INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The Administrative Affairs Committee (AAC) had 10 meetings this year. Membership and attendance is listed below:
F. Bell 6 N. Hopkins 10
C. Davis 9 G. Minty 10
A. Halpern 7 R. Raeisa 9
T. Hawkins 9 J. Sanders 4*
P. Hightower 5 * class conflict during the 6 spring meetings
The AAC addressed 8 of 9 charges forwarded by the Executive Committee. Charges and Committee action are summarized below:
1. Review and provide feedback to the Executive Committee on the proposed reorganization of the Offices of Human Resources and Academic Affairs to fulfill the advisory function as defined in the Faculty Constitution.
AAC reported concerns with this reorganization to the Executive Committee.
2. Since it seems likely that there will be a number of reorganizations within vice-presidential offices, and some positions will be eliminated over the next year, it will be especially important for the Administrative Affairs Committee to fulfill its advisory function as called for in the Faculty Constitution.
This is an ongoing charge that included some discussion but no specific action was necessary beyond #1 above.
3. Using appropriate resources and contacts, AAC will construct a list of the number of times outside consultant firms have been hired over the past five years with remuneration over $50K, the purpose and cost of each consultancy, and the outcomes achieved (i.e., a brief summary of recommendations made and followed) from each one.
AAC requested the information necessary to complete this charge from administration in October. This information became available after the last scheduled meeting of AAC.
4. Administrative/Faculty Count
First: Conduct the administrative/faculty count following the procedure that has been used in the recent past.
Second: Begin to redesign the process with greater delineation of breakdowns (subdivision) in both the administrative and faculty count so that:
1) a more refined sense of the trends in administrative positions occurs
2) a distinction is made between administrators in leadership positions versus those in support positions
3) a distinction is made between administrators who are supporting faculty and others with technical expertise versus those who are developing policy using information gained from the Mercer classifications.
Development classifications for faculty who have serious administrative responsibilities consuming 50% or more of their time, (Deans, Associate Deans, Chairs, Directors, etc) and distinguish them from the faculty who do not have administrative responsibilities. Also, include in the count, the number of one-year, and special purpose faculty, as well as the total number of hours taught by adjunct faculty.
The first part of the change was completed. The second part was discussed in detail and it was agreed that the administrative breakdown cannot be accomplished with current data. Faculty breakdown can be obtained from academic departments.
5. In keeping with the AAC’s recommendation of 3/17/04, review the effectiveness of the approved organizational structure of the Center for Public Service and Community Engagement in carrying out its mission of benefiting the University, especially students. Complete by February 2006.
AAC reported to Executive Committee that there were no major concerns.
6. Develop calendar recommendations in coordination with Student Government.
The academic calendar was forwarded to the Executive Committee in April. Future academic calendars shall be drafted in the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs unit.
7. Recommend 2 faculty members for Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) by mid September.
Sent two recommendations to the Executive Committee in early October.
8. Review national surveys of faculty climate surveys and select a survey for potential distribution to ISU faculty by Faculty Senate in 2008. This survey should allow for incorporating additional questions taken from past ISU satisfaction surveys, as well as for additional questions developed to address current issues.
Forward the identified survey, and include the selected additional historical questions, and the relevant current (in so far as possible) issue questions, for review, modification, and approval by the Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate.
Also develop a process for administering the survey, analyzing the survey, and dissemination of the results. Forward that process, for review, modification, and approval by the Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate.
AAC agreed to postpone action on this charge.
9. EMG had done a follow-up on the ISU Branding Campaign. Review that study, and comment on both the quality of the study, as well as provide comment on the effectiveness of the existing branding efforts.
AAC reported on the quality of the study and effectiveness to the Executive Committee.