Meeting Minutes
October 9, 2001
Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Bruce DeVantier, President.
ROLL CALL Anna Brzyski, Richard Coulson, Bruce A. DeVantier, Lisabeth A. Dilalla, James E. Duggan,
Kimberly A. Espy, Linda M. Grace, Robert H. Helfert, Paul H. Henry, Conrad Hinckley (ex officio), H. Randy Hughes,
Laura K. Kidd, Manohar R. Kulkarni, Mary E. Lamb, Lenore Langsdorf, Nancy Mundschenk, Geoffrey S. Nathan,
Donna M. Post, Karen K. Prichard, Richard A. Rivers, Michael F. Shanahan, Robert L. Spellman, Jane L. Swanson,
Susan E. Tulis, Lori Vermeulen, John S. Washburn, Walter Wendler (ex officio), David J. White, Frederick Williams,
Margaret Winters (ex officio), Alan Woolf.
Members absent without proxy: Stephen M. Milner, Janet L. Rogers, Pamela A. Smoot.
Visitors and Guests: Steve Foster (Admissions and Records), Martin Obst (Undergraduate Student Government).
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting on September 11, 2001, were corrected as follows: page two, first full
paragraph, last line, should read, "...did not want the organization to take advantage...."; page four, second full
paragraph, last line, should read, "...make it easier...."; page four, under Executive Council report, last line, the word
should be "principal"; page five, second full paragraph, fourth line, should read, "...what, if any, rationale was given...."
Minutes were approved as corrected.
REPORTS
1. B. DeVantier welcomed L. Vermeulen as the new Senator from Science replacing Beth Middleton. He also
welcomed Martin Obst as the liaison from the Undergraduate Student Government.
B. DeVantier reported: a) he received a memo from Chancellor Wendler concerning the Faculty/Staff
Ombudsman position. The Senate is ready to move ahead with a search; b) at the suggestion of Chancellor Wendler,
Molly D'Esposito was invited to a meeting of the Faculty Senate. A list of meeting dates was provided to her, and she
has agreed to attend the Senate's November 13 meeting; c) the annual faculty meeting has been scheduled for
November 19 at 3 p.m. in the Student Center Auditorium; d) cap and gown deadline is October 15. He encouraged
everyone to attend the graduation ceremonies; e) he met with Vice President John Haller to discuss J. Haller's concerns
about the Senate's recent resolution on the tenure policy concerning split appointments. The Senate believed it was only
clarifying the language in the policy; however, the concern is that the change may not be appropriate because it relates
to terms and conditions of employment. The administration wants to examine the issue further before implementing the
change. The issue may be referred back to the Senate. On a positive note, the resolution received a relatively rapid
response from the administration.
2. Chancellor Wendler commented on M. D'Esposito's upcoming visit with the Senate, noting it will be a good
opportunity for her to observe how shared governance is done. He indicated she may talk about her aspirations for the
University and for the campus, and Senators may want to ask her questions. He suggested she could then stay and
observe the Senate's deliberations. He stated he would like the discussion with her to remain at a general level.
Chancellor Wendler reported: a) the search for a Faculty/Staff Ombudsman will begin soon. He talked with
Robert Wolff, Faculty/Staff Ombudsman, and Lynn Connley, University Ombudsman, regarding ways the offices could
be more efficient. The response was that the current structure works well and gives people the choice of going to one or
the other. Therefore, the current structure will remain in place; b) School of Medicine Dean and Provost Carl Getto has
accepted a position elsewhere. Dr. Kevin Dorsey will act as interim dean and provost pending Board of Trustees
approval. His appointment was unanimously approved by the School of Medicine Executive Committee. The search
for a permanent dean and provost will begin shortly; c) the search for a vice chancellor for research and graduate dean is
in the pipeline. That will also require Board approval before moving forward.
3. Interim Provost Winters reported that October 9 is the celebration of faculty and graduate assistant
achievement within the Core Curriculum. It is one of several recognitions of outstanding service in the wider sense to
the mission of the University and to the students. She is also working with the Graduate School in putting together
nominations for the outstanding researcher award. On the student side, the University works to put students up for what
are known as prestigious scholarships. R. Williams has been asked to coordinate these scholarships, and for the past
two years he has organized a prestigious scholarship fair to call attention to the potential of these awards and to get
students excited about these possibilities. R. Williams stated the website for information on the prestigious scholarships
is www.siu.edu/~psc. He reported that in April at least 400 students and parents from all over campus and southern
Illinois responded to the ads. In September, there were well over 300. This time they are being tracked through a form
they were asked to complete. R. Williams stated the Prestigious Scholarship Council is a body consisting of faculty and
A/P staff who volunteer their time to process applications for such scholarships as Truman, Mellon, Gates, United
Negro College Fund, Rhodes, Goldwater, Fulbright, and many others and attempt to coax undergraduates to attend
SIUC under these scholarships. At this time, two students have applied for the Rhodes scholarship. R. Williams
thanked Interim Provost Winters for her support of the prestigious scholarship fairs. Interim Provost Winters noted that
she has seen in the recruiting materials of other universities the highlighting of a Rhodes, a Truman, a Marshall winner
as part of their undergraduate recruitment material. It is a wonderful recruiting device.
Interim Provost Winters again encouraged faculty to attend graduation because the students really do care, and
it does make a difference.
4. M. Lamb asked whether there are projections for the income shortfall and if a decision has been made on
how that bill will be distributed among the colleges. Chancellor Wendler responded the projected shortfall from the
decline in enrollment is approximately $2.1 million in real dollars. Academic Affairs is working on a model to help the
administration understand how that loss should be distributed. It will not be an across the board distribution because
that makes a whole series of assumptions he is not willing to make. In addition, the administration plans to develop a
model for any other budgeting distribution in the future. Chancellor Wendler believes the events of September 11 will
have a significant impact on the economy because of the airline industry reductions in the Chicago area. It is unclear
what the long-term impact will be, but the thousands of lost jobs and revenues, in addition to the energetic income
projections over the first year, may make for a tough year. The Governor has already put restraints on the IBHE. In a
letter to that body, he mentioned not filling vacated positions. M. Lamb stated there was an ad hoc budgetary model
committee that convened last year. She asked Chancellor Wendler if he received a copy of the report. Chancellor
Wendler responded he has not seen a copy of the report, and, in fact, is not even looking at the modeling yet. However,
the group is aware of the report and has used it as a springboard. M. Lamb stated the bottom line of the report was that
faculty should be involved in any kind of budgetary model considerations from the ground floor. The Senate was
assured that would happen. Chancellor Wendler indicated he was unaware of this, but assured the Senate that whatever
model is developed will eventually receive a full airing. He believes there should be faculty input, adding the deans
represent very well the interests of the faculty when it comes to securing funds for the colleges. M. Lamb stated it
would be much easier if faculty are included at the ground floor. Chancellor Wendler indicated he did not see why a
couple of faculty could not be appointed to the group now. He will instruct Interim Provost Winters to do so and would
secure a couple of names from B. DeVantier fairly soon. He noted it should be recognized that very difficult decisions
will have to be made in the next three or four months. This is a deliberative process, and there is a window of time in
which some decisions will have to be made. R. Spellman stated he does not know what Chancellor Wendler's
assumptions are, but the Wall Street Journal ran a piece that the recession and terrorism will help enrollment at public
universities in rural areas. R. Spellman was unsure the Chancellor's assumption that this will be a tough year
necessarily affects SIU as it would some other universities.
D. Post stated that when the Gulf War occurred, a policy from higher level administration was distributed on
how to respond to students being called to active duty. She asked if an updated policy is forthcoming. Chancellor
Wendler responded there is a policy that has been updated and will be distributed.
5. A. Karnes reported on the October 2 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the IBHE: The October
meeting is generally when the Advisory Committee is invited to attend a regular meeting of the IBHE, which took place
that morning. The meeting was uneventful except for the chair's reading of the letter from the Governor alluded to by
Chancellor Wendler earlier. Also, there was a recommendation by the Board staff to authorize the University of
Phoenix to do business in Illinois. Several Board members had questions and concerns, but in the end authorization was
granted. As of yet, Phoenix is not authorized to grant degrees in Illinois; however, they intend to submit requests to do
so in five areas. When the Advisory Committee met that afternoon with some Board members, the issue of granting
authority to Phoenix was hotly debated. Board members were somewhat defensive, stating that whenever they ask the
public institutions to offer degree completion programs in areas where there is a need, the answer they receive is "give
us a bunch of money, and we will do it." It became apparent that if public institutions offer the programs where and
when they are needed, the Board would have no problem with institutions charging market prices for tuition. Whether
this can be done is unclear. However, there was support from Board members to change any rules that might prohibit
such a charge. A. Karnes suggested faculty might want to look at doing this with their programs. There seems to be a
market in [the northern areas of the state]. It will allow the opportunity to make some money that can be invested in the
programs here. There are faculty in the Chicago area that can be hired on a part time basis to do some of these things.
The Board talks about convenience and access, meaning not only close but convenient, i.e., classes on the weekends, at
night and on a compressed schedule. A. Karnes pointed out that if the public universities do not move on this issue,
then the for-profit institutions will (e.g., Franklin University is at Shawnee, SIC, and now possibly John A. Logan). If
the University does not meet that competition, we will lose the students. R. Coulson asked if private institutions in
Illinois are subject to the Illinois Common Market Articulation Agreement. Interim Provost Winters believes it may be
voluntary for the private institutions.
J. Washburn stated his department has many of off campus students that participate through several colleges.
He does not believe the University allows Phoenix credit for lower division courses for those students. The other issue
is the off campus continuing education work. A number of faculty in his department have voted to stop doing any more
than what is already being done because the credit generated from that type of activity does not accrue back to the
department. He believes it is more than a complex issue of working out a contract with someone in Chicago to teach a
course. There are all kinds of administrative issues that are counterproductive to faculty being able to do that. Interim
Provost Winters stated her understanding is that it has nothing to do with it being run through continuing education.
The key factor is whether or not there is cost recovery. Productivity, that is, credit hours per [unit?], are credited to
departments when state funds are used in those programs. If the money comes from the state, then the numbers are
counted. The cost study is one of the main measures used to show how state money is spent. The underlying reason for
the cost study is what the state is getting for its dollar. If there is cost recovery, state dollars are not being spent and
therefore the credits are not counted in the cost study. A. Karnes believes the governing board wants universities to
offer degree completion programs in areas where there is a need and will reward those that do.
M. Lamb stated there is resistance by some faculty to doing web-based teaching because of ownership issues.
Interim Provost Winters stated a committee has been formed under the current Faculty Association contract that is
developing policy on this issue. A policy has yet to be drafted, but several models are being examined.
6. K. Prichard reported the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Council has been renamed the Chancellor's
Advisory Team. The group will meet once a semester rather than once a month. At its last meeting, there was
discussion about the aspirational peers. Larry Schilling (Institutional Research) also reported on the costs per student.
K. Prichard will contact L. Schilling to see if those comparison data can be put on the web for everyone to view.
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE - D. White, Chair
1. D. White reported the committee met to discuss a number of issues and proposals, including the NEPR for
forensic science, the RME for an Information Technology minor, and the RME for a certificate for gerontology. Some
are awaiting either further concurrence from departments or additional information.
2. D. White presented for approval the Resolution to Modify Existing University Policy Concerning Calculation
of Scholastic Honors (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). Because there was some confusion about the intent, D.
White distributed an amended version of the wording for the "Proposed Modified Policy" for clarification. He noted the
amended version in no way changes the content but simply makes the point easier to understand. He also clarified that
in the resolution when it states "existing policy," the committee means the policy approved by the Faculty Senate but
never implemented by the administration. D. White indicated the committee arrived at the resolution as a result of many
discussions. One of the concerns was the first benchmark of 15 hours. SIUC deems 12 hours as full time enrollment.
The committee initially attempted 15 hours in an effort to push a high level of academic integrity. However, the reality
is that many students get through with 12 credit hours. By maintaining existing policy, these students would not have
the opportunity to be recognized until their sophomore year. This, in turn, could have an impact on recruitment, as well
as public relations on campus. With that, the committee deemed it appropriate to change the first benchmark to 12
hours to allow freshmen to be recognized at 12 hours for a full load. The committee argued to maintain the 45 and 75
credit hours for the graduation benchmarks. D. White noted the modified policy also reflects the correction that it is the
University, not the college, that invites students to Honors Day.
R. Spellman asked what is the definition of "career." D. White responded the committee interpreted it to mean
cumulative. S. Foster indicated his definition of career would be in the global sense of undergraduate, graduate, or
professional. Consequently, work that may begin at a community college would be included in a student's
undergraduate career. R. Spellman questioned the difference between "career" and "all work." R. Coulson believed
"career" included transferrable or recognizable credit. In other words, if coursework was completed 32 years ago, that
credit is no longer transferable but deemed to be out of date and not part of the current academic career. D. White
indicated it does have to be related to the SIU coursework to meet the first criterion. The second criterion has more to
do with proof of transfer credit. To alleviate the confusion, Chancellor Wendler suggested the committee could strike
the word "career." D. Post stated that, as she understands it, a student first has to have achieved a 3.50 at SIU. If that is
done in SIU coursework alone, then Admissions and Records will also check any transfer grade for a 3.50 grade point
average. If a student has achieved a 3.50 in both, s/he can be honored, assuming the benchnark has been met. S. Foster
indicated that is correct. After further discussion, the modified policy was amended to remove the word "career."
Resolution, with proposed modified policy as amended, approved on a voice vote. [see Appendix 1]
3. D. White presented for approval the Resolution to Approve Academic Affairs' Selection of Internal
Reviewers for the 2001-2002 Cycle (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He indicated there was much discussion
at the last Senate meeting concerning the selection of the reviewers. It was also brought to his attention that this should
be presented in the form of a motion rather than a resolution. He prefaced that the committee discussed this issue a
great deal. Many of the comments shared previously had already been discussed by the committee. At the request of
the Senate, the committee re-examined the list of review teams, the composition and the selection process based on the
document, "Academic Program Review: Principles and Procedures" adopted by the Graduate Council in 1999. This
document states, "Internal review teams are composed of SIUC faculty members selected by the provost from a list of
five or six nominees identified by the program to be reviewed. Effort should be made to identify individuals who,
through outside the unit being reviewed, have some familiarity with its mission and character. For programs that offer
only undergraduate degrees, internal review teams have two members; for programs that offer graduate degrees, the
number of members is three. The provost's selections are subject to approval by the Faculty Senate, the Graduate
Council (specifically the GRPC) in consultation with the associate dean of the Graduate School who selects the third
member from the Council membership for teams reviewing programs offering graduate degrees." After reviewing this
process, it was determined that John Mead failed to satisfy the requirement that he be a faculty member in terms of
holding a certain rank within a unit that offers tenure. In reviewing the list, it appears the process has otherwise been
followed. D. White noted that it seems every year the Senate expresses dissatisfaction about the process. The
committee is looking to involve possibly the Committee on Committees and the Graduate Council in further discussions
revolving around this matter. It is unclear at this time if a proposal to rewrite the selection process will result. One idea
is to include the design of a matrix that will involve more parties on campus to broaden the selection pool for certain
criteria. Another suggestion is to work with the Graduate Council to get the requests even sooner, possibly mid spring.
The consensus of the committee was to allow enough time for individual Senators to review the list rather than have a
debate a month before the programs are to be reviewed.
On behalf of the committee, D. White moved that the Faculty Senate approve Academic Affairs' selection of
Internal Degree program reviewers for the 2001-2002 cycle, with the exception of John Mead, director of the Coal
Research Center, who fails to satisfy the requirement that internal reviewers be faculty members as stated in "Review
Teams and Reports, Section A, internal teams: composition and selection, page 5 of the Academic Program Review:
Principles and Procedures" adopted by the Graduate Council in May 1999. [see Appendix 2]
N. Mundschenk stated the purpose of these faculty will be to review these programs. She expressed concern
that the list included several administrators. She was unsure who best reviews programs--directors and chairs or faculty.
She believed it went to the issue of what should be the outcome of the review; is it feedback from programs or feedback
from administrators? D. White indicated this is a concern also shared by the committee; however, the procedures were
followed as defined. He also noted there is a concern about the ambiguity of including deans, chairs and other
administrators who hold faculty positions and titles since they are not members of the Faculty Association. M. Lamb
indicated she recognizes that directors, chairs, associate deans and deans have faculty status and tenure in academic
units and are legally eligible to be on list; however, when more members of any list that is supposed to be for faculty
governance are chair and above, then it is an abuse of the spirit and principle of faculty governance. D. Post pointed out
there is a motion on floor to accept the list for this year; she called the question on the motion and noted if there is
further discussion about what the UEPC should do regarding how these review teams are put together, then that should
be a separate motion.
Motion to approve the internal reviewers for 2001-2002 carried on a voice vote.
M. Lamb/D. Post moved that the UEPC hold a hearing that involves the Provost, the Graduate Council and any
other interested parties in discussing how internal review teams are constituted and that recommendations be made to
change this policy before next year; seconded by L. Langsdorf.
Motion carried on a voice vote, with one abstention.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - D. Post, Chair
1. D. Post presented for approval the suggested committee appointments for 2001-2002 (included as
Attachment C to the Agenda). She indicated the list includes the names of the suggested appointments, as well as
current members on each committee so Senators will know the committee breakdowns by college. She also noted two
corrections to the list Joan Test is an Assistant Professor and Jane Swanson is a Full Professor.
Nominations approved, as corrected, on a voice vote.
2. D. Post presented for approval the suggested appointments to the Student Conduct Code Advisory Review
Board (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). Only two persons will be named to the committee by the Chancellor.
Nominations approved on a voice vote.
3. D. Post asked that a motion be made to waive the five-day rule so the Senate could discuss its appointments
to the screening committee for provost. K. Prichard moved to waive the five-day rule; seconded by L. Langsdorf.
Motion to waive the five-day rule carried on a voice vote.
D. Post reported the Chancellor requested four names be submitted for consideration to serve on the screening
committee. Of those four, he will select one person to serve. D. Post reviewed the process of how the committee
selected nine names for consideration, ranking them by order of preference. She indicated that two people have since
withdrawn their names from consideration. D. Post distributed a ballot to Senators that included the following
nominations and asked Senators to vote their top four choices:
Jeanine Wagner, Associate Professor, School of Music, Liberal Arts
Jane Swanson, Professor, Psychology, Liberal Arts
Kathy Pericak Spector, Professor, Mathematics, Science
Mary Wright, Professor, Mathematics, Science
Joel Feldman, Professor, Art and Design, Liberal Arts
Rich Rivers, Professor, Accountancy, Business
Max Yen, Professor, Materials Technology Center, Engineering
Bill Coscarelli, Professor, Curriculum and Instruction, Education
Allan Karnes, Professor, Accountancy, Business
A. Karnes pointed out that the request for representatives for both the Student Conduct Code Advisory
Committee and the provost screening committee asked for more choices than members who will actually be selected.
He believed if the Senate was supposed to appoint people, then it should appoint people and not provide choices. D.
Post agreed with that argument to some extent; however, in the case of searches such as the ones for provost or vice
chancellor for research, she believed it more important that there be diverse representation. It would be impossible to do
that if, for example, the Senate and other constituency groups end up naming everyone from one college. Then there
can be only a limited diversity on those the Chancellor actually chooses. A. Karnes pointed out the Conduct Code
Committee is not a search committee. D. Post responded the Committee on Committees was giving the Chancellor an
opportunity to form a diverse group. A. Karnes reiterated his belief that if the appointments come from Faculty Senate,
then the Senate ought to make the appointments. D. Post indicated she was unsure the Senate made the appointments.
She believed the appointments were made by the Chancellor, with the Senate making the recommendations.
The results of the balloting for the screening committee nominations resulted in a three-way tie for the fourth
position. Another ballot was circulated, and the names of R. Rivers, J. Swanson, J. Wagner, and M. Wright were
selected to go forward to the Chancellor for his consideration.
4. D. Post reported she circulated, with the Chancellor's permission, a list of possible nominees for a future
vice chancellor for research search. She indicated anyone wishing to be considered should add their name to the list. D.
Post also reported it was pointed out to her that there may be at-large members on both the Undergraduate Education
Policy Committee and the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee so that every college is represented on each of those
committees. This is one issue the Committee on Committees will be taking up at its next meeting.
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE - A. Woolf, Chair
1. A. Woolf indicated it was reported at the last meeting the committee was asked to endorse the School of
Medicine's proposed tenure policy. However, since that time, an issue has come up that requires further discussion. As
a result, the committee is withdrawing its resolution (included as Attachment E to the Agenda) until such time as the
issue can be addressed and resolved.
2. A. Woolf presented for informational purposes the committee's Recommendations for Tracking Faculty
Senate Resolutions (included as Attachment F to the Agenda). The Executive Council has been charged with the
responsibility of reporting on the status of all resolutions approved in each academic year. A database will be created
that will be included on the Senate's website so everyone can follow the status of each resolution.
3. A. Woolf presented for a first reading the proposed Revisions to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and the
Faculty Senate (included as Attachment G G to the Agenda). The procedure for revising the Operating Paper requires a
first reading. At its next meeting, the Senate will be asked to vote on the revisions. A referendum will then go out to
the faculty at large for a vote.
4. A. Woolf reported the committee will meet to clarify wording on the School of Medicine tenure policy
resolution. The committee will also address the issue of Senate representation on search committees.
FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE - L. Grace, Chair
L. Grace reported on the committee's September 18 meeting: 1) members continued general discussion of the
term faculty policies resolutions, including the need for the handbook and orientation program content and faculty
evaluations. A short orientation program for term faculty was held on September 10; 2) Interim Provost Winters has
been requested to provide an update on the term faculty/dual career faculty resolutions. It is hoped the committee will
have a status report at its next meeting; 3) the committee will continue to explore the issue of establishing a subvention
policy on campus; 4) to date, no issues have been brought to the committee's attention from external sources. L. Grace
reported that as chair of the committee, she also sits on the University Joint Benefits Committee, in addition to another
Faculty Senate representative. At the last Joint Benefits meeting on September 25, there was discussion on the pre-tax
purchase of time in SURS. Paperwork for the next period is due by November 3 for the deductions that begin on
January 1, 2002. Additionally, open enrollment in the long-term care plan that is being offered will go through
December 1. There will be informative sessions in the Student Center on October 11. Finally, the Joint Benefits
Committee at one time had considered a sick leave pool, but the concept stalled. With a new chancellor who has had
experience with sick leave pools, the committee plans to revisit the issue.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Williams, Secretary
FW:rm
Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule |
Meeting Agenda |
Meeting Minutes |
Membership |
Committees |
Operating Paper
![]()
