FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
FOR JANUARY 12, 1999
(Vol. xxviii, No. 14)
I. Call to order by James Tidwell at 2:00 p.m. (Conference Room, Booth Library)
Present: J. Allison, J. Coons, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, G. Foster, N. Furumo, R. Gholson, B. Irwin, G. Lockart, N. Marlow, J. Tidwell, M. Toosi, L. Walker, A. Zahlan. Excused: J. Best. Guests: T. Abebe, K. Franken, M. McMahon, W. Weber.
II. Approval of the minutes of December 8, 1998.
Motion (Walker/Gholson) to approve the minutes of December 8, 1998.
Corrections: The date (December 8, 1998) and the number (13) should be added to the heading.
Yes: Allison, Coons, Fewell, Foster, Furumo, Gholson, Lockart, Marlow, Tidwell, Toosi, Walker, Zahlan. Abstentions: Irwin.
A. Minutes of Council on Teacher Education-December 8, 1998
B. Minutes of Council on Academic Affairs-December 3, 1998
C. Minutes of COEPS Curriculum committee-December 14, 1998
D. Memo from Frank Hohengarten concerning screening committee for director of financial aid-December 17, 1998
E. Memo from Floyd Merrit concerning university attendance policy-January 7, 1999
F. Account Statement for Faculty Senate-January 4, 1999
G. Note from Gail Richard of Campus Master Planning Committee. The Campus Master Plan Committee is through the next phase. There is a campus open meeting on January 19, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. in the Charleston-Mattoon Room of the Union. The Senate will adjourn early next week to attend that meeting, assuming there is no other pressing business.
IV. Old Business
A. Committee Reports
1. Executive Committee. Chair Tidwell asked President Jorns if he would be giving a State of the University Address; he declined. Thus, there will probably not be one this spring. The new president may want to have a convocation. Perhaps something like this could be done in conjunction with a reception. In the past there have been formal inaugurations or other activities to mark the coming of a new president. The Senate may wish to contact Susan Gilpin with the BOT to see what plans the Board may have. The type of inaugural event planned would be up to the new president.
2. Nominations. The student vice president for finance may want the Senate to add another faculty member to the Apportionment Board so that this Board is assured of a quorum for its meetings.
3. Elections. This committee will meet briefly after today's Senate meeting. There needs to be a replacement on the Admissions Appeal Committee for Evelyn Goodrick.
4. Faculty-Staff Relations. They hope to add to new business an opportunity for a Senate position in regards to outsourcing and chargebacks.
B. The minutes from the Executive Session (December 8, 1998) were distributed to the Senators. These are still not public. At next week's meeting the minutes will be approved and the Senate will decide whether they will be made public.
V. New Business
A. Screening Committee for Director of Financial Aid. John Flynn will be retiring from this position on February 28, 1999. The composition of the committee will be Brent Gage, Chair, Faculty Senate (1), President's Office (1), Staff Senate (2), Student Senate (2), Other Students (2), Business Services (1), Enrollment Management (1). The Faculty Senate was asked to submit the names of 2 or 3 interested faculty members for consideration. Those faculty interested in serving on this screening committee should contact James Tidwell (preferably by e-mail cfjat) by January 19, 1999 at noon. In addition, anyone interested in serving on search committees in the future should contact James Tidwell.
B. Report from Provost Abebe. He thanked the senators for the work done last semester and added that his first semester at EIU was very good. He asked that the campus reaffirm the values upon which academia was established: integrity, excellence, rationality, community, civility, openness, and responsibility. He also noted that 1999 is the centennial year for Old Main. He would like to establish a committee of five or six individuals, mostly faculty, to plan an appropriate celebration-one centered on academic activities--for this centennial. One possible idea would be to have lectures from EIU faculty scheduled one per month. Any faculty members interested in serving on the Celebration Committee for the Old Main Centennial should contact James Tidwell. The Provost also communicated with the Senate that we will be looking at the issue of assessment in a different light-what can we do to make assessment affordable and geared to the success of our students. Mary Herrington-Perry will be looking at this. Assuming the State approves the IBHE recommendations, our budget outlook for next year looks positive. The decisions made last year, although difficult, have benefited Academic Affairs. Some of the deans who may have had issues with that policy are now praising these moves. Provost Abebe was in China December 11-21, 1998. The purpose of this trip was to attract students to EIU, provide training opportunities for business executives from Kunming, China, and to examine the possibility of offering EIU's MBA at Kunming University. The trip was very successful. During the question/discussion period following the Provost's report the following points were made:
There will be a national search beginning soon for the Dean of the Graduate School.
The motivation behind the China project is that at institutions like EIU the students need exposure to international diversity. About 1 to 2 percent of our students should be international. It is hoped our students will benefit from this.
There was a discussion of ways to assimilate international students into our culture. This is difficult because these are things that we cannot tell people to do. Some of the support can come from the international office.
Last year it was decided that international programs belong under the Graduate School. This may not be the right place for it. If we are looking to develop international programs, it should be separate.
There was also a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks to international exchanges and programs.
C. Discussion of Senator Toosi's letter of November 9, 1998. Senator Toosi would like to see more efficiency and effectiveness from this organization. To be more efficient we need to do some time management. We have lengthy discussion of items that are not on the agenda-often with no information on that subject. We should avoid discussing subjects not on the agenda. If the item is important, it can be put on the agenda. If it is urgent, the person bringing it up should bring information to the need to share with the other senators. To be more effective we, like any other advisory committee, need to have reliable data. He suggests that the Senate form a research committee to collect information on an annual basis. This committee could prepare a questionnaire and modify it every year. We are representing the faculty; we need to know what they think and what they want. We also need to pay attention to other clientele of the University, industry, for example. We need to have a systematic approach for bringing data together. He suggested that we conduct our business in two parallel lines-proactive assessment of what we should be doing while still dealing with the issues that pop up. In the discussion, the following points were raised:
As a deliberative body, our power is the power of discussion.
Some discussions are not always inefficient. Sometimes we have to rely on recollection.
Discussions may bring up questions that we have. That is when we need to decide if the discussion should be continued-after the discussion starts.
The absence of data is a problem for us. Sometimes that absence is not our fault; in fact the absence of data is sometimes what we are discussing.
In many situations the Executive committee will try to find the necessary information.
The Senate, by definition, is a deliberative body, and deliberation is not always efficient. We do not have to go to either extreme. There is a trade-off that we may have to accept.
It would be helpful to have a subcommittee to help draft positions. It is often difficult to develop a position on a complex issue during the meeting.
The executive committee has been good at getting the information we have requested.
It would be helpful to have communications distributed individually as they are introduced. The important points could be highlighted, and senators could request individual copies if necessary. A former Senate chair would summarize communications and distribute them one at a time. This worked very well.
Others felt that the folder system works well for communications. We can easily tell which items need to be examined-as we did today.
UPI did gather information with a survey. Can we use some of that data?
We need to become proactive. Information will allow us to do that-to see which issues are important.
For any communications that may result in action, have a deadline of the week before the meeting. Then the communication should be shared with the Senate.
The Senate needs to be more proactive. If something comes up, fine. But if I am going to react to something, I want to be prepared with information to make a good judgment. If I can't, then I want to wait until that information is available to make a decision.
We may be harder on ourselves than necessary. Many of the issues that do pop up have been important to those who presented them. Our forums are proactive in nature.
It is somewhat the nature of our structure to be reactive. Many times individuals come to us as a last resort.
I find my thinking evolving with the discussion. If discussion were minimized or truncated, I am not sure that such evolution of thought would occur.
We do gather information by asking people to come and talk with the Senate and we distribute this information to the campus through our minutes.
We could enhance our operations by doing two things-have a floating drafting committee and have a deadline for communications that may require action, barring an emergency situation.
Chair Tidwell appointed an ad hoc committee to consider the suggestions made in the preceding discussion: John Allison, Pat Fewell, Gary Foster, Bonnie Irwin, and Mori Toosi (chair).
D. Discussion of forum on departmental mergers. This may be a subject of negotiation in a future contract. If we do something in this area, we should direct it to how we would like things to be done in the future-not dwell on the past. This would be an opportunity for us to be proactive. It might be helpful if we do have a forum to have several approaches to suggest to the faculty. We may be able to answer this question without a forum. We do not want a forum that would overshadow the arrival of our new president.
E. Other issues.
1. If we are going to discuss outsourcing and chargebacks, we should hear both sides. We do not want a discussion based on hearsay. It was suggested that the Senate invite Ted Weidner to discuss the issue.
2. Senate should consider the following: (1) what do we want of our new president; (2) what does she want from us; (3) what do we both want for this institution. Chair Tidwell has sent a letter to her from the Senate. Between now and March 1 we can certainly consider the first of these.
VI. Adjourn at 4:00 p.m. (Walker)
Future Agenda Items
A. Invite Dean Lanham to speak about the library relocation
B. Invite Ted Weidner to speak about outsourcing and chargebacks
Nancy D. Marlow, Recorder
Faculty interested in serving in any of the following ways should contact James Tidwell, Journalism (cfjat)
Screening committee for Director of Financial Aid-no later than January 19, 1999 at noon
Any search committees in the future
Celebration Committee for Old Main Centennial