skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#11
Approved  December 4,2007.
November 27, Minutes.

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2007-08


 

Time:           3:15 p.m.  

Place:           HMSU, Room 227

Present:        Chair V. Sheets, Vice Chair A. Halpern, Secretary Sister A. M. Anderson

                     J. Fine, J. Hughes, M. Miller, S. Pontius, D. Worley

Ex-Officio:   J. Maynard

Guests:         T. Demchak, J. Kuhlman, D. Underwood,  L. Hollowell, N. Hopkins, L. Sperry

 

 

 

        I.            Administrative Report:  None given

     II.            Chair’s Report: 

a.       V. Sheets noted pleasure with the Presidential Search Committee’s and Board of Trustees’ decision to have an open search. He expressed hope that the search can now move beyond the process to the actual mission.

b.       AAUP will hold an open forum tomorrow.

c.       Senators need to notify the Faculty Senate associate if they know they are unable to attend a Senate meeting. There wasn’t a quorum at the last Senate meeting. November’s agenda items roll over to December. That could make the December meeting quite long. It is recommended that next year’s Executive Committee, or possibly this year’s, should deal with the governance process. People are over-committed, trying to do everything.

   III.            Curriculum proposals for the Department of Athletic Training, graduate program –

a.       T. Demchak and J. Kuhlman were invited to the table by consensus.

b.       Reasoning for the change from a 1 year program to a 2 year program was given. Discussion followed on fee waivers, graduate assistantships, competition with other schools, and the proposed cost reduction of $50,000 after the second year. Provost Maynard noted that the mathematics confirmed the cost reduction. By going to a 2 year program, external contracts, which pay student tuition, can be renewed. Assistantship is not required but is encouraged. There are more assistantships available than there are students available. Classes are set up to have hands-on training as well as lecture time.

Motion for approval (Worley/Pontius) 8-0-0

  IV.            New Business

a.       Sponsored programs - Guests D. Underwood and L. Hollowell were invited to the table by consensus.

                                                               i.      IRB:  A request was made for the Executive Committee to consider recommending faculty for the IRB. By Federal regulation, appointments are made by the chief research officer, Mark Green. Appointments are made according to areas of expertise. Terms are staggered 3 year periods. There are 9 members and 7 alternates.

                                                             ii.      Compliance Committee:  This committee is in the discussion phase, not currently in place. The committee would have a supporting role in compliance to regulations, helping the internal audit office know which projects need support throughout a grant, and risk assessment. Provost Maynard noted that another route could be to spend money on hiring a compliance officer. The committee could be a prevention piece during times of personnel transitions. An appeal was made for the Executive Committee to nominate 2 to 4 people as committee members after a plan is drafted.

                                                            iii.      Options were suggested:  1) As someone is needed to serve, the Executive Committee could be notified to select nominees. 2) The committees could be placed on the All University Committees list to be slated in June. When a draft proposal is developed, it could be sent to FAC and URC for advice. All University Health and Safety might also be of help. No action is to be taken at this time.

b.       Criminal Background Checks – Guests N. Hopkins, AAUP, and L. Sperry , FAC, were invited to the table by consensus.

                                                               i.      N. Hopkins offered this statement: “The ISU chapter of AAUP is opposed to the blanket imposition of criminal background checks on those seeking employment at the University.  Other than those mandated by law and by accrediting agencies, any criminal background checks should be narrowly targeted to those criminal records that are directly relevant to the employment being sought.  In particular, only criminal convictions within a reasonable time frame, and not arrests should be sought as part of a criminal background check.  The determination of which criminal records are relevant should be done before a position is advertised.  We also believe strongly that any policy on criminal background checks must apply to all levels of employment at the university, including the presidency, if it is to be equitable.”

                                                             ii.      Discussion followed on the need for a fair policy, protection of the university, external unit policies and expectations, a need for ISU to have its own policy, how one might choose which felony is relevant and which isn’t.

                                                            iii.      L. Sperry stated that FAC was initially prepared to reject the idea of criminal background checks. After deliberation, FAC prepared recommendations for changes to “The Hudson Document.”

                                                           iv.      Discussion followed on student protection, confidentiality of applicants, accuracy of the background checks, and timeliness in the hiring process. A suggestion was made to look at other institutions with policies that work well.

                                                             v.      L. Sperry offered that it would be appropriate for FAC to step aside and allow the Executive Committee to continue the work, recognizing FAC’s recommendations. It was agreed that the Executive Committee would take their ideas back to FAC as an information piece to request input.

c.       2009 – 2010 Academic Calendar, added to the agenda by consensus

Motion to approved (Pontius/Worley)

Discussion on the difficulty and timing of creating calendars 2 years out. Desired future changes were discussed. Question called (Anderson) 8-0-0

Motion approved 8-0-0

V. Sheets will notify AAC that other issues pertaining to the calendar need to be looked at before creating the next calendar. The calendar will go to the next Senate meeting as an information item only.

     V.            15 Minutes Open Discussions

a.       Provost Maynard responded to the question raised at the previous meeting regarding football coaches’ salaries. He added that L. West is currently being paid by The Foundation. It was questioned what is not being funded by the Foundation so they can pay for a football coach. Brief discussion followed on how coaches are paid at some other institutions.

b.       There will be an open Board of Trustees meeting two weeks from Thursday. There will be a seminar on athletics. Financing, facilities and Title IX compliance will be covered.

c.       The Board agreed to an open search. The search committee discussed a general timeline. The pool development is coming along. Another meeting is scheduled for mid January.

  VI.            Approval of Minutes (Halpern/Pontius) – approved as amended 6-0-2

VII.            Committee Liaison Reports: None given

 

 

 

Meeting adjourned 4:50 PM