University Faculty Senate

Executive Committee (EC) Minutes
2008- 200
9


INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
2008-2009
December 2, 2008

EC#12
Approved December 12, 2008
December 2, 2008 Minutes

Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2008-09


Present: V. Sheets, S.A. Anderson, J. Fine, A. Halpern, C. Hoffman, S. Lamb, S. Pontius, T. Sawyer, D. Worley
Ex-officio: Provost J. Maynard

I. Administrative Report – none

II. Chair Report – none

III. Approval of the Minutes of November 18, 2008 as corrected. 9-0-0

IV. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

President wants to give a 3 % raise
 Athletic concerns raised per the letter published in the newspaper (e.g., players put up in a hotel during homecoming weekend). Question was raised about spending $85,000 to send football team to North Dakota for game. Football’s impact is hard to measure. Schools with winning teams see upticks in applicants.
 Possible 5% tuition hike. Costs of health care, tuition and utilities are on the rise.
 Most monies invested in Faculty and EAP positions.
 J. Maynard and Diann Mckee will meet with the President next week. The Provost needs a target for budget reallocation. The Provost stated that he is still making some job offers but others have been put on hold. (Academic Affairs need $1.6-1.8 million for year one). D. Worley asked about communication and marketing position.
 T. Sawyer re Athletic’s faculty rep position and the need for this rep to provide us with more information. The faculty rep reports to the President. S. Lamb stated that he believed that one of the main duties of the faculty rep was to make sure that NCAA rules are being followed. Sawyer stated that he believes the faculty rep should represent the faculty.
 One-time money - Provost stated Rainy Day fund is all one-time money.
 S. Lamb asked if we are tied to 3% raise. J. Maynard stated that President Bradley believes that we need to give all employees a 3% salary adjustment. Question was raised about giving greater percentages to lesser-paid people. Sheets noted that this would exacerbate compression issue.
 J. Maynard stated that he felt this institution is financially better off than a lot of other institutions.
 Sheets – don’t know what to do about budget, no cuts versus no raise. If budget cuts are made across the board (i.e., proportionately so that 2/3 comes from Academic Affairs) and/or through a hiring freeze (which punishes those with vacancies), aren’t we returning to problem we’ve complained about for years, failure to plan strategically.

V. New Business

a. Discussion of the Retention document – mostly related to Advisement
 S. Pontius stated that he doesn’t think the $150,000 for professional advisement is the way to go. He mentioned that some kind of creative and rational plan needs to be developed to help get students out of the dean’s office. Many students are intimidated by having to go to the dean’s office to discuss grades. Maybe create some kind of a center that students can go to for advisement using grad students (on stipend) to staff
 A. Halpern, who served on the task force, reported that he had not voted to approve the document principally because the group was frustrated by a lack of data that would have allowed it to analyze the causes of low student retention and suggest possible interventions. There are different student populations that benefit from different interventions. The report placed much emphasis on advising: faculty vs. professional.
 Faculty advisors are much better at discussing academic/professional concerns than life issues experienced by students.
Rewarding good advisors. Monetary and non-monetary ways.
Take best teachers and assign them advising roles. Reduce classroom load/ research work (e.g. 180 advisees, don’t have to teach) J. Fine stated that counting advisement as piece of faculty workload goes a long way.
 What to do with faculty that are not performing well and make little or no contribution to their department? Documentation is needed, but faculty can be removed. We must do what is the best interest of the student, the department and the college.
J. Maynard – there are approximately 1,000 freshmen under 2.0 right now (based on midterms). Did advisors check mid-term grades? Sheets stated he got mid-term grade reports and contacted students; others did as well, but perhaps no coordination/reporting on activities has been done. S. Lamb stated that our professional advisors are very well thought of. J. Maynard agreed that most of our professional advisors are well thought of.
 J. Maynard stated that he asked the President to establish a council to look at retention. He mentioned the need to learn how to manage data and to enhance Banner. He mentioned that he will probably appoint a faculty fellow to look at retention data. He expressed his concern about his need to be cautious in hiring new personnel due to money constraints. He stated that though the deans are responsible for many of the issues related to student advisement that they were often also busy with many other projects as well. He stated that he needed to come up with some kind of a recommendation, but recognized this to be the sole responsibility of Academic Affairs.

VI. Old Business – None

VII. Committee Reports – None.

Meeting adjourned 5:45 p.m.

back to top