FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2000
(Vol. xxix, No. 19)

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 2:10 p.m. (2504 Buzzard Building)

    2. Present: J. Allison, R. Benedict, J. Best, G. Canivez, J. Coons, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, B. Fischer, G. Foster, B. Irwin, N. Marlow, J. Tidwell, G. Kelly. Excused: G. Lockart, M. Toosi, B. Young, K. Bielenberg. Guests: T. Abebe, R. Cain, S. Gustafson, J. Laible, J. Moore.

  2. Corrections to minutes of January 25, 2000.

    3. Section IV.A.a. should read: VPSA and VPAA worked with their CUPB advisory committees. The Acting VPEA consulted with the External Relations Committee.

    Approval of the minutes of February 1, 2000.

    Motion (Eberly/Fewell) to approve the minutes of February 1, 2000.

    Corrections: Section V.B. should indicate that the Council of Chairs has not made a recommendation to the VPAA regarding textbook rental. In Section III.S. it was noted that The Commonwealth Club is a forum for the presentations of programs; it is not itself a program.

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

  3. Communications
    1. Minutes of the Council on Academic Affairs, 27 January 2000.
    2. Senator Coons presented a communication from Carl Woodrich, Graduate Student Advisory Council, which asked why graduate students enrolled for theses credits only and students enrolled in student teaching had to pay a textbook rental fee. Also he noted that as things are currently scheduled, during fall semester the cutoff date for the purchase of textbooks by graduate students is before those with assistantships receive their first paycheck.

  1. New Business
    1. EIU Foundation, Dr. Jon Laible Foundation Executive Officer and Mr. Richard Cain, Foundation Board President. Laible noted that last year he was serving in both of the above positions. The other Foundation Board officers are Jack Schultz, vice president, Susie Preston, secretary, and Maggie Hollowell, treasurer. The Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation separate from the University. It is called a University-related organization. They can use the name and services of the University, and the generally follow the procedures of the University but they are not bound to those procedures. There is a confusion about the role of the Foundation. The Foundation has donors that have contributed to benefit programs of the University. Virtually everything they get is earmarked for a particular program. Those employees located at Brainard House report to Jill Nilsen. There are development activities all over campus; this is one of the issues the new VPIA will want to address. The Foundation currently has $31.5 million in assets; the endowment is about $21 million. About 20 new scholarships, 7 new nonscholarship funds, and 3 new charitable gift annuities were established during the past fiscal year. During FY99 $363,000 in scholarships was distributed to students; this was a 12% increase over the previous year. They try to invest for at least 9%; 4.5% comes out for the stipend, _% for administrative fees, 3% is allowed for inflation, and 1% is allowed for investment fees. The overall portfolio increase in FY99 was 21.9%. The endowment made 23.4%, and the charitable gift annuity pool grew by 25.6%. The asset mix is 65% stocks and 35% bonds, 70% U.S. and 30% international. During the question/answer period the following questions and comments were made:
      • How much money did the Foundation make last year? About $2 million; about $400,000 was dispersed. The Foundation also has to do payouts on the Charitable Annuities. This amounted to about $600,000. About $5 million in trusts and payments must go out as well. In addition, it was noted that the Foundation is building for the future.
      • We do not see those numbers on the University side (in terms of our funding). The Foundation is acting in our behalf. There is a problem with how much money is seemingly being made and how much comes over to us. Laible corrected that the Foundation is not acting in our behalf; it is acting on behalf of the donors.
      • Money can come to the University without going through the Foundation. There are things the Foundation can do that the University cannot, however. If you make a contribution to the University, you are actually making it to the State of Illinois. Some people are more comfortable giving to the Foundation than to the State.
      • Where does the Foundation stand in the search for the VPIA? They are on the same page as the President. There are three people associated with the Foundation on the Search Committee. The Foundation has a real commitment to this search; they put $20,000 into the fee for the search firm.
      • What connection will the foundation have with the VPIA? If the Foundation has a good working relationship with the VPIA, I will be happy to turn things over.
      • What role did the Foundation have in the money raised and the naming of rooms in Lumpkin Hall? The money was raised through the efforts of the then Lumpkin College of Business; the funds were handled through the Foundation. In situations like that, the Foundation serves as a conduit.
      • The Foundation is about long-term funds. It was the philosophy of former VP Falk that the future of fund raising was in future money. However, there is also always a need for annual gifts. Annual funding is a great way to identify those individuals who can make a significant gift down the road. If you develop friendships with those people, then when it comes time to make out a will, it is possible we will benefit. It really amounts to friend raising.
      • What is the size of our endowment compared with other state institutions? We compare well with the other similar state institutions. It was suggested that the Foundation may want to go into a "teaching" mode to reduce tensions among faculty who perceive the Foundation sitting on money that could be put to better uses.
      • How do you see the VPIA working? The job of raising the funds is development business. We have been faking it for the last several years. We have various groups on campus who have been doing fund raising. Acting VPEA Nilsen has done a good job of talking to potential donors and learning about fund raising. We really do not have professional development on campus. We have been getting along, but we are anxiously waiting for some leadership.
      • The Senate thanked the Foundation for being so helpful with the Distinguished Faculty Award last year.
    1. Old Business
      1. Committee Reports.
        1. Executive Committee. The Executive Committee met last Thursday with the President and the VPAA. Several items were discussed:
          • State of the University Address. This has been tentatively scheduled for March 28 in Lumpkin Hall 122.
          • VPBA Search. There is no timetable as yet. The President prefers not to be running two vice presidential searches at the same time. Concern was expressed by senators that the acting VPBA did not meet with the CUPB Advisory subcommittee. There needs to be someone in that position who is willing to work with the governance assistance and someone who is accountable as a vice president. It was added that the acting VPBA is following the model set by his predecessor. The President feels that she needs this time in Springfield and does not want to put energy on the VPBA search now. The Executive Committee will bring the concerns expressed the acting VPBA not working with his advisory subcommittee to its next meeting.
          • VPIA Search. The Executive Committee shared with the President that the faculty understood the reason for scheduling interviews during the summer and agreed with that process as long as it did not become a practice. It was noted that the President has asked all vice presidents to do some succession planning within their offices. Hopefully, this will prevent the situation in which everyone is searching at the same time. She was not talking about handpicked successors but rather professional development. There has not been much mentoring in many offices. It was cautioned that there is a fine line between mentoring and inbreeding. However, as individuals prosper here, they are sought out by other institutions. If we use them here, perhaps we won’t lose them.
          • Technology and the Illinois Century Network. This was mentioned in the governor’s State of the State address. It is a priority of IBHE and an area in which EIU needs to improve. There are a number of state initiatives. The mere mention of the word "technology" inspired an intense discussion:
                    • It is abysmal for a faculty member to dial in on the network. There are no plans to increase the lines or the speed. If technology is meaningful, we need to address this. This is also a serious academic issue, especially given the library situation.
                    • The Student Senate has looked into this, and they have asked to have more dial up service.
                    • The opportunity will be coming to influence some of the new people coming in. There needs to be a grass roots effort from both the faculty and the student side.
                    • Computing services should be housed in Academic Affairs. This would be a perfect opportunity to make that change.
                    • Faculty are frustrated with the expectation of putting courses on WebCT when it is impossible for any nearsighted person to be able to see the screens in our classrooms.
                    • The students do not have a 24-hour computer lab.

        This discussion will be continued.
              • The state of Illinois plans to hire a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. Currently, we are one of the few states without one.
              • The President hopes to hold roundtable discussions on campus to deal with a variety of issues. Technology is one of them. This is in the very early stages of thought. There are many things that need to be discussed on campus. The Senate could do and has done quite a bit of this, but the type of roundtable discussions the President envisions is not something that we are set up to do within our meetings. This is more of a task-oriented fact-finding. Senate will, however, probably be involved in the process.
              • Textbook Rental Services. There are conversations taking place between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. The sense is that it might be better to let that conversation take place before we get to far into our discussions. There are not talking about elimination; they are talking about revisions. However, no specific recommendations have been made yet.

        Motion (Canivez/Allison): After careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the Textbook Rental System, the Faculty Senate recommends the termination of the Textbook Rental System for all graduate students.

        Voting will take place on this motion at the February 15 meeting.
            1. Elections Committee. Senator Best presented petition for nomination, the list of positions, and the relevant questions for Senate approval. These documents are attached to the minutes. There was some discussion of the Academic Program Elimination Review Committee. Neither of the two individuals elected to that committee last year had been contacted by anyone since their election. Senator Best has been unable to discern who the chair of that committee is and the committee bylaws. However, it has been determined that it is a contractually obligated committee. It is called if the elimination of a program causes the elimination of positions. It was also noted that the Senate should request minutes as well as a brief annual report from all committees for which we run elections and provide nominations.

              2. Motion (Allison/Foster) to approve the election materials including revisions.

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

            2. Student/Faculty Relations. Student Senator Gary Clark reported that the Student Senate will discuss the request by a student that murals be painted in Coleman Hall. This is a very involved procedure, and funds would have to be raised. There is also a life expectancy for such things. Chair Irwin said that she was unsure what the Faculty Senate’s role would be in this. The student has done considerable work and research on this and talked about tying the themes of the murals to the departments where they would be housed. She was very professional in her presentation. The building services people and the colleges should weigh in before this group makes a recommendation.
            3. Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee presented the following motion. It will come up for a vote at the February 15 meeting.

        Motion (Benedict/Allison): The Faculty Senate commends the UPI negotiating team (David Radavich, Charles Delman, Carol Jean Dudley, Lora Green, Matthew Monappillil, and Grant Sterling) for their conscientious work and tenacious dedication in supporting the faculty and staff at Eastern Illinois University.
        1. Adjourn at 4:00 (Eberly)

        Respectfully submitted,

        Nancy D. Marlow, Recorder