Minutes of the Faculty Senate

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

ROLL CALL

Members present: Philip Anton, Connie J. Baker, George E. Boulukos, Joe Cheatwood, Terry Clark, Tsuchin Chu, Lucian E. Dervan, Bruce A. Devantier, Mark J. Dolan, Ahmad Fakhoury, Anthony Fleege, Carl Flowers (ex officio), Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg (Spfld), Steven C. Goetz, Laura Halliday, Holly Hurlburt, Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Andrea Imre, Allan Karnes (ex officio), Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, John Legier, John McSorley, Sajal Lahiri, Howard Motyl, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Nicole Roberts (Spfld), Rachel Stocking, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, Lyle J. White, Mingqing Xiao.

Members absent: None

Members absent without proxy: Philip Anton, James Maclean, Belle Woodward, Stacey Sloboda, Kelsy Kretschmer.

Visitors and guests: Jim Garvey (acting Vice Chancellor of Research), James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Arden Lockwood, David Crain.

MINUTES

Motion was made to approve the minutes from the 2013-2014 Faculty Senate meeting on July 9, 2013, as posted. 21 approved, 0 oppositions, 2 abstentions motion passed. Minutes from September meeting were approved as posted, 27 approved.

REPORTS

1. T. Clark announced that Meera Komarraju had been selected from the names submitted, to be on the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. Carl Flowers has been chosen from the Grad Council. Congratulations to both. Fall Faculty meeting is Thursday, Oct. 10th. Alan Phillips will give a presentation on the “The Future of Higher Education”; this is an amazing presentation, one that will make you think. Please try to attend. Finally, the Council of Illinois University Senates met at Illinois State on Sept. 30th, Professor Clark was unable to attend or send a proxy. The council is going to start meeting regularly.

2. Provost John W. Nicklow reported: a) chancellor sends regrets as she is in China visiting 3 universities in 5 days, including the oldest relationship with North East Normal University which is celebrating its 30 year anniversary; b) Open House was this past weekend, very well attended. 245 prospective students, last year at the Fall Open House we had 160; c) Family weekend was an incredible success – tailgate served 2800 meals to families and students, the 5th largest crowd ever at Saluki Stadium and 3rd largest number of tickets sold at the new stadium, lots of positive comments from visitors, also had 2 volleyball games and a Greek sing as well; d) The week before that was the SEMO vs. SIU game; the first ever football game played at Busch Stadium, there were 1200 people RSVP to that recruitment event, largest off campus prospective student event ever; don’t know if it will ever be held again because the field was destroyed but did learn that SEMO President wants to hire a marketing firm and wants to know what we’re doing; e) update on enrollment – turn to next fall tracking; currently we are up 25% in admissions from last year at this time and an increase of 5% in applications for freshmen; transfers running ahead on admissions but apps are still down about 2.5%; registration for fall and summer schedule will be out at the end of this month; f) The large Chancellor’s Scholars event will be Feb. 7th and 8th, we expect 600 students to interview that weekend, compared to 400 last year that was the largest group ever invited; g) Katharine Suski, director of admissions was quoted in the Chronicle publication about stealth applications - students never heard from then an application suddenly shows up; h) SIU recognized by Insight to Diversity Magazine for a Diversity award, oldest and largest Diversity magazine in the country; i) Debate team started off great with 2 wins; j) Check events calendar and get students engaged in some of the events; LBGTQ and Hispanic Heritage Month; k) Student Services building is open; stop by and see it. First floor moved in, second floor will move in on the coming weekend, still getting out some of the kinks; l) on the Academic side the online accounting degree at UCLC was approved, mid-term grading is up but not required; wait listing is also up and live; m) student success collaborative goes live in October, training is set up for advisors, deans and associate deans; n) government shut-down is having a minimal impact on the university – the longer it goes the more we will see issues. Off-site programs are the only programs impacted at this point; o) Good news on grants – received $1.1 million dollar grant from Bridge to Baccalaureate; $2.5 million grant from Dept. of Defense, School of Medicine for Hearing Loss Prevention and $1 million grant for collaborative work and technology between Dr. Cho and Dr. Watts. Lastly - program development: as the provost talks with other provosts and presidents – there seems to be program glut. We don’t add enough new programs. Wants to look at refreshing the current programs, and think about innovative programs. Look for different opportunities. We want and need current programs if we want to attract the top students.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. S. Lahiri asked question about parking at the new building? Nicklow responded, that would be a question for the Chancellor, they are parking at Woody and once construction is done they can park in the lot where the old stadium was.

2. G. Boulukos asked question about new programs and hiring status. Nicklow answered with the new financial model – when someone leaves the institution the college retains 90% of that line and 10% goes to the provost for investment opportunities. The college can seek permission to replace or use it in another area of the college. Provost said he is looking for the innovative interdisciplinary kind of positions such as what is happening with Fermentation Science between Agriculture and Science.

REPORTS CONTINUED:

3. Allan Karnes, Faculty Advisor to the IBHE Allan noted the committee will be meeting in Chicago, so no report this time.

4. Carl Flowers, Graduate Council. Council met for its October meeting. The council has made appointments to the search committees as well as other campus wide committees. Other council business included the Education Policies committee introduced a resolution to change the way the graduate school awards the tuition waivers, vote will be at the November meeting. The waivers will be allocated to the colleges dependent on the percentage of graduate school enrollment. The cumulative GPA will be the determining factor. There was one college that was receiving 90% of the waivers so this change will equalize that process. Research committee is working with the VCR to identify the role of the computer research advisory committee and how that committee will interface with the faculty on their research endeavors. New programs committee introduced a resolution based on the new unit of instruction with the Masters of Science, from the College of Applied Science and Arts. It will also be voted on at the November meeting. New programs committee met with the dean of the College of Education concerning the RME of the reorganizing of COEHS, and after several meetings they sent RME back to graduate chair because they were unable to form a resolution. Flowers was concerned that sending back the RME to the dean would delay the vote. Since Professor Flowers had received the RME from the provost and not the dean, he invoked his privilege as Chair of Council and the Executive Committee introduced a resolution to the Grad Council. After much discussion a special meeting was set for October 17th to invite the chairs of the departments and others to talk to grad council. The resolution will be on the agenda for the November 7th meeting.

L. White asked Dr. Flowers if others were invited to speak at the special meeting. Flowers replied yes and notices would be sent out.

George Boulukos asked for affirmation of the date.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. In the absence of Professor Maclean, Dr. Clark reported that Mark Amos, head of UCOLL came to the executive council meeting to discuss the first year experience and address some of the issues.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - L. White, Chair

1. L. White remarked that appointments were made to three different committees, the Dean Search for the College of Science, Provost Core Curriculum Task Force and the Presidential Search Advisory Committee. Dr. White read the appointees. (attachment A)

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- George Boulukos, Chair 
G. Boulukos attended an interesting Chancellor’s Budget Planning committee meeting and the Faculty Senate Budget Committee met last week to discuss what was learned in the CBPC meeting. Main issue that was discussed was the 70/30 model. A presentation was given from a subcommittee member and showed 5 different scenarios of how that model might be applied this year. The model will be used for any budget cuts or bonuses that need to be distributed. There is not a final number yet but somewhere around $1 million in cuts to be made. The model remains a confusing subject and wasn’t working in its current format. By following the same model the numbers were coming out crazy. An alternate model was discussed. There was a lot of lively discussion in the CPBC meeting. The goal of this process is to produce symptoms and there has to be clear winners and losers in the process and the message will be sent. Some attendees felt that a model should be chosen that has the least impact on the units and causes the least gaps. G. Boulukos noted that the chancellor indicated that she would get more equipped from the CBPC and make a decision after the meeting. Boulukos discussed all the information with the FS Budget Committee. There was a lot of discussion on the different models and statistics that could be used, some very confusing and a lot of fluctuations in the different models. G. Boulukos summarized the information from the budget committee; we need to work on the statistics to try and find a model that does the least harm, but also how do you make effective incentives and what would they be. The committee feels that a model needs to be very stable and clear so that units know what’s coming, and doesn’t fluctuate year to year.

Allan Karnes added since the Chancellor’s budget meeting they have normalized the data. So that the fluctuations went away. The same measures would be used this year as last year with normalized data. There was one number – 8 - that threw the whole thing off and it has gone away after normalizing the data.

Nicklow remarked that if you normalize to the average, previously it was dividing by the total change and when the total change went to zero the denominator went to zero so it went to infinity.

Boulukos asked where the number 8 came from and what does it represent? Karnes responded the number 8 was the net change in students. Last year it was in the 100’s. He reiterated that they normalized the data and they are using the same data as last year. Next year it could change based on credit hours. They are going to take the new students out of the model. The committee is trying to measure the impact on the income fund, and credit hours are the best producer of that. They will look at graduate hours times the percentage of your graduate students who pay tuition, so if you are in a college that doesn’t pay tuition you won’t get much credit for that. The higher courses will be weighted more than the lower level courses. But they are going to work on the new model for next year and put it out to campus so that everybody understands what it is going to be.

J. Legier remarked that college of business has a different curriculum rate? Karnes remarked that it doesn’t affect the general income fund – those funds go into the student services account and pay for extra things for our students. Differential tuition doesn’t go necessarily to the campus income and is not available to all the colleges like regular tuition is, and not included in the model. Karnes concluded that the discussion could be later, the committee would be happy to hear the comments, but that is the task for next year to come up with a better model. Should have something within a month or two.

R. Stocking was curious as to when they would have the discussions and would that be in the form of a formal hearing? Karnes remarked that it will go the Chancellor’s Budget committee, which G. Boulukos is a part of and he will report back to the senate. Stocking felt that is it really important to have some kind of meeting where there is input before the decision is made.

M. Komarraju asked if George is representing Faculty Senate if he might inform his input to the committee, how will he take information to the committee if the Senate doesn’t have time to discuss it?

T. Clark added it might be useful if someone from the CBPC committee who is knowledgeable comes to the Faculty Senate meeting and makes a presentation.

G. Boulukos suggested that he get together with Karnes and other members to discuss how it works so that he can report back to the Senate.

A. Imre asked about budget cuts and if a percentage is known. Nicklow remarked that the shortfall amounts to around $800,000 and some additional elements, costs for scholarships, etc. that Nicklow will absorb and what he proposed to the Chancellor go to the colleges, is only salary increases and application of the model – enrollment shortfall.

R. Stocking added that she is really confused that the model doesn’t work according to the budget committee, the chain of decision making has normalized the data and there is no apparent input from the faculty except for the representative on the Budget committee and yet we will move forward to change the model for next year with no method of doing that, and she thinks there is something wrong with that. Stocking added surprise that there was not a more transparent way for this process, where there is feedback going both ways before the decision is made.

Komarraju added that she was trying to communicate that George was the rep on the budget committee, he brings the information – then the Senate has a discussion and then the question comes in – “What is George going to take back?” Stocking added that the senate takes time for discussion before the whole decision process moves forward. Clark added it seems that we only have a partial understanding of the model and he would like to have someone who is expert in it come present at the meeting – what the state of the model is and why it is flawed and what are the options as we move forward. G. Boulukos added that the committee got a presentation from Dean Warwick and he did a good job answering questions and presenting the model.

B. Devantier paraphrased - we have created a model that is based upon dropping enrollment and so that when enrollment drops that was the way to distribute things, but as we move forward and things stabilize and increase; there is a crossover point as we go towards zero we are changing to a different mode. Devantier sees that as a justification to change the model. Karnes added the only change in the model is that we are using a different number to divide by and he is confident that the model now works. It approximates what the data looks like.

Provost Nicklow added that the chancellor would like to distribute this late next week or the following week, partly because colleges can’t budget for the year. They have all submitted hiring plans and nobody knows where they stand and if we wait two months to resolve this, there will not be time to make the hires that we hope to make on the faculty side for next fall. Normalizing the model for this year and then have the discussion over next year. Chancellor is certainly welcome to input, sharing the information with George or members of the committee. Sending the information through the rep is what they are there for – so share the information through your rep – bring it to the floor; the comment the Chancellor made was she is very open to alternatives. Boulukos asked for the “normalizing” to be explained because he didn’t understand it. S. Lahiri remarked that his understanding was that when you have some negative numbers and some positive numbers they add up to zero. Then you take the incentive out of the equation, then distribute $1 million deficit with all positive or all negative then you do not have the same outcome. Then you are rewarding some departments and punishing others, and for that I can see it.

B. Thiebault asked what model was used before the 70/30 model came to be?? Nicklow answered there were no hiring plans or no prioritization, and was based on historical size as far as he can tell. Clark added that sometimes there was across the board cuts which were controversial as well, so no model is going to be controversy free.

R. Stocking added that she still feels that the explanation that we normalized the data and we chose it because it works, it works is extremely subjective concept and working is a lot different for one college than it is for another. Believes there is really a huge problem here. Karnes added that the only reason we don’t have an explanation for the method that was chosen is because the guy is not here that can explain it. The model works. We will find out when we invite the dean in. Stocking said she was not questioning him or the dean and she said she can’t go tell her folks about budget cuts without a firm explanation.

B. Devantier said some people are not going to like to hear the facts. There are colleges that changed their mode of operation based on this 70/30 model, but he thinks that when they say it works, it continues a similar trend to the redistribution that was used the previous year so that when people were told ahead that we were using that in the future and by making that change it allows them to live up to that promise. Somebody made changes and now they say, since the formula didn’t work, then we aren’t going to give any positive to the people that change their enrollment upward when they were told all along that it was going to happen – they will be upset too.

T. Clark remarked that this is an apportioning model, not a redistribution model, and since we don’t know it and have not had a clear presentation, George has done a great job from a technical prospective of explaining the assumptions, until we have that we can’t have an informed discussion; we are all expressing frustrations. We will see if Dean Warwick will make a presentation and then we can point our fingers at the assumptions and ask questions. Probably no matter what happens half will be happy and half will be unhappy but we will have an intelligent and informed discussion. If there is enough interest there could be a special meeting called for the presentation and discussion.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- B. DeVantier, Chair

Since the last meeting, the UEPC committee has met with several groups to gather input concerning the RME on the reorganization of COEHS. The Dean and other members of COEHS presented supplemental materials to the RME describing student enrollment and department faculty in the college. It included the clarification and motivation of structural changes in the departmental organization. The history of enrollment reductions in some programs was presented as a prime concern for the reorganization. Several groups contacted the committee to present their opposition to the proposed reorganization and those were heard on Oct. 1. It was asserted that the RME did not provide sufficient justification to substantiate the benefits included in the RME. It was also asserted that there were not enough resources to assure program visibility and enrollment stabilization. The focus of the FA presentation was college wide echoing the insufficient justification and concern was expressed about insufficient faculty participation leading to the RME and inadequate assurances of resources to successfully complete the reorganization. The committee will continue to meet and deliberate for the subsequent month. J. Allen provided guidance in what the committee is charged to do. We will proceed to either recommend the RME be approved if that is the decision of the committee and would have to formulate a resolution to that effect, or we could have the option of being sent back to the college, but the body would have to support that option. The other option is to not recommend the RME and to draw up a resolution not recommending it; the committee feels that this would be the least of all effective. The committee could follow the Grad Council and send the RME back to the Executive Council to make the decision and bring it before the whole body. Those appear to be the options and we have not yet discussed it in committee as to what their assessment is at this point.

R. Stocking asked B. Devantier of Jim Allen’s capacity on the committee. B. Devantier replied that J. Allen offered his guidance and he accepted as an ex-officio member. J. Allen remarked that the Associate Provost and VC of Academic Affairs has been an ex-officio member of the committee for some 20 years, by invitation. The Assoc. Provost was always at the meetings when J. Allen was chair, as was the Director of Core Curriculum. In order for the committee to proceed in a way that serves faculty interest, and to insure that our colleagues have their voices heard, J. Allen has provided some advice to the committee and that is the way the committee decided to proceed.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE --

E. Heist reported that the committee had met. The Chancellor had remarked in the Executive Council meeting that she was instituting a faculty climate survey and the committee expressed that they would like to be involved in that and the Chancellor agreed to our participation. The committee also discussed doing exit surveys to find out why faculty members leave when they do.

H. Hurlburt brought up the changes to the academic misconduct policy; she encourages everybody to take a look at it as changes took place over the summer. Policy is available on the website under student rights and responsibilities. There is now a policy in place where all instances of academic misconduct are to be reported to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Hurlburt was curious as to who was involved in the creation of this policy. There was some concern as to whether that office can handle the volume of potential reports and if there was any consent of responsibility in terms of what is considered academic misconduct. Looking for background information. Nicklow asked for email of questions and he would respond, thinks this went back to spring and was put out on the list serve for input. He added that he feels they can handle the volume and the document was prepared based on some peer institute’s best practices. J. Allen added that there was faculty input prior to the approval and there were very minimal changes. Hurlburt added that she was curious and it seems like this is an area where the committee ought to come before the senate with information, and there seems to be a failure of communication in that respect. The provision was to maintain a common centralized source of information about serial plagiarists that would be of interest to everyone. There otherwise may not be a way to know that the student is passing the same paper on in other colleges. This will give faculty a way to address those students who make this habit.

R. Stocking asked if the operating paper trumped university policy on misconduct issues. So you still use the procedure in your operating paper but the incident is to be reported to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. Nicklow responding yes – it would be handled in accordance with university policy.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- B. Thibeault, Chair

B. Thibeault reported the committee has been working on three different items. Two of them are on hold – waiting for the outcome of the COEHS RME and the other one is the JRB Task Force and that group is waiting for the Chancellor to appoint her member. The third is the fact that a faculty member was upset about not being able to vote or hold a seat on the Senate because she was assigned to an academic unit in which tenure was not granted. The committee is going to look into the operating paper and how the definition of faculty can be changed. They are awaiting a list of all faculty and then a list of voting faculty to see who gets eliminated, who and where are they.

OLD BUSINESS - None.

NEW BUSINESS - None.

INVITED GUESTS:

Arden Lockwood and David Crain, CIO for the campus was introduced. Crain explained that they are moving faculty and staff email to Exchange 2013. It is up and running and migration is occurring. Has a lot of functionality that will be found very useful. As it is being launched they are doing some training but they also wanted to do a presentation so they everyone knows what they are moving to and what’s available. He introduced Arden Lockwood who works for the Alumni Development and the Foundation. She is the only certified project manager on campus and so they loaned her to IT for this exchange process. This has been a fairly smooth roll out for a very complicated project. We are eliminating 38 different systems to one. Arden Lockwood showed a 20 min. power point presentation. The presentation was sent to the constituency’s office to be shared with all faculty.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mark J. Dolan, Secretary

MJD:rf