Meeting Minutes
November 12, 2002
Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Donna Post, President.
ROLL CALL
Members present: James S. Allen, Marcia Anderson, Robert D. Benford, Anna Brzyski, Bruce A. DeVantier, James E.
Duggan, John M. Dunn (ex officio), Paul H. Henry, H. Randy Hughes, Laura K. Kidd, Manohar R. Kulkarni, Mary Ellen
Lamb, Nancy Mundschenk, Donna M. Post, Richard A. Rivers, Janet L. Rogers, Jose R. Ruiz, Pamela A. Smoot, Jane L.
Swanson, Robert L. Spellman, Russ Trimble (ex officio), Susan E. Tulis, John S. Washburn, Walter Wendler (ex officio),
Frederick Williams, David S. Worrells.
Members absent without proxy: Elamin M. Elamin, Kimberly A. Espy, Robert H. Helfert, Nancy Khardori, Stephen M.
Milner, Andrew J. Wood, Alan Woolf.
Visitors and guests: Ben Bodkin (Daily Egyptian), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Anne DeLuca (Student Affairs), Larry
Dietz (Student Affairs), Ryan Fraley (Undergraduate Student Government), Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan), Jane Huh
(Daily Egyptian), John Koropchak (Graduate School), Mike Loizzo (WSIL-TV), Paul Raila (WSIL-TV), Gina Terlizz
(WSIU).
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting on October 8, 2002, were approved as presented.
REPORTS
1. D. Post reported that: a) the second brainstorming session resulted in a suggestion to bring key political people to
campus to hear some of the faculty's concerns. The third brainstorming session has been postponed, and session four will be
held on January 22; b) she received positive comments from the administration and others on the Administrative Information
System (Oracle) report prepared by the Budget Committee; c) the search for Vice President for Financial Services is complete,
and an offer has been extended. An announcement will be made shortly; d) she attended the Board of Trustees meeting
on October 10; the next meeting is scheduled for November 14. She also attended her regularly-scheduled meeting with Chancellor
Wendler and with the constituency heads. She reported the sudden death of School of Medicine Faculty Senator Dr.
Satu Somani, and indicated that she would entertain a motion under New Business should the Senate like to raise a memorial
donation in Dr. Somani's name.
2. Chancellor Wendler welcomed Provost John M. Dunn, noting he began the position on November 1. He then
reported that there have been several questions about the strategic faculty hires. He asked Vice Chancellor Koropchak to
attend the meeting to address the Senate's questions/concerns.
Vice Chancellor Koropchak discussed the chronology of the strategic hiring process, and why it moved so quickly.
Shortly after the Chancellor received approval for the tuition increases (mid-summer), he and then-Provost Perkins began
discussions about developing initiatives for additional faculty hiring for FY04. Southern at 150 was a big part of the discussions,
and the importance of faculty as the foundation of the University was repeatedly stressed. As a result, he and Provost
Perkins developed a proposal for the Chancellor to use $2 million of the new tuition revenue toward new faculty hires in
FY04. This was a first step in what he hoped would be a multi-year process of enhancement of faculty lines across campus.
The goals and priorities of this strategic process were as follows: a) make good programs better; b) leverage existing
strengths; c) foster success in disciplinary and interdisciplinary areas showing great potential for growth; d) enhance core
doctoral programs that lack critical mass; and e) address concerns about core programs raised in the program review process.
In addition, they proposed not only that hires be made at the junior level, but also that a significant number be made at the
senior level to further increase the visibility and vitality of some programs. After the Chancellor approved the plan at the end
of August, the deans were asked how they would prioritize the hiring in their colleges. The initial August 30 deadline was
extended to September 13 to allow the deans more time to reflect on their additional prioritizations, to get further input from
chairs, directors, and others, and to incorporate their ideas of Southern at 150. The deans responded with proposals for more
than 200 faculty positions, which clearly could not be funded with $2 million. Based on input received from the deans, the
Vice Chancellor indicated that he and Perkins proposed to the Chancellor–and he approved–28 positions in 16 departments
and colleges. All but a few of the positions were listed by the deans as their top priorities. Once the plan was developed and
approved, notification was sent to deans on September 25 so that they could take advantage of this hiring season. Vice Chancellor
Koropchak noted that it has been suggested that these are the only searches taking place across the campus. In fact,
before the strategic hire initiative was conceived, he said, there were over 20 positions approved across campus. Funds for
those positions come from a number of sources, including a RAMP proposal funded for the College of Applied Sciences and
Arts intended specifically for faculty hires. In addition, there are funds available in colleges due to normal attrition. He
reminded the Senate that these are very difficult financial times for SIU, the state of Illinois, and for universities across the
country. The strategic faculty hires initiative could, in fact, provide a real opportunity since few positions are being advertised
across the country and some are perhaps being eliminated at different universities. SIU might be able to attract excellent
people away from some of those institutions.
M. Lamb asked exactly how many positions had been approved for advertisement beyond the strategic 28. Provost
Dunn responded that from his understanding, there were approximately 22. He believed that the deans were interested in
advancing as many positions as possible. B. DeVantier asked if the searches would follow the standard university format. J.
Koropchak responded that all searches beyond October 1 were being managed by the Provost's office. DeVantier asked what
safeguards were in place to keep a search committee from changing the direction of the search by writing a different position
description than what was originally envisioned. Provost Dunn indicated that high levels of trust was one response, noting that
it would be ill-advised to play games with the process. He added that he did not want anyone to make rush decisions on the
hires, particularly at the senior level. It may take longer to get the person that the department wants. The commitment is there,
however, and will not be rescinded if the search is not completed immediately.
R. Hughes said that last month, the Senate was told there was no commitment for money for more than the 28
positions. Provost Dunn responded that the funds for those positions would become a part of the college and department
budgets, and that he was not aware of any additional funds. Vice Chancellor Koropchak indicated that in order to be approved
by the Provost's office, there has to be an indication from the deans that the funds are there.
A. Karnes pointed out that J. Koropchak is Vice Chancellor for Research for the whole University and not just for
those colleges with federally funded programs. It appears that the two actions taken last year–reallocation of graduate
assistantships and allocation of the 28 strategic hires–demonstrate that preference goes to those who do externally funded
research. It is a real disincentive for faculty in colleges who do good but unfunded research to continue their work, because
they are punished for doing so. Vice Chancellor Koropchak said that he has always defined research broadly, including
scholarly and creative activity as well as research training. He disagreed with Karnes, affirming the importance of almost all
research on campus. Funded research is one measure of research productivity, but not the only measure. It happens to be a
useful measure that is valuable beyond the funded program itself–it is important to remember that funded research programs
generate the indirect costs used to create new programs (e.g., the travel program).
A. Brzyski said that dividing $2 million into 28 positions gives an average salary that is significantly above the
average for the University. She asked if there were plans to address the growing gap between current average salaries and
what is bound to develop in the future. Chancellor Wendler indicated that he is currently working on a plan to close the gap
between SIU's peers and our average salaries. Brzyski responded that if the goal was to narrow the gap between peer
institutions, then the new strategic hires would contribute to that because it will raise the average salary for everyone; it will
do nothing, however, for those who are well below the average. The Chancellor indicated his belief that departments tend to
hire faculty at the highest levels of their ranks because they want the very best; doing so at the peril of existing staff, however,
would be a mistake. There has to be a plan that works both ways, and that is what he is attempting to work out.
B. DeVantier noted that Vice Chancellor Koropchak mentioned $2 million, yet Provost Dunn suggested that the
funds came from existing college budgets. He questioned what happened to the $2 million. Chancellor Wendler responded
that a sum of $2 million in new dollars was allocated to the colleges for faculty hires out of the anticipated $8.3 million in
available funds generated by the tuition increase. Of the 200 requests received from the deans, 28 were funded. The $2
million will become part of the permanent budgets for those colleges. He noted that the money has not yet been allocated
because they are FY04 funds, though they will be paid in the fall of 2003.
J. Allen indicated that even the deans were surprised at the results of the faculty hires, which led him to ask about the
consultation process. Chancellor Wendler said he believed that communication could be improved. The deans made proposals
for 200 new positions. If they talked with the chairs and directors, and they in turn talked with the faculty, then there was
pretty good participation. He noted that being able to fund only 15% of a series of requests would naturally result in much
dissatisfaction. He said that there were only a few positions available, and that it was impossible to satisfy in one year all the
needs that had gone unattended for so long; the commitment of tuition dollars, he added, to create 28 new faculty positions
was significant, especially at a time when many other universities are not hiring. Twenty-eight positions are not enough, but it
is a step in the right direction.
D. Worrells asked the Chancellor about 5-10% cuts in his own area, after receiving responses on the 5-10% cuts
from the colleges. Chancellor Wendler responded that he was currently working on cuts in his area. He promised that
proportionality would rule, as it always does. The larger the area, the smaller the cuts–the smallest cuts will be made in
Academic Affairs, and the greatest cuts will be the Chancellor's area, which is the smallest area. Everything will be affected,
he said, but the least affected will first be Academic Affairs in terms of percentage of reduction. He has already done much to
reduce his budget and has been looking at reductions of administrative positions since July 1. This will be clear when that
information is released.
M. Lamb said that the Board of Trustees' negotiating team was presenting a position that would give the Board
powers previously granted only under official financial exigency for enrollment decline or "other legitimate reasons," which
remain, she said, alarmingly undefined. These powers include the dismissal of tenure track and tenured faculty with only 60
days notice. She asked the Chancellor if he was aware of his team's bargaining, and if so, how would he defend such a
position; and if he was not aware, then when did he plan to become aware and assume responsibility for the Board's anti-faculty
stance. Chancellor Wendler responded that he was generally aware of what the team was bargaining. He did not
believe that the team was anti-faculty or anti-tenure or that anyone had any notion of diminishing or undervaluing the position
of tenure. He also did not believe there to be any significant changes in that policy from the financial exigency policy that
currently exists. M. Lamb disagreed, offering a side-by-side outline of both positions. The Chancellor indicated that he also
had this information, and took responsibility for his team's position.
R. Spellman noted that Southern at 150 suggests significant tuition increases in the future. He asked the Chancellor if
he anticipated that in 2004 there would be 28 more-or-less strategic hires for the FY05 budget. Chancellor Wendler
responded that with level of tuition increases declining, it may not be possible to hire as many new people next year. He did
not believe there was as much clarity about what to do with FY04 funds (as with FY03 funds), although the first commitment
to the FY04 funds had been made with respect to the $2 million for the 28 new hires. There will be additional commitments,
he said, and his general promise is to continue to address the needs of students in terms of need-based and merit-based
scholarships and graduate assistantships, all of which still need work to get the University to the level at which it should be.
Complete expenditures of FY04 funds have not been completely defined yet. He is hesitant to do more until he has a better
understanding of what will happen in Springfield.
R. Spellman indicated the Board of Trustees will consider and probably pass at its next meeting a $3.15 million
upgrade of the telephone system. He questioned the quality of telephones that it would provide. He also asked if "financed by
local funds" meant that charges to the departments would increase. Chancellor Wendler said that he did not believe there
would be a predicted increase for the departmental rates. He noted that the $3.15 million is a one-time expenditure and that
the funds are not recurring. The department has been saving up funds out of telephone service accounts in order to upgrade
the telephone system. One problem with the system is that it is serviced by only one company. There is concern that there will
come a time when parts, replacements, etc., will not be available. It is the collective wisdom of the people that work in this
area that it needs to be upgraded. Spellman then asked the Chancellor to get Information Technology to send the Senate a
memo explaining why the system is being upgraded and what departments can expect to get from the upgrade. The Chancellor
said that he would relay this request.
3. D. Post welcomed Provost John Dunn, who briefly discussed his background and expressed his pleasure to be
able to meet with the Senate in this forum. He indicated that during his first week on campus, he had been busy meeting with
the deans and acquainting himself with the campus. His commitment is to engage the Senate with the highest degree of civility
and respect. He noted that it was essential for everyone to demonstrate that, to commit to it daily, and to model it always to
students. His commitment and desire, he said, is to behave and act like a community and to act as a champion of the
University.
4. Vice Chancellor Dietz expressed his appreciation for being invited to attend the Senate meeting. He addressed the
following questions that were presented to him in advance by R. Spellman: a) What procedures/policies have been
implemented to increase student retention? What is your sense about their effectiveness so far? One of the top items on his
agenda, he said, is retention. Although it has no particular home on campus, there are many people on working on it. In many
respects retention is like recruitment in that it is everyone's job. He believes that retention is the key to maintaining
enrollment. When orientation and advisement/registration are separated, the likelihood of impacting retention decreases. The
University started its first integrated student orientation/advisement/ registration (SOAR) program in March, with another 11-12
throughout the spring and summer. The program has received good reviews from parents and students. Other programs
recently implemented are Supplemental Instruction (SI), the early warning system (coordinated out of Transitional Programs),
and Saluki Advantage. These programs are having a positive impact on retention. There are other programs, such as the
Center for Basic Skills, that have been on campus for some time and have also positively impacted retention. He indicated
that he hoped to work with Provost Dunn to create a comprehensive retention effort where all the different programs are in
communication with each other. His office is working on many fronts, but increased coordination and investment do much to
help; b) What are the biggest administrative barriers to having a smooth, simple process for registration? Same question for
financial aid. The financial aid process, he said, is not the University's, and in fact the Financial Aid office gets award letters
out sooner than most other public institutions in nation. Most of the delay happens at the federal and state levels. Streamlining
financial aid would include eliminating multiple mailings of award letters, as program parameters change. There are ways to
do that quickly, cheaply, and confidentially. Things of that kind are being considered. He is also looking to apply more
technology to registration. There were some complaints about the decision not to print a schedule of classes for spring '03,
but there was also praise. Had there been more lead time, he probably would have waited until next year to implement the
electronic version in order to better educate students and academic advisors. The quick implementation had more to do with
the retirement of the person who had previously put together the schedule of classes. This person's skill was one that is not
learned very quickly. As a result, the process was accelerated; c) What are your views on the policy of dropping students from
the rolls if their bills have not been paid by the date currently used? How does this policy impact day-10 enrollment? How
does it impact retention? The Board of Trustees' policy is simply that students have to pay for the product purchased
(classes). If there is a way to assure that the bills will be paid, and it is simply a matter of timing (loans have not yet come in,
funding for graduate assistantships not yet available, etc.), then those students can be put on balance due. Those students who
have a way of paying their bills can be accommodated if they are unable to meet a specific time line; d) What will be the
impact on enrollment of requiring freshmen to live on campus? How are you overcoming the poor reputation of the high-rise
dorms? Many students and parents are apparently unaware that they have a choice of living off campus in freshman-approved
living centers. Most public institutions require freshmen to live on campus and do not have off campus-approved living
centers. Vice Chancellor Dietz would like to focus the housing program on the property over which the University does have
authority and responsibility. He believes that it will sharpen the focus for students and have a positive impact on retention.
M. Lamb asked if the continuing loss of faculty, particularly those that teach in the University Core Curriculum, has
an effect on retention. The Vice Chancellor responded that he was unsure about the specific effect of specific courses on
retention. R. Benford asked him if the Board sets the date for cancellation of registration if tuition has not been paid. He
responded that the University sets the date of cancellation. Chancellor Wendler asked whether a student was ever dropped
without notification or counseling about the fact that they are late. The Vice Chancellor responded that they are, in fact,
contacted, and the deadline dates are mailed out well in advance. B. DeVantier asked about the effect the application fee has
had on enrollment and what is done with that money. Vice Chancellor Dietz responded that application fee money is being
reinvested in promotional materials. All print publications have been revamped, and much of the material once produced by
various departments is now being published in one document to be distributed to all students. The net impact of the
application fee was that overall application numbers fell; that was anticipated, however, and is always the case when there is
no financial consequence for applicants who have no plans to attend the institution. The application fee limits the "shoppers,"
which allows more time and energy to be focused on more serious students who do want to come to SIU.
R. Benford complimented Vice Chancellor Dietz and staff on the Supplemental Instruction, Saluki Advantage, and
other initiatives. He said that it is not clear, however, where to direct students who lack basic study skills. The Vice
Chancellor responded that there should be a comprehensive first-year experience for both new freshman and new transfer
students; but the University does not have one at this point. He suggested that students go to Transitional Programs for a tutor.
J. Allen asked if there should be a conversation about raising admission requirements. The Vice Chancellor responded in the
affirmative. He is developing data that may result in some proposals, which he will share with the Provost and possibly the
Senate. Obviously, this kind of change needs to come from the faculty, but it should be looked at with a sensitivity to the fact
that the University has a diverse student population of which it is proud. Its standard of diversity needs to be maintained. He
then introduced Anne De Luca, the new Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management and Director of Admissions.
He credited her and her staff, as well as the people she has worked with, for the increase in the freshman population and the
overall increases in other subcategories.
5. A. Karnes reported the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) of the IBHE met on the Carbondale campus on
November 1. The Chancellor spent an hour with the group; the rest of the day was spent in subcommittees.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
1. R. Hughes reported that the Elections Committee is in the first stages of elections for the Judicial Review Board.
The Senate will vote on a slate of candidates at its December meeting. In addition, the process for a special election in the
School of Medicine will begin shortly.
2. R. Hughes also reported that the Executive Council would like to institute a new policy for distribution of minutes
of Faculty Senate meetings. Currently, minutes are mailed to all faculty. The Council would like to begin transmitting the
minutes in electronic form, with the option of continuing to receive paper copies. There will be an announcement in the
minutes through the end of the year that will provide faculty with the opportunity to indicate whether they would like to
remain on the hard-copy mailing list.
3. R. Hughes deferred to J. Allen to present for approval the Faculty Senate Resolution Urging the Administration
and the Faculty Association to Return to the Bargaining Table (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). J. Allen credited A.
Woolf with suggesting that the Senate needed to do something about what he called "the elephant in the tent." Allen indicated
that the Senate is aware of the ongoing conversation among the administration, the Board, and the Faculty Association. There
was concern that the Senate as a body had nothing really to offer and that it ran the risk of being irrelevant. The resolution is
the result of a conversation that took place in Executive Council. He noted the resolution was drafted by a member of the
Association and by another member of the Executive Council who is not a member of the Association. He believed it useful
for them to craft something that would be representative of the academic interests of the faculty as a whole, noting that all
faculty would be affected by the negotiations. R. Hughes said that everyone would like to see bargaining proceed. What he
found troubling about the resolution was that it confused the situation. He believed that a positive vote by the Faculty
Association for a strike would actually encourage bargaining to progress more effectively and lead to resolution sooner. He
believes that the "whereas" is contradictory to the message, which is that faculty want bargaining to happen and that a fair
settlement should be reached.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- B. DeVantier, Chair
B. DeVantier presented the following nominations for approval: 1) Norma Ewing, Associate Professor, College of
Education and Human Services; and Robert Arthur, Professor, College of Agricultural Sciences, to the Ad Hoc Committee for
the Student Conduct Code; 2) Louise Stearns, Lecturer, Curriculum and Instruction (1 yr. term) and Anthony Williams,
Professor, English (2 yr. term), to the Bookstore Advisory Council; and 3) Joseph Schafer, Assistant Professor, Crime Study
Center (term open), to the Advisory Committee to Director of Public Safety.
Nominations approved on a voice vote.
FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- J. Duggan, Chair
J. Duggan presented for approval the Resolution to Endorse the Proposed Revisions to the University Bereavement
Leave and the Jury Duty Leave Policies (included on the Agenda and as Attachment B to the Agenda). He noted that in his
role as chair of Faculty Status and Welfare, he serves on the University Joint Benefits Committee. That committee is
proposing revisions to the aforementioned policies. The revisions are to help interpret the policies, not to change them.
Language has been added to the Bereavement Leave to clarify that leave can be used for funeral, as well as memorial service,
related travel, and bereavement time, in addition to funeral attendance. The Jury Duty Leave policy specifies usage for shift
differentials that may occur in some units. These revisions were presented to the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee and
passed without objection. They are now being brought before the Senate for endorsement.
During discussion, concerns were raised about the inclusion of "pallbearer" in the Bereavement Leave policy but not
of any other possible functions that might be performed at a funeral, such as giving the eulogy. Also, some thought that the in-law
provision was inappropriate, given the fact that a number of faculty have other-than-legally-married relationships, as well
as ties to those to whom they are not directly related (e.g., step-parents of related children). Family relationships and responsibilities
extend beyond the deceased. In addition, a significant number of faculty on campus are international and have family
all over the world. It was felt that the number of allowable days was restrictive. Duggan reminded Senators that the proposed
changes simply interpret–not add to–current policy. Given the concerns raised, he indicated his willingness to withdraw the
resolution, take the matter back to the Joint Benefits Committee, and relay the issues raised. F. Williams moved the resolution
be withdrawn and sent back to committee; seconded by P. Smoot.
Motion carried on a voice vote.
D. Post asked J. Duggan to ensure that the proposed changes do not conflict with the Faculty Association contract
language concerning leaves and jury duty. Also, she reminded Senators that the policy does not stop anyone from attending a
funeral, but only addresses how long a person can be gone and still be paid.
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- J. Allen, Chair
1. J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Modify the Purview and Function of the Undergraduate
Teaching and Curriculum Committee (included as (Attachment C to the Agenda). He indicated that the committee has, over
the last 25 years, been largely concerned with checking the inventory of courses, cleaning up the catalog, and a number of
other "housekeeping" responsibilities. These responsibilities are mostly complete, and not much remains for the committee to
do. It has, however, been charged recently with the responsibility of selecting annually the Outstanding Teacher of the
University. The concern was raised by the student representatives on the committee about not being allowed to vote. Initially,
the Senate did not believe it would be appropriate for students to vote about matters of curriculum. Since the informal change
in the committee's purview, however, the students are able to debate, but cannot vote, on the Outstanding Teacher. The resolution
really addresses two issues: first, to charge the committee explicitly to elect the Outstanding Teacher; and second, to
provide the undergraduate student and the graduate student the opportunity to vote for Outstanding Teacher. D. Post deferred
the chair to R. Hughes to comment on the resolution. She said that during the time she was chair of the UEPC, this issue was
raised. Then-Provost Winters was in favor of allowing students on the committee to have a vote in the selection of the Outstanding
Teacher. It was debated by the committee, and heatedly later in the Senate, because the selection of students for that
committee sometimes gives an unfair advantage to a particular college. She indicated that while student comments about
faculty are valued in her department, they are opposed to giving students a vote because it is the comments from student
course evaluations that generate faculty nominations for Outstanding Teacher, and this gives the whole student body a voice
in the process. J. Allen noted that each college that teaches undergraduates has a faculty representative on the committee, for a
total of nine. That being the case, it is not likely that two students would sway the majority. In addition, faculty participate in
the nomination process as well, so he did not believe that student evaluations were any more privileged than faculty communications.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
2. J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the Landscape Contracting Specialization in the B.S. in
Plant and Soil Science to be Offered by the Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture, College of Agricultural
Sciences (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). The resolution provides an opportunity for a program for which courses
are already being offered and provides a specialization for an undergraduate degree for accreditation purposes. There are
students that are interested and employment opportunities for students in the program, and it does not conflict with any other
programs currently offered.
Resolution approved on a voice vote.
3. J. Allen referred to the criteria that have been used for the last 25 years for elimination and consolidation of
degree programs (mailed to Senators and included with Attachment C to the Agenda). He indicated that the committee may
have to deal with the issue of elimination of degree programs, so he thought it would be useful to see what the Senate had
done in the past. The criteria will be part of the conversation when proposals are developed on conducting the elimination of
undergraduate degree programs in the coming academic year.
BUDGET COMMITTEE -- R. Spellman, Chair
R. Spellman reported that the campus will be getting $3 million worth of telephone equipment, noting that he found
it admirable that they were able to save money for equipment replacement. Another issue coming before the Board of
Trustees is a $4 million outlay for upgrade of classrooms–$2 million to come from the tuition fund, and the remainder from
deferred maintenance accounts and local funds. He also reported a communication from President Walker thanking him for
the Oracle report and indicating that he had found it useful. Also attached to the reply was a note from Elaine Hyden in which
she responded that some of the "security" in Oracle is for medical school patient information, Social Security, and dependent
information on employees. Spellman said that the recommendations on increased transparency had more to do with allowing
any member of the University community access to any unit budget on campus.
There was brief discussion on the issue of the telephone upgrade. A. Karnes suggested that the committee investigate
why the University pays such steep rates for telephone service. These charges, he reminded us, come out of department budgets.
He noted that it is possible to buy a phone card from Sam's Club for 4 cents a minute, while the University is charging
20 cents a minute. Using University funds to buy a phone card, however, is not allowed.
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- A. Woolf, Chair
R. Hughes (for A. Woolf) reported that the task force to the Judicial Review Board is drafting recommendations and
hoped to have a final report ready for the Senate in December. Also, the committee has been working on the conduct of
electronic meetings and may have some suggestions to improve the process.
NEW BUSINESS
F. Williams moved that the Senate collect funds for a memorial for Dr. Somani; seconded by M. Anderson. There
was discussion of whether a specified amount should be given, and whether there should be a specified recipient of the
memorial. D. Post suggested that the funds collected could be forwarded to the Dean of the School of Medicine to make that
decision.
Motion carried on a voice vote.
R. Spellman reported that the Board of Trustees would vote at its next meeting to transfer the reporting line of the
Public Affairs office from Institutional Advancement to the Chancellor's office, to improve the University's press relations.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Williams, Secretary
FW:rm
Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule |
Meeting Agenda |
Meeting Minutes |
Membership |
Committees |
Operating Paper
![]()
