IFC 1/9/07 Minutes

Approved 1/16/07

Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Faculty Council Minutes (“IFC”): January 9, 2007

Wynne Courtroom of Inlow Hall: 3:00 – 5:00 pm

Original agenda follows adjournment as attachment.

Agenda Item I: Call to Order: Rosalie Vermette (IUPUI Faculty Vice-President, 4.0064).

Vermette called the meeting to order at 3:03pm, welcoming back Parliamentarian Joyce MacKinnon. Vermette then welcomed special guests Division of Labor Studies Faculty Ruth Needleman (IUN), Bill Mello (IUK), Thadabantu Iverson (IUSB), Rae Sovereign (IUSB), Paul Mishler (IUSB), and Lynn Duggan (IUB).

Then, in preparation for the discussion of the Division of Labor Studies (“DLS”), the question was called on the following resolution:

“All those who are not currently members of the IFC, should be allowed full participation in today’s IFC meeting.”

The resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item II: Adoption of the Order of Business for the Day.

The order of business for the day was adopted.

Agenda Item III: [ACTION ITEM] Memorial Resolution for Christian J.W. Kloesel, Professor Emeritus of English

The IFC stood for a moment of silence to recognize their colleague, unanimously adopting the resolution.

Agenda Item IV: [ACTION ITEM] Memorial Resolution for Harold A. Raidt, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology and Immunology.

The IFC stood for a moment of silence to recognize their colleague, unanimously adopting the resolution.

Agenda Item V: [ACTION ITEM] IFC 12/5/06 Minutes.

Hearing no objections, the IFC December 5, 2006 minutes stood as written and were entered into record.

These minutes are available to view online at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/minutes/fc061205html.htm

Agenda Item VI: [ELECTION] Board of Review Pool and the Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel (“FGAP”): Jacqueline Blackwell (Chair – Nominating, jblackwe@iupui.edu).

Blackwell reviewed the slate of nominees for election to the Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel and Board of Review pool (http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/documents/BoR-FGAP_slate06.htm). The Nominating Committee then distributed, collected, and tallied the ballots. The following faculty were elected:

FACULTY GRIEVANCE ADVISORY PANEL:

Carol Gardner, John McKivigan, Jill Murrell

BOARD OF REVIEW POOL:

Terry Baumer, David Bodenhamer, Lawrence Garetto, Charles Goodlett, Richard Humphrey, Bob Jamison, Susan Perkins, Bill Schneider, Jeff X.Watt, and Brian Vargus.

Blackwell thanked all of the candidates and moved that the ballots be destroyed. The motion carried unanimously.

Agenda Item VII Updates/Remarks from the Chancellor: Charles Bantz (Indiana University Executive Vice President and Chancellor of IUPUI).

Chancellor Bantz reported the following:

The search committee for the Vice Chancellor for External Affairs will begin interviews soon.

The search committee for the new dean of the IU School of Law – Indianapolis has forwarded its short list to Dean Sukhatme and Chancellor Bantz; they have interviewed the candidates and hope to move forward soon.

Becky Porter gave an overview of the Spring 2007 Enrollment Report (available to view online at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/documents/Spring2007Enrollment.htm).

The IU Presidential Search Committee meets in Chicago tomorrow to begin the interview stage.

IUPUI’s Principles of Undergraduate Learning have been recognized nationally by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Associate Dean of Faculties Sharon Hamilton will represent IUPUI at the recognition program: “Innovation in Higher Education.”

Agenda Item VIII: [ACTION ITEM] An Open Letter to IU’s Next President: Bart Ng (IUPUI Faculty President & UFC Co-Secretary, 4.8185, bng@math.iupui.edu)

Ng asked for faculty input on an open letter to IU’s next President, which will provide an opportunity to express IUPUI’s unique position in the university, goals, expectations of leadership, etc. A number of faculty noted the need to cite [in this letter] “the inherent conflict of interest created by the Board’s decision to ask the President to serve, also, as the CEO of IUB.”

Ng made an initial draft of the letter available for IFC review.

IFC Members shared the following comments on the draft from the floor:

Martin Spechler – The final sentence is impolitic; perhaps the letter should read “former status among the leading…”).

No one has implied that IUPUI should rely “solely” on the IU School of Medicine.” Is “mainly” a better word?

This letter is an opportunity to highlight the reasonable conclusion that Indianapolis—due to its civic (and cultural, Jennifer Hehman, pointed out) and economic influence—should be “the center of gravity” for certain programs.

Mary Fisher – The IFC’s endorsement would add weight to an open letter. Ng confirmed that endorsement will be sought from the IFC, as well as school/unit faculty councils across IUPUI.

Henry Karlson – The letter should emphasize that urban campuses will play a pivotal role in the future of higher education in the U.S. IU and its leaders should recognize this.

David Ford – (Re: the 5^th line from the bottom of 1^st page) Is the IFC “fully supportive” of the Trustees’ interpretation. Perhaps a more innocuous statement—one noting that the IFC is in support of the Trustees’ concern about the revitalization of IU—would be more appropriate?

Ed Berbari – Is it necessary to issue another missive restating IUPUI’s perceived conflict with IUB or IUPUI’s position at IU, overall? The letter should be a positive enticement to a new leader.

Marion Wagner – Believes that, in light of the current President’s remarks that he was initially unaware of any conflicts between campuses, it is important to be forthcoming.

Hasan Akay – Communication with a new President should ensure that the important presence of the Engineering program at IUPUI is not overlooked.

Rich Rogers asked Chancellor Bantz how he would have felt receiving an open letter such as this upon taking a position at a new institution. Chancellor Bantz first explained that this is a faculty letter upon which he did not want to intrude. He did note, however, that, in his personal experience, the more information he receives before undertaking a new challenge, the better.

In closing, Ng asked that faculty forward feedback—with specific wording, when possible—to Ng at bng@math.iupui.edu. The IFC will take the letter up at a meeting called for January 16^th.

Agenda Item IX: [DISCUSSION ITEM] Executive Committee Recommendations on Proposals re: the Reorganization of the Division of Labor Studies: Bart Ng.

The IFC Executive Committee (“IFCEC”), again, referred the IFC to its December 2006 report (http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/DLS/IFCEC_rec_12-06.pdf) on the proposed reorganization of the Division of Labor Studies (“DLS”) [in preparation for the IFC’s February action/recommendations]. Following a question from Rich Rogers, Ng explained that, in February, the IFC could choose to vote on the ten recommendations contained in the IFCEC’s report or on the report, as a whole.

After suggesting that the IFC, first, discuss the question of the division’s financial solvency, President Bart Ng called on Ruth Needleman and her DLS colleagues (Bill Mello, Thadabantu Iverson, Rae Sovereign, Paul Mishler, and Lynn Duggan) to give an overview of the current financial status of DLS (http://www.iupui.edu/~scouncil/DLS/dls_finances.doc). The FE’s recommendation, noted Ng, shares the DLS faculty’s conclusion that the division is not currently in a financial crisis.

In response to Needleman’s presentation, DLS Interim Director Mark Sothmann agreed that DLS has done an extraordinary job building a budget surplus. He notes, though, that the central issue is the idea of a Responsibility Center taking on a formerly free-standing division with funding responsibilities and structure across various campuses. He also noted that assessments for which the division would become responsible could represent a significant financial commitment. Needleman followed up emphasizing that DLS faculty agree that the division should pay assessments to the various campuses with which they work.

Ng then suggested that the IFC moved on to discussion of the division’s academic offerings and administrative structure.

· Durwin Talon asked the DLS faculty to share what they believe attracts students to the DLS mission. Needleman cited the division’s unique offerings (like employment law) and unique exploration of work, labor, and globalization from the perspective of those who work for a living, study that appeals to a breadth of students from Political Science majors to future social workers. Iverson added that DLS deals with some of the more volatile and timely issues of the day, including the effects of race and sexual orientation on dynamics in the working world, globalization, and restructuring.

· Steven Jones – Is DLS’s mission and function to examine labor from a scholarly perspective or as an advocate for labor? Needleman responded that, while it is fair to say that DLS supports workers’ right to self-organization and bargaining. Marion Wagner observed that many disciplines or professions have some form of advocacy inherent in them. For example, Social Work maintains its accreditation by advocating for an overall philosophy of social justice. Paul Misher suggested that American university system is based on the advocacy of Democracy. Mary Fisher explained that discussing and resolving the advocacy question is central to the decision the IFC must make about the future structure of the division. Martin Spechler suggested that the issue is not whether or not there is advocacy but whether or not an individual in any discipline is educating in a critical way, which is a matter of individual faculty responsibility. Needleman noted that an incident in which a former DLS director who inappropriately advocated for certain organizations was an isolated problem addressed by the departure of said former director.

· Steven Jones also expressed concerns that the DLS faculty response to the IFCEC’s report misrepresents the mission of other academic units, including his own (Kelley Business). Needleman agreed that the wording in the DLS faculty’s response might need some revision and offered to revisit certain word choices.

· Bill Schneider – Is the IFC overstepping its bounds in discussing the academic qualities of a program rather than its fiscal or administrative health? Marianne Wokeck suggested that any academic program review of DLS take place within existing review mechanisms.

· Giles Hoyt expressed support for the IFCEC’s report and recommendations contained therein.

In closing, President Ng asked the DLS faculty to review and possible reword their response following some of the semantic questions raised by the IFC. The DLS faculty agreed. The IFC will take up the recommendations for the future structure of DLS at its January 16^th.

Agenda Item X: Updates/Remarks from the IFC President: Bart Ng.