The Faculty Senate agenda is posted weekly on the Web, at 2504 Buzzard, and at 315K Coleman.

1. Call to order by Bonnie Irwin at 2:05 p.m. (2504 Buzzard Building)

Present: J. Allison, R. Benedict, J. Best, G. Canivez, J. Coons, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, B. Fischer, G. Foster, B. Irwin, G. Lockart, N. Marlow, J. Tidwell, M. Toosi, B. Young, G. Kelly. Guests: B. Augustine, G. Aylesworth, M. Beurskens, J. Cech, W. Clark, M. Cook-Bey, S. Figiel, Y. Guan, K. Hastings, M. Heidel, B. Kabat, M. Layette, J. Moroney, E. Sanders, C. Shaeager, L. Simpson, R. Turning, T. Williams, C. Wodrich.

2. Approval of the minutes of February 15, 2000

Motion (Foster/Canivez) to approve the minutes of February 15, 2000.

Corrections: In the motion under IV.C. the word "conscientious" is misspelled.

Yes: Allison, Benedict, Best, Canivez, Coons, Eberly, Fewell, Fischer, Foster, Irwin, Tidwell, Toosi. Abstentions: Lockart, Marlow.

3. Communications (only those pertaining to TRS motion; others postponed until next week)

1. Phone call from John Pommier, Leisure Studies, 16 February 2000. Senate should consider including seniors in the motion. They do not even have the options that graduate students now have and many need their books. In leisure studies, students find themselves tracking down books after they have graduated in order to prepare for a national exam.
2. Memo from Denise Love, Graduate Student, 16 February 2000. Students already have opportunity to buy books, if they choose. Only 4% chose to buy in Fall 1999. Will books for undergraduate courses have to be purchased? Will graduate students still have access to other benefits TRS provides? What will happen to courses that are using texts currently out of print? Will graduate students be able to obtain books from previous courses? Graduate students should decide this issue.
3. E-mail from Michele Heidel, GSAC President, 16 February 2000. Jennifer, Cech, Greg Landry, and Carl Wodrich are on the GSAC subcommittee preparing recommendations. Several members of GSAC will attend 2/22 meeting.
4. E-mail from Robert Augustine, Graduate Dean, 16 February 2000. Will attend the 2/22 meeting, appreciates that senate has opened discussion to include CGS and GSAC. GSAC is working on proposal that will represent student views. TRS cannot be eliminated until another system is in place, and there is a plan of transition.
5. E-mail from Doug Howell, Graduate Student, 22 February 2000. EIU known for being affordable TRS is part of that. We should not increase students’ debt load. Faculty are putting their interests ahead of students on this issue. Students can purchase and read books on their own; they come to graduate school to hear from faculty. Faculty should concentrate on teaching and not on getting the most up-to-date books. If faculty want to eliminate TRS, they need to participate inputting together a credible plan to replace it. TRS is "a gem on Eastern’s campus to be enjoyed and protected."
6. E-mail from Robert Turning, Graduate Student, 22 February 2000. EIU mission statement states that the University "offers superior yet accessible undergraduate education." Graduates do not need faculty telling them which books to buy for their professional libraries. EIU prides itself on its uniqueness; TRS is part of that. Please focus on restructuring current purchase options rather than total elimination.
7. E-mail from Dave Figgins, Graduate Student, 22 February 2000. Textbooks are always changing and become out of date. This disputes the argument for graduate students amassing personal libraries. Books that are useless to the students would probably not be resalable.
8. Memo from Marilyn Lisowski, 22 February 2000. Raises the question about charging for textbooks in workshops, special courses, international programs, when no textbooks are used.

4. Old Business

1. Motion regarding Graduate Student Textbook Rental

• Genie Lenihan, Chair of CGS: When consulting with graduate students, we found differing responses to this that may be discipline-related. In clinical psychology we encourage students to buy their books. It is not easy to do under the current system. It is a bureaucratic nightmare. Last year the deadline for purchase with return of rental fee was three weeks into the semester–before the first graduate stipend check arrived. TRS could be made more student friendly. It is easy to purchase texts on line but students would still have to pay TRS fee if they pursue other options for purchase.
• Michele Heidel, President of GSAC: We are putting together a small group to look at policy changes and get feedback from graduate students. There appears to be two separate groups for and against rental, but everyone agrees that there needs to be changes in the current system. For example, you have to take all of your books physically to the TRS. Opinions vary from department to department.
• Bob Augustine, Graduate Dean: One of the greatest areas of concern is the unfriendly policy regarding purchase of the rental books by graduate students. Policies that do not support graduate students include a too brief purchase time period, having to physically have the books with you at the time of purchase, the "purchase all books" requirement, and inconsistent information to graduate students regarding purchase policies. Faculty have identified policies regarding textbook rental that impact quality education–how frequently a text can be replaced, restrictions on the dollar amount for the number of texts desired, and restrictions on the selection of texts related to rotational topics and seminars. In addition, faculty are concerned that a rental system does not create a culture in which acquiring a professional library is a part of graduate education. However, his research on textbook purchase systems indicates that purchase systems may create their own concerns that impact the quality of education. In a purchase system the driving force is profits, not providing services for students and faculty. Bookstores, for example, do not enough books for all of the students enrolled in a course. Changing the rental system requires a well-developed and cohesive plan that is part of an overall plan for enhancing graduate education at EIU. Other critical issues of priority currently face graduate study at EIU that require intense time and development and may be more critical currently than textbook management. I commend you for talking about issues related to graduate education and urge you to refer this matter and any other matters of graduate policy making to CGS and GSAC for study and development as part of the long-range planning process.
• Why should there be rental for undergraduates and not for graduates? In response to that question it was explained that many faculty would like to remove rental across the board. This was seen as a more intermediate step in the process. It is extremely critical at the graduate level. Graduate students need to have a professional library, and they do not have the general education requirements of undergraduate students. Books are more concentrated in their areas of study. In addition, graduate students have to pay the rental fee even if they are enrolled only in thesis hours. This proposal would eliminate that requirement. The primary concern is one of academic quality as it relates to graduate education.
• Some programs would suffer. Some students would not come to Eastern. Paying for textbooks would require two of the five stipends.
• It is rare to have a rental system at the graduate level. It would make no difference to some students in some programs. In some way rental acts as a barrier.
• Why not work on ways to adjust the system?
• If teachers do not like the system because it jeopardizes quality, then that could be a reason for eliminating the system.
• If it is eliminated for graduate students would that cause the fee for undergraduate students to rise? The response was no. The TRS Advisory Committee has asked the administration to determine the impact if graduate students would purchase their texts. The income almost exactly matches the costs for graduate students.
• Some senators figured the additional costs to graduate students. In biological sciences it would be an additional cost of $600. One senator indicated that he is torn because he does not like the system but he cannot put another $600 bill on the students.
• Given the low stipends and the fact that graduate students will not be faculty clones, I cannot offer this money to book publishers. Graduate students in Counseling and Student Development would end up paying over a $1,000 more to purchase books over four semesters. We must encourage students to want books.
• The limitations that we must adhere to require us to use old books. There are other costs associated with textbook rental. With the pick and choose method of purchase, the stock of books becomes depleted to the point that you no longer have enough to provide to students taking the course. In the meantime new editions come out. We do not want to force an approach on TRS that would cause them to lose money. There is a range of facts to consider.
• I have had the experience in a course I was teaching in which one book exceeded the TRS limit. That did not even begin to address the other issues that needed to be considered in the course. In courses in my department, there is overlap in which different sections of a single book may be used in different courses. Students could purchase one book that could be used in four courses. Students do not get the same value out of a rental system.
• I am uncomfortable voting for the motion because there is nothing in place. That would not be a responsible way to vote. I would like to see CGS, the Graduate Office and GSAC develop a plan.
• Of course planning would have to take place. But before people plan they first indicate their goals. That is the purpose of this motion–to indicate what goal we (at least some of Faculty Senate) prefer. It is not as though suddenly the TRS would cease to exist.
• It took TRS administrators three years to complete the input-output analysis requested by the TRS Advisory Committee. TRS is not very responsive to the committee. That has been very frustrating.
• I would like to keep TRS but have a more user-friendly system. I am responsible enough to choose the books I want for my library.
• I have also been on TRS Committee and can attest to the lack of response. The message from TRS has been that it must stay the way it is. The Council of Chairs has been discussing this issue and appears to be favorable to the recommendation regarding graduate students. Many of the same concerns regarding academic quality, restrictiveness, and out of date books have been expressed. Another concern that has arisen is that TRS is out of space, and they have asked departments to reconsider ordering additional books. That is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog.
• Obviously, TRS has a big problem, but we cannot simply pass that problem on to our students. Students need to have a choice whether to buy or rent.
• There are a number of important priorities that we need to address for graduate education. Is the TRS the top priority at this moment? It is critical that it be part of a comprehensive plan. If we should discover that we could have some alternate system then we would be in a position to take action. I am anxious about trying to isolate this issue.
• The deadline for purchase date can be changed by a memo from the President at any time.
• What about off-campus students who are not graduate students but taking graduate courses or graduate students that need to take undergraduate courses?
• Faculty Senate is not obligated to come up with an alternative. The proposal was to eliminate TRS for graduate students. This is an opportunity for Faculty Senate to take a position on this issue. This is a system that faculty do not like for a variety of issues related to academic quality. We do not have solutions, but the first step in the process is determining if the rental system is doing what we want it to? In my mind, philosophically and professionally, a purchase system would be better.
• The intent is to establish a goal and later to determine the means to achieve that goal. The graduate degree is cheapened by the system that we have. Is our primary interest in going cheap or in quality education?
• It seems like the problem is the system. Instead of improving the system, however, we are eliminating it.
• We have a system currently in place. To eliminate it wholly would be a rash decision. Until you raise my stipend, there is no way I can purchase textbooks. We need to tweak the system, not eliminate it.
• It is cheaper in the long run to pay the fee when we are not taking classes that require textbooks then it is to buy books.
• Wouldn’t it make more sense to make a recommendation that has meat behind it?
• The purchase and resale system may not resolve all of your concerns. Each school contact raised other issues with purchasing. We do not want to replace one set of problems with another.

1. LANDesk Presentation. The Senators went to Ninth Street Hall for this presentation. Ron Phillips gave the presentation with Cheryl Crowdson giving the demonstrations. Other guests included Dave Henard and Bill Witsman. Prompt and accurate software support includes installation and assistance in using the software, including training and problem resolution. The goal is to provide optimal use of resources; however, we are not meeting our goal. There needs to be a faster response time. In 1990 there was one technician and 91 microcomputers on campus. In 1999 there were two technicians and 2500 microcomputers. This year there are three technicians; however, they also took on many new tasks, which amounted to a full time person. The budget will not allow us to provide the services we need. LANDesk Management Suite offers the tools we need to deal with this problem. It provides current and accurate hardware inventory, current and accurate inventory of specific software, the capability of distributing software across the network, and the improvement of customer support. The software inventory includes the software we support and that which may cause a conflict with the software we support. That is all we are interested in. The software inventory is taken any time the customer is logged on but only of that software listed on the table (demonstrated). The distribution allows distribution to occur during nonworking hours without disrupting the customer. There is no other access to the machine in software deployment. The hardware inventory information will be shared with selected hardware technicians on a need to know basis. If LANDesk had been on all machines on campus, we could have easily done a Y2K compliance check. It could have saved the customer and us many hours of time. The improvement of customer service is available through the remote control real time analysis. This is the feature that will benefit the customer more than anything else. It reduces the time required to solve problems and eliminates the need for the customer to explain the type of problem he or she is experiencing. The technicians can see exactly what the customer is seeing on the monitor and, in most cases, go ahead and fix it. All micros are set up so that they cannot be remote controlled unless the customer gives express permission to do so. In addition the customer will know if his or her micro is being remote controlled, and they can cancel it at any time. The customer is in complete control of this at all times. With LANDesk technicians can handle 10-12 problem calls where they could handle one before. The remote control capability is limited to only seven people in ITS. They are all very trusted high-level people. It will never be used by students or lower level staff. When the customer is asked to allow his machine to be remote controlled, he should be on the phone with the technician. LANDesk will not be installed on any faculty member’s machine at this time unless they request it. It does work for Macs in a limited way; we can do the inventory and the remote control but cannot distribute software. There are separate products that work on the Mac side. Remote control provides immediate and accurate customer problem analysis. Since FY95 software support technicians have averaged over 1000 on-site customer service visits per year. Most of these could have been solved without the technicians leaving their offices in a matter of minutes with remote control. Service calls now average 65 minutes to resolve the problem as compared to the 29-minute average in FY 96. Problems are more complex because the customer has more sophistication. This allows technicians to solve the problems without leaving the office in minimal time with little disruption to the customer. Additional features of LANDesk include remote execution of programs, file transfer, chat, forms, and reminder. The first three require customer permission; the latter two are indicated by either a data request box or an information box. The only thing that can be done without express permission is software deployment, but for that the customer must leave his or her machine on. Every machine with LANDesk can be automatically updated for Norton Antivirus. This program was selected after significant research. Cheryl Crowdson demonstrated remote control and chat.

4. Adjourn at 4:25 p.m. for lack of quorum

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy D. Marlow, Recorder