Meeting convened at 1:05 p.m. by Kimberly Espy, President.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Jill Adams (for James E. Duggan), James Allen, Mark A. Amos, Marcia Anderson,
Robert Benford, Gary J. Butson, Terry Clark, Mark Dixon (for Paula K. Davis), John M. Dunn (ex
officio), Elamin M. Elamin, Kimberly A. Espy, Michael Grey, Paul H. Henry, H. Randy Hughes, James
D. Kelly, Nancy Mundschenk, David J. Olysav, Michael Shanahan, Pamela A. Smoot, Jane L.
Swanson, Michael C. Sullivan, Russ Trimble (ex officio), Susan E. Tulis, R. Viswanathan, Kathleen
Welshimer, Walter V. Wendler (ex officio), Stewart P. Wessel, Andrew J. Wood, David S. Worrells,
Kay Zivkovich.
Members absent without proxy: Nancy Khardori, Cathy Mogharreban, Janet L. Rogers, John S.
Washburn.
Visitors and Guests: Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan), Kevin Dettmar (English), Fred Isberner (ASA
Administration), Carolyn Smoot (Paralegal Studies), Diane Taub (Liberal Arts Dean's Office), Andrea
Zimmermann (Daily Egyptian).
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting on December 9, 2003, were approved as amended under the
Governance Committee report. The fourth sentence should read, "There is a situation where the
chair of a department is an associate professor and is making a recommendation on promotion for
a full professor." Minutes were approved as amended.
M. Sullivan moved to change the order of the agenda to allow the Governance Committee report
before the Elections Committee report; seconded by R. Hughes.
Motion to change the agenda carried on a voice vote.
REPORTS
1. K. Espy reported: a) the new Board of Trustees members have been announced. The Board will
meet on February 12; b) she has asked Chancellor Wendler to comment briefly on the new web
design and logo, as well as some of the reports by the IBHE, specifically the allocation of time spent
on state-related activities.
2. Chancellor Wendler reported that there was discussion about the proposed ethics legislation at
the IBHE meeting last week. The general counsel for the IBHE has been attempting to interpret the
legislation and its impact on various aspects of the higher education community. Chancellor
Wendler did not believe in the end the legislation would have much affect [on universities];
however, the University's general counsel will examine the issue as well. With respect to the new
website design, Chancellor Wendler indicated he understands some people's trepidation about the
new design. The University's website is in need of rigorous work, and anything that is developed is
still subject to change. He suggested that anyone who has comments or suggestions about the
new design should contact Sue Davis, and she will attempt to incorporate those. A. Karnes
believed it was more of an unfunded mandate that went down to all the web page managers that
the changes needed to be made. To handle these kinds of changes requires much time and effort.
The requirement that the banner be on every page is onerous as well. Chancellor Wendler
responded that people should not wait to forward those kinds of concerns to S. Davis. K. Espy
indicated she would invite S. Davis to the next Senate meeting to address these issues.
Chancellor Wendler reported that the FY04 budget (general revenue and income fund) was $243.4
million. The amount requested for FY05 was $264.9 million; however, the budget approved and
forwarded to the Governor's office is $246.3 million. That is slightly more than a 1% increase
which, given the financial situation, is not bad. The remainder of the budget is another $197
million for research, self-supporting activities, indirect costs, etc., which brings the total budget to
just less than $445 million. The numbers are posted on the IBHE website for anyone wanting to
see them. R. Hughes noted that in the report the income fund shows quite a decrease in the
School of Medicine and in fact the increase in income fund for the Carbondale campus was over $4
million. Chancellor Wendler indicated he would check into the figures and report back.
J. Adams asked about the correlation between the income fund and state dollars. The University is
looking at pretty large tuition increases that will increase the income fund. She asked if the
University is getting cutbacks in state appropriations to match tuition increases. Chancellor
Wendler responded that it is not one for one, but the University would be in a terrible situation if it
did not have increased tuition because there are cutbacks in state appropriations that are putting
increased pressure on the [income fund].
Chancellor Wendler reported: a) there is approximately $170 million of construction either planned
or underway on campus (Altgeld, Library, transportation/education center, etc.). He believes this
substantial volume of construction has the potential to significantly impact the appearance of the
campus and the University's ability to provide first-rate educational opportunities for students. The
$170 million does not include classroom renovations; $2 million was put into that last year, and
that same commitment is expected to continue this year and in the future; b) he has been meeting
with chairs and directors to discuss general issues and attempt to improve communications. He
also plans to visit with the deans and volunteered his willingness to the department chairs to make
himself available for faculty meetings, not to address specific issues but rather to address general
issues of concern. He encouraged Senators to meet with their deans prior to Senate meetings to
review what is on the agenda so the deans would be aware of what items the Senate is addressing.
He believes it is a good way to improve communication; c) the results of his evaluation have been
distributed to those who participated in the process. He believes the results were interesting and
informative and indicated he is open to discussion once Senators have had a chance to review the
report. The Provost's evaluation will be starting soon. The process is still in the experimental
stage, and he wants to make it as friendly as possible because at some point he would like to do
the evaluations on an annual basis. He believes it is a good way to get people's perceptions about
how things are going and then use that to guide the organization. Some people provided written
comments that he did not share because they are too complicated to do anything with at this time.
J. Allen indicated that comments are more revealing than numbers, and he would like to see some
of the comments to get an idea of whether any themes emerged. Chancellor indicated there are
some thematic consistencies, and he did attempt to do some content analysis on his own. He
suggested that as the evaluations proceed, he may look into contacting one of the scholars on
campus that does content analysis to do a summary.
3. Provost Dunn reported: a) there are 59 applicants for the Associate Provost for Academic
Affairs and 25 applicants for the Associate Provost for Academic Administration. Also, at last count,
there were 15 applicants for Applied Sciences and Arts dean. Although technically "closed", the
search is "officially" never closed until he has secured the services of the right person. The search
for dean of Agricultural Sciences closes March 1. There are 14 applicants at this time; b) the Ph.D.
in Physics has been officially transmitted to the IBHE, as has the masters in Public Health; c) the
Budget and Planning Task Force was asked by the Chancellor to do some followup on some of its
recommendations. That has been done, and the Chancellor has responded back. The Task Force is
now moving forward with those recommendations; d) the guidelines for the Chancellor's initiatives
on teaching/learning and scholarship will be out in the near future. Vice Chancellor Koropchak's
office will administer the funds on scholarly/creative activity and the arts; e) February is Black
History Month. He congratulated P. Smoot and her committee for putting together an outstanding
program. He also acknowledged Allison Joseph, who published her fifth collection of poetry; Mike
Lawrence, who was named interim director of the Public Policy Institute; and Chris Lant, Dean
Shirley Clay Scott, and Chancellor Wendler, who all worked on the University Council on Water
Resources. The grant was up again in terms of who would take responsibility and leadership, and
SIU was able to retain its role as lead university out of the 90 leading universities participating.
K. Espy asked what the process would be for strategic hires given the University's budget picture.
Provost Dunn responded that he is working through that in the sense of what [will be in the
budget]. There are a number of searches going on, and they seem to be doing quite well.
4. A. Karnes reported that the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) met in Springfield and in South
Suburban College and the IBHE has met twice. At the December IBHE meeting, he delivered the
FAC report on faculty productivity. Five FAC members also met with Chairman Kaplan and most of
the other members of the Board. Kaplan's response to the report was hostile, while some other
Board members made mention of how the FAC was being put in a difficult position. The FAC was
not going to do what Kaplan wanted, which was to suggest a way to reduce faculty costs. They did
welcome measurement of productivity, as long as all aspects of a faculty member's workload that
are determined to be in line with the mission of the institution were part of the measurement.
There was no resolution of the issue as a result of the meeting.
Shortly before the February meeting of the IBHE, the FAC learned that the issue of faculty
productivity was being moved off the front burner. It is not going to go away, and may be part of
the PPA (Priorities, Productivity and Accountability) process. However, it will not be a centerpiece
of Board activity. It is not entirely clear what motivated the change in direction, but A. Karnes
indicated he was told that Stanley Fish, the retiring Dean of Arts and Sciences at UIC and another
UIS official convinced Kaplan that despite the recession, there is always a market for good
academics. They also pointed out that the confrontational stance being taken by the Board on this
issue was damaging morale and creating conditions that would motivate the best people in the
system to look elsewhere. There have also been reports that other Board members did not think
the direction the Board was taking on the issue was productive.
At the IBHE meeting on February 3, the Board acted on the budget proposal and attempted to deal
with the ethics legislation. A. Karnes indicated he was unable to attend because of the weather,
but Ken Andersen, past chairman from U of I, filled in for him. Although it is normal for the
proposed budget to be released at least one week before the IBHE meeting, it did not become
available until after 5PM on the Friday before the FAC met at South Suburban. The FAC was forced
to try and digest the budget document by email and telephone in order to have commentary ready
by Tuesday. In addition, because the weather was bad on Monday, Board staffers were not
available for consultation. This led to an inaccurate interpretation of how the remaining
administrative cut targets would affect the general revenue (GR) appropriation. In fact, GR will not
be affected by the remaining administrative cost reduction targets. The budget calls for a flat GR
appropriation to public universities and shows an overall increase, counting income fund increases.
The budget also accounts for all available funds (including non appropriated items like grants and
contracts). It also calls for cost increases like Medicaid payments to be paid out of the non-
appropriated funds. In the income fund, it calls for a carryover of a portion of the new tuition
money to pay for the increased costs associated with the out years of incoming freshman as a
result of the truth in tuition bill. Overall, the budget proposal is as good as could be hoped for. The
Board did many things the FAC has been calling for, like protecting the core academic mission by
focusing cuts on grants and other areas instead of funding for the public universities. Overall, the
budget is down about $80 million, but much of the cut is absorbed by the lower amount of required
contribution to SURS. The Board is also proposing a change to the MAP program that the FAC has
been advocating for some time. The need formula will now have a tuition cap tied to the highest
tuition level at a state university. This will reduce the number of students who will be eligible for
aid that attend private schools, meaning more aid should be available to students who attend public
universities. A. Karnes believes faculty should support this budget and asked that people contact
their legislators and ask them to pass the budget as proposed. If this budget is approved, there
should be no reason for significant budget reductions in the colleges.
A. Karnes reported the Board also addressed the ethics legislation and whether faculty would be
required to document their time worked. The Board attorney reported that faculty would be
required to comply, but the jury is still out on this question. A. Karnes also reported that the FAC is
now operating under a policy of inviting local legislators to meet with them at every campus they
visit. So far, cooperation by the legislators has been great, and the conversations have been
instructive to both the FAC and the legislators. This could be something the Senate might want to
consider doing for its meetings.
5. K. Dettmar reported the Graduate Council last met on December 2. Its February 5 meeting was
canceled as a result of the snow day. K. Dettmar reported: a) the Council is discussing the
Washington Advisory Group report. Alan Vaux has been attempting to distill the implications of the
report for the Council as a way to jumpstart the conversation and then think about what the Council
would like to see in terms of implementation. It is likely some kind of resolution(s) will be
generated out of the Council's discussions; b) the Council will consider for approval the new Ph.D.
in Agricultural Science and a change in the Master of Science degree in College Student Personnel;
c) the Council will discuss the issue of nominating representatives to university-wide committees.
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- R. Viswanathan, Chair
R. Viswanathan reported the committee has been discussing modifications in promotion policies for
faculty. He hopes to have a resolution ready for the next Senate meeting. M. Sullivan has also
been looking into the question of [faculty reapportionment]. M. Sullivan indicated he has been
examining the numbers and noticed an inconsistency in how the FTEs are counted. It appears that
under the old system, the FTE for part-time faculty have been counted twice, which would affect
the numbers used last year. The numbers are calculated differently now through AIS, although he
continues to be skeptical because he has not seen the breakdown of the numbers. He suggested
that R. Benford may want to be pragmatic and accept the numbers he is presenting under his
report; that is something the Senate can decide. M. Sullivan indicated he will continue looking at
the numbers, though he did not believe there would be a massive difference in comparing this
year's numbers to last year's. Another concern he has is that it is not clear from an [intuitive
perspective] that the people listed as term faculty are really faculty. He does not believe there is
any concise definition of faculty that will capture exactly who is and who is not a faculty member.
Each college is doing it differently. There are deans that, rather than open up a new A/P or civil
service position, will label the person as term faculty. For example, a person could be hired as
part-time faculty, part-time computer technician, but the person is reported as full time faculty. In
those types of instances, they should be calculated as half-time rather than full time faculty. In
addition, tenure track faculty are considered full time faculty [even if they are not teaching]. M.
Sullivan indicated that one of the concerns is representation on the Senate, but the bigger concern
is the fact that the University is reporting lower numbers to perspective faculty, students, and
donors with respect to what percentage of the faculty are tenure track. He believes it is worth
looking at how faculty are classified. Nearly half the faculty are term (non-tenure track), but he
does not believe many of them are what he would call faculty. He has no algorithm for separating
them out because it is just too complex a problem. The committee would like to continue looking
into the issue and may need help from the administration to sort it all out. Provost Dunn indicated
that Institutional Research deals with these kinds of things every day and would be more than
willing to lend assistance.
M. Sullivan reported that another idea the committee is discussing is grouping term faculty together
as a separate voting unit and giving them two seats on the Senate. This would allow them some
voice in the Senate and reduce the distortion of Senate representation. He realized this would be a
significant restructuring of the Senate and is not asking for a vote on this issue at this time;
however, he wanted to throw the idea out for discussion. K. Espy noted that it is not the nature of
the faculty appointment but the length of the term. A faculty member has to be appointed for a
nine-month contract to be elected to the Senate, so a term faculty could be eligible to be a member
of the Senate. R. Benford pointed out that the membership criteria are very clear in the Senate's
Operating Paper with respect to who is allowed to be a member of the Senate. It includes lecturers
and people who are in research, visiting, and adjunct categories, as long as they have at least a
51% appointment. He expressed concern about the denominator used and how the total FTE is
calculated whether it is the whole university versus specific colleges. This obviously affects the
apportionment and the makeup of the Senate. This was something he questioned last year, but did
not have a better way of doing a census. R. Benford noted that after doing the calculation based on
AIS numbers, the Senate apportionment is back to where it was two years ago. If the committee
wants to look at the issue of reapportionment, there are actually two paragraphs in the Operating
Paper that are implicated. The first is membership, which is defined in the first paragraph of
Operating Paper (I.A.1.a.), and the other is how the denominator is calculated, which is under
voting units (II.A.2.c). He believes the numerator and denominator should have same operational
definition.
R. Hughes indicated the language in the Operating Paper is fairly clear in terms of definition of
faculty. The problem is in the assignment of titles based on what those people are doing. Another
aspect of dealing with apportionment is that there are in fact a number of faculty who work off
campus and are assigned to different units/colleges, even though the way they are paid may be
through some other more circuitous means. R. Benford pointed out that the committee is also
dealing with a moving target. There can be all kinds of reasons for discrepancies.
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE -- R. Benford, Chair
R. Benford presented as an informational item the Faculty Senate Reapportionment (included as
Attachment A
to the Agenda). After the refiguration, the Senate overall will be down one
representative. R. Benford indicated that Senators should solicit nominees from their colleagues to
stand for election.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- J. Duggan, Chair
J. Allen (for J. Duggan) presented for approval the nomination of Joseph Schafer, Assistant
Professor, Crime, Delinquency and Corrections, to serve on the Screening Committee for Director of
Public Safety.
Nomination approved on a voice vote.
FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- N. Mundschenk, Chair
1. N. Mundschenk presented for approval the Resolution to Adopt the Intellectual Property Policy
(included as Attachment B
to the Agenda). In essence, this parallels a resolution the Graduate
Council approved. J. Adams indicated she received some feedback from a colleague in the School
of Law on the Intellectual Property Policy. The concern was that it refers to individual efforts and
ownership and does not address collaborative work. K. Espy suggested J. Adams pass on this
concern to Pru Rice who is involved in the negotiation so she can address the issue and determine if
it is something that needs to be included in the next round of negotiations.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
2. N. Mundschenk presented for approval the Resolution to Request Clarification and Promulgation
of the Family and Medical Leave Policy (included as Attachment C
to the Agenda). It is based on
some discussion and concerns brought to the committee and is also the result of a survey
conducted by University Women's Professional Advancement. N. Mundschenk indicated she initially
brought the concerns to the University Joint Benefits Committee (UJBC), but they wanted to wait
for Senate action. If the resolution is approved, it will go back to the UJBC. Provost Dunn
suggested revising the second "Resolved" to read, "...the University administration educate deans,
department chairs and other administrators about the implementation of the policy..." because
there is a real need for a consistent understanding to make sure this is done right at all levels. N.
Mundschenk accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Resolution, as amended, approved on a voice vote. [see appendix]
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- J. Allen, Chair
1. J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the Transfer in Administrative Location
of the Program in Fashion Design and Merchandising (included as Attachment D
to the Agenda). He
reviewed the rational for the recommendation, noting that the deans of the affected colleges have
approved the transfer. K. Zivkovich objected to the merger, believing that students in fashion
design would benefit from not only design foundations courses but more importantly the figure
drawing or drawing courses in general. Likewise, the merchandising students would benefit from
the communication design course, which includes advertising and graphic design content. She
hoped that there would be some discussion that includes faculty of the School of Art and Design
before a vote is taken or the resolution approved. T. Owens, chair of Architecture and Interior
Design, responded that many universities commonly combine interior design and fashion design
and merchandising programs. There is actually a movement toward some masters degree
programs that are combining the undergraduate curriculums of both. The grouping of these two
programs together is more of a relationship with interior design than it is with architecture. It is
common to find both interior design and fashion design and merchandising programs throughout
home economics programs. Both these programs grew out of the home economics programs that
were originally at SIUC.
R. Hughes distributed a copy of Article IX of the collective bargaining agreement. Although this is
not yet a subject for grievance, there is concern that the requirements of Article IX have not been
followed in this case. The notices of the plan and documentation have not been filed with the
Faculty Association. Also, there are some questions the plan should have addressed such as
whether the new unit will actually be responsible for the program, what the structure is of the new
unit, and whether all the faculty lines are being transferred or if the faculty being moved are taking
existing lines in Architecture and Interior Design. The reason for Article IX is to make sure these
types of things are evident. Provost Dunn responded that Article IX refers to actions requiring
Board of Trustees approval, and this particular transfer does not require Board approval. In his
opinion, the more substantive issue is that there are faculty who feel they and their students are
not necessarily being well served in the current configuration. In addition, the deans of the two
affected colleges are both in agreement. With respect to the faculty lines, the good thing at this
university is that there is no system for assigning faculty lines; [rather, there are pockets of money
that can be moved as needed]. There are some degrees of flexibility to do the things that are
needed.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
2. J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the Addition of a Pre-Law
Specialization to the B.S. in Paralegal Studies (included as Attachment E
to the Agenda). The
change is to broaden an already existing degree program for students who may be interested in a
career in law. J. Allen believes that since the School of Law here and elsewhere has already been
taking some of SIUC's students in Paralegal Studies, this effort to broaden that base to make them
more competitive and better attorneys is a laudable one. J. Adams believes there is a deep
concern among Law School faculty that the University is putting an imprimatur on Paralegal Studies
as an appropriate way to get to law school. There was a listserv discussion within the Law School
on this issue, and it was the consensus of the faculty that they would rather see students major in
history, philosophy and English than Paralegal Studies and that there was no real advantage for
students coming out of Paralegal Studies. The other pre-law program at is Political Science, and
there is some discomfort with that among the law school faculty. She is aware that those people
working on this asked for comments from Mike Ruiz, the director of admissions at the Law School.
He is supportive and views a pre-law specialization as a way to advise students who major in
Paralegal Studies of the courses to take if they go to law school. J. Adams expressed concern that
it will lead to advisement that will direct students to major in Paralegal Studies if they want to go to
law school. J. Allen believed that this would provide students a choice and not a mandate that
could prepare them in ways that might be fruitful for them.
M. Sullivan suggested maybe the Senate should not act on the resolution until those people in Law
and Paralegal Studies work through the issue. C. Smoot, director of Paralegal Studies, shared a
letter sent to her by Peter Alexander, Dean of the School of Law. The letter expressed his support
for the pre-law emphasis within the Paralegal Studies program. C. Smoot noted that Political
Science already has a pre-law specialization, so it is not like they are breaking new ground. This
just provides students another opportunity. She indicated that M. Ruiz spoke with the CoLA Council
in support of the program. J. Adams noted that the addition of the pre-law specialization did not go
to the Law School faculty until it came up on the agenda for the Senate meeting. C. Smoot pointed
out that the pre-law emphasis would allow her some support in advising students, and would give
her two different tracks within the program one for those going on to paralegal and one for those
who go on to law school. R. Hughes indicated that there are other mechanisms for dealing with
advisement. For example, curricular guides are often included in catalogs. He questioned whether
the committee could not go back and consider whether that would be a more appropriate way to
deal with this policy of encouraging paralegal students to get adequate preparation to do pre-law.
R. Hughes indicated that another piece of information he wanted to put forward is that there was
some discussion on the Senate listserv about the rank of faculty in this program. What is important
to understand is that Paralegal Studies is not a basic academic unit and is not a unit in which
tenure can be granted. That explains one of the reasons why there are not tenure track faculty in
the unit.
R. Hughes moved to send the matter back to committee to explore the option of recommending
curricular guides for pre-law rather than a specialization in pre-law; seconded by M. Sullivan. J.
Allen indicated that there is already a guide to programs in law; this program change would add to
that program guide. The issue is not about who gets hired to deliver the program or about
consulting with other institutions; it is a curricular matter. D. Taub indicated she concurred with
the Undergraduate Education Committee of the CoLA Council; students in Paralegal Studies have
often gone to law school, so what Paralegal Studies wants to do is formalize what students are
already doing. Also, she believes it is important that students have on their transcripts a pre-law
specialization. T. Clark commented that there are points well taken on both sides; however, the
dean's letter is a pretty strong endorsement and seems to him to trump some of the concerns.
Motion to return to committee failed 4-22-1 on a show of hands vote.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
3. J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Approve a Modification in the Social Studies
Major to the B.S. in Curriculum and Instruction (included as Attachment F
to the Agenda).
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
BUDGET COMMITTEE -- R. Hughes, Chair
R. Hughes reported the committee will meet later in the month and will have a report for the next
meeting. He also encouraged Senators to view the information on the IBHE budgets that is
included on the web.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James E. Duggan, Secretary
JED:rm
