Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, George E. Boulukos, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Terry Clark, Judy Davie (for Scott Ishman, ex officio), 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), Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, Nancy L. Martin, James Mathias (for Tsuchin Chu), 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:

Members absent without proxy: Blaine Bartholomew, Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg, John T. Legier, Diane Muzio, Matthew Schlesinger.

Visitors and guests: Matt Daray (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on December 11, 2012, were amended to add a statement from B. Thibeault which addressed the Resolution to Restructure the Curricula of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures. The statement will be added as appendix 2 to the December minutes, and the subsequent appendices will be renumbered. The minutes were approved as amended. The minutes from the regular meeting on February 12, 2013, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported: a) she went to the Board of Trustees meeting on February 28, but they did not meet because they lacked a quorum; b) she attended the weekly 5/10/15 committee meeting. The current status of the committee is that they are moving towards identifying duel criteria that could be used by departments to show they are in good fiscal health or that they are generating a sufficient number of credit hours per FTE. If a unit is able to show it meets both criteria, then it can continue to offer its courses; if a unit fails to meet either criteria, then there will be a discussion as to how to be more efficient.

B. Thibeault asked if by fiscally able, the committee means that a department is being funded with the staffing it needs. Many departments are not able to offer classes they need to because there are not enough students to meet the 5/10/15 rule. M. Komarraju responded that the idea is if a department within itself can show it is in good fiscal health and is generating enough credit hours per FTE, then it can manage its own classes and can decide whether a course that does not meet the 5- 10-15 rule can meet. B. Thibeault questioned what fiscal health means; if a department needs faculty and is not getting the faculty it needs, is it considered not fiscally healthy? M. Komarraju did not believe the committee was addressing that issue. A. Karnes reported that he is on committee as well. Fiscal health would mean that a department is bringing in more tuition revenue to cover its costs. T. Wilson asked how departments with high numbers of graduate student waivers are counted. A Karnes responded they can hurt because they do not generate many tuition dollars. G. Boulukos recalls the waivers came up in the Budget Committee, and they attempted to determine if the costs to each department could be nailed down exactly or if they were going to take an average. A. Karnes responded that they know how many waivers there are per department; he personally would like to see controllable waivers and uncontrollable waivers because there are a lot of departments that have many of their graduate students that go off to GA positions in other parts of the University; basically, someone else is giving away the tuition waiver that the department initially controlled.

K. Anderson asked if there is some way to factor in that some departments will have huge numbers of credit hours generated through compulsory service courses that other departments cannot offer. A. Karnes responded that is another conversation the committee had. There is a concept he would like to see called Affinity, where those credit hours are split among the teaching department and the department of the student; however, the concept has not met with much support. T. Wilson commented that her department is only graduates who, in turn, teach undergraduate courses; most come with a waiver they received to engage in either teaching undergraduate or in service for the department. What about those departments that do not have the undergraduate tuition generation by design? How would the proposal affect those departments? There is no mechanism to offset the graduate work that is due to undergraduate teaching. M. Komarraju responded that it is not just the department being looked at but also the college. For example, one department might be a little more expensive than another that is bringing in more revenue; within a college, which may be okay.

H. Hurlburt asked if, after looking at whether some places are or are not fiscally healthy, will the rule still be referred to as 5/10/15, or will that go away? M. Komarraju responded that as the committee begins to wrap up, they will answer that question. It should be recognized, however, that upper administration may need some kind of a threshold to start looking at a program. The committee is aware of that and is looking to see if it can come up with some other kind of trigger.

K. Anderson believes this Committee and its process is going to produce a spill-out effect on the curriculum, the implications of which he is unsure have been fully thought out. For example, if there are constant discussions within a college about what is the curriculum for that college, there may be pressure to put in place a course that is required in order to boost a department's bottom line and not because it will serve the students of that college. There will be an effect likewise between colleges. For example, Liberal Arts offers a physical science course that competes with the College of Science's physical science courses. Will it still be recognized as a physical science course or will it be considered Liberal Arts because it is offered in that college, even though it has implications for Science as well? This will put pressure on the curriculum to bend to finances. M. Komarraju believes a counter argument would be, why have these two classes; why not just have one of them or have them all only in Science? But then, Liberal Arts students prefer to take the classes in their college because it suits their needs better. She did not believe it would affect the curriculum that much. K. Anderson commented that he was not sure.

G. Boulukos requested that the Senate be informed of the formula the committee decides on, what the facts are and the resulting spreadsheet once it can be obtained. In response to K. Anderson's question, he agreed there is that tension; however, there is another initiative underway now that is dealing with redundant courses. The concept is that science courses are taught be science. There should not be six colleges teaching science courses. K. Anderson believes that would be great for the College of Science, for example, but would be bad for Liberal Arts. There will be a winner or loser whichever way it goes. Should the University put the curriculum in opposition to the budget, and how would it balance that? H. Hurlburt agreed, noting this endeavor to her seems profoundly anti- intellectual and somewhat territorial--the pitting of A and B. She believes this splitting of hairs is very dangerous and anti-intellectual behavior. T. Clark commented that there was a time when universities all over the world and throughout history were protected from the marketplace; what is happening now is that the market is coming into higher education and forcing universities to do things they have not done in the past. Universities have been wonderful sophisticated exercises in cross subsidization throughout history, and like it or not, that is going away to some extent. H. Hurlburt responded that other universities are having exactly these conversations, and the burden falls upon the faculty more than any other group to say they recognize that finances are extremely important; however, it should be remembered that the institution's primary mission is one of intellectual pursuit and education.

In response to A. Karnes's comment about why different colleges teach certain classes, I. Altman pointed out that it is partly retention. For example, the College of Agricultural Sciences teaches statistics; 15 years ago, the college believed it was losing students [because] they were struggling with the statistics courses taught in other colleges. He believes there is a reason why classes are being taught all over the place. B. DeVantier added that there is an organizational structure and operational mode within the University that goes counter to this; administrators who do not protect their turf are punished by their constituents, so there is a built-in protection. He believes there are very logical reasons why there are courses separated from their natural home.

Chancellor Cheng asked what the status is of the committee. A. Karnes believes they are close to coming to a final report.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) admission and the strength of admitted students' profiles are very strong at the undergraduate level at this point in the cycle. They have received all positives, both quantitatively and qualitatively, from talking with students and parents. There are still several critical months to make sure the students who do arrive on campus to register for courses or attend admit dates are impressed enough to continue their relationship with the institution until fall semester; b) the campus has been named to the National Corporation Honor Roll. This distinction has been SIU's for the last seven years, but this is the first year the University has made the first tier of the honor roll. She believes much of this has to do with the work of the Center for Service Learning and Volunteerism and the work being done at the Dunn-Richmond Center; c) two projects gaining national attention are Professor Nicholas Pinter's work with Alexander County. There was $8.7M was given to the county to move individuals in that town who are in the flood plain. Also, the students from the Daily Egyptian continue to get awards/accolades on their work, particularly the book they published on the tornado in Harrisburg; d) she is moving forward on improvements to buildings and grounds. The Student Services building is on budget and on time. There are classroom projects also underway, as well as teaching labs. Four research labs were recently approved for upgrades. There is a long list of deferred maintenance in labs across campus, so she wants to make sure to target expenditures on upgrading research labs; e) the campus has been recognized by the state for growth in online learning. They are getting questions about how it is being done and if the University can help in the design at other universities. A staff person has been asked to consult with U.S. News and World Report on rankings of online programs; f) a new Undergraduate Research Director has been hired; Rodrigo Carrami¤ana will begin in July; g) sequestration is hitting the campus. The first inkling they received were the notices from the military that they would no longer be providing tuition assistance to active military on the military bases. The campus depended a lot on the military for their assistance, so this is troubling. Additionally, some researchers and many program directors of operating grants have received notices that either renewals will be less or that installed payments will be less. With the cuts to NIH and NSF, there will be fewer grants and a more competitive environment; h) the air traffic control towers at many airports across the country are being threatened with closure. SIU is on the short list for closure and believes this will happen at the federal level. An amendment in Congress to soften the blow did not pass, so they are talking with state legislatures about any possibility of the state helping. There is a lot of traffic in the Aviation program and a lot of inexperienced pilots, so air traffic control help is needed; i) Head Start has been renewed, but can expect a 5.5% cut; j) the campus's cut in appropriations from the Governor has increased from 4.62% to 5%, so she is now planning for 5% or greater. The hearings have begun, and they will seek the approval of both the House and Senate to add back to the Governor's proposal. She will also continue to work with the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee, the deans and others across campus to plan for various scenarios; k) the University will be asking the Board of Trustees for a 5% tuition increase; however, at this point, they do not know the composition of the Board or their willingness to increase tuition. They have planned scenarios for what would happen if the tuition increase is not approved; l) there is much happening on campus that is positive. The month of April is filled with celebrations and important dates, including the Excellence Awards; m) she has five more listening sessions scheduled this semester. She noted they have been informative for her.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. G. Boulukos asked the Chancellor if she had any sense as to when the Board of Trustees might be composed so that a vote could be taken on tuition. Chancellor Cheng responded that, technically, the Board can vote. There are enough members to make a quorum. The process requires two meetings for tuition and fees; one is a presentation and then the following meeting is a vote. K. Anderson asked what would happen if that does not occur, if there is no agreement on a final number for tuition/fees. Chancellor Cheng responded that it would be difficult. There have been four years of reductions in state appropriations, and without some ability to close that gap with a bit of tuition dollars, the institution will be looking at a very difficult discussion across the campus. G. Boulukos asked if it would be useful for the faculty to support the tuition increase. Chancellor Cheng believes it would be helpful, noting it is very difficult for any trustee, particularly if they are new, to come in and vote a tuition increase. The lay person believes the University has lots of money and that there is no reason to increase tuition because it is already too costly. However, looking on the flip side, it is the best investment someone can make. She believes it should be looked at rationally; the University has to have resources in order to conduct its educational mission.

2. J. Wall noted that summer course registration opened today, and the offerings are rather lean, particularly in some areas. He inquired about this within his college, and was told that things are sort of in a holding pattern with regard to summer. If there are no courses available to look at or consider, it is hard to convince someone to consider a summer course. From a faculty standpoint, it is difficult to create a course even online within two weeks notice. Chancellor Cheng responded that summer is not on a holding pattern, but there is broad recognition that the summer model that has been used in the past is not working as well now. A working group was tasked with considering improvements that could be made for summer. They came back with a report that the administration has embraced, but most of those changes could not happen until summer 2014; so, they have moved with a distribution of funding for this summer and an encouragement to the deans and others to think about courses that will fill, that are popular and that will advance students through their curriculum. K. Asner-Self asked what do faculty do if they are hearing something different. Provost Nicklow responded that the deans have allocated a summer budget for their colleges, and they are working with the chairs. He is pressuring them to develop a list of courses that are more strategic, that will make.

3. K. Anderson commented on G. Boulukos's suggestion about taking some action in support of increasing tuition. On the surface, that sounds like a good idea because everyone is aware of the University's fiscal situation. However, he believes faculty voting to increase tuition could be perceived by those outside the University as self-serving. H. Hurlburt responded that if there are reasons to think twice about saying Faculty Senate supports a tuition increase, then should not the Senate get involved in the other equation, which is what the state is doing in terms of not paying the University on time and asking for more and more money? If there are reasons why the Senate cannot support a tuition hike, then there should be extremely strong reasons why it ought to resolve to call on the state to be more responsible about how it allocates for education, even if that is not something that will necessarily result in a great financial boon for the campus. She believes it is the sort of thing the Faculty Senate ought to say. G. Boulukos believes it is something the Senate should consider; they have until May. He does not buy the argument that the Senate needs to protect itself from publicity; it will survive. J. MacLean noted that the School of Medicine voted to increase its tuition. They had clear data showing that even though they are increasing tuition, they are still a great value compared to other medical schools. Possibly, the [Senate] could do something similar despite the tuition increases, the University is a much better value than "x" university. Chancellor Cheng noted that she did provide that kind of information to the Senate. There are five research universities classified in the state, and SIU is the most of those five, bouncing back and forth with the highest of the remaining four year institutions. J. Kapur argued against making a statement, pointing out that one of the reasons her college is losing students is because the students cannot afford to pay what they are already being charged. There is not an endless pot out there, and as faculty, they have to stand by students and not be making the argument for raising tuition.

H. Hurlburt asked who would write a resolution, if there is going to be one. She believes this is a valuable conversation, and they should not just stop at a conversation. The Senate needs to take the next step and resolve to do something. M. Komarraju responded that this is an issue that can be tasked to the Budget Committee. J. Wall pointed out that there has been some discussion in Executive Council about not only this issue, but the concept of becoming more proactive in terms of political frontage in Springfield. Some informational things have been done, some suggestions made, but no actions have been taken. There is movement among current Executive Council members to consider that sort of activity, but what it may end up being he does not know. Likely, the issue belongs with Executive Council. J. Wall added that there were some suggestions made with respect to being more proactive; one was to get in front of the editorial boards of major newspapers (Chicago Tribune, for example) to tell the University's story. Another suggestion was to get in front of legislators, primarily those who do not have a university within their district, and educate them on the importance of higher education in the state. This should be done without any association with other groups who may also have an interest in front of the legislature.

J. Kapur suggested that, rather than raising tuition, faculty can show they can actually make education even more cost effective for their students by shortening time to degree and time to graduation, which some departments are doing. Also, faculty should consider developing hybrid courses which would allow them to keep students who are otherwise dropping out because they cannot pay the fees. Faculty can devise ways without compromising academics. M. Komarraju believes this issue is one the Executive Council can take up since there has already been some initial discussion about being proactive. Possibly, something could be developed and brought back to the larger body. H. Hurlburt noted that issues tend to fall to the bottom of the heap; she believes the Senate and Executive Council need to make an extremely bold commitment to this issue being its top priority because it does keep falling down the agenda.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) the Law School has moved from an unranked second tier to the top tier of U.S. News and World Report rankings (140 out of 150); b) Security Dawgs out of Information Systems and Applied Technologies (ISAT) in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts competed in the Illinois Cyber Defense Competition and is now moving on to regional competition; c) the University is currently at 13,300 applications, which is an approximate 4.5% increase in applications. Over 8,000 students have been admitted, an increase of 5.5% (new freshman). The numbers represent one point on the ACT, which is very rare, and 60 points on SAT, as well as a GPA increase of one-tenth. The University is admitting a better quality of student. He believes this is as result of financial leveraging and scholarships. Financial aid packages went out March 1, which has not happened in the last 15 years. New housing contracts are up 24% and new student orientations are up 27%; d) registration opened today for all students. Admissions is about to pilot a wait listing system. This capability has always been in Banner, but was never used. The wait list system is being implemented now and is being piloted in a few areas to make sure it is working well; e) as previously mentioned, Rodrigo Carrami¤ana has been hired as the Center for Undergraduate Research Director. He has a faculty background and has done a lot of work in the area of undergraduate research; f) he has had discussions with provosts around the country about predictive analytics. The University has entered a consortium called the Student Success Collaborative operated by the Educational Advisory Board. It is a model built on approximately 15 years worth of data on student success. The end result is that an advisor will be able to show a student, based on her/his performance in classes, how similar students performed. What it does is give the student a clue of the risk or challenge they are facing; g) he sent out a request about three weeks ago asking for campus input on how to better understand what is in syllabi and how to ensure students are getting those. The Higher Learning Commission will be on campus April 22, and this is one of their assumed practices. The campus needs to be able to show that syllabi are being provided to all students. Beyond that, the Board of Trustees has a policy that syllabi will be distributed by the first day of class, and both the Non Tenure Track Faculty Association and Faculty Association contracts specify there will be a syllabi distributed. The question is how to comply. He has asked the campus for input and is collecting information from about 20 other institutions to see what they are doing; h) he was asked to talk a little about the task forces on curricular collaboration in new programs. There was a Program Changes Review Committee last year that developed a protocol for program changes. One of the recommendations was that a second group be formed, which was the Complementary Practices and Efficiencies Task Force. They were charged with looking at possible efficiencies on campus. The Task Force has identified getting programs to 120, looked at course redundancy and looked at program redundancy. They drafted a laundry list of possibilities and recommendations that appoint specific task forces to further investigate these options. He could not tackle all the issues, so he sat down in collaboration with deans and looked at a few programs where they could get wins in terms of development or collaboration of programs and those that were going to be flagged. He is required to report to the IBHE in April low performing programs according to the IBHE metrics. There are programs he has nothing to say about; they really have not helped in terms of the program changes review protocol. There is not a lot he can do other than report to the IBHE that this does not meet metrics. There was a program identified as being the highest cost program on campus, with a student/faculty ration of 6; so, he is looking at programs like that and developing a task force that could further investigate what opportunities there are for collaboration. He has appointed five task forces chaired by different deans. After appointing those, he noticed there are some grassroots efforts to develop some additional task forces; he does not know them all, but they are operating. The ones he appointed are on management coordination; there is one with Plant Biology and Microbiology that the faculty are undertaking; statistics and research methodology; discussions about a statistics and methods institute--how to pull different pieces from different colleges to collaborate to create this institute so that anyone needing research or teaching support in statistics would have a place to go. Others are in Engineering (Mining) and Computer Science and Computer Engineering; the library has group put together to look at certificate programs and degree programs; Education has a concept paper floating around to look at different options in that college. Mass Communication and Media Arts and Applied Sciences and Arts are discussing further a school of informatics. What this has done is gotten people in the right units talking, whether it be a new program or new collaborative opportunity. The task forces are primarily made up of faculty from those units; i) Dean of Students Peter Gitau has accepted a position at another university. He (Provost Nicklow) and Chancellor Cheng are working to fill the position on a temporary or interim basis until a permanent search can be conducted.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

K. Anderson reported he received an email regarding a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that has been filed with the University requesting copies of research proposals, including pending, funded and unfunded proposals going back at least as far as 2008. The request includes proposals that are still in review. He was informed by General Counsel that, basically, the University had to comply. K. Anderson believes the University should fight such a request. Chancellor Cheng responded that there may be a database in the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA) that records the proposals and awards that have been submitted/received. The only way to not comply would be if the copying is too onerous. K. Anderson pointed out that here are exceptions in FOIA for confidential/privileged information, and research proposals really have to be under that category because this is the lifeline, particularly of the STEM disciplines. Provost Nicklow responded that there is a Senate bill that requires anyone who receives federal funding to post and release all information associated with that funding; that would be data, which is problematic. It is also problematic from a standpoint of articles and writing. How many publishers would accept a faculty member's work after it has been posted publicly? S. Graves mentioned that there is a link on the library's website where someone can type in the name of a journal, and it will say exactly what the publisher's rights are to that article. Most publishers will allow a "pre-print" (before editing) into the institutional repository, of which the library has one.

K. Anderson believes that providing research proposals means that a faculty member's ideas can be pursued by anyone at any time; this is a huge precedent, and the University has to resist that as it would compromise the whole research mission. He is aware that the documents can be redacted, but General Counsel would be the one to do that. Even the title of a research proposal could be a big giveaway as to what a faculty member believes could be the next big breakthrough. Chancellor Cheng responded that most of the time, those titles are part of a faculty member's CV and are more public; the actual proposal itself and the budget, however, are all considered in-house information. J. MacLean commented that he has noticed that many of the pre-proposal checklists going through OSPA are really only checked to make sure the budget is appropriate; [they do not check the proposals]. Provost Nicklow responded that, on a related note, NSF has implemented a new system of automatic compliance checking. A proposal will not be accepted unless every element has been addressed.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. J. Davie reported on the March 7 Graduate Council meeting: a) the Council heard a presentation from CIO David Crain, who explained the changes being implemented to update the computing resources on campus. He discussed the possibility of hiring a deputy director of research computing position, explaining that a second IT position provides help to researchers and soliciting insight from researchers to understand storage space requirements; b) the Research Committee presented a resolution encouraging the formation of a campus-wide committee to examine allocations of indirect funds. The resolution will come up for a vote next month; c) two resolutions from the New Programs Committee were approved. One was an RME for a name change in speech communication, and the other was an RME for an online post baccalaureate certification for Civil Society Communication and Media Practices. Two RMEs were introduced and will be voted on next month. One is a name change for the Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education to the Department of Counseling, Quantitative Methods, and Special Education. There was a great deal of discussion over the use of quantitative methods in the title. The second RME is for a Masters of Arts Degree in Chemistry in the College of Science.

M. Kibby asked for clarification on the indirect cost committee. J. Davie responded that the committee is in response to the reallocation that occurred with the Chancellor's office and the Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) office. Indirect funds are the funds on grants that are additional to any [sum?] or typically still at 70/30 (70% for administrative needs and 30% to colleges and departments). The 70% was split 39% going to the VCR and 31% to the Chancellor's office. This fall, there was redistribution so that now the Chancellor's office receives 40% and the VCR receives 30%. The concern from the Research Committee is how to balance the additional needs of the campus that traditionally were funded through the VCR's office, such as startup funds, travel funds, seed grants, etc.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

T. Clark reported on the March 5 meeting, which began with a discussion about the Board of Trustees meeting. There was also a spirited discussion on the bill to split the campuses. The Council discussed the Judicial Review Board (JRB) task force, which has not yet been formed. There have been a number of conversations and concerns about the current structure and mission of the JRB. The Council also discussed the resolution for NTT promotional schedules and voted to place Pinckney Benedict on the ballot to replace Joan Davis on the JRB. G. Boulukos noted that many of the JRB duties are in the Faculty Association contract, so any task force charged with reconsidering the JRB has to preserve whatever is in the contract until such time as that has changed.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -

Ballots were distributed for a vote to approve Pinckney Benedict, College of Liberal Arts, to replace Joan Davis on the JRB.

P. Benedict was approved 24-2-1 by paper ballot.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. Johnson, Chair

1. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Establish an Interdisciplinary Minor in Game Design and Development, offered by the School of Information Systems and Applied Technologies in the College of Applied Sciences and Arts and the College of Mass Communications and Media Arts (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). B. Thibeault commented that she is aware that minors are not counted, but somewhere there has to be an accounting of the minors and the number of students in the minor. She asked if the game design minor will be under both colleges or just one. Where will students report? N. Martin responded that the way she understands it, students in the minor college will stay in their own college. If they are ISAT students, then that department will keep track of them; if they are MCMA students, then that college will keep track of them (each college keeps track of its own students).

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

2. D. Johnson reported the committee has been discussing the UCOL 101 course and decided to ask University College to supply them with an assessment of what happened this fall, what kind of success the course has had. The committee is particularly interested in hearing from a cross sample of instructors of the course and getting their feedback. He will get in touch with Pat Manfredi (University Core Curriculum) and Mark Amos (University College) to make sure that happens so he can report back to the Senate on how well that course is working.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall yielded his report to G. Boulukos, who has been serving in his stead on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. G. Boulukos reported the committee discussed several of the issues that have already been raised--FY14 cuts, which have gone up from 4.62% to 5%. He believes it was mentioned in passing that distribution of the cuts will be by the same 70/30 formula used for the midyear cuts. The committee discussed complementary practices, the proposed 5% tuition increases and the request for a 5%, or a little less, in fee increases. One issue that was raised had to do with the fall in graduate admissions. Some on the committee suggested that departments were not confident in their budgets given the ongoing crisis atmosphere and lack of clarity about budgets, which could affect willingness to offer GA positions. The Provost and Chancellor have indicated that they have attempted to [quell the fear] that GA budgets would be affected and that graduate admissions could proceed without concern The discussions seem to indicate there is a bit of confusion about that issue. The Provost had pointed out that faculty can have a very positive impact on undergraduate recruitment and made a particular appeal to the Senate to consider what role faculty could play in turning admission numbers into actual bodies on campus. G. Boulukos also reported that Chartwell is leaving campus. The Student Center is going to a new system where local businesses may be able to provide catering and food in the Student Center.

H. Hurlburt asked if there was any discussion of a model other than the 70/30 given that it generated controversy last time and will hit the same programs that were hit hard previously. G. Boulukos responded that there was no discussion of that within the committee, although it is something the Senate might want to discuss. T. Wilson asked what group would be charged with tweaking that model, given some of the differential cuts. A. Karnes responded that there is a subcommittee of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee. He also noted that the assumption that the same programs will be hit hard again is not necessarily true because what it looks at is change from year to year. If a college was way down last year, it would be easy to go up. It could then possibly receive some of that money back as a result of using the same model every year. He noted that once the models start changing, there is no consistency.

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

H. Hurlburt reported the committee met with Wayne Glass, the new director of OSPA. She believes the discussion was helpful. He is attempting to change the negative perceptions and be more proactive. His vision is to make OSPA a more user-friendly environment, and he has nice ideas involving research culture and interdisciplinary research. H. Hurlburt also reported that the committee is taking positive steps on the faculty survey and the new path to promotion to full professor.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Anderson, Chair

K. Anderson reported the committee received a request to appoint a person to the Position Review Advisory Board.

OLD BUSINESS

J. Wall provided a brief background on the issue of promotional lines for non-tenure track faculty. K. Anderson commented that the task force that developed the resolution (included as Attachment B to the Agenda) researched other schools, and the sheer inconsistency of titles used on this campus is absurd. He believes there needs to be consistency so titles have meaning.

Because of a loss of quorum, the resolution was postponed to the April meeting. H. Hurlburt suggested moving action items, such as resolutions, to the top of the agenda so items can be voted on while there are still enough Senators in the room for a quorum.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:09 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba