IFC 1/16/07 Minutes
Approved 2/20/07
Faculty Council Minutes (“IFC”): January 16,
2007
CALLED MEETING
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 3:06pm. Some action items were delayed until 3:40pm,
at which time the meeting achieved quorum.
Agenda Item II: Adoption of the Order of Business for the Day.
Due to a lack of quorum when
the meeting was convened, the order of business for the day was not formally
adopted.
Agenda Item III: Updates/Remarks from the IFC President:
Bart Ng.
Ng
gave background and comments about a meeting with Chancellor Bantz to discuss
the Faculty Board of Review process; the meeting was called when concerns were
raised that recent Boards’ recommendations have been disregarded by the
administration. Ng and the Chancellor
are reviewing the possibility of additional and cleared guidelines for the
process. Ng will keep the IFC informed. Professor
Subah Packer suggested that a follow-up or explanation be issued to Board of
Review grievants from 2004-06 discussing why the Board recommendations in their
respective cases were not accepted.
Dean
of Faculties Uday Sukhatme reported that the Signature Center Proposals (which
were due in late October 2006) have been reviewed by faculty fellows, his
office, and others.
Professor
Martin Spechler asked after the status of the suggestion to the Presidential
Search Committee that the final stages of the search be open. He expressed concerns about reported and
“secretive” interviews with Presidential candidates in
Professor
Andre De Tienne asked if there were any updates on the proposed Journalism-SLA
merger, supported by the IFC in a December 2006 resolution. Bart Ng replied that he has not heard any
updates, but understands that the President was not initially aware of conflicts
between the new Dean (based at IUB) and the IUPUI Journalism Associate Dean and
faculty. Ng surmises that the President feels system schools are working well
and is hesitant to dismantle one. Ng
cautioned, though, that this is his understanding only and involves “serious
paraphrasing.”
A
brief discussion about system schools ensued.
Librarian Nancy Eckerman remarked on the “system-wide and un-system-wide
nature” of librarians and how IUPUI librarians recently voted in support of
discontinuing the routing of their dossiers through IUB. Their resolution “passed every level but has
stalled.” Dean Michael Patchner reminded
the IFC that some systems schools, such as Social Work and Nursing, are based
in
Agenda Item V: Call for any FC or UFC Standing Committee
Reports.
No discussion.
Agenda Item VI: [ACTION ITEM] Policy on Three-Year Formative Review of Non-Tenured Tenure-Track Faculty & Librarians: Andre De Tienne (Chair – Faculty Affairs Committee, 4.2033, adetienn@iupui.edu).
Three-Year Review
De Tienne went over the changes
made since the December 2006 reading. He
thanked Professor Betty Jones for providing comparative data re: current review
practices across nine schools. He also
thanked Professors Subah Packer and Bill Schneider for their input and help.
The changes were as follows:
(1)
Substitution of “tenure-probationary”
(a more common phrase).
(2)
“In schools or units where faculty-approved policies
or guidelines for conducting the REVIEW already exist, those policies or
guidelines should be followed to the extent that they do not seriously
conflict with the general procedures set forth below. If there is conflict,
especially regarding due dates and required documentation, such schools or
units ought to resolve it by either revising their policies or guidelines
accordingly, or negotiating special arrangements with the Office of the Dean of
the Faculties.”
(3)
Addition of
footnote to “only:” “Some schools
require far more than this (e.g., list of potential reviewers, summary of
pre-IU professional activities, previous annual reviews, letters from students,
or even a dossier that is identical in substance and format to that which they
will submit for the actual review two years later). The present policy does not
encourage premature requisites or burdensome requirements.”
(4)
Addition of “preferably in accordance with the Dean of the Faculties’ Guidelines for
Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers.”
(5)
Addition of last
sentence: “The tenure- probationary
faculty member is not limited in the use of the REVIEW. “
IFC members shared the
following comments:
BERBARI:
by reiterating the point about limitations, it seems that faculty member is
guaranteed to keep position it diminishes this as an opportunity for guidance.
KARLSON:
The idea of this formative review is to give advice/aid as opposed to be used
for “un-tenuring.” The limitations are
the key to the spirit of the policy.
WOKECK: Spell out the distinction: it is in the third
year of appointment
SPECHLER:
Will vote against, because he thinks it has become complicated and
time-consuming. Now is the time to be
more selective and this is biased against that.
This should be an oral, confidential process. This policy deprives deans of responsibility
PACKER:
All reviews do need to be somewhat predictive.
AKAY:
A three-year review is important. It
should be a Promotion & Tenure “dress rehearsal.”
Packer then moved to substitute
her alternative document for the draft read by De Tienne. Professor Terry Baumer seconded the motion.
Following a brief discussion in which Professor Linda Adele Goodine suggested
that Packer’s document be used by the
Vermette called the question. The motion failed.
After remarks from Professors
Marion Wagner and Nancy Eckerman in favor of the policy, Vermette called the
question on the policy as presented by De Tienne. The motion carried and the policy passed.
Agenda Item VII: Unfinished Business?
Ng presented the latest draft
of the open letter to the next President of IU and the Trustees. After thanking the IFC for the feedback he’s
received since the January 9the IFC, Ng explained that he wanted the discussion
to inform the document, but that someone could move for vote of endorsement by
IFC today. The IFC could also vote on
the letter via e-mail. He also plans to
seek out the endorsement of school governance bodies.
The
IFC was generally in favor of the draft but made the following suggestions and
revisions:
MEISS:
Does the “IUB and IUPUI are two equally strong” bit invite tallying?
Meiss
moved that the sentence be revised to read “two strong and effective research
campuses.” Professor Anne Belcher
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
WOKECK:
“Punching it up” could be a good idea, as suggested by Professors Bob Sutton
and Martin Spechler, but we should be cautious of living up to the rumor of an
inferiority complex.
AKAY:
Shouldn’t we specify what kind of structure we want?
FORD:
Do we use the term “urban” too often and confuse the issue?
MCDANIEL:
We must carefully edit and only use the word “urban” when we talk about the
campus location and not our constituency.
Ng announced that he would
like to take a straw poll at the meeting, then revise the document, and call
for electronic vote. However, as quorum
had been lost since the last action item, no action was taken.
Following the meeting a
series of revisions were made. The final
version of the open letter, approved on January 22, 2007 by an electronic vote of
70 to 2, is embedded below.
“AN OPEN LETTER
FROM THE IUPUI FACULTY
TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF
Throughout
IUPUI’s thirty-eight year history, its faculty has been of one mind in striving
to build a strong and cohesive campus that offers first-rate undergraduate,
graduate, and professional educational opportunities in the largest population
center of the State. IUPUI has become a national force in higher education with
a substantial and growing national and international reputation. It is
recognized as being one of the nation’s top producers of graduate professional
degrees and has received national honors for its innovations in serving
first-generation undergraduates.
IUPUI’s
role within
There
is every reason to be optimistic about IUPUI’s future, given its past
achievements and its abundance of opportunities for even greater
accomplishments. In response to the IU Board of Trustees’ announcement of its AGENDA FOR A FUTURE OF DISTINCTION for
Indiana University in January 2006, the IUPUI faculty affirmed its unequivocal
support for the Trustees’ desire to advance the University’s research
endeavors, especially in the life sciences and related disciplines, to ensure
that IU will be counted among the “great research universities” worldwide. The
IUPUI faculty has also been supportive of the Trustees’ effort to enhance IU
Bloomington’s mission and build on its strengths and assets. The Trustees,
however, also stated that “IUPUI should become a top-rated university in its
own right, mainly in the areas supporting its current strengths … [while] other
areas of IUPUI will support its current urban university [mission] serving a
large urban student body.” This statement seems to suggest that the Trustees
believe an effective strategy for
IUPUI
is an integrated campus with many of its core academic programs generating signify-cant
external research funding, alone and in collaboration with its professional
schools. The potential for research growth on the IUPUI campus is unparalleled.
This growth must not be cur-tailed by a vision of the campus that limits growth
to predefined areas and excludes the integration of research with
undergraduate, graduate, and professional education. Citizens of Indiana in
general, and the city of Indianapolis in particular, deserve a strong and
integrated urban campus of Indiana University where world-class research and
undergraduate and graduate education not only thrive, but act synergistically
to increase the quality and breadth of the University’s research and education
missions. Also, the most effective way to strengthen the professional schools
on the IUPUI campus, including the IU School of Medicine, is to enhance the
research base and t
increase the already high degree of collaboration among all
academic units on the IUPUI campus.† The
next IU President and the Trustees must therefore recognize that IU Bloomington
and IUPUI are two strong and complementary research campuses, each with its own
identity and mission. In order for
Since the announcement of the AGENDA,
the Trustees have made a number of changes in the administrative structure of
Indiana University—including the addition of the title of CEO of IU Bloomington
to the President’s portfolio—ostensibly to bring it in line with other public universities
that have only one major campus, and to provide greater leadership focus for IU
Blooming-ton. The IUPUI faculty urges that the next President be given the
freedom to examine afresh IU’s administrative structure as well as academic
practices. Questions must be raised whether IU’s recent move towards increased
centralization at a single geographical location is the best way to serve the
long-term interests of the entire University. A case in point is the plan
currently under discussion to create a highly centralized grants and contracts
administration. Given the size and strength of IU Bloomington and IUPUI, we
believe that the University would be better served with a more flexible
campus-based structure designed to be responsive to the distinctive needs of
the faculty on each campus. Efficiency requires that the leadership of
administrative and academic units be located where there is the greatest concentration
of activities and opportunities. The resulting new structure of IU must provide
all campuses with the freedom for creative and efficient growth
responsive to, and serving the needs of, their respective constituencies and
com-mutinies.
The next President must measure achievements not by
historical status or past accomplish-mints, but rather by the ability of each
campus or academic unit to seek out new challenges and collaborative
opportunities to advance the interests and prestige of
We thus respectfully request that the next President, at the
first opportunity available after his or her appointment, engage with the
The entire IUPUI faculty, across all disciplines, sincerely
wants the next President to succeed. We therefore stand ready to help leverage
the complementary strengths of IU’s founding campus in
† For
a snapshot of the breadth of interdisciplinary collaborations at IUPUI, see the
recently announced list of projects (http://www.iupui.edu/administration/acad_affairs/07_01_fundedsignaturecenters.pdf)
receiving funding under the Signature Center Initiative.”
Agenda Item VIII: New Business?
This action item was completed prior to the approval
of the Three Year Formative Review Policy. 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/fc070109html.htm
Agenda Item IX: Adjournment.
Vice President Vermette
adjourned the meeting at 5:01pm.
Minutes prepared by Faculty Council Coordinator, Molly
Martin
UN 403 / 274-2215 / Fax: 274-2970 / fcouncil@iupui.edu / http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil
[Attachment for IFC 1-16-07 Minutes]
ATTACHMENTS
NOT CONTAINED IN ELECTRONIC MINUTES
|
Wynne Courtroom (Inlow Hall Room 100) / Tuesday January 16, 2006 - 3:00-5:00 pm Called
Meeting A G E N D A (IFC: January 16, 2007) |
|||
|
I.
|
* |
Welcome and Call to Order. |
Rosalie Vermette (IUPUI Faculty Vice-President, 4.0064, rvermett@iupui.edu)
|
|
II.
|
* |
Adoption of the Agenda as the Order of Business for the Day.
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
III.
|
(10 minutes) |
Updates/Remarks from the IFC President. - Updated Report on Faculty Board of Review Activity for 2005-06.
|
Bart Ng
|
|
IV.
|
(5 minutes) |
Question / Answer Period.
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
V.
|
* |
Call for any FC or UFC Standing Committee reports.
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
VI.
|
(15 minutes) |
[ACTION ITEM] Policy on Three-Year Formative Review of Non-Tenured Tenure-Track Faculty & Librarians. (see pink hand-out)
|
Andre De Tienne (Chair – Faculty Affairs Committee, 4.2033, adetienn@iupui.edu)
|
|
VII.
|
(30 minutes) |
Unfinished Business? - Open Letter to IU’s Next President.
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
VIII. |
(5 minutes) |
New Business?
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
IX.
|
* |
Adjournment.
|
Rosalie Vermette |
|
Next Faculty Council Meeting: Tuesday February 6, 2007, 3:00-5:00pm, Wynne Courtroom of Inlow Hall (IH 100)
Please visit the Faculty Council website at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil for agenda, updates & more. Agenda prepared by Faculty Council Coordinator Molly Martin: UN 403 / 274-2215 / Fax: 274-2970 / fcouncil@iupui.edu / http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil |
|||