skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#10
Approved,.
November 14, 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

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

Ex-Officio:     Assoc. VP R. English

Guests:         Program Prioritization Committee members:  B. Balch, S. Berta, H. Hudson,

                     Marcia Miller, C. McLaren, M. Murphy, T. Sauer, K. Schmid

 

 

 

 

I.  Administrative Report – none

 

 

II. Chair Report – S. Lamb:

 

 I am pleased that the administration heard the hue and cry concerning two issues:

 

1)       The Study Abroad Program will not be moved back under the International Affairs Center. The Executive Committee, the Arts and Sciences Chairs Council, as well as scores of others throughout the University, had serious misgivings concerning that move. Study Abroad will remain positioned as it is, with the Coordinator, Janis Halpern, continuing to run an effective office.  I thank the Provost for receiving the input and reconsidering that issue.

 

2)       The one time payment to temporary full-time faculty will be made. It would have been immoral not to include these loyal people in this disbursement of funds. I thank the Provost for rethinking that issue.

 

       I am still quite saddened, however, by the following situation: Six full-time temporary faculty in the

       English department, who have been with that department for 6 to 20 years, were given "Lecturer"   

       appointments this semester in order that they could be reduced to six-month contracts. All were still

       teaching full time loads.  It is my understanding that all are expected to be rehired full time for the 

       Spring 07 semester. In other words, the expectation was that they would serve full time for the full 

       year.  The chair, however, was not given the necessary budget in Fall 07 to immediately grant full-

       time, full-year contracts. He felt he was being prudent by not committing funds he had not been

       allocated. He was going to make the "need case" strongly to the Dean. Of course, the temporary

       full-time faculty, who had been serving the department loyally for up to 20 years, were hurt that they

       were cut to six-month employees, but said little. Now they are further penalized by not being given

       the one-time payment even though they will be renewed. [sl1] This is not at all just.  I appeal to the

       Provost to reconsider this situation.

 

Under new business, I would like the Executive Committee to consider a charge to FEBC to investigate the possibility of expanding the role they play in giving input to the determination of raises for faculty.

 

Also, under new business, B. Frank will be presenting a charge for possible FEBC consideration concerning pay increments.

 

 

                                                                                                                             EC # 10, 11/14/06

                                                                                                                                        Page 2     

III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

 

  1) Welcome Center – Cost ? (unanswered question from prior meetings)

        Provost not present – no further information available

        Noted: The new facilities are not extravagant, are inviting, and should appeal to visitors.

 

  2) One-time payment for non-tenure-track faculty:

       -- Because of budget constraints, former "Instructors" teaching full time in the English and Math

          departments were rehired this year as "Lecturers" and are excluded from the one-time payment.

       -- Dean Sauer: Is aware of the situation, is concerned, and will be discussing it with the Provost.        

      Noted:  40% of undergraduate SCHs are produced by non-tenure-track teaching staff.

      

  3) Director of Affirmative Action search – progress?

        -- No new information.

 

  4) Science Building: safety and security of reptiles continue to be issues.

                                                                                                                              

IV. Approval of the Minutes – Minutes #9 (Nov. 7) APPROVED (Mulkey, Evans 9-0-0)

           

V.  Program Prioritization Update

 

       M. Murphy briefly outlined the work of the Task Force, noting:

 

          -- Task Force members saw a "tremendous commitment of faculty" and very much appreciated

                 input from the deans.

          -- The "Mission" of the institution is not clear because criteria are not explicit.

              We have, however, been "coming together" for evaluation of programs.

 

          -- In a "competitive environment," ISU is falling behind in meeting demand and trimming programs.

             Other institutions are clarifying and implementing their "missions" in the context of current

                 restrictions and challenges. We must compete effectively. CAAC must be more than a 

                 reactive committee.

 

       Points/questions discussed:

 

          -- Curriculum review typically occurs at the beginning of programs, but on-going review often is

                 not effectively done.

          -- What is the role of, and how effective has been, our administrative leadership? Program Review 

                 has become more rigorous (outside consultants, etc.), but no apparent changes have resulted.

          -- The administration has the "power of the purse."  Over time, funding (or lack thereof) for programs

                 and faculty replacement define a de facto "vision" or "mission."

          --  We appear to be "marketing" without a clear mission or any forward planning. 

                   The Exec. Committee suggests that CAAC form a subcommittee devoted to comprehensive 

                    forward planning in curriculum, which would be in keeping with the Handbook statement of 

                    CAAC's responsibilities.

          --  Although the Strategic Plan does contain a mission statement, that statement is too broad. 

                    CAAC could properly play a significant role in refining a mission statement for consideration

                    by the Faculty Senate.

 

Murphy:  Faculty should be the leaders. 

              Comprehensive planning within faculty groups is necessary to make ISU competitive.

 

 

                                                                                                                              EC # 10, 11/14/06

                                                                                                                                        Page 3 

Program Prioritization Update - continued

        

        Noted:  Recent attempts to prioritize/restructure in Arts and Sciences have, so far, not worked out well.                     

 

          --  What is the proper balance between graduate and undergraduate programs?

          --  What if the required $2M in savings does not materialize?  Is there flexibility?

          --  All programs are not equally costly.  Cost/benefit analyses by program would be helpful.

          --  General Education:  Courses are underscribed.  Solutions? (fewer sections? higher limits?)

          --  Information Technology requirement: 30 different courses satisfy.  Can this number be reduced?

Time Line:

1) CAAC and Grad. Council will forward to the Senate a list of programs for elimination. Only those on   

        which there is agreement will be included.

    Individual deans and chairs will later address programs on which disagreement exists.

 

2) The Board of Trustees will next receive recommendations for elimination of only those programs on  

        which CAAC/Grad. Council and the Senate have agreed.  

 

3) Remaining programs will require further investigation.

    Full implementation of prioritization will take 2-3 years. 

 

Executive Committee members expressed appreciation for the work of the Prioritization Task Force.

 

VI. Old Business – none

           

VII. New Business 

 

The Committee approved a charge to FEBC to investigate means to accomplish greater faculty participation in budget matters and in the setting of faculty salaries.  (Halpern, Hoffman 9-0-0):

 

          In light of these statements [AAUP statements on faculty involvement in budget and salary matters],

          FEBC is encouraged to set up a subcommittee of knowledgeable faculty whose sole function is to become 

          acquainted with the budget and the budget process, working with the administration to make 

          recommendations through FEBC concerning both short-run and long-run salary issues.  It may be

          advantageous to draw on the expertise contained from AAUP members with their access to national data. 

 

The Committee approved a charge to FEBC to investigate base pay adjustments to promotion increments and salary floors.  (Davis, Frank 8-1-0):

 

         Explore whether promotion increments in base pay should be raised. Consider whether faculty are 

          leaving ISU because promotion won't bring the financial reward that a move to another university 

          would. Comparisons with peer institutions would be appropriate. Suggest dollar values for each

          increment.  Also, make recommendations concerning ‘floor’ levels in light of your recommendations

          concerning promotion increments.

 

 

The Committee approved a charge to the Graduate Council to investigate changes in funding for graduate students.  (Hughes, Mulkey 6-2-1).

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:03 p.m.  (Halpern, Hoffman 9-0-0)

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

C. Hoffman, Secretary