Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2003
Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Kimberly Espy, President.
ROLL CALL
Members present: James Allen, Mark A. Amos, Marcia Anderson, Robert Benford, Richard Burns, Gary J. Butson, Terry
Clark, Paula K. Davis, James E. Duggan, John M. Dunn (ex officio), Kimberly A. Espy, Michael Grey, Paul H. Henry, H.
Randy Hughes, Allan Karnes (ex officio), James D. Kelly, Cathy Mogharreban, Nancy Mundschenk, Michael Shanahan,
Pamela A. Smoot, Jane L. Swanson, Michael C. Sullivan, Russ Trimble (ex officio), Susan E. Tulis, R. Viswanathan, John S.
Washburn, Kathleen Welshimer, Walter V. Wendler (ex officio), Stewart P. Wessel, David S. Worrells, Kay Zivkovich.
Members absent without proxy: Elamin M. Elamin, Nancy Khardori, David J. Olysav, Janet L. Rogers, Andrew J. Wood.
Visitors and Guests: Lauren Bennett (Educational Admin. and Higher Education), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Dave
Condon (Educational Admin. and Higher Education), Valerie Donnals (Daily Egyptian), Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan), Ed
Shay (Art and Design), James Tyrrell (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Denise Vaughn (Educational Admin. and Higher
Education).
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting on July 8, 2003, were approved as presented.
REPORTS
1. K. Espy reported that Ty Craddock from the SIU Democrats Association has extended an invitation for all faculty to attend
their meeting this evening. K. Espy welcomed M. Grey as the new representative on the Senate from the College of Applied
Sciences and Arts. She also extended thanks to J. Duggan for attending summer graduation and the constituency heads
meeting in her stead.
K Espy reviewed the plans for the fall faculty meeting scheduled for September 22.
2. Chancellor Wendler reported: a) the tuition increases that will be proposed to the Board of Trustees on September 11 will
be 16% for [incoming] fall 2004 undergraduates. This is the Truth in Tuition law that provides a flat [tuition rate] for four
years (more or less). The increase for all currently enrolled students will be 7%. The proposed graduate tuition rate is 16%,
though that most likely will change and there will be an automatic increase of 7 and 6%. Non-resident graduates and
undergraduates will [be going to] a factor of 2.5 rather than the present multiplier of 2. The assumption is that the Board will
approve the increases; b) the Morris Library addition and renovation will come before the Board for a budget update.
Structural and other issues arose that drove the cost higher than what was originally budgeted. An additional $12 million is
being requested, for a total project budget of $41 million; c) there are three new Board appointments that will have to be made
by the Governor. The terms of John Brewster and Gene Callahan have expired, and Mark Repking has resigned; d) the
Provost, along with the College of Liberal Arts/Department of Anthropology, are working on a project to tear down the
barracks between Faner and the library. It is hoped this will be completed by the end of the semester; e) he has established
two accounts from the FY04 tuition increase funds to recognize teaching excellence and creative and scholarly excellence.
There will be $250,000 in each account. He will be discussing with the Provost and the deans, as well as the executive
committees of the Senate and Graduate Council, ways to recognize and stimulate teaching excellence and creative and
scholarly excellence; f) he is reviewing the recommendations of the Budget and Planning Task Force. There has been and
will continue to be thoughtful dialogue on the various recommendations; g) the vice chancellors have been charged to
examine ways of getting more transparent, methodical and regular reviews of administrators from the chancellor to the
department chair level in the academic areas and from the chancellor to the department head level throughout campus. He
would like a first run attempted in the spring; h) as a part of Southern at 150, the vice chancellors are working to create some
near-term goals for their units. One aspect of Southern at 150 that he is not pleased with centers on the whole idea of
diversity. The goal in the beginning was to discuss this issue in each of the theme groups; however, it was not given the
attention it should have been given. Consequently, some of the theme group reports will be revisited with a focus on
diversity.
QUESTION AND ANSWER
1. A. Karnes asked what kind of dollars the FY04 tuition increase would bring. Chancellor Wendler responded it would be
anywhere from $8.3-8.5 million. He noted that all of the FY04 money has been committed. Next year's (FY05) tuition has
not yet been committed but also has not yet been approved. However, the numbers will be about the same. A. Karnes
expressed the hope that no commitments would be made on those funds because he believes there will be another hit, and it
would be nice to have a cushion. Chancellor Wendler responded that there will be a 2% reserve, and he will be careful to
make sure there is a cushion.
2. M. Amos asked if the funding for the two $250,000 accounts the Chancellor mentioned would be ongoing. Chancellor
Wendler responded it would be a continuing commitment.
3. R. Viswanathan indicated that some years ago the University increased the non-resident tuition rate from 2 to 3%, and
there was a big decline in international student enrollment. The rate was then dropped back down to 2. He asked if a possible
decline in enrollment was taken into consideration with the increase to 2.5. Provost Dunn responded that it is a concern;
however, the 2% puts the University so far out of the norm in any comparative group. Offering such a bargain rate is a
detriment to the University. This is something that will be monitored because SIU is proud to be an international university
and does not want to lose that.
4. R. Hughes stated the FY04 budget is an item on the agenda for the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting. He noted that a
comparison between the FY03 and FY04 budgets shows a small increase of approximately $500,000 in the income fund. At
the same time, the budget shows a decrease overall for the colleges. He questioned where that money is going. Chancellor
Wendler responded that the preponderance of the increase in money goes to places that in a sense are separated from the rest
of the University's budget. For example, the auxiliaries generate about $60 million in funding. That fund has gone up
because the fees have gone up. In addition, the increases in research dollars are going to graduate assistants and additional
staff to work with certain projects and so on. Although the overall budget, which totals $477 million, shows an increase, the
state appropriations and income fund together, which is only half of that amount (approximately $200 million), shows a
decrease for this year. R. Hughes pointed out that no hit was taken in [the income fund], but there was a big hit on the
colleges. He asked why the additional money does not show up in the college budgets. Chancellor Wendler responded that
he was unclear about what R. Hughes was asking. K Espy suggested R. Hughes e-mail his questions to the Chancellor
directly and share that information with the Senate. Chancellor Wendler suggested R. Hughes copy Carol Henry in the
Budget Office as well.
5. C. Mogharreban asked whether the new administrative evaluations will be in addition to the procedures already outlined in
college operating papers. Chancellor Wendler responded that there may be some redundancy, but that is one of the issues to
examine. He would like to heighten attention to the evaluation of quality on this campus. One of the problems with
evaluations is that the process seems to become bureaucratic. Sometimes it needs to be changed so people can examine it and
ask questions.
6. N. Mundschenk expressed appreciation for the classroom technology upgrades, particularly since the University is
focusing on increasing excellence in teaching.
REPORTS (cont.)
3. In further response to the questions posed by R. Hughes, Provost Dunn indicated that the academic side of the University
has taken a 5.12% budget reduction. The deans put together a budget scenario for 4%, 6%, and 8% reductions, then in turn
[took anywhere] from a 4 to an 8% reduction. This took them back to base. However, because of earlier outstanding
agreements with some of the colleges, some money was added back to their budgets. It is important to understand that when
talking about differences of between $500,000 and $600,000, those monies are being spent [not just on the academic side but
in other areas as well]. Another struggle this year relates to the loss of student MAP dollars, [and some funding went into that
to help those students].
Provost Dunn reported: a) he had the opportunity to participate in new student move-in. It was very impressive and a tribute
to the University and to all who volunteered their time to help; b) there was a concern throughout the summer that there
would not be enough sections of the core courses to meet the need of projected new students. He acknowledged Jim Allen,
Virginia Rinella, and the deans and chairs for keeping up with the numbers and keeping him posted. They pretty much hit the
mark as far as the number of sections needed; c) Rob Jensen has been appointed interim associate provost for one year. A
national search will be conducted for both associate provost positions, and nominations will be solicited from the
constituency groups; d) the search committees for dean of Applied Sciences and Arts and dean of Agricultural Sciences are
being formed. With respect to the search for the two associate provost positions, he is staying true to the Task Force
recommendation [of a reduced FTE for those positions]. Provost Dunn commented on the search process itself, noting the
difficulty in putting together committees, primarily because there are operating papers that need to be honored. As a result,
faculty go through processes within their departments and elect their representatives. Additionally, some colleges have A/P
and civil service staff that are selected. The constituencies are asked for input as well. He made the assumption that the A/P
and civil service appointments would be outside the college because the college already has its representation; however, that
is not necessarily the case. This can throw [out of balance] somewhat the politics within the search process. The biggest
frustration is that the smallest he can get either committee is 18 members, and that does not include adding any other people
to represent diversity, gender balance, etc. Provost Dunn noted that he is aware of the commitment to reduce administrative
costs, and this represents administrative cost. He hopes to work with the appropriate leadership to put something together
that will allow [for more flexibility]; e) it is a light year for program reviews, with only three scheduled for this year; f) there
is good news on the strategic hires in terms of netting people. Nineteen of the searches are complete; one person will come
on board in October and two in January. Negotiations are continuing with one person, and another has been invited for
additional discussions; g) the Budget and Planning Task Force will be meeting again to provide him updates. He will also ask
them to take on additional work, though it will not be as intense as before; h) work is progressing on summer term 2004. In
the past, summer term has been under-advised and under-subscribed. Part of that may have to do with how classes are
scheduled. The goal is to accommodate more students by using a more flexible schedule and guaranteeing certain courses. In
the long term, he would like to examine the possibility of a four-day schedule; i) undergraduate teaching fellowships are due
on October 17. He is committed to increasing the number of fellowships; j) a workshop is scheduled on October 1 for those
interested in the University Women's Professional Advancement Internship Program.
R. Viswanathan believes the Budget and Planning Task Force has done a good job and should be followed through by
working with each college to look at each recommendation carefully. He expressed the hope that each of the
recommendations are brought back to the Senate and the Graduate Council. Provost Dunn indicated that these are
recommendations to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has looked at some of the programmatic recommendations and has
asked him to engage the academic units in an initial analysis and have an oversight process. Provost Dunn indicated he has
requested the Task Force come back in subcommittees to validate [the recommendations] and also make sure that the issues
are appropriately addressed. Once that is done, the Chancellor has indicated that it will go back through the appropriate
bodies for affirmation.
4. Ed Shay, Faculty and Staff Ombudsman, reported that because of the confidentiality involved, it is difficult for him to
report on the activities in which he has been involved. Instead, he provided some insight on what he has learned (with
acknowledgment to Esquire magazine) in his dealings with faculty, staff and administrators over the last few years.
5. A. Karnes reported on the August 12 meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) to the IBHE, noting it was his first
meeting as chair of the group: a) only two comments were made on the Diversity Report. One was very complimentary of
the report and the other wanted to see progress on diverse hiring as part of the evaluation process, not only of deans and
chairs but also of upper administrators. The report was accepted unanimously by the committee, with a recommendation that
there be more aggressive steps (funding) to increase diversity among faculty; b) the committee unanimously accepted the
Affordability Study. A comment was made that if budgets are cut 15-20%, reporting should be cut 50%. The FAC objected
to the idea of making MAP funding the highest priority for new education dollars. While MAP is important, the committee
believes that stable operating funding for public universities and community colleges play just as big a role in assuring
affordable higher education; c) a Budget Context document for FY2005 was presented. It described the problems higher
education has had in the near past and how higher education has barely kept even (+.2%) after inflation from 1990 through
2004. The outlook is not good. The comment was made that administrative costs can be cut much deeper than they already
have been; d) two documents, "Actions to Expand Governing Board Oversight over University Annual Operating Budgets"
and the "Master Plan Update" were accepted without comment.
6. Jim Tyrrell provided a rundown of the issues the Graduate Council will be taking up, including: a) initiatives for moving
forward on some of the ideas in Southern at 150; b) extensive discussion of the Washington Advisory Group report; c)
examination of a Ph.D. program in Agriculture. This is a carry-over issue from last year; d) the time it takes for faculty and
students to read and respond to theses and dissertations; e) examination of the program review process; f) the whole issue of
collaborative research; and g) the intellectual property agreement that was recently approved by the Faculty Association.
7. Chancellor Wendler reported he has a committee of vice chancellors and staff that report directly to him that meets bi-
weekly. He has asked the Faculty Senate president to sit in on those meetings in the hopes of improving communication both
in and out of the Chancellor's office.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
R. Benford reported the Provost met with the Council, a practice that was started in July to help with communications
between his office and the Senate. In addition to discussing some of the items the Chancellor and Provost addressed in their
reports, the Council also discussed the fall faculty meeting and the reports/proposals forthcoming from the standing
committees.
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- J. Allen, Chair
J. Allen presented for approval the Undergraduate Student Absence Policy for University-Approved Activities (included as
Attachment A to the Agenda). He indicated the committee began working on this issue last spring at the request of the
Provost. There are some undergraduate students who have found themselves caught in a conflict because they are sometimes
required as a result of their scholarship activity to be in two places at once either in class taking an exam or somewhere off
campus for their scholarship activity. This situation comes up often, and there is currently a clumsy mechanism for handling
it that often involves people who are not in Academic Affairs (i.e., Athletics, Student Affairs and Enrollment Management).
He noted that SIU is the only four-year institution in the state that has no University-wide policy to deal with this matter. The
committee reviewed the Undergraduate Absence Policy, as well as information obtained from other four-year public
institutions in the state. Additional information was also provided by R. Benford from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
where he was part of a committee that dealt with this issue. Together with Nebraska's draft form and statement, the
committee chose what it thought was most appropriate for SIUC and revised the form and statement accordingly. J. Allen
noted that the form specifically addresses required participation in activities outside of the classroom. The committee
wanted to provide some reasonable accommodation for those students since it is the University that made it possible for them
to be here. The committee has called on the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management to determine
what these activities are, primarily because he is responsible for financial aid. However, it is the student's responsibility to go
to the faculty member and work out an accommodation using the absence form that is provided. Students are asked to use the
form very early in the semester to document where they will be, when they will be out of class and why, and who is
sponsoring the event with the signature from the sponsoring faculty/staff member. On the basis of that documentation, the
faculty member can then decide whether to accept or reject [the absence]. It was decided that disputes would be referred to
the Provost's office for arbitration because he is in a position to deal more easily with the non-Academic Affairs side of the
University. J. Allen noted that a good place to include the policy in the academic catalog would be following the attendance
statement affirming the importance of attendance to class so there would not be a perception that other things are more
important.
T. Clark indicated the committee approached the policy in the spirit that sometimes faculty members can be unreasonable,
and a statement was needed for extreme situations. M. Sullivan believed the form was a good idea; however, he was
concerned about the process of appealing directly to the Provost. He suggested a provision to counsel students to go first to
the department chair because many times the department chair can deal with issues more expediently. The student could then
go beyond the department chair, if necessary. M. Mundschenk agreed, noting in her college the current policy for grade
appeals is to go to the department chair; so, there is framework for disputes she believes makes sense. She liked the
impartiality of the Provost's office, but many students might find that intimidating. N. Mundschenk pointed out that the
discussion has been in terms of those who are recipients of scholarships. She questioned whether it was possible that there
are students involved in University-sanctioned extra-curricular activities who are not on scholarship. J. Allen responded that
his assumption would be that students such as those on the debate team who are not on scholarship--would be covered. R.
Viswanathan asked how to handle students who miss several exams because it then becomes a hardship for faculty members.
J. Allen believed such cases would be handled as they are now; faculty members would still be making accommodations for
students.
S. Wessel asked if there is a process for getting a particular activity University-approved or is it the instructor's or the
department's responsibility to actually have that activity approved by the University. J. Allen indicated he could not speak
for the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management, but it seems to him the place to begin would be to
post on a web site the listing of activities that would qualify as University approved. It should be as reasonably
comprehensive as possible.
R. Hughes indicated it was his understanding that Athletics requires a form. His concern in terms of the policy is that it puts
some restriction on the ability of faculty to determine how they are going to run their classes and what they want to do with
grade situations. He believes it infringes on faculty members' ability to [conclude that] their final exam is more important
than the student's other activities. The situation becomes weighing one required activity over another. Also, a common
practice that is not provided for in the policy is that of dropping exams and quizzes, which may actually be a reasonable
accommodation. R. Hughes believes the policy gets a little too specific on how faculty make their decisions, in addition to
the restriction that disputes be sent to the Provost's office. He believes the language infringes on faculty members' academic
freedom. T. Clark responded that the intent of the paragraph was not to restrict faculty who are civilized and reasonable but
to get at those who are being unreasonable. R. Benford pointed out that one problem that occurs is that there are academic
All-Americans on campus who have been discriminated against by faculty who believe that all athletes are "dumb jocks" and
should not be here on athletic scholarships. He does not believe that is appropriate; those students are representing the
University, and the University benefits from the good will as a consequence. In addition, there are many other students
representing the University in various other University-sponsored extra curricular activities, and they should be supported in
those endeavors. R. Benford agreed that academic freedom is a concern; however, it should still be up to the instructor as to
how much is too much. The term "reasonable accommodations" allows some broad interpretation for what is and is not
reasonable. The other key phrase is "as soon as possible." In terms of student athletes, they know their schedule from day
one, so that means they should be bringing in the form and making accommodations that first week. J. Duggan asked
whether it gives more credence to the faculty member saying no if the student does not bring in the form until the day before
the absence, for example. J. Allen believed that to be true, noting the idea is reasonable people attempting to work out the
situation.
The committee accepted as a friendly amendment an earlier suggestion to include the department chair in the arbitration
process so that the final sentence reads, "...the issue will be directed to the department chair, the dean, then the Provost, if
necessary, for arbitration." Also accepted as a friendly amendment was a suggestion to remove the word "completing" in the
second sentence so that it reads, "In this spirit, instructors will provide these students with reasonable accommodations for
missed exams, quizzes and the like." R. Hughes asked to change "will provide" to "will consider" in the sentence. It was
argued that such wording would leave an out for faculty to be unreasonable. The committee did not consider this change to
be a friendly amendment. R. Hughes then moved (seconded by M. Sullivan) to amend the second sentence in the paragraph
to read, "In this spirit, instructors will consider reasonable accommodations for these students for missing exams, quizzes,
and the like."
Motion failed on a voice vote.
Resolution, with friendly amendments, approved on a voice vote. [see appendix 1]
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- J. Duggan, Chair
1. J. Duggan presented for approval the list of University Committee Assignments (included as Attachment B
to the Agenda). He noted there was only one faculty
member who has not yet agreed to serve; however, he suggested the slate be approved. If the person subsequently does not
agree to serve, the committee will come back next month with another nomination. M. Anderson asked if the committee
made an effort to balance representation by colleges. J. Duggan responded that the committee looked at various data such as
gender, college, etc. and attempted to get as diverse a group as possible.
University committee assignments approved on a voice vote.
2. J. Duggan presented for approval the nomination of Jill Adams, Associate Professor, Law, to the Search Committee for
Dean of the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. He noted the committee made a concerted effort to appoint a person not
of that college.
Nomination approved on a voice vote.
3. J. Duggan presented for approval the nomination of Richard Rivers, Professor, College of Business and Administration, to
the Search Committee for Dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences.
Nomination approved on a voice vote.
4. J. Duggan reported the Provost has asked for two to three names for the joint search committee for the two associate
provost positions. Anyone who would like to either self-nominate or nominate someone else should contact him. The
committee will consider those individuals who volunteered in the spring for search committee service, but would also like
additional names to consider.
BUDGET COMMITTEE -- R. Hughes, Chair
R. Hughes distributed a written report, highlighting the committee's discussion on the Budget and Planning Task Force Final
Report and the two recommendations being proposed by the Budget Committee. K. Espy noted that one of the items on the
Executive Council agenda is consideration of the Task Force recommendations and defining some of the issues that can be
addressed by standing committees beyond the Budget Committee. J. Allen moved to append the committee's report to the
minutes; seconded by D. Worrells.
Motion carried on a voice vote. [see appendix 2]
FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- N. Mundschenk, Chair
N. Mundschenk reported the committee was asked to respond to the Graduate Council's resolution to award the rank of
distinguished professor to recipients of the outstanding scholar award. The committee is in the process of gathering
information. J. Tyrrell has agreed to attend the committee's upcoming meeting to give some history on the issue so the
committee can understand the rationale for the proposal. She has also asked Provost Dunn for some archival information
because there is no policy or procedure that actually articulates the awarding of that rank. Although the committee would like
to recognize the visibility, remuneration, etc., for the scholar award, it also wants to guarantee the distinguished professor title
is not at the same time being de-emphasized.
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- R. Viswanathan, Chair
R. Viswanathan reported the committee will be discussing the issue of shared governance and will be looking at how other
institutions deal with the issue.
NEW BUSINESS
K. Espy reported that following the Executive Council meeting last Tuesday, she received the slate of candidates for
programs review from the Provost's office. That office would like to move on this in a timely fashion. Normally, these
requests are forwarded to the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee for consideration and then brought to the Senate for
approval. However, because of time constraints, and because there are only three programs to be reviewed, she forwarded the
request to J. Allen who agreed to raise the item under New Business. J. Allen indicated he consulted his committee by e-
mail, and the majority voted to accept the recommendations for internal reviewers. He asked to waive the five-day rule so the
Senate could consider the proposed reviewers for the 2003-04 Academic Program Review; seconded by M. Anderson.
Motion to waive the five-day rule carried on a voice vote.
K. Espy asked if the committee checked on the appropriate rank and status of the proposed reviewers, noting last year there
was a question as to the status of one of the recommendations. J. Allen responded that all are full professors; he is not aware
of any problems with the names being proposed. R. Benford asked if the Graduate Council would have some jurisdiction
over the [program reviews]. J. Tyrrell responded the graduate program reviews are handled through the Provost's office, but
much of the actual day-to-day efforts are handled through the program review committee of the Graduate Council.
Internal Reviewers for 2003-04 approved on a voice vote. [see appendix 3]
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James E. Duggan, Secretary
JED:rm
Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule |
Meeting Agenda |
Meeting Minutes |
Membership |
Committees |
Operating Paper
![]()
