Executive Committee (EC)
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
March 24, 2009
Approved April 7, 2009
March 24, 2009 Minutes
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2008-09
V. Sheets, S.A.M. Anderson, J. Fine, A. Halpern, C. Hoffman, S.Lamb, S. Pontius,
T. Sawyer, and D. Worley
Provost J. Maynard:
a. Discussion related to University tag line.
b. Met with AAC regarding redesigning C. Baker ‘s old position to Associate Vice President
for Student Success about intended search.
c. S.A.M Anderson expressed concern about the intersection of Chestnut and 7th
Streets related to traffic problems (cars are not slowing down for pedestrians at intersection). The provost stated that plans are underway to close the street between 7th and 8th and turn the area into a small park adjacent to University Hall. There are also plans to install lights at this corner as well as a pedestrian walk way.
d. Reminder of Strategic Planning Retreat scheduled for this Thursday (March 26)
from 9:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. and on Friday for a half day. The retreat will take place in
the Heritage Ball Room
Mid-term grades reporting:
Students accepted back in fall 2008 with less than 1.0 G.P.A.
Forty-one (41) students actually returned to campus (8 from A&S,
6 NHHS, 16 from
a. Noted some highlights in article from The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “A
Strategy Talk Survival Guide for Colleges.” (article was written by Stratus consultant).
a. Voting via SNAP seems successful: perhaps twice as many votes (and 2 3 times committee preference responses as in prior years.)
III. Approval of the Minutes of March 17, 2009 as corrected (T. Sawyer, S. Pontius) 9-0-0.
a. C. Hoffman question: – campus gateway near parking garage costs a half a million
($500,000) from the general fund. Is this justifiable? The provost stated that he would have to question D .McKee on this, but he thought it was approved some time ago. (Sheets stated that the answer may be in the Board of Trustees minutes about a year ago; this was not a Bradley decision.) Hoffman also asked about the smoking islands the administration plans to install; how many there would be, and at what costs to the University. The provost stated that he didn’t know the exact number, maybe 7 or 8 but it would be under 10. The costs of these smoking islands are expected to cost $72,000 plus installation (approximately $100,000). Hoffman also asked if this is a wise use of University funds.
b. SNAP software for dissertations/surveys: Sheets expressed concern about frequent change in software heavily used for research/teaching; he expressed that dissertations often take some time to complete and less than a few month notice of a change in software can cause students on internship significant problems. S.A.M. Anderson (who is on Information Tech Advisory Committee) stated that she would consult with E. Kinley regarding this issue.
c. Sheets mentioned that D. McKee was unable to attend today. He noted that she is running the numbers on spousal fee waivers and will get back to him at a later date.
a. Reported on FEBC discussion relating to need for prioritization of non-academic areas,
FEBC feels need more accountability of cost-effectiveness and costs vis-à-vis other
institutions. Sheets will bring a motion to EC.
1) Proposed Committee needs to go through some kind of elective process.
2) S. Lamb reiterated his main concern that the advisory role of FEBC not be diminished. However, he noted that the President does need to have a strong committee to address health benefits concerns.
3) Bolinger recognized the importance of the FEBC having a voice but noted that it is also important that it understands the implications of decision making. He mentioned that some drastic consequences were played out in the past due to lack of information/expertise in the decision-making process. He further noted his concern that 3 faculty members on the committee were not enough to represent diversity of faculty in various stages of lifestyles, rank, and economic level. Lamb stated that the chair of FEBC could be an ex officio member of this committee and thus would be representing all faculty and their concerns. Experts from a balance of ISU constituents could also provide advice/input to committee upon request.
4) D. Worley – stated that her understanding of the proposed Committee’s purpose is to represent all people on campus who are eligible for health care across a life span and to control costs. Faculty by themselves don’t have to represent all groups.
5) The provost emphasized the importance of this committee especially given the issues facing health care in this country and the hard economic times we are facing, plus the need of dealing with post retirement issues. He noted that it will take much time and thought to develop this committee as well as to insure confidence in it.
Sick Leave (K. Bolinger) Clarification needed.
1) Will the giving away of sick leave require more reporting on faculty absences?
Could it be transferred across faculty and staff. Sheets asked if “costs” of faculty leave were budgeted (Is the money somewhere?). The provost stated that it shows up as a liability (obligation).
2) It was observed that it was not a “bank” but a “trust” (allowing donations). The
Provost expressed doubt that many would abuse it.
3 K. Bolinger stated that FAC will need to re-visit this policy with the greater
understanding achieved during discussion.
4) Sheets thanked K. Bolinger for his good work/discussion on these issues.
1) Absence of connection to compensation issues and workload.
Sperry had questions about faculty merit pay as relates to percentages for evaluation. There was no mention of merit pay in the document, but if no tie to pay, why are we doing it?
2) Lamb observed that faculty/departments need to build on individual faculty strengths, which may be done best via consultation between chair/faculty. Flexibility is typically welcomed by faculty in relationship to how he/she would like to be evaluated. Percentages might be set after the fact to assure faculty are shown in best light.
3) AAUP website shows that some departments (or colleges) tie reviews to compensation or do evaluations based on previously set goals.
4) Member questions why evaluations can’t be based on information already available (like Faculty Activity Reports). Linkage of performance evaluation with salary compensation – no plan for any FARS (faculty annual reports) adjustments. Who reads reports? If faculty asked to do FAR, why doesn’t the administration use that as basis for doing evaluations? The data are there. Could also determine basis for merit pay.
5) The provost stated that a better job needs to be done of faculty evaluations that doesn’t burden faculty further.
6) S. Lamb stated that faculty would welcome opportunities to create their own expectations profiles.
7) Sheets and Lamb agreed to work on this issue (no motion). Sheets thanked Sperry and FAC for their hard work and their extreme diligence to these matters.
VI. Moved into Executive Session (grievance issue) 5:23 pm. (C. Hoffman/T. Sawyer) 9-0-0.
a. AAC – already updated.
b. AEC - finished for the year.
c. CAAC – (S.A.M. Anderson) – still doesn’t have definitive definition of “school.”
Foundational studies reviewed.
d. FAC (A. Halpern) – Correction Education Program (CEP) issue – report on progress
e. FEBC – discussed above.
f. GC (T. Sawyer) – GC met today. Three master’s degree revisions and Handbook
revisions. Will meet with consultants at 3:00 on Thursday to discuss concerns/issues
related to GC.
g. SAC – (S. Pontius)SAC met but he was unable to attend.
h. URC – finished for the year.Meeting adjourned: 5:45 p.m.