skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#16
Approved
January 30, Minutes

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2006-07


Time:            3:15 p.m.  

Place:          Hulman Memorial Student Union 227

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

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

 

Ex-Officio:     Provost Maynard

Guests:         H. Hudson (Faculty Affairs Committee)

 

 

I.  Administrative Report Provost Maynard

 

    1) Has just attended a Chairs' Council meeting which addressed various topics, including    

           Program Prioritization

 

    2) Exec. Committee will be asked to identify a faculty member for nomination to the nominating

           committee to select a faculty member to serve on the Commission for Higher Education.

 

    3) Attended Ways and Means budget hearings in Indianapolis on 1/29.  As a result of 

           impressive work by President Benjamin and G. Goode, ISU's presentation was

           well received.  Legislators were cordial, interested, knowledgeable, and asked good

           questions.  ISU is requesting an increase of 3% overall + $3M for "quality improvement" 

           (to fund salary increases and faculty positions).  

 

    4) ISU hosted a conference titled "China A Two-Way Street" in Indianapolis on 1/25. 

           Alumnus Paul Lo (MBA), who has been very successful in international banking and is

           a strong ISU supporter, was very much involved. A significant number of our College of      

           Business faculty and students attended his presentations in the College the day before.    

           The conference was most successful and contributed significantly to establishing a

           positive image for the University.   

 

    5) Prioritization Report will be released 1/31.  The time line has been extended: two months will 

           be allotted for responses.

 

 

II. Chair Report  - S. Lamb

 

    A university curriculum is more than just a collection of majors dictated by student interest.  It is based on   

    principles of intellectual inquiry and academic disciplines constituting bodies of knowledge that are  

    recognized world‑wide.  Not offering a major in philosophy or physics would diminish ISU as a university.  

    It would be to accept a lower standard, lesser quality.  We'd look worse to ourselves, and to other people

    too, whether other educators or the general public. 

 

    Philosophy is a foundational discipline.  The body of knowledge it encompasses is encountered in other

    disciplines.  The writings of philosophers underlie literature and literary theory; art and aesthetics; analysis

    of historical events and political, economic, and social systems.  Physics, too, is foundational.  Bodies of 

    applied knowledge, like Engineering and Technology, are based on physics, not to mention its relevance

    to other sciences.

 

                                                                                                                              EC # 16, 1/30/07

                                                                                                                              Page 2  

Chair Report (cont.)

 

 

    I hope that the faculty and administration in Arts and Sciences will do everything possible to enclose these 

    majors into existing departmental structures. I have heard that several departments have been

    approached, and that the primary hurdle has been the title of the composite department.  Frankly, I find

    this mindset disappointing. Again, let us save these cornerstone majors and retain the right to refer to

    ourselves as a University.

 

    On another matter: I was disappointed that while the College of HHP did conduct a faculty vote on the 

    creation of the College of Nursing and Health and Human Services, that vote occurred without a meeting.

    I think a significant opportunity to establish some level of credibility, some level of buy-in, was missed. A

    thorough public discussion of the issues, including the frustrations, would have allowed the College not

    only to conduct a vote, but also to forward a position statement on what that vote was predicated on, what

    assumptions, expectations (or at least hopes), were the basis for the vote.  Shared governance takes due

    diligence.

 

 

III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

 

    1) Support for the new laptops has not been as promised. 

           One faculty member has been waiting nearly two weeks for a replacement power supply.

           

    2) Physics + Philosophy update and discussion

  

          -- Provost is meeting with chairs of the two departments to identify alternative(s) to  

                elimination of the majors/departments.  Changes are still possible.

 

          -- Reported: An important plan to strengthen our physics program (development of a 3+2 

             articulation agreement with the U of Evansville which had been strongly recommended by

             the external program review consultants), had been approaching completion when

             discussions were summarily discontinued, presumably in anticipation of the elimination of

             the ISU physics program.

 

 

    3) Nursing + HHP update and discussion

 

          -- HHP held no meeting of the faculty but conducted an email vote to approve. 

                No open discussion occurred.  Is this allowed under the HHP Constitution?

 

          -- Nursing did have an open meeting, then voted electronically.  Nursing accepted the Task 

                Force Report (9-5-1) on condition that adequate resources be made available.

 

          -- Grad Council supported the entirety of the Report, including the noted concerns about

                resource allocation.

 

 

    4) Veterans' attendance reports:  Why is an additional form necessary?  Cannot necessary

          information be extracted from existing reporting to the Registrar's Office? 

 

          Apparently, military reporting requirements are separate and different from those of 

          government programs such as financial aid.     

 

                                                                                                                              EC # 16, 1/30/07

                                                                                                                              Page 3  

                                                                                                                               

IV. Minutes Minutes #15 (1/16/07):  APPROVED (acclamation: 9-0-0)

           

                                                                                                                             

V.  Old Business FAC Response to Provost's "Proposal: Rewarding Faculty Excellence"

 

     H. Hudson was invited to the table and summarized the FAC recommendations.

     Points addressed:

 

         1) The proposal came from the Provost via R. English.  Goal is to encourage national  

               (rather than just local) recognition of the awards and their recipients.

 

              Response:  These are traditional, local awards, and the recipients are peer-selected. 

                                 They should remain so.

 

 

         2) What is "broken" that changes are necessary?

 

               Response: This has never been clearly articulated, though some persons assert that the 

                                  meaning, focus, prestige, and standards have deteriorated over the years.  

 

     Members offered suggestions to codify and improve the awards processes.

 

     Motion:  To accept, with appreciation, the well-written FAC report and to ask H. Hudson to work

                   with the appropriate provost-selected administrator to produce a mutually-acceptable                   

                   revision which will be returned to the Executive Committee for action (Davis, Miller 9-0-0),   

 

                                                                                                                             

VI.  New Business  

 

       Discussion:  Resignation of Don Smith from Board of Trustees. 

 

             AAUP will be writing to Governor Daniels, requesting that Mr. Smith's replacement

                 be an emeritus/a faculty member.  Should the Exec. Committee also write?

 

             Consensus:  A. Halpern and J. Hughes will draft a letter.   

 

 

VII.  Standing Committee Reports

 

       FAC    University College proposal and Academic Integrity Policy revisions are next items.

                --  Question of voting rights for students on faculty committees will come later.

 

 

The Committee went into executive session (Hughes, Davis 9-0-0).

The Committee came out of executive session and adjourned at 5:43 p.m. (Mulkey, Hughes 9-0-0).

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

C. Hoffman, Secretary