INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 14, 2014
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Member Absent: A. Anderson
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: D. Hantzis, R. Lotspeich, L. Spence
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley:
i. Homecoming went very well; for the most part, it rained when it was acceptable to rain. The participation by faculty and staff in Tent City was very good and well-attended by many. I thank everyone for being a part of that.
ii. I spent yesterday lobbying two Commissioners and two Legislators on behalf of our budget.
1. R. Guell: Is a $4 million trim more likely?
2. D. Bradley: I am trying to impart that, but many conversations are futile, but I want to be able to say to Luke Kenley, “Yes, Senator, I did talk to them and convey our concerns.” We will know probably before Thanksgiving what the Commission’s actual recommendation is. They have listened to every district except Vincennes and will have a special meeting. They have not made a formal decision on capital or operating budget requests.
3. There is also a Board of Trustees single-item meeting on the 23rd on bond refunding.
b. J. Maynard: The deans had a competition for the best Homecoming exhibit and the winner will be announced on Thursday.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell: In terms of my report, on Thursday we take up a couple of elements of our previous list of Handbook changes that some folks had concerns with. Regarding the universality of Blackboard, I am cajoling the administration and the Registrar to do what is necessary so in 2015 we are in a position where every faculty member is entering grades into Blackboard and they are automatically exported to other places. This is going to require priority on the project list, that is, for those folks in OIT and the Office of Registration and Records. I am meeting with A. Hay, L. Spence, the President, and the Provost on Friday to try and put that functionality on the top of the list. I think it is vital to have that piece on order to sell this to the faculty. That data can be used in many places, especially if applied in a timely fashion.
b. R. Guell: If you could pass my iPad to the President, what you are looking at, Dan, is what appears on the Handbook web page for the Whistleblower Policy. It replaces the existing language with the proposed language and asks for comment about that section. If you go to the Handbook and click on “Whistleblower Policy,” what comes up is “This is what we’d like it to be” and “What do you think?” The original language needs to be there.
i. D. Bradley: My guess is it’s a glitch. It’s a legitimate way to solicit input, but the original language needs to be there.
ii. R. Guell: I think that was the intent. One could read it to assume the work the Handbook in italics is published rather than being italicized to indicate that it is the new language. I would ask that the original language be there.
c. R. Guell: My third concern comes from a department chair who beseeches Administration to acknowledge that many things have gone into the Handbook and are going into the Handbook that specify actions taken when faculty fail to perform a certain duty, and that recent events caused him concern regarding whether Administration would follow the Handbook as closely regarding imposing the discipline that is warranted in those cases. There is a series of new elements in the Handbook, and we are about to have others, that proscribe actions with faculty with regard to having a syllabus, two weeks getting work back to students, uploading grades to Blackboard, all those things. There may be disciplinary action with failure to do so. He wants to beseech the administration to follow Handbook policy when faculty fail.
i. D. Bradley: That will happen. I would say that the ability for us to assess whether faculty are meeting those requirements will depend on the chair in particular being aware of what’s going on.
3. Approval of the Minutes of October 7, 2014 V. Sheets, K. Bolinger. Vote: 8-0-0
4. Report from AAUP: R. Lotspeich
a. 1. Student Evaluations of Instructors: Several members of AAUP-ISU Chapter question whether student evaluations of instructors—such as the standard SIR reports—are valid indicators of the quality of instruction. Yet these are the standard tool for evaluating teaching quality at ISU. The AAUP officers are concerned that most administrators and many faculty members accept this measure of instructional quality without an appropriate critical review of the process by which the data are generated, which implies both random variability and inherent bias. Given that ISU is currently undertaking an extensive revision of the survey instrument that will be used in future, it seems like an appropriate time to examine serious research on student surveys used to evaluate instructional quality. We urge faculty and administrators to carefully consider the statistical research on student evaluation of instructors in developing a policy for assessing instructional quality.
b. 2. Collegiality as a Criterion of Faculty Performance: The local chapter was recently consulted on a department’s development of promotion and tenure guidelines, which included collegiality as a criterion of faculty performance. Our opinion was that all reference to collegiality as a criterion should be deleted from their guidelines. This advice was followed, but we want to raise this as a broader concern across the entire campus. AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (the AAUP “Redbook”) contains a cogent statement on the drawbacks of including collegiality as a criterion. The Executive Committee of the local chapter finds it compelling, and we referenced this document in our opinion to the department. While we do not believe that ISU should slavishly follow all pronouncements of the national organization without a critical review, in this case we believe the recommended best practice from Committee A is appropriate for ISU and should be respected.
i. R. Guell: A department had in their draft Promotion and Tenure document collegiality as an element that, as I think because of AAUP’s concern, and as a result of my pledge to take it to the Senate floor, was pulled by the college committee.
ii. S. Lamb: To follow, that has been a concern of faculty and the Faculty Senate from day one, and we have shared the same opinion that AAUP expresses. While it can be important for productivity and impacts upon research and teaching, as a standalone descriptor of an individual we have always argued against its inclusion, has always been accepted grudgingly by the administration. It’s a continual fight and a concern of all faculty and AAUP.
iii. E. Hampton: Was it evaluative component or in the document itself?
iv. R. Guell: Evaluative and could have been determinative.
v. K. Bolinger: You don’t wish it to be part of an evaluation but are okay with a separate civility or collegiality policy? Or are you against that in any measure?
vi. R. Lotspeich: We were dealing with it specific to evaluative for promotion and tenure. Not tying it to a separate policy. I do think civility is important. I don’t think a formal policy will express that.
vii. S. Lamb: That is always a concern. We do run into situations where I think once you begin down that path…
viii. R. Guell: If the administration wishes us to take up a civility policy we will do it civilly and courteously through a faculty governance process.
ix. D. Bradley: The bottom line is that tenure is a qualitative decision. Whether we have a policy on civility and collegiality or not, those traits are always going to be considered at every level.
x. R. Lotspeich: Our position would be that they shouldn’t be considered separately.
xi. D. Bradley: It’s a whole that is being evaluated. Two people with the same level of collegiality and civility wouldn’t necessarily get the same result. People have different contributions.
xii. R. Lotspeich: The AAUP statement says it is an issue, but difficult to examine in an objective way. When collegiality hampers the traditional domains, then it is important.
xiii. K. Bolinger: Individually, but not as a department? Collegiality can affect a department’s ability to work toward common goals.
xiv. S. Lamb: That can be reflected in the service component, too.
xv. R. Lotspeich: It’s difficult to have an effective policy on that. Cases of outrageous incivility should be addressed through grievances.
c. R. Lotspeich: 3. Lack of Due Process in Addressing Allegations of Deficient Faculty Performance: Officers in the local chapter have been asked to give counsel regarding recent actions taken toward addressing allegations of deficient faculty performance. We do not want to raise the details of the case here, but we do want to express an overriding concern that applies more widely, which is the importance of following due process. We understand that our colleagues sometimes behave badly and sometimes are deficient in performance of their duties. Those deficiencies need to be addressed, but any disciplinary actions should be undertaken following a specified set of rules and norms—which we broadly call due process.
d. There are two aspects of how the recent case was handled that are particularly troublesome. First, provisions in the University Handbook seem to have been completely ignored. Second, evidence cited in support of the disciplinary action has been kept secret. A basic principle of due process is that evidence used to justify a disciplinary action should be made available to the accused individual so that they have an appropriate opportunity to respond to the evidence. AAUP-ISU Chapter urges faculty leaders and administrators to insist on adherence to due process principles in such circumstances.
i. D. Bradley: I would suggest, and J. Maynard feel free to comment, that no disciplinary action has been taken in this particular case. A change in teaching assignment has been made. If there is a need for a disciplinary action, due process will be followed accordingly.
ii. R. Guell: I think it is impossible to read the letter in question as anything other than disciplinary. I will leave it there and take it privately if necessary.
iii. S. Lamb: These last two concerns you have brought to us have been well-talked about and are on the table.
iv. R. Lotspeich: We are pleased to hear that.
5. Report from OIT on Security Issues and on Blackboard/Mapworks/Banner Linkage Attempts: L. Spence
a. R. Guell: I have asked L. Spence here to join us on two topics: one is network security issues and what actions OIT has already taken and will be taking with regard to faculty computers soon; and the Blackboard/Mapworks/Banner linkage discussion.
b. L. Spence: On the side of security issues, this broadly has to do with our implementation of a tool, Microsoft Systems Center. We have the capability now to manage the Windows environment more actively than in the past. We set up workstations to be as secure as we could, but the way we set up the workstations, anybody had administrative rights, but if malware was downloaded it had the opportunity to damage machines because it was open to those changes. This approach and tool will allow us to more actively manage the environment. The goals are better data security and better reliability. In starting to use it we have to take a couple of specific actions. One is to implement the first round of a continuous set of procedures that we require—your Windows updates that occur on a monthly basis. We had to play catch-up because people had not updated up to 500 of these patches. We can see where people are in regards to these patches with this tool. We have worked with some to bring it down and apply the patches. When you have many of these patches, it is more complex, time consuming, and failure-prone. Going forward we will do this monthly and it will be easier. In the catch-up process we could have done a better job of communication. We could have prepared people better. We know after help from R. Guell and D. Malooley we need to refine our messaging to be clearer. What will happen from now on is on the second Tuesday of the month Windows delivers its patches. Microsoft distributes them monthly. We will take a week to test those patches internally and on the Wednesday following the third Tuesday of the month we will release them to you. You will be able to click on the taskbar and it will give you a choice to update to do later. Then you will have 4 hours from then in which to restart your machine. We gave four hours as a window in the hope that in any four hour window it would be enough time to choose that period of time to restart.
i. R. Guell: What is the typical timeline from having to give up the machine to the patches to being able to work with it again?
ii. L. Spence: It should be minutes, not the more complex processes that happened in the past. The catch-up event was different. Some updates take longer by nature.
iii. R. Guell: Do we pretest these patches to make sure they don’t break Kronos, Banner, Blackboard, etc.?
iv. L. Spence: We try to do that to make sure they work with our major software.
v. V. Sheets: Why is it essential I restart my computer right then? Can I do it at the end of the day?
vi. L. Spence: You can wait until the end of the day. We can choose to make the timeline 8 hours instead of 4.