INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015

March 26, 2015, 3:30pm, Dede III

Minutes

Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, C. Olsen, A. Anderson, C. Ball, K. Bolinger, C. Fischer, T. Foster, E. Hampton, D. Hantzis, M. Haque, M. Harmon, B. Kilp, A. Kummerow, I. Land, K. Lee, D. Malooley, A. Morales, D. Richards, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, E. Southard, M. Sterling, K. Yousif

Members Absent: K. Berlin, L. Borrero, P. Bro, B. Bunnett, R. Lugar, S. McCaskey, C. Paterson, L. Phillips, J. Pommier

Ex-Officio Present: Provost J. Maynard, T. Allen, A. Badar, L. Maule, J. Murray, Y. Peterson, M. Reed, B. Yousif

Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley

Guests: T. Hawkins, J. Hays, J. Powers, L. Spence

1. Administrative Reports: a. President D. Bradley: Absentb. Provost J. Maynard:

i. The President regrets that he is not here. He is in Indianapolis for additional meetings with the legislators on the budget. It is still unknown exactly what will happen; there is a possibility that the base budget will experience a reduction of two to four million dollars. The funding for renovation for the Arena continues to be on the table. Conversation about Hulman Center is also still on the table. We will start to see the full picture around the end of April. We will also receive direction on any tuition increases. Time will tell.

ii. Everyone has seen that we have a new Vice President of Student Affairs, Willie Bates, will begin May 15. The President is very pleased.

iii. The new Provost, Michael Licari, will be on campus tomorrow. iv. We are getting to our many end-of-the-year celebrations. We started with

Community Engagement awards, and there is almost a different awards program every week or so until Commencement. It’s a great time to celebrate everyone’s accomplishments.

v. The search for General Counsel is close to ending; by the week after next we will likely have our finalists, and will hopefully have one chosen by July 1.

vi. The President has been holding Strategic Plan Goal Report-Outs for the past two days; we have been sharing successes and progress.

vii. The Scott College of Business is celebrating fifty years on April 10. viii. It is also Women’s History Month, and our campus is having a week-long

celebration. Please stop by and participate in these excellent programs. This evening we a faculty member is having a talk on the history of Title IX.

2. Chair Report: R. Guella. R. Guell: Ballots go out tomorrow morning, and voting will end in one week.

Results will be announced almost immediately. An informational meeting of newly elected and returning Senators will be in Monday, April 6 on the ninth floor. We will create name tags for next year’s Senators so that you can then self-identify which office position you would like to run for. This get-together is merely a conversation starter—no speeches, just conversation. The meeting for formally elect next year’s officers will be April 9.

b. R. Guell: There will be a formal Executive Committee meeting next week, and because our usual room is occupied, it will be in room 918 in HMSU. There is too much to do on section 305.

c. R. Guell: We will also talk about 305 today—April 16 is already on the calendar as a possible date, but now there will definitely be a meeting in which we will chew through line-by-line amendments for 305, with hope we will get all the way through and then pause and allow anyone who wants to think about it enough time to do so and it will be the first agenda item on the April 30 meeting.

d. R. Guell: At that time we will likely have the new Sexual Violence Policy. FAC has met and has thoroughly reviewed it. AAC met today and SAC has also had a chance to discuss it.

e. R. Guell: AAC dealt with a request by the President to consider advancing the Office of Community Engagement to the Vice President level. That will come before us on April 30 as well as two FEBC motions including using some of the ten semesters’ fee waiver on graduate education as well as one to deal with spouses on our health insurance allowing them to use the Rec Center free of charge. Also on the 30th will be the Amorous and Familial Relations/Conflict of Interest Policy. My question for you is whether you would like a meeting on the 23rd of April or May 7 during finals week…looks like April 23 is preferred.

i. C. Fischer: The UCC people may not be able to be here that day.ii. R. Guell: I understand.

3. Staff Council Report: M. Reed for R. Torrence

a. M. Reed: The members of the Staff Council would like to thank R. Guell for his work on the Sick Leave Policy.

b. M. Reed: An appeal had gone out seeking Grievance Committee members. Twenty-seven people have expressed an interest. Human Resources will conduct mandatory training sessions in the next few weeks. Members will serve a 3-year appointment.

c. M. Reed: Staff Council officer elections will be taking place in April, with the new Executive Committee taking over on June 1.

d. M. Reed: The annual council meeting opened to all staff will take place on Wednesday, May 13 from 10am-12pm at HMSU Sycamore Banquet Center.

e. M. Reed: The Canvas on Campus fundraiser netted $500, all of which goes to the Staff Council Scholarship Fund.

f. M. Reed: An additional fundraiser is going on this Friday. The Indiana State massage therapy students will be giving chair massages in Stalker Hall 211 from 3:00-5:00pm. Please click on the link provided in ISU Today to schedule a time; however, walk-ins will be accepted. The massages are free but donations are being accepted and will go to the Staff Council Scholarship.

4. Temporary Faculty Representative: M. Morahn: Absent.5. SGA Report: O. Findley: Absent6. Approval of the Minutes of February 19, 2015: A. Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 25-0-07. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion

a. D. Richards: I read with distress about the new initiative to enable Vigo County high school to teach college-level courses. As a parent and an instructor of graduates of local high schools, I can attest that local schools are struggling to even prepare students for college. Handing them the responsibility to teach college is a wrong move. In general we are pushing in the wrong direction. There is a quality/cost trade-off here. I would like to hear a response from the advocate of this initiative.

i. J. Maynard: As many know, the College Challenge, or Dual Credit Program, has been around for several years and the model of having high school faculty serve as college faculty has been around since I’ve been in office. That is not new. There is increased pressure across the state to increase the number of students participating in dual credit programs. We have received grants from the state to provide training for high school teachers for the past 15 years or so. This early college program adds to the opportunity for them to come to campus and reduce tuition by taking advantage of being taught by regular faculty during the summer. If all is in place they can come in with thirty hours of credit. Concerns about credit are what we struggle with, as well as training and ensuring the quality of instruction is good. There are things that are done well and things that

aren’t. We have many competitors in the state—Purdue, IU, Ball State—all playing this same arena trying to reduce the time to degree completion.

ii. C. Olsen: I am not an advocate, but I’ve been involved for a while. I’m assuming it rests often on courses that have been approved by faculty at different points. My concern is that those change, and I would worry about how to present this to parents and students when they think a course will fill a certain requirement; it will disappoint many. The UCC handles and approves what gets counted for Foundational Studies. We need to be careful with how we present this. We can’t get away from it, and it has been around for a long time. I think wide expansion of programs like these dilutes the quality.

iii. J. Maynard: This program is restricted. It’s an opportunity for us to try to recruit these talented kids to make a commitment to enroll. That is part of the goal. There is no doubt that communication with students and parents is key. Dr. Brauchle and his shop are overseeing this and they will work very strongly towards this.

iv. K. Brauchle: They are good points. Everything we are doing we are doing in collaboration with the academic department. They have to have the right credentials. There is oversight, visits, etc. so we are comfortable.

v. M. Haque: Right now high school students can take Advanced Placement classes and exams, and their grades transfer. They have a high standard. I don’t know how this would work.

vi. C. Olsen: The main problem I have had with this for years is that high school students need a C or better. High school teachers are under immense pressure not to give grades under a C. I would like to trust teachers and simply ask who deserves credit and who doesn’t. They also agree this is a foolish plan, almost to a person. There is no exam at the end of this. I’d rather we trusted high school teachers to be responsible and state who deserves credit. That is a different battle.

vii. J. Maynard: I was just reviewing students for the Hines Medal. Everyone who was in the final group had at least eighteen hours of credit prior to enrolling, between Advanced Placement and Dual Credit courses. We have programs across the country where you get an Associate degree and a high school diploma the same day—I share your concern. The realities are uncomfortable. We need to do the best we can within our region.

viii. R. Schneirov: In the larger context there is the decline and assault on liberal arts values across this country. High school courses aren’t Advanced Physics or Vocational Education courses. They are English and History and Sociology or the equivalent. In some cases, Math. We have to, on a state level as well as national, speak up—us, administration, AAUP—speak to the importance of liberal arts values because we are the ones that

have to guard that. We are the guardians. Our inability to speak up to this is leading to this sort of thing. I feel this day is coming; I can see where there won’t be any history department, for example. The legislation is pushing in this direction.

ix. D. Hantzis: The conversation about College Challenge and Dual Credit Programs is different than early college. High school students would come to our campus during the summer and take our courses. I think in terms of University College Council and what we’re looking at in terms of pressures of enrollment, I’m sure these things are being talked about. I agree with everyone about the complexity of the issue. Pressure is very high now, but this other one I’m concerned about impacts on the workforce.

b. S. Lamb: I was hoping D. Bradley would be here. I prepared a comment for him. I do think we’ve had an assault on quality for some time and I think we’re losing. That is nationwide. This is a note to D. Bradley:

i. S. Lamb: Dan, I do so much appreciate all that you have done for this university, and you have done it primarily by listening to your own counsel. We are all aware of your abilities and what they have done for the University. You have succeeded in making ISU most viable.However, I strongly believe it is time for you to change your strategy. I think the austerity program that you have led us through has put us in wonderful light with the state. Because of you efforts, because of your use of FTE/student ratios, you have made this the institution that the state points to. However, your tactics are now becoming, or are perceived to be, punitive to the institution by most stakeholders. Our spirit is being crushed.Understand that the deans and all faculty have responded responsibly to your real need—that is, to the university’s real need to become more efficient.We have met your challenge positively, time after time, to the benefit of the institution.Now this strategy is beginning to harm the institution. We can cut no further without sacrifice to our students without doing a poorer job of delivery of our programs. It is time to provide additional resources to the academic body, and not by taking from one and delivering to another.All are stressed. All are engaged in non-productive work, attempting to write position paper after position paper proving the stress upon their unit and the need for additional resources. This need should be most obvious to you. You have accomplished your goal. Proceeding with the same tactics one more year will be counterproductive. Any more and the real cost will far outweigh the benefit.

Receive the advice of your vice presidents and of your deans. Turn the spigot on to some extent. The institution is healthy. The reserves are there. Let us have some sunlight. Let us reward the institution for its adherence to your productivity goals. Dan, the institution has effectively been changed because of your inspired leadership. You must now change with it.

c. T. Hawkins:i. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and thank you for

taking the time to read my previously circulated comments. Since they were sent to you, the Executive Committee has taken steps (that R. Guell will explain) that excuse me from stretching out a full agenda with any extended remarks on the subject of advising and teaching. My written comments lay out my position in detail.These comments were prompted by what I saw last week as a precipitous move to seek Senate approval for revising current Handbook language to bring advising explicitly within the teaching domain. My opposition then and now to such a move is threefold: philosophical, practical, and procedural.My philosophical opposition is based on my belief that classroom instruction and the years-long training required to make us successful in this environment is not equivalent to the training required to advise our students. I do not deny that overlap exists between the two. Certainly good teaching and good advising are both essential in moving students towards graduation. However, in my view, equating the two dilutes the definition of teaching and the extensive work we do to ensure that our students receive the benefit of our disciplinary expertise. This belief is not universally held on campus, as I have come to learn, but it is a position maintained by many—if not a majority. If we need a university-wide policy that resolves the question once and for all, then let us set aside the time to debate the issue thoroughly and find a consensus.My practical opposition is based on my belief that should advising be recognized as teaching, the university does not have in place the essential institutional framework to launch such a fundamental change to our operational policies. Vague Handbook statements currently recognize advising as teaching. However, long-standing practice at ISU places advising within the category of service when considering faculty workload. Until we know what needs to change and what impact this change would have across all levels of the university, we should not move forward with a broad policy statement. It seems to me unwise to make a definitive declaration regarding this issue now and then push off all the uncomfortable details in to the future.

My procedural opposition is based on my belief that these philosophical and practical debates must be held and resolved before the Senate adopts any formal and final language. At a minimum, the Senate deserves to hear from FAC on this matter. At a minimum, the Senate needs to hear from the Advising Taskforce—a group that does in fact exist but has to date not received an explicit charge to consider and make recommendations on this matter.Finally, let me state for the record that my position should not be construed as a dismissal of advising or of those of you who dedicate significant time and energy to advising our students. It is a critical practice. It deserves significant and tangible recognition. To do it well requires dedication, training, and a devotion to the academic success of our students. I appreciate the work, and I too want it recognized.

8. CAAC Itemsa. SCoB Program Elimination in Information Design and End User Computing: D.

Malooley, A. Anderson. Vote: 25-0-0i. R. Guell: It is important to acknowledge that low enrollment keeps this

program from functioning practically.b. BCoE New Minor in Elementary Special Education: E. Hampton, K. Yousif.

Vote: 25-0-0i. R. Guell: For those who are wondering, you can major in Special

Education which gives a Preschool-12 license. This minor would bifurcate that so an Elementary Education Major could minor in this and get a second license in addition to their primary in Elementary Education.

9. FAC Itemsa. Sick Leave Transfer Policy Modification: A. Anderson, A. Kummerow. Vote: 25-

0-0i. R. Guell: This is a change not directly impacting faculty in that we tend

not to utilize sick leave in the same way, but we are allowed to be donors of time. It did have to come to us. It was approved by both AAC and FAC. You have it before you. Note that those elements that have stars do have Staff Council’s input as well, which could be different from ours. Staff Council and Executive Committee representatives will work with the President to come to a common recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

ii. D. Hantzis: On your observation that some may be surprised to have sick leave since faculty don’t call in very often—perhaps there is a need for faculty attention to be drawn to the opportunity to donate sick time to others. It would have been very helpful at times for university staff to benefit from this. We had no problems with the policy but there needs to be a sense of responsibility that faculty can contribute.

iii. J. Maynard: We do have faculty that use their sick time. We have had colleagues who have exhausted it and were on leave without pay because no leave was transferred to them. There are issues with how faculty report sick leave. I don’t disagree. There is a new model for future generations to take up.

iv. D. Hantzis: It’s good to talk about this more often; especially that we can donate across lines.

v. R. Guell: The Chair of the Staff Council tends to be in receipt of those requests and sends them to the Senate, who will try to harvest enough hours to get paperwork going.

b. Extraordinary Personnel Situations: A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 25-0-0i. R. Guell: This recommendation came from the Board of Trustees in a

request for comment. It went to FAC, which added a special amendment that you saw.

c. Standing Committee Changes to Bylaws: V. Sheets, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0i. R. Guell: Just for the record, the bylaw changes are different that

Constitutional changes; if I recall, a supermajority is required so that if we do not get it, we would have to go to a vote of the faculty. This is to clarify conduct and structure of standing committees.

d. Cross-Employee Class Grievances: E. Hampton, K. Yousif. Vote: 25-0-0i. R. Guell: This came from the Executive Committee as a charge to FAC

following an observation that there was no way for one employee class to file a grievance against another. This provides for the usage for the respondent’s procedure. Instead of making an entirely new section in 246.14 or 255.14-16 we chose to say that the system would follow the respondent’s due process.

e. Motions to Instruct Executive Committee on Section 305i. R. Guell: I want to agree to restructuring as laid out in taking the structure

of section 305 as it exists, which is in file 8B, and transforming it to the structure outlined in file 8D that we would have discussion of reorganization. If you recall this is how we dealt with sections 350 and 351. Second is to note and approve the specific definition of consistent evaluative criteria and faculty evaluation file. Those definitions are not at all consistent currently. Third is on academic advising; we should note that this particular now noncontroversial passage should now say that it should be an appropriate activity. We are charging and asking the Advising Taskforce to make a special recommendation as to what the language should be next year. Number four is the inclusion of community engagement/experiential learning as an explicitly-named appropriate activity that is to be recognized in promotion, tenure, evaluation, etc. It does not currently appear there. The fifth will be the creation of Senior

Instructor. If you don’t want to create a new rank there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the background peel back a lot of other things out of that. A. Kummerow has another concern that would fall into these motions, and that is the sixth—whether FAC and Exec have dealt adequately regarding the question of the layer between the department and the college with the authority of the Executive Director of Nursing to insert an opinion of the review file in the hiring portion.

ii. Motion to Instruct Executive Committee on Reorganization: A. Anderson, A. Morales. Vote: 25-0-0

iii. R. Guell: Now we move to consistent evaluative criteria, which is first described in 305.1.7.2 along with default criteria in 305.1.7.2.1 The name “consistent evaluative criteria” is used to substitute. The language is inconsistent throughout the section. It gets singularly defined there. In the default criteria section departments and colleges are instructed to develop consistent evaluative criteria with the option they may choose that of their college, and with the statement that the department’s failure binds their criteria to that of their college. A. Anderson, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0

iv. R. Guell: Faculty Evaluation File: Throughout 305 there are a variety of descriptions of what the package is that moves from place to place. There has been the authority to pull things or add them later. The faculty evaluation file definition in 305.1.7.4 and elsewhere is what this is. M. Harmon, E. Southard. Vote: 25-0-0.

v. R. Guell: To the inclusion of academic advising as a placeholder in the sentence is what I would describe as a marshmallow saying that advising is recognized as an appropriate activity. Motion to use that as a placeholder with the proviso that the Advising Taskforce recommend replacement language next year? M. Harmon, E. Southard. Vote: 25-0-0.

1. D. Hantzis: After the Executive Committee meeting I talked with T. Hawkins. In that sentence, you had struck part of the ending, making it nondirective. There is no definition for whom there is an appropriate activity for. Is this a time to change that?

2. R. Guell: Instruction could be to the Taskforce that the sentence is inadequate.

3. D. Hantzis: It needs an object clause.4. K. Bolinger: Since it’s a placeholder it will only be around a short

time. Do we need to recraft it?5. D. Hantzis: We talked about whether it needs to say “of faculty.”

It’s not parallel to other sentences.6. K. Bolinger: I had no problem with it due to its temporary nature.

vi. R. Guell: The inclusion of community engagement and experiential learning as an appropriate activity—this explicitly allows departments and

colleges to allocate credit for community engagement and experiential learning within its consistent evaluative criteria. Departments and colleges would have to recognize it, but the manner would be a local decision. Motion: E. Southard, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0

1. R. Guell: By this motion, we can take this up again at the April 16 meeting. This would be an explicit portion of the Handbook and would be the role of decision-making, where it counts, be a local one.

2. R. Schneirov: What practical difference does including it make?3. R. Guell: There are activities that may not have the same weight

that they might have in your portfolio for promotion, tenure, and review that would be community-based or community-engagement-based or experiential-learning-based if you are doing activities in teaching from a particular agency. The campus emphasis would recognize it worthy of consideration in a P and T document. I think its greater impact is symbolic and political—that we have created for ourselves a national reputation—and it adds meaning that P and T documents would support and respect this activity.

4. K. Bolinger: I didn’t like the weakness of the language. It is an appropriate activity that counts for naught. It is up to the department to decide. That was my objection.

5. S. Lamb: It states “will” be recognized. “Will.”6. R. Guell: what would you do to strengthen this?7. K. Bolinger: I wouldn’t propose specific language here, but if we

are a university that values that and we have national recognition for it, it ought to have weight. That is not evident here. If we let each unit decide, they won’t look at it any further.

8. S. Lamb: I like the flexibility it allows. I do think the Physics department, for example, is going to have a different response to this than a department in the College of Business, and I object to one-size-fits-all.

9. I. Land: I agree. If we overweight the language on community engagement it is implicitly undervaluing research. Departments are aware and colleges are cognizant of the weight of these. For example, no one will tell junior faculty it doesn’t matter.

10. R. Guell: K. Bolinger, do you wish to make a motion to strengthen the language?

11. K. Bolinger: I don’t think so.12. D. Hantzis: I just wanted to know if this was added after FAC’s

deliberation. They didn’t discuss it.

13. R. Guell: It was added at the request of the President.vii. R. Guell: You will find the rank of Senior Instructor isn’t in 305.4.4.2. The

rank is created as a standard and referenced in multiple other places. In 305.11 specifically and 305.11.1.3, after two full terms, the sixth year evaluation could result in a person becoming a Senior Instructor. It would essentially be an “up or out” decision at that level. K. Bolinger, A. Anderson. Vote: 25-0-0

1. J. Maynard: That is not what we agreed on. 2. R. Guell: That is what it says. If you want them to continue as

Instructors that needs to be in your motion to instruct at this point.3. K. Yousif: It was my understanding that it would be more parallel

to promotion to full professor. You could be promoted or not, and continue to be an Instructor.

4. R. Guell: That is something we need to decide. I hope here today we do that.

5. D. Hantzis: We were asked to consider this in FAC by Exec. We rejected the idea that this promotion was equal to that of full professor since there is nothing between Instructor and Senior Instructor. I don’t think it is parallel to full. We already have something in the Handbook that says after six years we are only reviewed biennially. Once you’re tenured you don’t have to go through review. There was never an intent by FAC to make this parallel to full.

6. R. Guell: Motion is to keep this as is. If you wish to make a motion for change…

7. J. Maynard: I remember this discussion. You have to say what the intention is in calling someone a Senior Instructor. A recognition of seniority or recognition of a high level of performance. The first is automatic. If you think of it as achievement of higher quality you would move through by evaluation. I thought within our discussion in Exec we were moving toward the option track…I had not thought of it as FAC had. It needs to be defined.

8. S. Lamb: I would like to move that it’s an option. This change would allow someone to continue beyond the sixth year at the rank of Instructor. S. Lamb, K. Yousif. Vote: 14-11-0.

9. D. Hantzis: I think that’s the wrong way to go because we continue to have Instructors who don’t get a pay raise. Tenure recognizes both duration and quality. Why would we continue to employ them for six years and not give them a change in rate? If the Senate’s will is to make it optional we will have to write provisions to those who are denied. We have all those clauses for those who are

denied tenure. I think we are well past time when we should create some way for Instructors to have professional promotion after some time.

10. K. Bolinger: I agree. I think that if you’re going to get to that second review and are here for six years we are arguing on something pointless. I disagree with the motion on the floor. There is nothing wrong with someone in their sixth year gaining a title and pay increase without additional hoops.

11. D. Malooley: Could you clarify the motion?12. R. Guell: The motion to instruct amendment is to allow for after

the sixth year review that Instructors would be terminated, stay as Instructors, or be promoted to Senior Instructor. The current language is “Senior Instructor or termination.” Motion to amend this instruction to have the Executive Committee work on all of what D. Hantzis talked about.

13. K. Bolinger: It’s not more likely to be termination. Current language says that.

14. D. Hantzis: That is what it sounds like. 15. B. Kilp: This opens the position of negotiating Senior Instructor

from the very beginning of their employment here.16. R. Guell: The language in 305.2 on Tuesday changed the document

that you were sent for this meeting to include the word “normally.” Actually there is the possibility that someone would be hired in now under current language at Senior Instructor. It would be abnormal.

viii. A. Kummerow: As the document currently sits, because there is an Executive Director of Nursing for three departments of nurses, there is an extra level of review that has to happen due to accreditation, for hiring, promotion, tenure, etc. so those recommendations have to come through that position which is after the department chair and before the college level. A. Kummerow, E. Southard. Vote: 23-2-0

1. R. Guell: The motion would be to insert explicitly the need for intermediate level of review at hiring tenure-track faculty, Instructors, and Lecturers so it would sit in 305.3 and 305.11 and .12. I think we can find where it needs to be.

2. D. Hantzis: I spoke to L. Hall about it and we talked about whether we needed the same clause. It’s a simple process but the hiring policies themselves are much less specific and directive. The procedures generally govern the events. It made way for a school recommendation but no tenure review. The independence of the revision is guided by a very specific process. The college would be

able to determine it at the department level. We didn’t add it. It is a complete clause but not really necessary. L. Hall worked with you and she said that department and school accommodates that. My concern is that we quit writing policies for the Executive Director of Nursing.

3. R. Guell: A. Kummerow, the motion to instruct is to include explicit language at the hiring level.

4. D. Hantzis: We would put it in general policy?5. R. Guell: Yes.6. E. Southard: It doesn’t have to address Executive Director of

Nursing.7. R. Guell: Just review required by accreditation.

10. Adjournment 4:49pm