FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
FOR DECEMBER 7, 1999
(Vol. xxix, No. 14)
The Faculty Senate agenda is posted weekly on the Web, at 2504 Buzzard, and at 315K Coleman.
Present: J. Allison, R. Benedict, J. Best, G. Canivez, J. Coons, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, G. Foster, B. Irwin, G. Lockart, N. Marlow, J. Tidwell, M. Toosi, B. Young. Excused: B. Fischer. Guests: T. Abebe, B. Augustine, A. Baharlou, K. Barua, M. Butt, R. Godfrey, M. Loudon, J. Maholy, D. Suksang.
Motion (Allison/Lockart) to approve the minutes of November 30, 1999.
Corrections: In Section IV.C. first bullet, "Friday" should be "Saturday." Throughout the minutes "Wittsman" should be "Witsman."
Yes: Allison, Benedict, Best, Canivez, Coons, Fewell, Foster, Irwin, Lockart, Marlow, Tidwell, Toosi, Young.
Drs. Butt and Baharlou were asked to attend this meeting because of the involvement of the International Programs Advisory Council with the original proposal. The fee proposal was developed and presented by former director Brian Boulter. Dr. Augustine addressed each of the issues presented to him. (1) Instituting a student fee without student consultation. The fee proposal came before the international students, but it was done quickly. It was acted on in the January 1999 meeting of IPAC. There is a student representative on that council as well as the international student advisor; however the student representative was not present at that meeting. The proposal was sent to the Presidents Council and approved. All of the various processes were followed. (2) International students already pay fees; why all the extras? The International Office wanted to increase the number of international students on campus but needed to increase its resources to do this. The fee provided a source of continuing revenue for the program. The services provided by the fee are specific and different from those covered by the regular fees. The campus legal counsel also reviewed the proposal. (3) Potential of fee to harm recruiting efforts. A fee increase will not adversely affect the ability to recruit. One of the largest groups arrived this fallafter the fee was instituted. They were notified of the fee. The fee provides funds to adequately support the international student population. Even with the fee, Eastern would continue to have the lowest tuition, fees, and housing in the state. It was noted that 37 international students have tuition waiver scholarships, and 24 have assistantships. There are other forms of financial aid for international students. Fifty percent of the total tuition for all international students is being waived; this totals to $465,000. Before international students can attend Eastern, they must provide evidence of their ability to pay. The fee was included in those guidelines. (4) The students felt insulted when it was suggested that "if they dont like it, they can leave." Those who work in the international office have a great commitment to international students. They have opened their homes and provided rides for the students. Augustine felt confident that no one in the office would make such a statement. The idea of the fee was to give the office significant opportunity to have the resources to build the type of program that would make Eastern proud. They sought student input for the fee. A task force examined how the fees were used. They suggested changes in how the fees were to be used. They have moved forward to implement those suggestions. During the question/discussion following Augustines remarks, the following points were made:
A. Committee Reports
Planning was the major topic of both items b and c. Both external and internal pressures drive planning. Many of the changes in the planning document resulted from the ongoing discussions of planning on campus. The demand for consultation was fulfilled because the document was presented at an open meeting of CUPB. Both Nilsen and Surles were adamant that faculty are involved in the process throughoutboth formally and informally. This is not a document carved in stone. It is a revision of what we used to have and will be revised as needed. This is a short outline. The faculty are consulted and should be throughout the process. It is, to a certain extent, top-down, partly because the top is off this campusthe legislature and the IBHE. It was suggested that there needs to be better communication after the planning process is over, communication back down to the original units so we can know the results of planning. The President reiterated the need for flexibility at here level so she can take advantage of opportunities when the present themselves. She asked us to give administrators the latitude to administer as we are given the latitude in academic matters. There was very much in the Presidents comments that this is an organic outgrowth of what we have done. The first time around we had to specify everything. Now we can presuppose these things are there. We will have opportunities along the line to use our voices. "Recommitment" is ongoing in national discussions in the field. We are committing again, but that does not mean that we have not been committed. The input was gathered long before President Surles got here, and some of the changes came from the focus groups from two years ago. During the discussion, the following points and questions were made:
B. Fall Forum. The subcommittees distributed their reports.
C. Textbook Rental Service. Additional materials were distributed the Senate. We will take this issue up next semester also.
Nancy D. Marlow, Recorder