9-21-99 Minutes

Faculty Senate Minutes
for September 21, 1999
Vol. xxix, No. 5

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

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

Present: J. Allison, R. Benedict, J. Best, J. Coons, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, B. Fischer, G. Foster, B. Irwin, G. Lockart, N. Marlow, J. Tidwell, M. Toosi, L. Walker, B. Young. Guests: T. Abebe, K. Bielenberg, J. Maholy, S. Skala, M. D. Wohlrabe.

Approval of the minutes of September 14, 1999

Motion (Fischer/Lockart) to approve the minutes of September 14, 1999.

Corrections: In Section III.H. (Communications) the University Union Board needs two faculty members. In Section IV.B. the original motion was omitted: Motion (Walker/Foster) to nominate Bailey Young to be the Senate’s liaison to the Library Advisory Board.

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

Communications

9-2-99 CAA Minutes. Dr. Lasky gave a report on the Honors Program. The main item of business was a discussion of a draft mission statement for General Education.
9-17-99 e-mail from Shirley Stewart regarding the Distinguished Faculty Award plaque. This will go before the Union Advisory Board, whose first meeting is scheduled for October 4.
9-7-99 CGS minutes. BIO 5380, Landscape Ecology was unanimously approved. A number of changes in course titles and descriptions were completed over the summer through executive action. Other discussion items included statistical consulting on campus, textbook rental policies for graduate students, and support for international programs.
Copy of letter to Governor and Senate resolution regarding BOT.
Copy of Presidential Inauguration Symposium Calendar and Calendar of Other Inauguration Events on campus.
Copy of proposed memo from Irwin to Surles regarding October 12 meeting.

Old Business

Committee Reports

Executive Committee. They will meet this Thursday with the President and Provost. The committee met last week to talk about their initial impressions of the survey data and other matters. Chair Irwin attended the CUPB meeting on Friday as the Senate representative. The executive committee was elected: Bock, Hine, Wall, Schnackel, and Weidner. The bulk of the meeting concerned the distribution of planning dollars. Each vice president made a report. There was a total of $506,000. The President took $100,000 for external relations because this is an area in which Eastern is far behind. At the meeting a question was raised about that sum of money. The President responded that we need to invest in the institution to get a return later on. Chair Irwin was requested to have the Executive Committee ask why that number ($506,000) was so small when more than $1 million was appropriated to the University. The CUPB meeting schedule was set for the year–1 per month through April. The planning process appears to be top-down, but it is not intended to be so. It is organized around the President’s goals but she wants to draw on initiatives from individual units. Most of the CUPB work takes place at the advisory committee level. The CUPB will be consulted throughout the planning process–earlier in the process than it has been before. VPAA Abebe explained that the State allocated more than $506,000, but at the top they had to exclude personnel services and deferred maintenance mandated by the State. This left the $506,000 in new money for new planning and initiatives. This was dispersed proportionately according to the base budget. Academic Affairs received $284,000. In terms of planning, the President made some observations about the campus, collected her thoughts, and then she set her six goals. Using those goals the vice presidents will make their planning statements. These will be distributed to the colleges and they can determine where they fit. In the past plans came from the departments and they became documents for disappointment. The University as a community began to question the entire planning process.

Elections Committee. A conversation with the chair of COTE confirmed that the Dean of the COS will name an individual for the Senate’s approval from Area 1 of COS for a 1-year appointment. They also discussed election by areas. An examination of the by-laws indicated that these are areas with colleges not across colleges (as was the case with UPC). This is a teacher education forum and there are certifying issues within the different areas.

Nominations Committee. There were seven committee/board vacancies. There were no volunteers for the Apportionment Board, IBHE FAC alternate, and Union Advisory Board. The committee recommends the following appointments: Environmental Health and Safety–Karen Ketler; Intercollegiate Athletic Board–Yunus Kathawala and Rick Seitz; Parking Advisory Board–Allen Davis; Student Publications Board–John Kilgore.

Motion (Eberly/Lockart) to approve those nominations.

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

The committee also recommends that we send out another call to fill those that are still vacant. Chair Irwin will also see that this gets into the Newsbits and Newsletter as well.

Faculty are encouraged to volunteer to serve on the following University committees/ boards: Apportionment Board (2 positions) , IBHE Faculty Advisory Committee, alternate (1 position), and Union Advisory Board (2 positions). Please contact Lankford Walker (School of Business) by Friday, October 8.

It was also noted that neither Walker nor Wandling had received any volunteers for the Child Care Committee. This is a voluntary committee.

Faculty interested in serving on the Child Care Committee should contact Lankford Walker (Business) or Richard Wandling (Political Science).

Faculty-Student Relations. The committee decided that it might be better to ask students to meet with the subcommittee once a month. When items especially pertinent for students will be discussed at Faculty Senate meetings, they could be informed so they could attend those meetings. Likewise, when items the are especially pertinent for faculty are on the agenda at Student Senate meetings, the faculty on this committee could be informed. They are still seeking names of interested students. They also recommend having some type of reception for members of Faculty Senate, Student Senate and Staff Senate. The committee will bring recommendations on the student code of conduct to Faculty Senate next week. Senators received a copy of the conduct code and a letter from Kohanzo that was sent to the campus. This will also be on next week’s agenda.

Faculty-Staff Relations. At their October 14 meeting the Staff Senate will determine other members of their committee that is the counterpart to this committee.

Search Committee for Graduate Dean. They will be scheduling their first meeting for the latter part of this month or the early part of next.

Search Committee for University Counsel. This committee meets tomorrow (Wednesday).

IBHE FAC. The committee met Friday, September 17 at Rockford College. Discussion centered on the role of the IBHE–which serves to mediate between the legislators and the University. Subcommittees were determined, and the meeting schedule was announced. Approved minutes for this group are on the Web site (linked to the Faculty Senate site).

Presidential Inauguration. The mural project is set for October 7 and 8. There are four faculty hours; all faculty will be invited to participate on Thursday, October 7 from 1-2 and 4-5 and on Friday, October 8, from 11-12 and 2-3. Eighty faculty members are needed.

Survey Results. A discussion of the faculty survey results included the following:

The importance of academic quality, as reflected by the data, speaks well to our choice of forum topics and indicates that this should continue as a topic. The major concerns were lack of support and rewards. Quality comes out at the top. The lowest things seem to be what you need to have academic quality.
We can collect data on travel support and make recommendations.
Everybody is interested in academic quality, and we do not have what is necessary to be good.
Maybe this can be presented in terms of opportunities–present and lost. Say each of us has two major association meetings that enhance our teaching and scholarship. We could list those two and the associated costs as well as what we actually receive. The difference in funds is the difference between what was done and what might have been. This is an opportunity cost. We need to make a clear statement about what we could have done if we had the resources.
The planning process is the problem. We are allotted a certain amount for travel. At the end of the year, we may (or may not) get more if there is money that has not been spent for some other purpose. Part of the frustration is that we do not know how much will be there.
Travel is especially important for junior faculty.
This ex post facto reimbursement at the end of the year is nice but a lousy way to do it. Faculty expect only a small amount for travel and adjust their travel plans accordingly. They drive instead of fly, and this means they are able to spend less time at the meeting. They end up getting much less from the conference. A shortsighted legislature does not see value in what we do. L We should tie the type of travel we do to the type of travel they do. We travel to hear our constituents (others in our field) and to recruit for the University.
Part of that academic quality is due to the faculty bringing that quality to the institution. How will we keep that quality at its highest? We need faculty development, research–not just travel.
One of the goals was to raise general operating lines in each department by 10 percent for 5 years. This should go a long way to fund travel and other quality issues. (This was cut to 5%).
We need to be careful as we go about requesting information from departments. Different DACs may have less emphasis on travel.
Travel supports our research but from a policy point of view, our research enhances what we produce in the classroom. It is more than a line on our vita. We hire high quality people. Now we must retain and nurture that talent.
One suggestion is for the University to fund 1-2 professional/academic memberships for each faculty member.
It is important for us to get out and meet other people who do what we do. It invigorates us. We should invite our representatives to meet with the Faculty Senate; good timing would be after the forum.
If you look at the list of low items, we could have come up with these without the survey. We all know it is due to lack of funds. One way we as Faculty Senators can do something at our next forum is to discuss: given these problems what kind of information do we need to gather to make the case that this is a problem–what type of quantitative hard data? That could be one focus. The second thing we could determine is what are some things we could do to solve these problems. This could become a tool to sell our case to the legislature.
We should bring something to the forum that brings a focus. A drafting committee could begin to look at the minutes from the last two forums, the IBHE goals, the President’s goals, and the faculty survey and draft items that could be brought to the Senate in the forum of recommendations to improve academic quality.
We have provisions for a research committee. That could be called into operation as an ad hoc committee to gather data.
We should consider ways of doing more presentations here at Eastern for faculty members and students in the forum of workshops, presentations, etc. We need to demonstrate the link between faculty development, going to meetings, research.
We must convince the state that it is in their interest to allow us to do research, and that instruction is not separate and distinct from research.
A good communicator quickly learns the kinds of language the other uses so that when they communicate the appropriate language is used. For us to communicate with the legislature we need to use their language.
It was suggested to have the forum focus on 4-5 specific issues. At the beginning of the forum there would be short presentations on each issue. The audience would be invited to divide into solution-oriented work groups. Senators would select one of the groups and serve as facilitator/recorder. The outcomes of the groups would serve as action items for the Senate. The drafting committee could look at these items to set 4-5 issues for the Senate’s approval.
There was some doubt about academic quality because the faculty morale was not as high as it should be. If you are not happy, you cannot be doing your best. When talking about language, we should use the word "mentoring" instead of research. One-on-one teaching is the best teaching in many circumstances.
Assessment is the answer to many of these problems. Collaborating with people within and outside our departments is important. If the Senate is selecting topics, assessment should be one.
There is also some concern about the perception of the Faculty Senate as a body. This should be discussed. The numbers were fairly good, but the comments were negative.

Allison, Benedict, Eberly, and Irwin volunteered to serve on the Drafting Committee to examine the documents and to develop 4-5 specific issues for the forum. They will try to have a report in two weeks.

President’s Visit to Senate. Senators suggested some modification to the topics for the President’s visit to Faculty Senate. The Faculty Governance issues should be discussed first, then the President’s six goals. There was some question about the wellness issue although it is certainly timely.

Adjourn at 4:10 (Walker)

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy D. Marlow, Recorder