skip to main content
Indiana State University University Faculty Senate
EC#6
Approved October 16,2007
October 9, Minutes

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2007-08


Time:          3:15 p.m.

Place:         HMSU, Room 227

Present:      Chairperson V. Sheets, Vice Chair A. Halpern, Secretary Sister A. M. Anderson, J. Fine, J. Hughes, M. Miller, S. Pontius, T. Sawyer, D. Worley

Ex-Officio:   R. English

 

I.                    Administrative Report:

Provost Maynard is away at a meeting. Areas of focus are funding and completion metrics. A link will be sent for the ICHE Paper. An aggressive search is going on for an IAC Director. Sympathy was expressed for the family of Bev Bitzegaio, Technology, over the loss of her son Kyle.

II.                 Chair Report:

1. Liaisons are not defined in the handbook, but are designed to promote communication between the executive committee and standing committees. Liaisons are not active participants in the committees and do not vote.  They are to share (clarify) information to standing committees and report on the progress of discussions in the standing committees to the Executive Committee and Senate. Liaisons may speak when invited to the table.

 

2. Like Steve Lamb & Harriet Hudson, I strongly believe that most of the work

of faculty governance should be done by standing committees. This is not to

say that executive committee should "rubber stamp" all proposals that come

forward (In fact, the executive committee is obligated to review

proposals from a broader perspective and should ask different questions

than the standing committees). Nevertheless, the Executive Committee

should be wary of overturning/rejecting the work of lower committees

outright. Whenever feasible, items should be sent back to standing

committees when additional considerations are raised; the executive

committee, and especially the Senate, are not the ideal loci for

rewriting/reworking of proposals.

 

3. As reported in the Cyberwire, the Presidential Search Committee has been formed. I understand that their first meeting will be on October 18th. I am particularly excited to see Mayor Burke's willingness to serve as a member of this group. This provides a real opportunity for strengthen ISU's relationship with the Terre Haute community.

 

4. VP Floyd and I have continued discussing the establishment of a group

to examine "post-retirement health care" and related benefits issues, as

per last year's FEBC recommendations (approved at the August 2007 Senate

meeting). I anticipate that the committee will be convened shortly.

 

5. The University has decided to purchase the on-line catalog system, ACALOG. Unfortunately, timing pressures meant that this decision was made prior to AAC's ability to complete their review and make recommendations, despite their laudable effort to respond within a compressed time frame. I believe that this was an exceptional circumstance that should not be over interpreted.

 

ACALOG does appears to have some advantages over our current pdf on-line catalog, and we all hope that the decision will be justified by its ease-of-use for prospective students and advisors.

           

6. In response to last week's Executive Committee meeting, I have a) sent an email to Melony Sacopulos suggesting that a list of the "missing policies" and "organizational issues" be provided before any changes to the handbook will be considered, b) sent a memo to appropriate parties outlining the basis of our decision regarding the MS in computer science proposal and possible departmental responses.

 

III.               Approval of minutes as amended. (T. Sawyer, S. Pontius) 9-0-0

IV.              Discussion on faculty related SGA projects.

                                                               i.      Continuation of discussions started at the last meeting regarding the SGA’s move to publish grade distributions for classes greater than 5 individuals or wherein all students made the same grade.

a.      Questions: What procedure was followed to gain approval? Who chose the class size? Can the class size be increased to 10? How long will information remain online?

b.      Noted: SAC and FAC should be involved in faculty related SGA actions. The Office of Registration and Records is supplying the grade distributions. IT is buying the software. Collaboration between SGA and faculty would be more constructive.

                                                             ii.      The SGA has stated a desire to publish SIRs.

a.      Questions: Is there a policy? Who has ownership of SIRs? What is the reasoning? What is public information and what is not? Can SGA move forward without a vote from anyone else?

b.      Noted: SIRs are not universally used or available. SIRs are part of a personnel file. Care must be taken to protect untenured faculty from having their SIRs made public.

V.                 Procedural Items

a.      Student vote

Discussion was held regarding students voting in the faculty governance process. Three colleges allow students to vote on committees. FAC determined that this is inconsistent with the faculty constitution and those colleges whose constitutions stipulate such a practice should be directed to make the necessary revisions to their documents and submit them for Senate approval. The Executive Committee affirmed the FAC report. EC vote on 3-13-07 (Halpern, Mulkey 8-0-1) however Senate did not vote. Motion: reaffirm and send forward to Faculty Senate for a vote. (Sawyer/Fine 8-0-1)

b.      Rules of subcommittee composition - The Grad Council Student Appeals Committee does not report to the Grad Council. Letters are sent to students from the Chairperson of Student Appeals. The subcommittee does not set policy. Grad Council is looking for a ruling regarding administrators sitting on the Student Appeals Committee. Should they be speaking seats only, or should they have a vote?

c.      Coordination of timely communication between CAAC and the Graduate Council. The two committees should notify each other when they are about to consider a proposal. They should be considering the proposal within a week or two of each other. There is a need to know where the process gets held up.

d.      There was discussion about the participatory roles of ex officio and liaison members of university standing committees: who votes, who speaks. The Handbook is not clear on this subject. Because CAAC consists of 9 faculty and as many as 10 "Administrative" (ex officio), it is possible for the faculty to be outvoted if ex officio members have the right to vote. A committee can permit the EC liaison to speak by "inviting to the table."

VI.              Fifteen Minute Discussions

1.      What will happen with archived e-mail? Will private e-mails be stored in such a way that a hacker could get access? Anyone who archives e-mail or electronic records is legally bound to produce an e-mail if asked. Suggestions should be sent to ITAC.

2.      There are instances when personally identifiable numbers are used, and show up on, when using remote printers.

3.      Student 991 numbers sometimes appear on student papers. Be careful that no one else can get their hands on those papers when passing them back to students.

4.      ICHE document – Discussion was held on how each institution was framed. Some Executive members expressed disappointment at the way ISU was characterized in the June version.

5.      Money targeted for fringe benefits was not used for fringe benefits. There were a large number of vacant positions, and the University was able to hold its medical premium costs below budget. For those two reasons a lot of money reverted back from fringe benefits, but it all went back to Capital and Major Repairs. Who makes these sorts of determinations? There is a need for far more transparency. Those decisions should go through AAC.

6.      Has ISU admitted Distance Ed AOP students? If so, this doesn’t seem like a recipe for success.

VII.            Old Business

1.      Drop/Add Policy

                                                               i.      Discussion on the history of the Drop/Add Policy ISU is more liberal than some other universities. In 2002-2003 most committees looked at the policy to some degree, though primarily SAC.

                                                             ii.      Motion: The Executive Committee does not feel the Drop/Add Policy warrants further discussion at this time.  (Halpern/Pontius 9-0-0)

VIII.         Committee Reports

1.      AAC has met twice on the Presidential Search Committee and Acalog Catalog. The Acalog purchase was made before the committee completed its work.

2.      Grad Council met three times. Graduate faculty status will be coming forward soon.

3.      FEBC is looking at the disability policy. Currently one must be at ISU for 20 years. They are looking at decreasing that to 15 years. No votes have been taken yet.

4.      CAAC: communication between CAAC and Grad Council Chairs, changing department prefixes, complexities of mergers, Gen Ed courses.

5.      FAC has met once. Faculty Criminal Background Check has been discussed. The committee may alternate its meeting days to accommodate schedules.

6.      AEC is moving forward on gathering reports from people who have completed their research but have not filed thorough reports, discussing the possibility of hosting an event, money has not been received yet.

7.      Chair Sheets requested all committee dates and officer names be sent to the Faculty Senate office.

 

 

 

Meeting adjourned 4:55 PM