skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#13
Approved,.
December 12, Minutes

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2006-07


Time:            3:15 p.m.  

Place:          Hulman Memorial Student Union 307

Present:       Chairperson S. Lamb, Vice Chair B. Evans, Secretary C. Hoffman,

                          B. Frank, A. Halpern, J. Hughes, M. Miller, T. Mulkey                

Absent:         S. Davis

Ex-Officio:     Provost Maynard

Guests:        Sr. A. M. Anderson (CAAC),  C. MacDonald (Grad. Council)

 

I.  Administrative Report Provost Maynard

 

    1)  ISU is a an active member of the "Destination Indiana" program, which encourages 

         recruitment of international students.  Monthly meetings are held. Two "fact sheets" on  

         international enrollments, prepared by G. Fernandez, were distributed.

   

    2)  A two-day "retreat" with deans, associate academic VPs, and the Provost will take place  

         12/18-19 and will address topics including effectiveness and program prioritization. 

         Each dean will present, for discussion, plans for allocation of resources, implications of 

         those plans, and priorities for each college.  Also to be considered are college goals and 

         means to accomplish them, notably, how to free up $2 M. for reallocation (Revision of

         General Education?  Course Transformation?). This retreat is a first step to developing a

         plan to move the University forward. Further discussion of the University "Mission" will  

         occur in the Spring semester. The present goal is to gather general information for potential 

         savings over time (not possible all at once).

   

II. Chair Report

 

         Echoing comments made by others, I extend congratulations to the Institutional body for its recognition from the Carnegie 

         Foundation classifying ISU as one of two institutions in Indiana, and only 62 in the nation, to be included in a new  

         Curricular Engagement and Outreach and Partnerships category.

 

         I also extend congratulations to the Dean of Library Services for being one of the three academic librarians to receive the    

         2006 New York Times Librarians Award for public service and leadership.  Congratulations to the Library personnel as well.

 

         Today I was a guest at the support staff holiday luncheon. It was truly delightful. The individuals at my table were most 

         gracious.  It was such a shock to me, however, to hear that my host, who has been here for 25 years, is making  $25K.

         I was, and am, saddened.  The group did, indeed, have some interesting, enlightened perspectives.

 

III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

 

    1) Program Prioritization

        Questions:  How will eliminating/combining programs in Categories III and IV save money?  

                           Will cuts beyond Cat. III and IV be considered?

                           Is the process being driven by programmatic or fiscal considerations?

                           What is the correlation with the University "Mission" ?

 

        Discussion / Suggestions:

                           A cost/benefit analysis is absolutely necessary, but information to conduct such an 

                                analysis is often not available, even when requested.

                           Additional cuts are possible.

                           Would a faculty study group evaluating the "Mission," operating separate from 

                                prioritization, be valuable?

                                                                                                                              EC # 13, 12/12/06

                                                                                                                                   Page 2   

 

 

    2) Library Reorganization

 

        Clarification of process to date:  The Library Administrative Affairs Committee was not involved   

        during initial consideration of the changes but did later discuss them and reached a consensus

        supporting the changes. The Library Assembly also did discuss the changes.  No formal vote 

        of approval occurred in either group. 

         

        Question raised:  Is it necessary to send the proposed changes back to the Library legislative

                                    bodies for formal approval?

 

           Conclusions:   CAAC must be involved, and may have questions about procedures.

                                   A formal vote of record is required at each level, after which the proposal(s) 

                                      will follow the normal route specified the University Handbook.

                                  The specified route is mandatory and will remove any possibility of future   

                                      challenges to the legitimacy of the reorganization.

 

    3) Prioritization additional points discussed:

 

             -- All the proposed reallocation is at the expense of faculty and academic programs.

             -- When will the promised shrinking of the administration occur ?

                   [The Provost declined to address this issue.]

 

                                                                                                                               

IV. Approval of the Minutes Minutes #12 (12/5/06):  APPROVED  (Evans, Halpern 8-0-0)

           

 

V.  CAAC and Graduate Council Recommendations Prioritization "Next Steps"

 

      S. Anderson and C. MacDonald were invited to the table (acclamation), explained the documents, 

          and answered questions.

 

      Points addressed:

 

          -- When a Major Code is eliminated, the program ceases to exist.

          -- Elimination of a program does not eliminate courses, which may continue to be offered.

          -- Major codes can be eliminated, but courses retained to offer an "emphasis," to serve other

                 majors, or to provide "service" courses.

          -- Because courses are not eliminated, no significant cost savings result.

          -- 13 of the 15 programs in category IV have responded with plans to "eliminate, consolidate,    

                 integrate, or change."

          --  Remaining Category IV programs should have until the end of the Spring 07 semester to finalize   

                 their proposals.   

          --  Additional programs also may be targeted, particularly those in Category III.

                 (see: "Report of the Program Prioritization Taskforce, Sept. 28, 2006" p. 12, V).

          -- Deans' input will be coming in next.

          -- These documents recommend proceeding with those changes which have been agreed upon.

 

MOTION:  To accept the Reports and to proceed with those eliminations agreed upon.

                    APPROVED (Halpern, Hughes 8-0-0)

 

 

 

                                                                                                                             EC # 13, 12/12/06

                                                                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

    

VI.  New Business -  An apparent discrepancy may exist between the Constitution of the College  

        of  Arts and Sciences and the University Handbook re: voting rights for students on the A&S 

        Faculty Council.

 

        MOTION:  To refer to FAC for investigation.   APPROVED (Hoffman, Halpern 8-0-0)

 

VII.  Standing Committee Reports

 

 

       FAC Discussion of proposed changes in Faculty Awards

           Questions:  How is the present system "broken"?

                              How are "external" reviewer" preferable to current "internal" reviewers?

              FAC will continue discussion.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.  (acclamation)                          

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

C. Hoffman, Secretary