Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: HMSU, Dede III
Present: Chairperson J. Cerny, Vice Chair S. Lamb, Secretary C. Hoffman
Senators: E. Bermudez, G. Christianson, R. Clouse, N. Corey, P. Dutta, V. French, D. Gilman,
M. Hamm, M. Harmon, P. Hightower, H. Hudson, J. Jakaitis, R. Johnson, N. Lawrence,
K. Liu, S. Macke, L. Maule, R. McGiverin, D. Memory, W. Moates, F. Muyumba,
C. Nicol, N. Rogers, R. Schneirov, L. Sperry, E. Warner
Absent: John Allen, M. Brennan, D. Burger, B. Frank, R. Goidel, V. Gregory, J. McNabb,
T. Nicoletti, A. O'Bryan, W. Warren, C. Yoder
Ex-Officio: President Benjamin, Provost Pontius
Deans: T. Foster, B. Hine, D. Hopkins, C. Ingersoll, J. Maynard, B. Passmore, B. Saucier,
Visitors: C. Amlaner, K. Byerman, Scott Davis, R. Goldbort, J. Harper, D. Herrmann, F. Kramer,
S. Loughlin, K. Schmid, T. Sullivan
A memorial was read and accepted for James W. Barnes (Hightower, Harmon voice vote).
II. Administrative Report
President Benjamin reported:
Launching of the University's new Web site.
4/24 PPARC meeting to focus on budget discussions.
Budget presentation planned for 4/25,26 Board meeting.
Provost Pontius reported:
Thanks to faculty for Institutional Effectiveness work.
Grad Dean -- filled
Regular Faculty -- Over 50 of the 56 requested will be filled. We have attracted good people including minorities.
III. Chair Report
Chair Cerny reported:
2002-03 Senate Officers and Executive Committee announced.
Thanks to--Executive Committee, Standing Committees, Senators, Deans, President, Provost and Vice Presidents.
May 4th Commencement
IV. SGA Report
The SGA plans to administer sponsored SIR questions.
UFS #9, 4/18/02
V. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
K. Byerman read the following statement.
Over the past few years, there have been a number of faculty from a wide range of disciplines concerned about the status of research and scholarship on this campus. Recently a few dozen of them came together independently of any existing organization to discuss those concerns. At those meetings the following issues were raised:
1)The Role of Research and Creative Activity at ISU. We are concerned that there is not an adequate understanding of the central role of research and creative activity in the University; we see this as a problem with the University administration, the Board of Trustees, students, the general public, and even some of our colleagues. A common perception seems to be that research, scholarship, and creative activity are pursued only in order to obtain tenure or promotion. But a university exists for the sake of knowledge: those who have the knowledge not only offer it to those desiring it but also contribute to the search for new knowledge. We live in a world in which not only information, but also the ways of gathering and processing it are constantly changing. It is essential that those given the social responsibility of teaching stay current in their fields. This required practicing the discipline, since it is only through practice that we can adequately understand that which we presume to teach.
2) Pitfall of Opposing Teaching to Research and Creative Activity. Another common misunderstanding is that research somehow must be divorced from or irrelevant to good teaching. It is essential to foster the view that the best teaching emerges from the professor's constant engagement with the issues of the discipline. The University should enable both students and society as a whole to better understand the world. We must teach students how to think and how to go on learning after they leave us. This includes teaching them how to do good research themselves. We can only do that by being actively involved ourselves. Key decisions at all levels of the University must serve the complex interconnection between research and teaching.
3) Student Credit Hours (SCHs) and Teaching Loads. Time is a key factor in determining the quality and extent of a research or creative program. It must be possible to put in the long hours in the laboratory, library, or studio necessary to get the work done. The recent emphasis on SCH counts, with the implied threat of significantly larger classes or more classes for tenure-track and tenured faculty, will adversely affect the time available for research, without clearly enhancing the educational experience of students. Tenure-track faculty are especially vulnerable in any shift from a qualitative to a quantitative model of the role of faculty. If research expectations for tenure are to be those of a university, then a teaching load and class size consistent with those expectations must be maintained. In addition, the reputation of an institution is primarily based on the quality of its faculty. That quality is determined by the faculty's expertise, not by SCHs. Expertise is only gained by constant interaction with others in the discipline, through developing and disseminating knowledge. Any consideration of changes in teaching expectations must take into account the needs of research and scholarship.
UFS #9, 4/18/02
4) Sabbaticals. Given the teaching loads and other responsibilities of faculty, leaves are crucial to providing the sustained time and focus necessary to major research projects. We acknowledge the responsibility of faculty to base sabbatical requests on efforts that will make a significant contribution to their disciplines. Precisely for that reason, we are deeply concerned with an administrative perspective that seems to view such a function as secondary to other considerations when granting leaves. We urge the Provost to publicly reiterate the importance of research (including basic research), scholarship, and creative activity as a crucial part of the mission of this University in general and of faculty sabbatical projects in particular.
In conclusion, the research and scholarship group intends to be an independent voice on campus that stands ready to engage in dialogue and productive effort with administrators and other faculty groups to devise and implement a long-term plan to maintain and enhance the role of, and opportunities for, faculty research and scholarship at ISU.
D. Herrmann relayed the background for inception of the concerned faculty research group.
E. Warner read the following statement.
I'm partly responsible for Deans being here. I called for a utilization of ex officio speaking seats. Provost Pontius accommodated. He did so at a luncheon last July hosted by President Benjamin to introduce the new Provost to members of the Executive Committee and faculty government. I pointed out that in the late 1960's and thru the 1970's the ex officio seats were utilized. In fact, at the CAAC's meetings, there were often more ex officii and visitors than faculty committee members. This proffered and facilitated outstanding communication. After the Deans' Council emerged (under the impetus and leadership of then Academic Vice-President Woodrow Ehrle) the Deans met together in assembly (originally without any faculty or Faculty Senate representation) and gradually stopped exercising their ex officio seats in faculty governance, particularly their speaking seats on faculty standing committees. Consequently and subsequently, our communication diminished, our concerns diverged and our sense of community was depreciated and fragmented.
Provost Pontius stated at that time that you would be invited to attend the Senate this year and become active in your ex officio seats on standing committees. You have, and on behalf of the Executive Committee and Senate, I want to thank you quite sincerely. Your presence here has not been taken for granted.
Together we share in the primary and advisory authorities of ISU "shared governance" as defined by the Handbook. These are collaborative and interrelated authorities and functions. The administration exercises primary authority in fiscal matters and advisory authority in curricular/academic affairs. The faculty exercises primary authority in curricular/academic affairs and advisory authority in fiscal matters. While it is in the administration's province to make final decision in economic matters, faculty need open access to fiscal data and University budgets in order to provide accurate knowledge to offer relevant and
UFS #9, 4/18/02
sound advice and consent. It is not in the University's best interest and not in the spirit of "shared governance" for the ISU administration to withhold accurate and open fiscal information from the faculty. And the faculty is entirely open and public with its information regarding curricular subjects and academic programs, which allows for full access to the administration for fulfilling its advisory function in this area of University life as well. In its best sense "shared government" constitutes this kind of interchange, collaboration, and dialogue, as it were.
As a humanist, I like to make reference to the root meanings of basic terms and concepts. Such etymological references often correct popular misunderstandings of basic words, phrases and concepts. Like "shared governance" there are common misconceptions of the common religious and theological terms "catechesis." "Catechesis" (or "catechism") is not an ecclesiastical hierarchy telling members what's right, what's dogma, what's orthodoxy, what to believe. Rather "catechesis" literally means a "dialogue among believers," and interchange or confession.
At ISU the authority out of which we govern is "shared governance." Authority isn't something handed down form Jerry Cerny to Ed Warner, nor is it some permission extended from Steve Pontius to Jerry Cerny. Rather, proper authority is "shared governance" which grows out of an on-going "shared conversation" between responsible and respectful professionals, a "shared conversation" in which we all have roles and stakes, rights and responsibilities. We share. To share means to offer and receive, give and take. We confer. To "confer" means to "carry together." We don't put the whole burden or load on one mule or one set of peons. Properly done, we share together, we carry together, we cooperate, and we communicate. Recall, colleagues the root work for human "intercourse" means essentially "communication"--that is, dialogue, sharing, speaking and listening.
If we have a "shared governance" problem at ISU, it doesn't mean we have a bad Handbook or need a larger voting Faculty Senate. It means we have basic communication problems, and we need more and better communication and conversations. At the last Board meeting, the Board President and President Benjamin both called for a "communication audit." Many of you will recall that when President John Moore was hired in 1992, one of the other two candidates was a female administrator from Wichita State (Ph.D. in the field of communications), and she called for a "communication audit." I agreed with her. And so did then Board President, Judge John Stelle from Clay County, who also called for a "communication audit" that summer. However, I cannot recall the University ever doing one. In my judgment, I think there is a far greater range of reasons for conducting one now than there was then (ten years ago), speaking candidly.
If there is to be a "communication audit" it ought not be limited to faculty, the Faculty Senate and its standing committees. It ought to include the President's Office, the Board of Trustees, the administrative offices, the faculty and even the SGA. We're all in this "shared governance" together and it takes us all--and lots of respectful freedom--to make it work fully and properly.
UFS #9, 4/18/02
Let's get at the task of sharing such information and governance more fully, more openly, and more democratically. If we're going to err, let's risk erring on the side of providing too much communication rather than too little. A University community is one which requires open and honest access to information and the resources of knowledge, since all the faculty professionals are experts in their own fields of expertise, and they require the freest democratic exchange of information and knowledge, ideas and interpretations. This is a calling and a challenge for all of us together. Thank you for hearing me out, colleagues.
Student requests for the Schedule of Classes to also be available in hard copy as well as electronic.
VI. Minutes for the March 28, 2002 meeting were approved (Gilman, Hamm 29-0-1).
VII. AEC and URC Recommendation: Summer Stipend Awards
The URC and AEC jointly propose an increase of $1,000 from the current award amount of $2,000 to a total stipend of $3,000 for a successful summer grant application but only if funded by the ISU Foundation.
Approved (Clouse, Christianson 29-0-1).
VIII. FEBC Recommendations
1) TIAA-CREF contributions be made for tenure/tenure-track faculty work in the summer for summer session contract salaries. Approved (Warner, Clouse 20-6-4).
2) Up to ten (10) percent of the total TIAA-CREF accumulation (attributable contributions and earnings while employed at ISU) be made available if the employee is eligible and agrees to retire from ISU and has attained the age of 59-1/2 or older. The employee must sign an irrevocable retirement cash provision form indicating University retirement, regardless of future financial conditions, within five (5) years following the date of requesting the in-service cash option. Brought off table and approved (Liu, Clouse 28-0-2).
3) Failed Searches Survey Report, accepted (McGiverin, Maule voice vote).
4) a. Reaffirm the previous recommendation of November 1999 that the salary for full-time non-tenure track faculty be $24,000 per year and that pay for part-time, temporary faculty be $1,000 per credit hour. FEBC urges the administration to increase these salaries by 15% annually to reach these salary goals; and
b. Parking fees for non-tenure track faculty working less than 9 hours per semester be the same as support staff and students. Approved (Harmon, Hudson 28-1-1).
Agenda was reordered.
IX. AAC Recommendations:
University Calendar 2004-05, Approved (Jakaitis, Hamm 26-0-4).
UFS #9, 4/18/02
Administration/Faculty Count, Accepted (Gilman, Harmon 29-0-1).
X. FAC Recommendation: Library Faculty Ranks
Removal of the rank of Senior Assistant Librarian as an official rank. The ranks of Assistant Librarian, Associate Librarian, and Librarian remain. Approved (Hightower, Muyumba 28-0-1).
XI. Standing Committee Reports of activity since the March meeting:
Administrative Affairs Committee, K. Liu --The AAC had met twice. April 10 meeting: Each subcommittee gave a report. The 2004-05 University calendar and the Faculty and Administration Count were approved. The AAC expressed appreciation for faculty response to the Professional Satisfaction Survey and survey data is currently being analyzed. April 15 meeting: Discussed the survey results and planned to forward outcomes to the Executive Committee on 4/16.
Arts Endowment Committee, G. Christianson--The AEC recommendation on today's agenda was the Committee's last action for this year.
Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee, R. McGiverin--The CAAC had met twice. Curriculum proposals were considered and summer meeting dates established.
Faculty Affairs Committee, R. Schneirov--The FAC met 4/3. Established summer meeting dates.
Faculty Economic Benefits Committee, S. Macke--The FEBC met once and forwarded items on today's agenda.
Graduate Council, D. Memory--The Council had met and considered curricular proposals, curricular procedures and made revision to the Policies and Procedures for Graduate Faculty Status.
Student Affairs Committee, M. Harmon--The SAC had met twice. Adopted resolutions: support the SGA's plan to administer Sponsored SIR questions; support the progress made in student financial aid office procedures; the University adopted the Code of Student conduct adopted by the Social Work Department; amend Handbook and all ISU Catalogs so that wording regarding the instructor's role in keeping attendance is consistent; keep the size of the SAC the same, but reduce a quorum to 50%.
University Research Committee, E. Bermudez--The URC met once and forwarded item on today's agenda.
A quorum was lost at 4:54 p.m.