Approved 01/20/11 EC # 5

29-0-0

FACULTY SENATE MEETING

December 16, 2010, 3:30 p.m.

HMSU – Dede III

Present: S. Lamb, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, J. Buffington, J. Conant, N. Corey, C. Crowder, R. Dunbar, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, L. Hall, T. Hawkins,P. Hightower, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, K. Kincade, C. Klarner, J. Latimer, J. Kuhlman, M. Lewandowski, C. MacDonald,

W. Redmond, T. Sawyer, M. Schafer, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, S. Shure,

G. Stachokas, L. Tinnerman, B. Yousif, and A. Solesky (P.T. Faculty Advocate)

Absent: B. Corcoran, D. Hantzis, C. Lunce, L. Kahanov, T. McDaniel, R. Osborn,

Ex officio: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard

Deans: A. Comer, J. Gatrell, B. Sims, B. Williams, J. Murray

Guests: T. Allen, S. Buchanan, P. Carino, A. S. Chirhart, T. Derrick, R. Dolle, R. English, R. Hunter,

L. Maule, L. Sperry, R. Perrin, R. Peters, Y. Peterson, D. Yaw

I. Memorial Resolution for Howard McMillen, read by Robert Perrin.

II. Administrative report:

a. The Indiana Commission for Higher Education has made its recommendation for budgets for the next biennium. They are proposing that our budgets be reduced by $2 million each year. They mitigated it somewhat by suggesting a repair and rehabilitation budget of about $1.7 million each year. But still any reduction of significant size is detrimental to our being able to continue what we are doing. The way they handle that is that they basically reduce everyone’s budget by 5% and then use some performance metric to allocate that $61 million that resulted from that 5% reduction. In our case we were given some additional dollars based on our efforts in the area of dual credit, low income degrees, on-time four year degrees, total bachelor’s degrees awarded and credit for an increase in successfully completed credit hours. It turns out that the matrix we did the best in was on-time degrees. Without really doing anything our four-year graduation rate has climbed from about 21% to about 23.5% over the last two years. That particular metric resulted in about $1.8 million in each of the next two years. Of the 5%, we got about half of it back. Some schools got their budgets cut over 5%, and some got increases of more than 5%–we are about in the middle.

b. Faculty positions: The provost has been authorized to do 42 searches; 14 of those searches will be for special purpose faculty, 28 for tenure and tenure-track faculty. Based on a meeting that we had today, I have an agreement with the deans and the provost to allow us to begin searches very early after the start of next year.

c. The Board of Trustees meets tomorrow (December 17). We have a number of reports. One of them is the health insurance program and where we see it going. The premiums are going up about 7.5%. We need to do something about our health insurance and there will be a lot of discussion about that as we go into the next semester.

d. I want to wish everyone Happy Holidays and thank you for your efforts over the past year, particularly the efforts that allowed us to absorbed 1000 new students this fall. You made it look easy even though I know it wasn’t. No or few complaints from students or parents about how we handled this big increase in enrollment, so thank you for your efforts

Provost: I join with the president in wishing you all an enjoyable and happy holiday season. Commencement is Saturday (December 1). About 800 of our students will be graduating. I hope that each of you can attend this event.

III. Chair report S. Lamb:

Colleagues,

Virgil Sheets is going to share the onerous duty of the chair’s report with me, and will be speaking as soon as I have concluded.

As you know, at the October meeting we tabled the performance evaluation model, so that greater involvement from the faculty body could occur. Since that point, we have had two open forums; we have established a web site for input, monitored by Bob. We have made change after change as a result of input given. All input has been considered. Frankly, we, the Executive Committee members, have worked continuously on this document since that October meeting. It was our hope that if we gave most serious consideration to the input given, that most serious consideration would be given to the resulting product. None of the Executive Committee members believed that the purpose of the motion to table was to stall. We did feel, and still do, that the motion was made in order that the model could be improved. Special thanks go out to so many Senators who reviewed and improved the document significantly. Top among them are Robert Goldbort, Rick Schneirov, and Karl Klarner. They sent suggestions forward, or worked with individual Executive Committee members to improve the document, as did so many others.

Dr. Goldbort is between a rock and a hard place. He among all senators has spent numerous hours improving this document. His massive input has been taken and largely incorporated into the model. His Department, however, voted almost unanimously last week to bring the process to a halt. We will hear from Dr. Perrin today.

Dr. Goldbort, in a resulting plea sent to several colleagues, asks for even more additional time to hear from individuals and determine the best possible model. He states the following:

“Iam simply saying that, after all these years, we do have a chance with this presidentto workin a partnership climate that still maintains faculty ownership andallows a dignified evaluation/reward process.So let's give this issue the time it really needs, and continueto hear fromcolleagues as we determinethe best course, -----“

Regardless of the results of today’s deliberation, the Senate is indebted to Rob for the efforts he has made. I do believe that the Executive Committee has greatly improved the product, and I do believe that this product as it exists now does give us an excellent chance to work in an effective manner with the president, and does allow an existing dignified evaluation/reward process. While marginal improvements could always be made, it is time to bring this round to closure.

Significant changes have been made. Among them are the following:

• The paragraph linking this process directly to dismissal proceedings has been eliminated.

• There is language designed to deemphasize the importance of SIR’s.

• The limitations placed on the appeal process have been completely struck.

• There has been a serious attempt to modify the language to create a dignified evaluation/reward process.

• There is a significant relaxation of the adherence to the 15% standard for the number of individuals receiving the Contributing Exceptionally classification in any period.

• There has been added an introduction stating the purpose and goals of the process.

• The importance of diversity in the formation of the College Personnel Committees has been stressed.

·  Pre-tenured faculty may choose to opt out of the process if they so wish.

• A faculty member may forward to the college a one- page objection to the evaluation immediately after receiving the opinion from the department personnel committee and the chair. This objection is then incorporated into the package as it moves forward to the dean and college committee, making this process somewhat parallel to other evaluation processes. –thanks go to Kit Kincade.

• And finally, colleagues, there is a process by which at the end of each biennial period, the results of the model are reviewed by FAC, which is charged with suggesting improvements to the process. Colleagues, an Improvement process is built into the model.

I have been informed that the Exam schedule has prohibited senators from getting to this meeting until later. At their request, I would like to change the order of the agenda, if there are no objections, so that this item will be dealt with immediately before the diversity statement.

I do hope that when we get to this issue, meaningful debate is allowed. The votes taken must be by a secret ballot. Feelings run deep. Individuals feel the need for anonymity. Again, we seriously considered all input, and incorporated much. I do not know what more we could have done. Colleagues, the Executive Committee does hope for your support. Your turn, Virgil

V. Sheets:

I am concerned about the future of our profession. Anyone with any awareness understands that education is under assault. The public perception is that they are not getting their money’s worth; they want accountability and continue to support cutting educational funding until they get it. They see tenure not in its role to protect academic freedom but as a union device to protect people who are no longer held to high standards in teaching and scholarship. Of course, we know this is wrong, and I, for one, favor any evidence that we can develop to show this is wrong. To my mind, there’s no greater way to protect tenure than to share with the public that tenure is NOT protecting “dead wood,” but that faculty are professionals who hold each other to high performance standards. Thus, I have no problem being evaluated, because I believe that an examination of the work that I and my faculty colleagues do will reveal that ISU faculty continue to demonstrate high levels of performance throughout their careers.

The proposed review system is not perfect. But then no system is. However, to me, it meets several important criteria. First and foremost, it is simple. We are already required by the Handbook to make an annual report of our professional activities, and I’ve always felt that I shouldn’t need to report more than that, that if someone simply looks at a listing of the papers I present and publish, at the committees I serve on, and at the numbers of students I teach, there will be no doubt that I’m doing my job, and that’s basically all that’s requested here, a 3-page description of my activities. Second, the decisions to be made are not onerous; they should not eat up inordinate amounts of my colleagues’ time as would be necessary to do a fine-grained analysis; nor will they generate the rancor associated ranking each and every faculty member against each other from highest to lowest. Am I meeting the high standards of the ISU faculty? Am I not? Or am I doing so much that my colleagues want to express special recognition? Those are the judgments to be made. Finally, these judgments are being made by my colleagues, rather than by an administration that is substantially removed from my day-to-day activities.

This proposal has undergone stringent review. It has been approved by multiple layers of FACULTY governance and has been improved by input from across campus. It has a built-in review by FAC to address any emergent problems. It’s time to move on. Please, let’s vote on it today. I, for one, would like to have time to do something else before my review.

IV. Support Staff Report – R. Torrence – no report

V. SGA report – no report

VI. Special Purpose Advocate Report

A. Solesky: Issue – 15-hour load for Special Purpose Faculty

The issue was first brought to my attention from another SPF member on Monday 12/6.

I have been unable to find specific guidance in the University Handbook other than these statements:

(310.1.1) Normal Teaching Load: the normal teaching load will be 12 semester credit hours of course work per semester or 24 per academic year

(310.1.1.1)Overload: in emergency situations an extra class may be assigned and the faculty member will be compensated at an established rate per semester credit hour

305.2.5 Special Purpose Faculty: SPF shall be assigned duties equivalent to at least a 24 hour credit hour teaching load (12 credit hour teaching load per semester)

Needing more information, I have been told by other faculty members, that there is an “understanding” for tenure and TT faculty that they will teach 9 to 12 hours and have research and/or service obligations that equal a 15 hour equivalent.

It is my understanding that the 15-hour equivalent will now extend to SPF. That those who already have a full teaching load plus administrative and/or service obligations will not have their teaching load increased; but those SPF that do not have administrative or service duties will begin teaching a 15 hour load.

However, I have already heard from a SPF member who does teaching plus service that he has been asked to teach an additional class in the spring on top of his other duties because of this.

Without a clear policy put into writing for the 15-hour equivalent load I fear that SPF may be taken advantage of. The information presented in the December 7 minutes is not clear.

Full time temporary faculty did receive the increase in pay to $1000.00 per credit hour to compensate for their work contributions, but are now being told they will have to do additional work.

Questions:

·  How are various service duties calculated into a faculty load?

·  Does the pay difference between a SPF member and a full time lecturer differ enough for what the SPF is asked to do?

Provost’s response: We are appointing a task force about how we classify our faculty, including Special Purpose faculty. A. Solesky will be a member of that group and be asked to addresses the above-stated issues and others. We asked Dean Balch and Mark Green to co-chair that group. I would ask S. Lamb and the Faculty Senate to recommend some faculty who could also represent this group. I would like to get this group started by the beginning of the New Year.

VII. Approval of Faculty Senate Minutes of November 18, 2010 subject to edits (per Chair report) P. Hightower/N. Hopkins 30-0-0

VIII. Fifteen Minute Open discussion:

a. R. Hunter: My name is Robert Hunter, and I am a Professor of History. I come before you today to speak to the issue of the change in the rule of eligibility for Emeritus status from 10 years of service at ISU to the current 15. And I am here to request that you find some way of accommodating faculty with problems similar to mine.