s Executive Council meeting on January 23. They received an update on several topics, including Scholarship Day; the IBHE’s performance funding model; and new student applications, which are up by 5% (although transfers are down by 10%). The committee also received an update on the construction going on around campus. In addition, the books have been transferred from McLafferty to the library, and there are plans to refurbish the building. It was also reported that: i) the University is planning a 5% increase in tuition, compared to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (2%) and Illinois State (5%); ii) the Governor has asked the campus to plan for a 2.62% budget reduction ($4.8m); iii) there is much work being done by Information Technology (IT), such as upgrading the campus to 10G from 1G. They are also working on having more Wi-Fi accessible locations on campus; the tablet project; and consolidating the Help Desk at the library; c) she will be attending the Board meeting on February 28. There are several items on the agenda (the tuition fee increase; strategic plan; sabbatical approvals).

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) the Board agenda will have approximately 18 items, including the tuition fee proposal; strategic plan endorsement; several seasonal construction projects and financing items relative to the tuition and fee proposal. They are in the process of upgrading 61 classrooms and hope to have them all completed by fall. In addition, there will be 12 teaching and 4 research labs upgraded. The Student Services construction is almost on time; b) the student success course (UCOL 101) had an 86% retention rate of the 90% of freshman who took the course. There were 10% of freshman who were not registered, either from advising or arriving late. The next goal is 100%; c) this is Black History Month. She is impressed with the programming that the Black Resource Center has put together. The Center is now fully staffed and gearing up for a lot of activity in the spring. The Black Male Initiative and the Sisters Initiative are gaining ground, and she believes they will make a difference in the lives of students here; d) Scholarship Weekend was on January 11-12. Offers were sent out, and the University reached out to students to convince them SIU is the institution for them; e) a lot of planning is underway for commencement, Honors Day and for a student recognition ceremony that will be tied to commencement; f) they are working on a research publication that will be in print shortly and will be sent to all APLU and ASKEW(?) colleagues at the chancellor, provost and vice chancellor for research level. They want to time it to coincide with when the rankings are done for U.S. News. The publication will also be sent to all major donors and supporters; g) there is a new system for offering financial aid to students; h) the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) visit is scheduled for April. The Chancellor suggested that the Senate invite the new CIO at some point to give a briefing on the IT initiatives. The CIO is committed to supporting research and very knowledgeable about research and the computing aspects of the campus. Provost Nicklow agreed, reporting that the upgrade from a 1G to a 10G core network occurred over the holiday break. The problem, however, is the campus cannot experience the 10G because there is not fiber in every building. They are receiving feedback from students on the Mobile Dawg (tablet) project and are finding issues with the e-reader; that will change as they go full scale. Even with the wireless upgrade, there are not enough IP addresses, so that issue is also being addressed.

Provost Nicklow reported: a) he has been spending a lot of time meeting with the Complementary Practices and Academic Efficiencies Task Force, in addition to visiting with faculty and seeing all they do across the campus; b) the course evaluation task force put together a pilot evaluation, which was conducted late last semester. He will receive their report at the end of the month, but generally the feedback has been positive. He believes one thing that needs work is how to maintain the response rate. If students get to a point where they are learning and have tablets available, they can do the evaluation in class; c) enrollment numbers as of yesterday show that applications for new students are up 6% and are slightly above in terms of admits. They expect a bump in admits in approximately two weeks as a result of some happenings in the Chicago public schools. Conversations with the deans have focused around yield. Now is the time to engage students on a more personal level and reach out; d) the financial aid brochure will be going out earlier, and students will receive the brochure with hard copy letters and online offers; this will be done in early March. He noted he could provide the Senate with some copies of the financial aid brochure when it becomes available.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. J. Legier asked, with respect to the transfer numbers, whether the 10% decrease was in direct admits. Provost Nicklow responded that currently, transfer applications are down 10%, and admits are down 11%. The transfer population number translates into roughly 1,000 admits from roughly 2,000 applications. That compares to around 12,000 freshman applications. Although the numbers are down, this is the highest number of applications this institution has ever had this time of year. The transfer apps are down, but we are reaching out to all the community college presidents in order to market to their students. He noted that the community college population is down. J. Legier asked if the indicators are still the economy. Chancellor Cheng responded that she believes it is a sense of cost. There is a pervasive conversation around the value of a four-year degree. There are families in southern Illinois who believe taking some classes at John A. Logan is all they need. The University is countering that by building relationships and pathways. There are seven on-sight advisors at the southern Illinois community colleges to help people apply and transfer to SIU.

2. D. Johnson asked Chancellor Cheng if there was a cost figure on the new pedestrian mall. Chancellor Cheng responded that the cost is approximately $2.5 million. J. Kapur asked if there is a cost figure on the IT upgrades. Chancellor Cheng responded she did not have a figure, but is aware that IT had reserves they saved up in anticipation of the CIO’s arrival. The IT budget is a compilation of various sources, such as the IT fee that students pay; $125,000 from indirect costs the department has historically received; and salary savings as a result of 22 vacant positions. In addition, her office and the Provost’s office had saved some money to put into the IT budget. The Chancellor reiterated her suggestion that the Senate invite the CIO to a meeting so he can discuss what he has done and how much he has spent. Provost Nicklow noted that the CIO has indicated his willingness to talk with any group on campus.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. A. Karnes reported that he has spent a lot of time lately with performance funding, and the computation does not do what it is supposed to do. Over the last two years, the University has lost roughly $160,000 simply because it has a medical school. It was pointed out after the first year that, because the medical school is being counted in the carve-out, it causes the University’s share to be proportionately bigger than other schools with like completions. When adding back in for the completions that are actually achieved, the University is at a disadvantage. The other school hit hard was University of Illinois Chicago because it maintains hospitals. It is a big problem the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) has attempted to fix, but they keep running into brick walls. He is on the Performance Funding Refinement Committee, the Performance Funding Steering Committee (with the Chancellor), and he holds a seat on the Illinois Board of Higher Education. He spoke against adoption of the performance funding and attracted some no votes, but the budget passed. Additional problems with the system are that it began using some IPEDS data this year. IPEDS data favors schools that have freshmen who come in that are likely to move through the system on a straight line; SIU is not that school. SIU students tend to come and go. We also get a substantial number of transfers. Transfers are not even part of the computation when IPEDS data is used. The other principle problem is that SIU spends a lot of time devising weights for various sub-populations within the student population; for example, for African Americans, Hispanics, and students over 25. STEM students get a premium, as do students who qualify for MAP grants; in other words, it is a proxy for low income students. However, the institution is near the top when all the completions are weighted. The problem is that there are two additional computations in the measures. One is cost per completion; the second is the number of completions per 100 FTEs. When those computations were made, raw completions were used rather than the weighted completions; therefore, schools with large percentages of the sub-categories did not do as well as schools with large numbers of students who are able to move through the system in a rather straight line. The FAC will continue to work on this issue. Senator Karnes is hopeful that after the third round, they can get that cleared up. They will continue to make the kinds of arguments that need to be made to have a fair system.

A. Karnes reported on the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (included as appendix 1).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

M. Komarraju reported: a) the Council spent some time discussing the idea of starting new projects rather than always reacting to events that transpire. One idea was to be proactive and engage legislators so they have a better sense of what is happening on campus and what the needs are of the faculty. K. Anderson, H. Hurlburt, J. Walls and past Senate president William Recktenwald have volunteered their time to work on this project. Some ideas they discussed include attending meetings with the editorial boards of the top newspapers; invite legislators to campus; and attend some meetings of the legislature. If anyone has other connections or ideas, that would be very helpful; b) in December, the Judicial Review Board (JRB) gave a report to the Senate and asked for help in addressing some concerns they had with the JRB process. The Executive Council asked the JRB to send a proposal identifying more specifically what issues they would like the Senate to address; the Senate would then create a task force to address those issues; c) the UEPC shared some discussion about the UCOL 101 course, whether it has taken a form that is ideal and how it compares to what was initially proposed. One thought was to bring in the dean of the University College to give an update; d) there was discussion on the faculty survey--whether it was scientific, and whether it represented the opinions of all faculty. There will be more on this issue during the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee report.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Action postponed.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. Johnson, Chair

1. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Eliminate the B.A. in Design in the School of Art and Design, College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He noted there was no dissent by the department or by the College of Liberal Arts Council.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. J. Legier (for D. Johnson) presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Modification of the Electronic Systems Technology (EST) Bachelor of Science Degree to a Two-Year Degree Completion Program, School of Information Systems and Applied Technologies, College of Applied Sciences and Arts (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). J. Legier reported they have identified about 25 different programs in the state of Illinois that are community college transferable, and they maintain a strong relationship with the two-year degree transfers. The idea is not to penalize freshmen students who are being recruited here; but, the classes will not make. By moving to a two-year degree completion program, the department will have a contingency of non-traditional students and transfers. The program will still be a two-year bachelors, but will only take juniors and seniors and the capstone from a community college. The degree will be a junior/senior four-year degree completion program, including that 2+2.

A. Karnes asked if a student who has two years as an accounting major, for example, could transfer into the program. J. Legier responded that with no electronics background, the student would have to be evaluated by the advisor.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. D. Johnson reported that the committee is reviewing one more RME, and he expects to have a resolution ready for the next meeting. Also, the committee had University College Dean Mark Amos come in to discuss UCOL 101; but, the committee has not yet had an opportunity to discuss the issue. That will be on their agenda as well.

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

H. Hurlburt reported on the results of the faculty survey that was commissioned and taken last year (see Attachment C to the Agenda). She explained that there has been much effort in putting the report together, and she thanked the former and present members of the committee, as well as JP Dunn (SIU Online administrator) for their efforts. She has received a lot of feedback on this issue from the Executive Council and appreciates that as well. She indicated that she was not a member of the Senate last year, but from what she understands, the goal was to, in a sense, take the temperature of the campus. There has been a lot of conversation as to whether or not this particular method succeeded in doing that in any measureable way. There were some serious problems with the survey; it did not reach all faculty and received a relatively low response rate. Nonetheless, it provided some information. H. Hurlburt encouraged people to look at the report. The committee thought it would be best if they framed the conversation in terms of what, if anything could be learned from the document and where it can go from here. She reported that the survey confirms the problems that are being discussed in other contexts on campus; for example, the Higher Learning Commission’s report of 2010 commented that there was a gulf between faculty and administration. The current strategic plan calls for the strengthening of shared governance, and at the Chancellor’s leadership luncheon, a conclusion reached by one of the tables discussing the strategic plan was that there could always be improved communications on campus. These were all issues that were discussed in great detail in this survey. The committee hopes that this document can be a starting point of sorts for a conversation about issues of morale and communication on campus, particularly the role that might be played by the Senate in solving some of these problems, real or perceived. H, Hurlburt indicated the committee will work with the administration over the next weeks/months on establishing a few possible actionable points; for example, it was suggested in the report itself to establish some kind of annual survey of the faculty as a means for allowing faculty feedback. In order to generate actionable points, the committee needs the Senate’s help. She encouraged anyone who has suggestions on how to use the data to move forward and address some concerns mentioned in the survey can forward those to her or J. Kapur.

G. Boulukos asked if there was a scenario in mind about how to address the issues. H. Hurlburt responded that one of the critiques of the document was that its recommendations are somewhat vague and general. The committee would like to move from that to something more specific. One concrete example might be to have an annual faculty survey that is focused on a particular topic; this might generate a different type of data. J. Kapur recommended Senators read the recommendations at the end of the report. The committee has identified some key issues that have emerged from the survey. It is acknowledged that morale is a problem; communication, transparency and administrative visibility, shared governance, faculty buy-in, academic quality, equity, etc. are general issues that the committee has identified through the survey as needing action. The committee feels strongly that they want these issues to be collaboratively addressed by the administration and faculty. The Senate can play a role where they can then together come up with action items and actually show they have been acted upon.

D. Johnson spoke in favor of the report, arguing that the report is at least as representative of the faculty as is the Senate. The fact that two-thirds of the faculty report themselves as being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied is something on which to take note.

J. Allen commented that, in preparation for the self study for reaccreditation by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) in 2010, they conducted a campus climate survey. It had much larger numbers of faculty responding, and the statistical analysis was done by professionals who understood the kind of survey instruments that were necessary. The survey was built on a survey done in 1999 in preparation for the self study for reaccreditation at that time. There was another campus climate survey done in 2011 in preparation for the strategic planning document that is still in campus discussion. The same instrument in 1999, 2008 and 2011 actually provides more than just snapshots, but rather a trend line. He believes it would be very useful if that instrument was used on a regular basis because then they could plot changes in responses to questions that they already have from the past. J. Allen believes if the Senate is serious about continuing to survey faculty, he would want to see in relation to earlier surveys that asked the same questions. There are plenty of faculty, particularly in the Applied Research Center in the Department of Psychology that can help with a survey instrument. He would urge the Senate to use an instrument that links it more closely to earlier efforts so they can plot the peaks and valleys over time. H. Hurlburt asked if that material was easily available so that in the committee’s thinking about moving forward, they can look at those things. J. Allen responded that the information is available. He is attempting to contact Peggy Stockdale, the person who conducted the survey in 2011. He also noted that there is a summary posted on the strategic planning lens group on campus climate, but it does not provide the kind of granular data that the committee would want for its analysis. As soon as he gets the information, he would be happy to share it with the committee. He noted it is part of the preparation being done for the HLC site visit report coming in April.

2. H. Hurlburt reported there are two other projects the committee is working on currently. They received some information about miscommunications or lack of communications involving new policies for grants for the arts and humanities. They are looking into that issue and hope to have more information in the next month. Also, a proposal for a teaching tenure track promotion and tenure is something the committee will be looking at and making a report on some time before the end of the semester.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

1. J. Wall reported the committee met for a collective briefing and discussion on those issues that need to be carried forward. He commented that everything somehow relates to budget matters, so it is important to those on the committee to hear the Senate’s viewpoints in that respect. J. Wall reported that the SIU system essentially appears to be financially sound. An extreme oversimplification of our budget condition is that there is a cash flow situation. There are two ways to address this issue; one is to increase revenue, and the other is to control expenses. In large part, that is what the University is currently experiencing. There are efforts both to increase revenue on the enrollment side and to clearly examine the expenses. J. Wall indicated he has not been able to attend the Chancellor’s Planning and Budget Advisory Committee meetings, so G. Boulukos has agreed to attend in his stead.

G. Boulukos reported the Chancellor’s Planning and Budget Advisory Committee was provided with several documents and reports on the budget and the projections for next year. He hopes the documents can be sent to Senators as well. He explained that there is a document that is a projection for the 2014 state budget development, and it has two sections. The first is information on what they know about potential sources of revenue; 52% of revenue comes from the income fund (funds taken in on campus). There is an array of projections as to what might happen. It is unclear what kind of tuition increase the Board of Trustees will grant, and enrollment is also an unknown. Consequently, all they can do is guess. There are a set of projections that range from a 5% tuition increase down to a 3% increase and then different projections for enrollment--flat, a small decrease—and the results range from $2.2 million extra dollars with a 5% tuition increase and a flat enrollment down to a loss of half a million dollars with a 3% increase and flat enrollment in new students and a decrease in continuing students. The committee also discussed the state appropriation, which is 48% of the University’s budget.

Chancellor Cheng indicated that the committee is working on various scenarios. The Governor’s office gave a directive for a 4.62% reduction in appropriations. Since appropriations are roughly half of the operating budget, that reduction translates to approximately $4-5 million. The IBHE had a split vote, but it did pass. There were a lot of negatives in presenting a flat budget with performance funding. One of the reasons there was a negative vote was the difficulty with the performance funding formula; another reason was that it was unrealistic, and many people believed it would be a flat budget. The Chancellor noted that at this point, the state owes the University $100 million in back bills. The state cancelled a capital bond in recent weeks, which was needed around the state, and she is watching that very closely. The Communications building is a top priority of the state, and this would be the year to get that funding. Any deferrals on that borrowing mean less money for deferred maintenance for the campus and less money for new construction.

H. Hurlburt commented that in the past, the Board has not always been willing to raise tuition as much as the campus would like. She asked how the Chancellor believes it will go. G. Boulukos responded that the committee discussed that issue and believes the 5% increase is a reasonable amount; however, there are some problems with convincing the Board to go along with that amount. For one thing, the point of reference is the increases that have already been adopted at other universities. Champaign-Urbana was at 1.7%, but they have been well ahead of the University in raises, and SIU’s relative position to them has fallen. The Chancellor reported that of the top five research universities, SIU ranks 6th in tuition, so has somewhat fallen out of the tier it should be in. Chancellor Cheng indicated that the University has real costs that need to be addressed and quality that needs to be maintained; that is weighed against affordability and concerns the University has for a family’s ability to pay. SIU is a great value, and of the top research universities in the state, it is the least costly.

2. G. Boulukos addressed the Complementary Practices and Academic Efficiencies Task force Report (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). He explained that the document gives a sense of the kinds of solutions people are considering. One goal is to find ways to save money by doing things more efficiently. There is also clearly a goal to do things differently. This is not a report that will go into immediate effect; rather, it is a kind of “way station” on the way to something else. Provost Nicklow noted that the charge questions can be found at the beginning of the document. He indicated he was somewhat disappointed in the report, though he appreciated the committee’s efforts. The report essentially says that the best way for procedures to move forward is to appoint a whole lot of new committees. He and J. Allen have discussed the report at length, and he (the Provost) is setting up some task forces to evaluate some of the changes that have been highlighted. The faculty in those programs will be consulted, and they are still working through the details of that. There is a long list of reorganization ideas as a result of a brainstorming session. Course redundancies was an item; the committee went to the listing of all courses and picked five or six terms like management, water, methods and statistics and then flagged a course if it used one of those names. It was found that one-third of the courses use those terms. Provost Nicklow believes more could have been done and that there is an opportunity to now start looking at courses, particularly those areas with water, statistics and management.

G. Boulukos reviewed and highlighted some areas in the report that he believes need attention. J. Kapur asked if the committee discussed the faculty contract (between the Faculty Association and the SIU Board of Trustees) because she did not see it mentioned in the report. B. Thibeault noted that the second paragraph of page 4 mentions MOUs and being in agreement with the collective bargaining agreement. J. Allen added that it is also referenced under “Guidelines,” item 7 (“All relevant articles and provisions in the CBAs negotiated by the SIU Board of Trustees with bargaining units…;” so, it is mentioned explicitly and was a very important item of that committee’s discussion.

J. Wall commented that from the Provost’s standpoint, the next step is to break out into smaller sub- working groups. He asked what should be the Faculty Senate’s involvement in the process going forward. What would the Senate like the Budget Committee to do with the recommendations/document going forward? D. Johnson stated transparency about how those committees are developed and from whence the faculty come would be important. G. Boulukos responded that Article IX in the faculty contract governs program change, and his understanding in talking about the bargaining history on both sides of the table was that the idea was to put in place some transparency and to really encourage faculty involvement from the start. Having people know what is going on is good; it is one of the reasons they want everyone to get the report--so everyone knows what is going on. To answer J. Wall’s question, Provost Nicklow indicated he certainly envisions engaging faculty who have responsibilities in those units and know far more about that topic than anyone else. He pointed out that Article IX explicitly involves the Senate in the process, so this body will be involved in whatever changes, if any, occur. M. Komarraju mentioned that the Psychology Department wanted her to convey their consternation at not seeing themselves listed in any of the colleges.

J. Wall believes there has to be a collective buy-in to the process rather than the outcome. He does not believe there is a collective buy-in at this point. In order to do this, it would mean leaving turf wars at home. J. Allen responded that the University has, as a matter of policy and contractual obligation, as well as the operating papers of constituency bodies like the Graduate Council and Faculty Senate, a procedure for changes in degree programs. They originate in the department and with the faculty who operate the programs. There are forms they are obligated to complete and which get forwarded to the dean and then to the Provost’s office and finally to the constituency bodies. The procedure has a lot of transparency and faculty involvement, and ultimately has to be signed off on by the IBHE at the end of the process. The procedure for thinking about degree changes and organization is very similar, except that the conversations among the faculty will, in many cases, be outside their departments; that may be a much more complex procedure. To the extent that the Senate and Graduate Council can help foster some of that conversation between departments and between colleges, so much the better. J. Allen indicated that there is under Article IX a very specific procedure that once the proposals are about to be voted on, then the Faculty Association is invited to make recommendations, which his office attempts to honor as best it can. He believes it is fair to say that a lot of people will be involved in these conversations, and the end product will be as a result of the process currently in place.

G. Boulukos pointed out that everyone needs to be aware that there is really a big difference between developing an RME in their department as a result of debate between the faculty in the department and the scenarios they are seeing in the report with respect reorganizing units, colleges and departments. These things are happening right now. He has heard from a lot of faculty in the College of Agricultural Sciences who say that something is being done to them and they do not know what; they are not getting the information; they do not have the plan and are not being consulted. G. Boulukos believes the point about buy-in is very important because something is happening now. For the faculty in Agricultural Sciences, their impression is that there is a plan that someone else made, and they are going to have to live with that plan. When that happens, it is a very bad situation. Those people who are at the table making these changes and determining ways they can do the best work in the most efficient way in whatever situation need to know if there is a directive; they need to know this is changing for this reason because they can then make a plan to address those changes. It is clear the University cannot exist in its current financial situation without things changing, but there needs to be more transparency. When changes are made that do not originate in the department, and the department is not given a clear sense of what is going to happen and how to work on it, then that is a real problem. K. Asner-Self commented that she is from the College of Education and Human Services (COEHS), and G. Boulukos is completely right in that she does not know what is happening to her department or her program and has not been consulted. The other two Senate representatives from COEHS indicated they also have not been included in such discussions. G. Boulukos believes people would be much more productive if they knew what their marching orders were and attempted to work with them. B. Bartholomew noted people need to know not only what their marching orders are, but why they are. G. Boulukos agreed, stating that people will then know the motive and logic and can make a plan that works.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- No report.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

T. Sigler and R. Simmons presented on the Life and Safety Implementation Plan (see appendix2).

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba