IUPUI Faculty Council (“IFC”)

November 21, 2006

MEETING SUMMARY

 

 


Action Items Completed…

 

ü      Hearing no objections, the IFC October 17, 2006 minutes stood as written and were entered into record.

  

 

ü      Hearing no objections, the IFC November 7, 2006 minutes stood as written and were entered into record.

 

ü      Research Affairs Chair Simon Atkinson gave the fifth reading of the revised Intellectual Property Policy.  Atkinson referred to the motivations for revision, first explained at the November 7, 2006 IFC meeting: to make a clear and readable policy for the creators of intellectual property; to review the revenue distribution scheme to make it more favorable to creators; and to address online course materials as intellectual property.  He then reviewed, as he had at previous meetings, a rewrite done over the summer to address the issue of software, which the revised policy would treat the same as other copyrightable materials except in the case of patentable features. 

 

Atkinson closed by explaining the revisions made since the November 7th IFC meeting.  One change was simply language “clean-up” (elimination of redundancy, consistent terms, etc.) following the long series of revisions.  The other revision involves the addition of an “extra element of due process” with the addition of an appeal to the President following an appeal to the Intellectual Property Policy Council.

           

            Atkinson addressed questions from the floor, such as:

Q:        [Page 3, Section F] Do “Externally Funded Works” refer to [physicians’] practice plan funding?

A:         No.

 

Q:        [Page 3, Section F] Will this affect grants at all?

A:         No, not practically-speaking, unless the language in the grant speaks directly to the issue.

 

Q:        [Page 1, Section E] Does this refer to the ear-marking practice?

A:         No.  Also, to clarify this section:  unlike the revised policy, the current IPP reflects the net, not the gross, revenue. As with the rest of revisions this was meant to engender more favorable outcomes for the property creators.

 

 

IFC Vice President Rosalie Vermette called the question.  The policy passed unanimously.

 

 

 

Information Items Presented…       

 

  • IFC President Bart Ng and Vice President Vermette welcomed the following guests, present to discuss the IU Presidential Search:
      • Tom Reilly (IU Board of Trustees);
      • Marion Broome (Search Committee);
      • Simon Atkinson (Faculty Advisory Committee for Search)
      • John Hassell (Faculty Advisory Committee for Search); and
      • Ted Miller (IUB Faculty Council President/University Faculty Council Co-Secretary/Presidential Search Committee/Faculty Advisory Committee to Presidential Search).

NOTE:  Kathy E. Johnson also serves on the Faculty Advisory Committee for the Search.

 

Trustee Reilly opened the discussion with comments about the Board’s vision for the new President, noting that the new President should, first and foremost, take the lead in academically focusing the university mission. Intellectual drive will help IU move forward.  The university has serious structural issues to address in order to recruit a new President, Reilly noted, including: legislative concerns; poor relations between the two largest campuses; a lack of Presidential discretionary funding for program start-up (now resolved); and the Board of Trustees’ relationship with the IU Foundation (resolved).  The Trustees are treating/have treated these issues as a priority as the search progresses.

 

He followed by explaining that structural problems led to a lack of leadership at a number of levels, requiring the introduction of a Provost post at IUB.  “A provost,” Reilly said, “requires a CEO” and, therefore, the President was tapped to act as such. 

 

He, then, addressed the structure of the search.  First, Reilly commented on the size of the search committee, noting that their research shows that searches function best under the guidance of a committee of 10-15.  When taking into account this relatively small number and the critical importance of faculty input in this process, the Trustees developed the advisory committee on which Hassell, Atkinson, Miller, and Johnson—among others—now serve.

 

Reilly closed by making a few observations about IUPUI faculty concerns, as he perceives them, including the perception of flagship status for IUB and “intangible disrespect” for the Indianapolis faculty.  He emphasized that the considerable amount of research funding directed to IUPUI and the Life Sciences Initiative have caused the same “paranoid reaction” among some IUB faculty.  In the midst of this emotional climate, he noted, the enfranchisement of faculty from across the university has emerged as an important issue.

 

IFC members then offered feedback and raised questions:

            Q:        What is the role of the Advisory Committee?

A:         Right now, the committee is working in tandem with the search committee, reviewing CVs, making informal recommendations, and  offering feedback.  Committee representatives Hassell and Atkinson urge faculty to submit suggestions—specific names—directly to them.

 

Q:        As it could inform the process with feedback from a candidate’s current colleagues, will the search be “opened” and final candidates publicized once finalists are determined?

A:         The panelists all agreed that such openness could be very helpful, but were unsure, at meeting time, if the search committee and search firm would pursue this issue and release finalists’ names due to confidentiality concerns.  Reilly noted that whether or not the search is “opened” may be dictated by how high finalists’ profiles are.

 

                        FEEDBACK:

The IU Presidency is a complex one, noted Professors Martin Spechler and Ed Berbari, and it is this complexity that the ideal candidate should not only understand but embrace. Spechler followed by naming two key traits the next President must possess: (1) the ability to make excellent appointments (vice chancellors and deans, especially) and (2) a passion and aptitude for fundraising.  The IFC echoed Spechler’s sentiment with Professor Patrick Rooney adding that the next President must lobby for stronger state support.

 

Professor Bill Schneider suggested that the Search Committee give regular progress reports to the faculty via campus faculty councils.  He followed up by adding that the next President must appreciate that strong faculty governance—and collaboration with it—is key to IU’s success.  He closed by recommending that the next President be charged with improving relations between the faculty and the Board of Trustees.

 

Professor Mary Fisher urged that candidates be made aware of the urgent problems of flattened funding and flagging state appropriations and that the search committee remain mindful of these issues when reviewing candidates’ skill sets.  She closed by noting that the issue of faculty salary inequities between IUPUI and IUB should be addressed by the new President as soon as possible.

 

Professor Giles Hoyt emphasized the need for better engagement of the IUPUI faculty in broader university initiatives.  Hoyt cited the development of the Life Sciences Initiative as a case in which IUB faculty were sought out and engaged to a greater extent then their Indianapolis colleagues.

 

IFC President Ng shared that the perceived interest in independence among IUPUI faculty has been misconstrued from the desire expressed by IUPUI faculty to play a role in “the greater glory of IU.”  He concluded the discussion with an agreement with Trustee Reilly that the IFC would write an open letter regarding the Presidential Search.

 

 

 

  • Chancellor Charles Bantz reported the following:

§   Thank you to all those serving on the Presidential Search and Advisory Committees.

 

§   Thank you to Simon Atkinson and the Research Affairs Committee, as well as Enrica Ardemagni and the Distance Education Committee for their diligent work on the revision of the Intellectual Property Policy.

 

§   Thank you to Ted Miller and Bart Ng for their tireless work as Co-Secretaries of the UFC. 

 

§   The Chancellor then discussed concerns raised by the Black Student Initiative about racism on campus.  He noted that he is impressed by the steps the students have taken to bring these issues to light and deeply respects them for what they have done.  He is also exceedingly concerned by some students’ stories of a hostile and discriminatory environment, noting that we must confront these issues as individuals and as a community.  A number of public forums have taken place since the initial protest and the Chancellor remains optimistic that we can tackle these difficulty issues as a community.  His November 15th news conference on the university response to the Black Student Initiative sought to address those measures that were already underway (efforts, he noted, that students had no way of knowing about, which may present an opportunity for growth in campus communication) as well as to recommend an external review of other issues, such as the system for the reallocation of student activity fees.  The IFC and all faculty, he pointed out, need to discuss how to move forward and, of course, how to help all IUPUI students feel supported and to succeed.

 

§   IUPUI recently received news of two major gifts:

Ø      The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University will receive a $40 million endowment grant from Lilly Endowment Inc. to help underwrite permanently a portion of its future operating expenses.”  Read more here.

The Chancellor noted that he feels confident saying that the Center is the best of its kind in the nation.

 

Ø      “The Indiana University Cancer Center received a $50 million donation from Mel and Bren Simon to pay help for research and an expansion of the hospital.”  Read more here.

 

Ø      Read more about recent campus news.

 

§   The Chancellor recently returned from traveling to Kenya to observe the AMPATH partnership and Moi University exchange program.  He was accompanied by Associate Dean for the School of Education Khaula Murtadha and Vice President for Life Sciences and Dean of Medicine Craig Brater, among others.  He applauded the “incredibly important” program, saying it now “has legs.”

 

§   The Chancellor closed by remarking on allusions he made to a 1968 speech by Then-Mayor Richard Lugar in a message to the Board of Advisors.  Fearing this allusion may have been misinterpreted by some, he emphasized that this speech is important because of its emphasis that a great city needs a great university.  It also reminds us that IUPUI exists because the community around it “demanded its creation.”  IUPUI’s obligation to and partnership with the community—and entire city—is critical.

 

 

 

  • IFC President Ng reported the following:

§   At the December 5th IFC meeting, Ng will give an updated report on the status and outcome of faculty boards of review in 2005-06.

 

§   Discussion of the merger of the IUPUI School of Journalism into the IUPUI School of Liberal Arts has been slated for the December 5th IFC meeting. 

 

§   Also in December: the IFC Executive Committee will bring forward recommendations relating to the two proposals for the possible restructuring of the Division of Labor Studies. 

 

§   The IFC Executive and Faculty Affairs Committees (respectively) have worked together to revise the proposed formative three-year review policy for non-tenured tenure-track faculty.  The revised draft—now proposed as a faculty policy per the recommendation of the IFC at its November 7th meeting—will likely be up for IFC action in December.

 

§   The University Faculty Council meets Tuesday November 28th and will discuss the Trustee-approved Chancellor Review Policy.   Ng noted that he is continuing to research whether or not the system-wide responsibilities of the office of the IUPUI Chancellor preclude its review under the new policy.

 

§   In response to a question from Professor Martin Spechler regarding the Integrated Image Project, Ng explained that the implementation (e.g. – proper school nomenclature on letterhead) is under review by the appropriate committees.  Interim Vice Chancellor for External Affairs Amy Conrad Warner will update the IFC in January.

 

                                                                                                           

 

  • Vice President Vermette adjourned the meeting at 5:28pm.

 

 

THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY DECEMBER 5th FROM 3:30-5:30PM

IN THE WYNNE COURTROOM OF INLOW HALL (“IH 100”).

 

Information about IFC business, meeting schedules, and more are available on our website.