Meeting Minutes
May 14, 2002
Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Donna Post, President.
ROLL CALL
Members present: James S. Allen, Marcia Anderson, Robert D. Benford, Bruce A. DeVantier, James E. Duggan, Elamin
M. Elamin, Rosie Gottlieb (for Janet L. Rogers), Robert H. Helfert, Paul H. Henry, Conrad Hinckley (ex officio), H.
Randy Hughes, Laura K. Kidd, Manohar R. Kulkarni, Mary E. Lamb, Kyle Perkins (ex officio), Donna M. Post, Richard
A. Rivers, Jose R. Ruiz, Pamela A. Smoot, Robert L. Spellman, Jane L. Swanson, Susan E. Tulis, Gordon White (for
Nancy Mundschenk), Frederick Williams, Andrew J. Wood, Alan Woolf, David S. Worrells.
Members absent without proxy: Anna Brzyski, Kimberly A. Espy, Nancy Khardori, Stephen M. Milner, Satu Somani,
John S. Washburn.
Visitors and guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Jody Fagan (Library Affairs), Denny Hays (Interior Design), Susan
Logue (Library Affairs), Mike Loizzo (WSIU-FM).
MINUTES
The minutes of the 2001-02 Senate meeting on April 23, 2002, were approved as presented. The minutes of the
2002-03 Senate meeting on April 23, 2002, were corrected under the first full paragraph to change a spelling error ("more
than two candidates..."). Minutes were approved as corrected.
REPORTS
1. D. Post reported: a) she attended the Faculty Advisory Council meeting for A. Karnes. Executive Director
Keith Sanders was in attendance; b) she attended the College of Education faculty meeting and reported on the activities of
the Senate; c) she attended the forums for the two candidates for vice chancellor for research; d) she attended the
constituency heads meeting with President Walker prior to the Board of Trustees meeting. She then attended the Board
meeting, at which time the tuition increase plan was approved.
2. Provost Perkins reported the graduation ceremonies were successful. The commencement addresses were
thoughtful and well received.
3. M. Lamb asked Provost Perkins if he would verify the report that Chancellor Wendler has announced his plan
to make up $4 million of the $6 million deficit--two-thirds of the deficit--out of approximately 100 faculty positions. Given
the importance of faculty to academic programs, and therefore to the recruitment and retention of students, she asked if the
Chancellor would consider funding some of these faculty positions from the recent tuition increase. Provost Perkins
responded the FY03 budget is uncertain. The number of classes will be reduced; that cannot be helped. The University
will have to do more with less. With respect to the dollars that will be generated from the tuition increase, the Chancellor
has stated that the number one priority is increasing undergraduate scholarships. Also, the RAMP request includes $1.2
million for graduate fellowships. The University is currently not competitive with other institutions in these areas. The
tuition increase will not be used to plug holes in the budget. M. Lamb believes allocating two-thirds of the budget deficit to
lost faculty positions seems disproportionate. Provost Perkins stated that 80% of the budget is personnel. M. Lamb
responded that while 80% of the budget may be personnel, faculty make up far less than two-thirds of the budget. Given
that faculty are crucial to the recruitment and retention of students, she questioned whether it was wise and prudent to
eliminate this many faculty lines at this time. Is not this loss of faculty positions detrimental to the teaching/research/service
missions of the institution? Provost Perkins stated he had no comment on the wisdom of the decision. The real question is
will it be detrimental to the institution. The answer to that is yes, and it will likely get worse.
M. Lamb stated that this year, the President's office, for the first time, has billed the campus $1.7 million for
Oracle; the $1 million of that amount billed to Academic Affairs will trade many faculty positions for an administrative
software program. Rather than taking away yet more faculty positions, would it not make more sense for the campus to
reconsider Oracle, as well as the cost of outside consultants and the amounts spent on legal counsel in, for example, Risk
Management? Provost Perkins stated that this was a question for the Chancellor. Much of these decisions involve more
than just Academic Affairs. M. Lamb asked Provost Perkins if it was not the responsibility of the Provost to be an advocate
for Academic Affairs, rather than agreeing to pass down these campus deficits to the academic deans. Provost Perkins
indicated he has advocated the centrality of Academic Affairs to the Chancellor in a manner that was as straightforward as possible.
4. A report was given by D. Hays, one of the Faculty Senate representatives on the Library Affairs Advisory
Committee. [A copy of this and other University committee reports (included as Attachment A to the Agenda) are on file in the Faculty Senate office.]
5. D. Post reported on the April 25 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE she attended for A.
Karnes: "Budgeteers," the name applied to those aides with job assignments directly below the four highest officers in the
state, are responsible for making the first pass at a state budget. They are told to make the decisions for which the four
highest officers choose not to be held accountable. This year, the budgeteers were told to assume a $1.2 billion budget
deficit for FY 2003 with no new taxes; they were told to pare down the budget with this in mind. As a result, higher
education was cut by 12% ($300 million) in the proposed budget. This is double the highest cut in the modern history of
the state. On April 23, the State Senate drafted its recommended budget. It assumes "only" a $600 million deficit because
it includes what they are calling "revenue enhancements," a euphemism for higher state taxes to help recover some of the
state's losses. Higher education was cut by $96.5 million; however, because there are no advocates for poor students who
lobby at the state legislature, the figure includes $50-$60 million out of MAP appropriations. Executive Director Keith
Sanders predicts the higher education budget cuts will end up at $50-$70 million. There are likely to be no salary increases
for faculty except in cases of promotion and tenure. He also predicts: a) larger class sizes and fewer classes; b) lay-offs at
state campuses, although not among full-time faculty in tenure-track lines; c) there will be no recision in FY 2003, if the
economy improves; if it does not improve, there will be an increase in state taxes of one-fourth to one-half percent AND a
recision for higher education will occur in late January or February; d) MAP awards will be cut only for students in their
fifth year and beyond; e) the capital budget will be good because "the administration can get some positive press on their
way out by increasing capital budgets and then sticking the new administration with the 20-year bond issues that make these
decisions possible." As an aside, K. Sanders noted that he was Vice President of the SIUC Faculty Senate the last time the
budget was this bad, and he had to argue before the Board of Trustees that cutting "the 104" would have a negative impact
on the institution. He wondered aloud what SIUC would do in this budget crisis.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
R. Hughes reported that the officers met and discussed several issues: a) concern was raised about the search
waiver that was given for the Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration. The Senate had previously been contacted for
two nominations for that search committee, but those individuals were never called to serve; b) it was suggested that the
date of the annual faculty meeting be moved up to earlier in the fall semester; c) a copy of the library's proposed
reorganization plan was sent to the three officers of the Senate. It was decided this issue would be assigned to the
Undergraduate Education Policy Committee (UEPC).
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- B. DeVantier, Chair
1. B. DeVantier explained the process of selection for the standing committees and presented the assignments for
approval (included as Attachment B to the Agenda).
Standing committee assignments approved on a voice vote.
2. B. DeVantier presented for approval the nomination of Allan Karnes, Professor, Business and Administration,
to serve on the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE. This would be a reappointment. Because the Council has requested
that an alternate be named, the committee is also forwarding for approval the nomination of B. DeVantier, Associate
Professor, Engineering, as the alternate.
Nominations approved on a voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS
1. D. Post reviewed a list of charges she developed for each standing committee for the coming year. She added
the library proposal to the UEPC's list, noting that a recommendation was made to hold a special meeting to deal with this
issue.
2. D. Post reported that she was contacted by representatives from the library regarding the proposed library
reorganization plan. Because of deadlines they must meet in order to begin planning, they are asking the Senate to hold a
special meeting to consider and vote on the proposed plan. S. Logue stated that the library is currently in the planning
phase. There is some urgency because they are on a 16-month planning cycle with the architects. The first four months is
the planning phase, which began in March. The other pieces to the cycle are the design and preparation phases.
Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2003. The library is concerned about meeting the deadlines so that
construction can begin as planned. R. Spellman asked if any constituency group internal to the library was opposed to the
plan. S. Logue responded that there were minority opinions to different aspects of the plan, but overall no one was wholly
opposed. A. Woolf stated that the process has been ongoing for quite a while, and it appears there is some consensus to
proceed. He indicated that it is unclear to him what the Senate is being asked to deliberate. D. Post responded that the
Senate is not being asked to deliberate anything but is simply establishing the need for a special meeting. The library
submitted a written plan to the Provost, who indicated that it had to go to the Senate. The Executive Council referred the
matter to the UEPC to study and come forward with a resolution. So as not to negatively impact the library time line,
holding a special meeting in June rather than waiting until July would keep them on track.
M. Lamb stated there are two issues that came up at the informational meetings that were held with the library
staff. The first is that the new plans call for expansion of lounge and computer space, which means that many of the books
currently classified as Dewey would remain in the basement. She believed this would create a problem of access to books
for students. Secondly, with the movement to e-journals, she questioned how accessible current archives and journals
would be in the future. D. Post indicated that it would be appropriate for the UEPC to take up issues of this kind as they
study the report and get input from the library staff. It was noted that these are already ongoing issues that come up before
the Library Affairs Advisory Committee.
After further discussion, D. Post called a special meeting for June 11 to discuss and vote on the library proposal.
She stressed that any Senator who cannot be in attendance should send a proxy. R. Benford asked at what point Senators
should expect to receive the plan in writing so that all Senators have time to look over the document. D. Post was unsure it
was necessary to have everyone review the plan. The reason issues are sent to committee is so the Senate as a whole does
not debate every point of every document that comes its way. However, she indicated that she would defer to the wishes of
the body. R. Benford stated that an informed body is better than one that has to rely completely on the recommendations of
a particular subcommittee. M. Anderson stated that as a member of UEPC, she would like to hear faculty perspectives on
the total plan and what other colleges have to say. B. DeVantier stated that if the issue was important enough to hold a
special meeting, it warranted having Senators look at all aspects of the plan. J. Allen disagreed, stating that the Senate has
procedures that should be followed, and since it was out of order for the Senate to seize upon the business of the committee,
he suggested proceeding carefully before the Senate violates its own procedures. R. Hughes countered that the Operating
Paper allows the Senate to take up any issue it sees fit, so there is certainly the ability to do so in this case. He then moved
that the report that was provided electronically to the Executive Council on the library reorganization be provided to every
member of the Faculty Senate; second R. Williams. J. Allen believed that this would set an unfortunate precedent;
committees exist for a purpose.
Motion carried on a voice vote.
J. Allen stated that there was no point to holding a meeting of the UEPC if every piece of the report was going to
be provided to the entire Senate. R. Hughes disagreed, stating that because everyone has the information does not mean
they will all deliberate on the information. It is being provided to make a more informed decision about any resolution that
may be generated. The official deliberation is still the responsibility of the committee.
3. D. Post reported that Senators will be receiving notice of future meeting times and places for the brainstorming
sessions. She will be asking to meet with every Faculty Senator individually some time in the month of June. She indicated
that she would like to know what issues Senators believe should be taken up in the brainstorming sessions. In addition, she
would like to speak with everyone personally about what they would like the Senate's job to be and how they would like the
Senate to proceed over the next year.
RECESS TO ELECT STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS
D. Post called for a recess so standing committees could elect their chairs.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. The following standing committee chairs were announced: R. Spellman, Budget; J. Duggan, Faculty Status and
Welfare; A. Woolf, Governance, and J. Allen, Undergraduate Education Policy.
2. D. Post announced that Senators are expected to attend all Senate meetings and should designate a proxy for
those they are unable to attend. It should also be understood that there will be times when meetings go past the scheduled
time of 3 PM, so it is important to have a proxy lined up in the event the meetings run long. She pointed out that a proxy
must be someone from the same college who is eligible to be a Senator but who is not currently serving on the Senate.
3. D. Post announced that she would be out of town for the next two weeks, and R. Hughes would be acting in her
stead and attending some meetings in her absence. She also pointed out that there were some University committee reports
that were turned in late. All committee reports should be read through to see if there are any items that should be taken up
by any of the standing committees.
4. D. Post reported that there is a real issue among A/P and civil service employees about the way in which the
position of Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration was filled. There is concern that this office has filled a number of
positions using search waivers. Considering that the Senate has been asked to appoint people to search committees that
never convene, this issue will be taken up at a time when the Chancellor is in attendance. D. Post indicated that it was
unclear that there was anything untoward going on, but at the same time an explanation as to what is going on should be
provided.
PRESSING FACULTY CONCERNS
D. Post reported that at each meeting she will ask Senators if they have any pressing faculty concerns to bring
before the Senate for consideration. This will be the time when Senators can suggest topics for the brainstorming sessions
or raise an issue they believe should be examined that has not been mentioned at any time during the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Williams, Secretary
FW:rm
Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule |
Meeting Agenda |
Meeting Minutes |
Membership |
Committees |
Operating Paper
![]()
