3:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Administration: Chancellor Gerald Bepko, William Plater, Dean of the Faculties. Deans: John Barlow, P Nicholas Kellum, Angela McBride. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, Charalambos Aliprantis, Susan Ball, Lynn Broderick, Paul Brown, David Burr, Kenneth Byrd, Lucinda Carr, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, Nathan Houser, Dolores Hoyt, Henry Karlson, M Jan Keffer, Michael Klemsz, Raymond Koleski, Missy Dehn Kubitschek, Miriam Langsam, Dana McDonald, Debra Mesch, Bart Ng, William Orme, Fred Pavalko, Michael Penna, Richard Peterson, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Kent Sharp, Jerrold Stern, Stephen Stockberger, Kathleen Warfel, Kathryn Wilson, Richard Wyma, Charles Yokomoto. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin , Paul Galanti, Juanita Keck, Carl Rothe, Martin Spechler, Rosalie Vermette, Marshall Yovits (Senior Academy).

Alternates Present: Deans: J. M. Kapoor for Roberta Greene, Pat Fox for the School of Engineering and Technology. Elected Faculty: Hitwant Sidhu for Karen Teeguarden.

Absent: Administration: J Herman Blake. Deans: A. James Barnes, Trevor Brown, Walter Daly, H. William Gilmore, Kathy Krendl, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Robert Shay, David Stocum, Philip Tompkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: W Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Merrill Benson, Joseph Bidwell, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Michael Cohen, Paul Dubin, Elizabeth Evenbeck, Naomi Fineberg, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, Robert Havlik, William Hohlt, Antoinette Hood, Stephen Lalka, Golam Mannan, Rebecca Markel, David Peters, Brian Sanders, Jane Schultz, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, James Wallihan, Karen West, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt. Ex Officio Members: Henry Besch, Ronald Dehnke, S Edwin Fineberg, Carlyn Johnson, Stephen Leapman, Robert Lehnen, Justin Libby, Steven Mannheimer, Byron Olson.

Visitors:Trudy Banta (Planning and Institutional Research), Victor Borden (IMIR), Erwin Boschmann (Dean of the Faculties Office), Garland Elmore (Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor), Mark Grove (Registrar), John Kremer (Psychology), Carol Nathan (Dean of the Faculties), Melinda Phillabaum (IUPUI Staff Council), John Snyder (Allied Health), JoAnn Switzer (IUPUI and IV Tech Office Coordinated Programs).


TURNER: I would like to call this meeting to order. I would also like to remind you to identify yourselves so the minutes can show accurately who you are. If you would like to present yourself as someone else, that is fine too, but we may insist on the real name in the minutes. <b>[laughter]

As you know, we are meeting in a new location beginning today and there are some cables laying throughout the room, so please watch your step. We don't want anyone to trip.


TURNER: The first order of business today is a memorial resolution for Arthur S. Nunn, School of Medicine. I would like for us to stand in a moment of silence. [A moment of silence was observed.]


TURNER: Next, we have the approval of the minutes for February 2, 1995, March 2, 1995, April 6, 1995, and May 4, 1995. These minutes have been distributed. Are there any additions, corrections, or deletions? The motion has been made to accept the minutes as distributed. [Seconded]

GABLE: There are omissions in the minutes of April 6 on page 6. Have those been modified?

CHUMLEY: Are you speaking of Professor Lehnen's portion?


CHUMLEY: He is sending the corrections to me and those will be reflected in today's minutes.

GABLE: Thank you.

TURNER: Are there any other corrections? Hearing none, all in favor of accepting the minutes as distributed, please say "Aye." Opposed? [none] Abstained? [none] The minutes are approved as distributed.


BEPKO: We have some inauspicious beginnings and some auspicious beginnings to the 1995-96 academic year. As we move ever more rapidly to the turn of the century, we think we are more and more poised and positioned to become the clear national model of urban higher education that we have talked about over the past half dozen

years or more. But, every now and then there is a bump in that road, a path toward the millennium and toward our destiny of greatness. I would like to spend time talking about one of those bumps.

That is, in the School of Engineering and Technology, we have had the resignation of the dean just as the school year was getting organized. There were some significant differences of opinion between the dean and quite a number of members of the faculty. I think that, while Al Potvin as dean, had developed a very convincing and compelling vision for the school, there were specific issues of implementation and pursuit of that vision about which

there was substantial enough disagreement to cause these tensions to develop at the school. It was Al's view that he did not want to exert the personal efforts that were necessary to be able to bring everyone in the school to his point of view on the vision for the school and that it would be too great a personal cost to try to mend all the fences that had been breached in this first couple of years of his deanship. So, he decided in a completely voluntary way, to resign. Therefore, we have a very, very temporary interim arrangement for the management of the school. Because Al's resignation was effective immediately and it came rather suddenly, we established an executive management for the school that consists of two of the associate deans who are already in place -- Bob Orr who has been on the faculty for about 10 years and Russ Eberhart who is relatively new but whose interests and expertise in biomedical engineering have made him someone who has shown a significant value to the school in a relatively short period of time. The two of them, along with the deans' senior management team, and the co-presidents of the Faculty Senate for the School of Engineering and Technology, have provided, we think, a good interim management for the school and have gotten the school year off to a good start despite the hooks that are naturally associated with a change in leadership . In very short order we will ask someone to be a permanent acting dean during the search period that will begin very shortly and that we hope will result in the appointment of a new dean for the School of Engineering and Technology before the end of the academic year. We intend to be very focused on the School of Engineering and Technology during this year. We think the school is extremely important to all of IUPUI and to all of Indiana and Purdue University. As a result of this change in leadership, as a result of the conditions that gave rise to the change in leadership, I think an increasing awareness of and focus on the importance of the School of Engineering and Technology to all of is merited, as well as a reaffirmation of the commitment that we have to its continued growth and success.

So, thus, we have the inauspicious part of the beginning of the academic year, but I would rather focus on the auspicious and portentous beginning of the academic year which we have now observed, and I think the most auspicious part of that is the fact that our enrollments have gone up and in all of the right places.

For an enrollment report and some comments on a Capacity Model of faculty effort that we are going to be reporting on for the first time this fall term, I would like to ask Bill Plater to comment.

PLATER: Thank you, Jerry. I am happy to be able to report on a very positive item and that is that enrollments are up for the first time in several semesters. In fact, I think this is the first time in six semesters that I have been able to come to you with such good news. The general figure is that we are up almost one percent, eight-tenths of a percent in the headcount but we are up over three percent in student credit hours, which is quite a significant turn around from the previous semesters. I won't go into school by school enrollment patterns, but most schools have had some increase in at least credit hours. The changes in headcount has been more varied reflecting, perhaps, the results of the marketing efforts we have been engaged in for the past year--meaning that we have been successful, I believe, in attracting a larger number of beginning, first-year students than we might otherwise have. Specifically, the matriculants, that is students new to Indiana University, are up 17 percent in comparison with last year with freshmen, or first-year students, making up 25 percent of that increase. This includes transfer students from other institutions as well as those just beginning college for the first time. There were significantly more at the undergraduate level than the graduate level, although there was also an increase at the graduate/professional level.

We also had increases in minority enrollments for the first time following two years of slight decreases in minority enrollments. The overall minority enrollment was up from about 12.2 percent to about 12.8 percent; a very small increase, but in the right direction. However, the largest, most noteworthy increase occurred among African/American students where we had a 7.5 percent increase this year in comparison with last year. Again, I think this reflects the hard work of a number of offices that have been trying to turn around declining participation of African/American students.

Full-time enrollment is also another significant area of change in the students this year. Full-time enrollment by undergraduates is up 5.8 percent, part-time enrollment by undergraduates dropped 2.9 percent. So, we are having a shifting proportion of students at the undergraduate level with more full-time undergraduates. One particular fact that is noteworthy is students new to UEC who are full-time increased 35 percent over last year. Of course, thelargest number of the new headcounts are logged in UEC, as opposed to the individual schools.

One other fact that I would mention is that the number of students in the 18-20 year old range is up almost 9 percent over last year. At the same time, we had a drop of almost 5 percent in the students who are in the 29-44 year range. Again, this reflects what I think has been the marketing effort targeted towards the population of students who are most interested in attending college. I would be happy to refer any questions you have about enrollments to Mark Grove who is here.

SPECHLER: I think that is wonderful on the quantitative side. Could you tell us about the qualitative side? The average SAT, for example, of our incoming students?

PLATER: Not yet, Martin, but we will have that information soon. There is a full analysis of the characteristics of the students being developed now, and we will report that as soon as we can -- probably at the next Faculty Council meeting.

BEPKO: I might just say one other thing about enrollments. The first reports indicate that all the other IU campuses are down, including Bloomington by small percentages, but nevertheless, enrollments are down everywhere else. I think it is also important to at least start the analysis that Bill has suggested of explaining to ourselves why we may have moved up a little while all of the other IU campuses were moving down. I think it is probably based on five points:

1) Your good work as faculty at attracting students; 2) It may be that the economy is slowing ever so slightly and that could throw students back into taking more hours, if not re-enrolling,

2) It may be that the economy is slowing ever so slightly and that could throw students back into taking more hours, if not re-enrolling;

3) We had what we think was a very good promotional program. You may have seen the advertisements on television or in the newspapers... "More is Better" is beginning to be understood by people. I think it is resonating in the community.

4) We had a new emphasis on service and customer orientation in our service units. For students, we consolidated some of our activities, drew together units that had been quite independent before and tried to create this web of services that students find very responsive.

5) Finally, I think we made some headway, again thanks to the excellent work that you have done as faculty, on our retention of students. Our retention figures, I think, are moving up for the first time in a number of years.

It is good news and it is even better news because it is the result of excellent work on your part and it is also the case that our promotional program was envisioned to be a five-year effort. We did not expect payoff to come early in the process. We thought maybe after two or three years the ideas that we were trying to communicate across the region, across the state, would take hold after a couple of years. But, it seems, at least to some extent, to have paid off earlier than we expected. We are still going to continue, however, with this multi-year program of making people more aware of the extraordinary educational resources that are here at IUPUI.

PLATER: I think it is important to emphasize this last point. Our success, in comparison with other, especially, public institutions means that the competition is likely to increase for the student body that we have been most successful in attracting to IUPUI. We will have to renew and sustain the efforts that we began in so many different ways during the past year or two to continue this growth. Are there any other questions or comments?

The Capacity Model is a term that I am sure is familiar to almost everyone on the Faculty Council. Just to remind you briefly of the history of this, the Board of Trustees has expressed considerable interest in the teaching effort of faculty across Indiana University, and it initiated a series of discussions that led to our appointing various task forces during the past several years that came together to talk about how we define the work the faculty are engaged in with special emphasis on reporting teaching activities. The Trustees continued their interest, developed some refinements in their own views about faculty work, especially as it relates to teaching, and asked the chancellors of the campuses to make reports which occurred about two years ago. Chancellor Bepko reviewed with the Faculty Council an analysis that we had prepared of faculty teaching efforts and made that presentation to the Trustees. Other chancellors did the same. The Trustees, in turn, began to refine their understanding of how to define faculty work, and they developed two models that they refer to. The first one is the Wisconsin Model which is a way of reporting faculty work aggregated by group instruction and individual instruction. And, a more significant model is known as the Capacity Model which grew out of work of the College of Arts and Sciences in Bloomington; in very simple terms, it is a way of defining what the capacity of a department is or a school and then estimating what percentage of the capacity is actually being delivered by the faculty in terms of teaching sections of courses -- reporting only group instruction as opposed to individualized instruction.

In adopting these two models the Trustees required that all campuses prepare a summary report, in our case, on a school by school basis, and to have this report available for review on September 1. Thanks to the very hard work of Victor Borden and his colleagues in the Office of Information Management and Research the work of deans and their staffs, over the summer we were able to pull together these reports and submit them by the September 1 deadline. They are very interesting reports. I am sure that all of the faculty will want to see the models for their schools and, indeed, other schools. We will be glad to make them available through the school offices. You should know that this is an evolutionary process. I don't think we have reached the final stage of defining what the Capacity Model is. In fact, one of the likely events of reporting this information for campuses as large and complex as ours, along with the other campuses of IU, will be some further revisions, redefinitions of the model itself. A committee appointed by the Trustees, including members of the Trustees, faculty, and administrative officers will make the first review or analysis of all of this data and presumably come to some conclusions about how effective the model is in representing faculty work, particularly as it relates to teaching. I would say that we allowed considerable variation among the schools in how they defined some of the terms that apply to the model such as"section sizes" and "policies for releasing or assigning faculty to work other than teaching". This information is reported in the model and, as you look through the various ways in which schools have chosen to represent their work, you will see that there is a reasonable consistency but some significant variation that reflects the diversity of the school and the mission of the school and the type of work they are engaged in. The work of the School of Medicine, for example, is very different from the School of Physical Education, and the model has the flexibility to reflect those differences in work. I think it would be difficult for us to say much more without your having the model in front of you. At some time in the not too distant future, that information will be readily available to faculty. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

SPECHLER: Point of information. We have an elected representative to this joint committee to review the teaching Capacity Model and he is David Malik, chairman of the chemistry department. We all elected him and if you have questions about this rather sensitive matter, David is pursuing this rather energetically and thoughtfully. Now, I have a question for you, Bill. I have heard many different things about your thinking on this matter and the position of the campus overall. The major issue is whether the teaching capacity model should be defined department by department where, for example, Department A would have a capacity of four courses per FTE with certain deductions and Department B would have two or six or whether it should be defined school by school or rather, in your view, there should be, at least as a starting point, an overall number for IUPUI? The number that has been mentioned is six. We have certain deductions moderated through the AO Building. Can you give us an idea of your thinking about how the teaching capacity model will evolve here -- department by department -- school by school -- or basically campus wide?

PLATER: Jerry may want to comment further on this, but I believe that what we are trying to do is reflect the expectations of the Trustees who, in adopting the Capacity Model, were looking at the specific form of the Capacity Model used by the College of Arts and Sciences which did reflect each individual department. It is our assumption that, this is indeed the form in which the Trustees would like to have the information ultimately presented. After this committee looks at the information from all the campuses, the committee may come to a conclusion that the information should be displayed in some other way that is not by departments, but instead by schools. However, at IUPUI many of the schools can only report their data on a school-wide basis. It is primarily Arts and Sciences where the data is reflected department by department.

I think you are correct in stating the expectation of the teaching capacity of this campus being set at six sections as opposed to four for Bloomington and eight for the smaller campuses. However, in some schools the capacity has been defined slightly differently to reflect, in the case of core campus schools -- Business and Education--the expectation shared between Bloomington and Indianapolis. The decision rules for how faculty are assigned to work

other than teaching allowing some latitude in accommodating research or administrative work. That results in a lowering of capacity to give a figure that would be called, I believe, the Final Capacity. In most cases, when you make a reasonable allowances for administrative work that is involved in being department chairs, advisers, etc., in most schools the Final Capacity is over 100 percent. I think the Trustees will be very interested , and indeed the committee will be very interested, in looking at the display of this information and wondering whether or not the decisions that we made about assigning work to things other than teaching are reasonable. But, we have tried to be very forthright and direct in explaining what we are doing and why we are doing it, on the assumption that the work the faculty are engaged in here and the decisions being made by administrative officers are very reasonable and defensible. We are prepared to explain directly and frankly what it is that we are doing.

ALIPRANTIS: We accept here the six courses as the teaching load. Is that what we are saying?

PLATER: I don't think it is a matter of our accepting. I think it was a matter of the Board of Trustees saying the expectation for this campus is six. I certainly believe this is a first-rate campus and will continue to improve. I think most of the schools have made allowances for research and other activities that are reasonable and defensible.

BEPKO: I think Roko is right. I don't think the Trustees adopted a formula that suggests that every faculty member on a regional campus has to have an eight course teaching load and every faculty member in Indianapolis has to have six and Bloomington will use four as its benchmark. I think these were just reference points -- general notions of what the expectations might be. I think this focuses largely on the faculty that has a principal responsibility for undergraduate education as well. I don't think the School of Medicine, for example, is thought of as falling into this analytical framework. It is important to keep in mind that the reason for saying that there might be a difference is to counter what had been suggested and that is that Bloomington and Indianapolis ought to be exactly the same. That is something that the Trustees do not accept. They say that there are some differences between Bloomington and Indianapolis, maybe not in some programs, but in the general academic programs especially at the undergraduate level. In saying what those differences are, they say, "Well, we think that in an urban university, if you look at peers, you will find that the teaching loads are probably a little higher than they are in the campus that Myles Brand has referred to as the 'flagship campus,' the Bloomington campus." That is the original reasoning. I don't think that in any given program there is a suggestion that there is a second class citizenship, but I think we have to recognize that the expectations of the community, of the state, and of the Trustees are that we will not emulate Bloomington in a way that causes us to reduce everyone's teaching load so that it is the same as Bloomington.

MCDONALD: What do you do with librarians? Do you ignore them or do you count them as "Other"?

PLATER: The focus now is on teaching capacity. As a consequence, we have not included the librarians in the models including...

MCDONALD: In this brave new world librarians feel that they are doing more and more teaching what with these automated systems and computerized access points, etc. and somehow or another would like to be in assist.

PLATER: I think that is an important point. One of the things about which we are all very conscious is that the model which we are working with is extremely simple and does not adequately reflect the complexity of the faculty work. For example, there is a lot of small group or individualized instruction that is not adequately reflected in this model. What we have tried to do is to find ways to aggregate it so that the work can be recorded in some statistical way, but the model itself does not allow it. More over, there is a lot of teaching work that the faculty are engaged in that doesn't come in the form that is most familiar to the public. There is laboratory work and rotation supervision of clinical work, etc., and we are trying to find ways to translate that work into this common notion by section. It is imperfect and that is why I think that we are merely at a point in the development of a model some years from now that we will all feel comfortable with. By then, hopefully, the emphasis will have changed from these issues to the results of faculty work: the students who have graduated, how much they have earned, and how well they have learned instead of how many students we are teaching. But, for right now we are trying to use the public perception of what teaching is.

BEPKO: I would like to say one other thing in response to Roko's question. The beginning of this discussion was that IUPUI was a regional campus and should teach eight. That is how the discussion began. I wanted to make sure that you were aware of the fact that we think that there is some progress that has been made in developing a thorough understanding of the extraordinary resources that are here and making the Trustees aware that this is a special kind of university that is not to be compared with other campuses. It may not be exactly the same as Bloomington, but it may emerge as the most important part of Indiana University.

KARLSON: You made a comment which has really bothered me. You talked about this campus being a flagship campus. I thought we were a core campus concept. Now, suddenly the flagship is sailing again. Are we rejecting this core concept? I do know that President Brand caused great problems with some of the Law School alumni with some of his comments made about the Law School on this campus which he had to retract and apologize for to one of our prestigious alumni who controls quite a bit of funding in this state and political power. Is he again sailing the flagship and is the flagship going to be shooting at this campus? I find this exceptionally disturbing and a backward movement. The idea that we are going to have different teaching loads bleeds over into another area because in the past when we have discussed salary differences between the various campuses, one of the factors that has been brought up is the publications and the standing and reputations of people teaching on different campuses. Well, it is very easy to say, 'You teach four courses, you teach six, but we are going to give you more money because you publish more." This I find to be an extremely disturbing concept.

BEPKO: Like I said, Myles Brand has used the expression. I didn't say that it was something that was agreed to as a way of characterizing campuses. As far as University policy is concerned, the core campus is Bloomington and Indianapolis.

NG: It is often said that we want to move ahead to become a Carnegie One institution. I would like to ask two questions. The first is how do we compare to a Carnegie One institution in terms of teaching loads? Second, assuming that the normal faculty teaching load among Carnegie One institutions is different from the six courses per year load expected of us, how are we going to resolve the differences between our aspiration to become a Carnegie One institution and the demand from the Trustees? I am convinced that there is no Carnegie One institution which has a six courses per year teaching load.

PLATER: There are two points. One is that this is not what our faculty are doing. We are teaching less than six sections on an average. There may be an expectation that defines what the capacity is, but the model tries to reflect as accurately as we can, given all of the flaws that we have mentioned here and others that we haven't mentioned with the model itself, what we are doing. It depends on the school, but the average is not going to be six courses per semester. It is going to be less than that because there are good reasons for our teaching less than the six sections that might be expected if we defined capacity at six sections. If you were to look only at the capacity as projected, again it would vary from school to school, but let's say in the School of Science, your actual work might be 80 percent of what the capacity would be if you assumed that every full-time faculty member were going to teach six sections (defined in a fairly narrow way) during the course of the year. That seems to me to be a reasonable statement of what we are doing and is defensible. There is nothing wrong with that. It just means that if you choose to look at capacity in one way, a very narrow, strictly defined way, then we are at 80 percent of capacity. On the other hand, if you make allowances for assigning faculty to other activities than teaching, then you can come up with a capacity that is higher than that. I would say that in the School of Science the final capacity, as Vic has called it, is over 100 percent because it is reasonable to define the nature of the faculty work to take into account these other activities we have to perform. So, the model simply tries to describe what is going on.

In terms of other institutions like us but who were also Carnegie One institutions, we are trying to gather that data right now to find out what the teaching loads are at other institutions that fit our institutional profile. You have all heard us talk in the past about peer institutions and how hard it is to come up with a set of peers for IUPUI, but we now think we have 10 institutions that are engaged in the full range of activities that we are and another institutions that are engaged, essentially, in work that is more like a community college. So, we can make a distinction between the teaching capacities of the two parts of the institution. We will gather that information and we will certainly share it with the appropriate committees and with the full Council when we have something valuable to report. Impressionistically, I can tell you in conversations with Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and Provosts around the country that almost all of the institutions are going through exactly what we are right now. There is a changing expectation about how much faculty will teach.

TURNER: I am sure that your enthusiasm about being back to your responsibility as Faculty Council members, is causing it, but you are doing a lousy job of identifying yourselves when you speak. (laughter). Let me ask you again to identify yourself before you speak so the minutes may accurately reflect your comments.

BEPKO: I have two more quick points. We have used so much time that I will simply mention these two other items. One, as you can see in the newspaper, the hospitals' consolidation efforts continue including the Governor's Panel, which is reviewing all of the plans that have been made for the consolidation of IU and Methodist Hospitals. The Governor's Panel met the other day. You might have read an article in the newspaper about it. There are a number of issues that have been raised along the way. The progress, although a little slower than might have been expected, is still steady and there is still an expectation that the consolidation of the hospitals will take place sometime either much later this year or early in 1996.

While there still is that expectation and still optimism that this is the right thing for Indiana University and for the School of Medicine, there are a variety of problems any one of which could cause this consolidation effort to unravel at some point along the way. We don't anticipate that, but it is not beyond the realm of possibilities. The one most important thing to mention here is that the non-negotiable, indispensable bottom line requirement for Indiana University is that the arrangements looking into the future not be such that they would disturb or change in a radical way the chemistry, the culture that we have in academic medicine today at Indiana University, the culture that has made the IU School of Medicine one of the finest schools of medicine in a public university in the country. If it appears that the efforts to consolidate cannot accommodate the preservation of that culture, then I think probably there will be some unraveling of this relationship.

Finally, the University, as you probably recall from the spring term, has been engaged in the "Strategic Directions" project since last fall. Eight task forces started their work; three of them chaired by colleagues of ours from IUPUI. The eight task forces began their work in January and filed their reports in June after the Faculty Council had its last meeting. During the summer those task force reports have been compiled into a couple of longer documents that will be used during the fall term to precipitate discussion all across the university. In a couple of weeks time you will receive a copy of what will probably be described as a draft Strategic Directions Charter. This is a refinement and a compilation of the task force reports. It has been reviewed by the Steering Committee for the Strategic Directions process, of which Kathy Warfel is a member. It has also been reviewed by all 230 members of the task forces that we now think of as a Strategic Directions Council for the whole university. Most of those are faculty members, and as you know, all chairs of these task forces were faculty members. 'Pure' faculty members as we have described them; not tainted by an administrative appointment. When this compilation of these documents is ready in its next version, which will be right after the Trustees' meeting next week, and I would hope before the first of October, will be sent to all of you along with some suggestions. There will be discussions during the fall term leading to what may be the consideration of these documents along with all of your comments, these documents as amended by your comments at the Trustees' meeting in December. That may be an overly ambitious schedule, but that is the one that has been set forth and we will try to adhere to it.

I think Kathy will probably mention some things that are being done by Faculty Council groups this fall term to help with the process and to make sure that the documents that are finally submitted to the Trustees for their approval reflect a good, solid consensus and agreement across the university about the important strategic directions that we should follow.


WARFEL: I would like to say something in follow up to the discussion about President Brand's view of Bloomington and the other campuses -- our campus in particular. I don't know how many of you have had a chance to meet President Brand or talk to him. Have you had a chance to talk with the President? Anybody? I think that there is cause to be wary perhaps and uncertain about how he views IUPUI. I think that he to date has been sort of 'Bloomington based' and more visible on the Bloomington campus. I know that he has visited all of the small campuses and talked with the faculties there. He has not yet visited with us. I have encouraged him to do come to IUPUI and interact with the faculty here sometime as soon as possible. I hope that when he does come that you come forward and interact with him.

Secondly, It is an extremely busy year with faculty governance work to be done. This Strategic Directions project is a large part of it, but even without that we would have a lot of business to follow up on -- Dismissal for Financial Exigency, Post-tenure Review, moving the Clinical Ranks issue through the UFC -- to name a few. I think that we have it fairly well sorted out in terms of distributing it to committees. We have not yet had a chance to have an organizational meeting, but we will soon. The Executive Committee will meet with the chairs of our IUPUI standing committees and with the Presidents of the school faculties, as many as can come to the meeting, to lay out an overview of everything that is stewing and what pot it is stewing in and what our expectations for progress should be this fall. We will do that soon before the next Council meeting.

Of the several items left over from last year, the year went by without launching the administrative reviews. Two of them that were supposed to begin last year. The reviews of Vice Chancellor Blake and Dean Stocum will begin soon.

The only other thing, given that there is a lot on the agenda and we are going to have an organizational meeting for the chairs later, I have one other thing that I need to make known. You may remember that last fall when we were talking about Dismissal for Misconduct Policies, we had before the Council a document concerning discussion on the Dismissal for Misconduct. The subject of this document was whether or not refusing to be have your faculty work reassigned should constitute serious misconduct. There was a couple of examples in the paper. The question is, if you come here because of expertise in one area and there is an agreement that the university is hiring you because of that expertise, you come because you want to work in that area of expertise. However, you are asked to go to another area and you refuse to go. Would that be serious misconduct? We never got around to discussing that in the Council but I need to make known to the faculty that at least in the School of Medicine, we now do have a precedent set. There was a case this past year where someone who was reassigned out of their area of expertise was found to be guilty of serious misconduct by doing that. So, in advising your fellow faculty members what they should if they find themselves in this situation, I think that they should be aware that in fact it may turn out to be viewed as serious misconduct.

NG: By refusing to be reassigned?

WARFEL: That is correct.

SPECHLER: A word further on the flagship concept. That is loose talk. What is on paper in Strategic Direction 1.5 is the following sentence which ought to reassure my colleague from the School of Law..."Retain the Bloomington and Indianapolis campuses as the focus of doctoral and terminal professional degrees." I think that is very reassuring for us. The other thing is, for people to reflect on the naval history and success of such flagships as the Bismarck and the Missouri. [laughter].

KOLESKI: If a faculty member is transferred out of an area of expertise into a new area, I would presume that faculty member would have time to prepare for the new area. The question then turns out to be, how much and what kinds of resources can be used in relation to helping the faculty member make the change?

WARFEL: I think in regard to professional incompetence we talked about transferring someone into an area where they work and were competent or could be competent; taking them out of an area where they are incompetent. That is not a play in the scenario I described. It was not a matter of incompetence. It was a matter of 'you came here to do this, but I am sorry you aren't going to do it anymore.'

KARLSON: There are two possible scenarios here. One is a need scenario in which there is a need scenario in which there is a need in this field and they transfer someone from another area because of that need. I can see that if that is the basis of the transfer, to refuse that transfer could be considered misconduct assuming you have confidence in that field and you are given time to obtain that confidence. What if you are dealing with a personality clash when it is being done for a particular purpose? I could say in particular an untenured faculty member. A movement into a new area could delay their research significantly so they would not meet the qualifications for tenure. Is there any attempt to make a distinction between the reasons for this transfer and also the additional time that the untenured faculty member would have to have to acquire the expertise in this new field to start making a contribution that tenure requires.

KOLESKI: I would like to follow up on a previous question. I understand that the organizations which employ us are concerned with their organizational survival and achievement as they have to be. But, at the same time, to move a faculty member from one department to another without the opportunity for adequate preparation to do something new is quite unforgivable.

KARLSON: There was no answer to my question. Is there any response to that?

WARFEL: I think you made very good points. There are a number of valid reasons for rearranging the work of an individual and I think it is important to study them in any given case. My purpose in mentioning the whole thing here at Council today is not to analyze any particular case. I do think that we shouldn't under estimate the importance of this having happened. The importance to other faculty members. I think they should be aware that this can happen.

PLATER: I would just comment very briefly because I think that what has been described here are a set of hypothetical situations. We could all conjure up details that would make us think that something unfair, perhaps unjust has been done. It is very difficult to have a discussion like this where the situation is so hypothetical or abstract. In dealing with specific cases, Kathy Warfel and I often talk about the specific individuals, and I think we are able to sort out the issues reasonably. We may not agree on them. I think other people would as well if they were look at specific cases. The point that I have tried to make in dealing with this general topic is that there is a Faculty Board of Review process which assures all faculty of an opportunity for a hearing before peers. That right is unabridged and unaffected by anything that might happen in the way of an assignment of faculty to work that they feel is inappropriate. Faculty have that right and should exercise it when they feel that they are being asked to do something that is unreasonable.

ROTHE: Faculty Boards of Review, to my knowledge, does not have the power to say 'You may not.' Then can the administration tell the director they cannot move this person? Is that what you are saying? If the Faculty Board of Review says that this is not fair, then the administration can reverse the decision?

PLATER: The recommendation goes to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has the authority to accept or reject or accept in part the recommendation of a Faculty Board of Review.

BEPKO: We have never had a recommendation from a Faculty Board of Review, that I recall, which has been rejected. We have had some that we have had to modify. We have had some that we didn't think we could implement quite as they were made, but we have not taken action that was directly inconsistent with a Faculty Board of Review recommendation ever that I know of.

KARLSON: Just as a follow up on this. If a faculty member is given a reassignment, his request for a Faculty Board of Review is going to take some period of time. I assume that the __________ that reassignment pending the Faculty Board of Review's recommendation, particularly if he isn't given adequate notice. In theory, what happens during that period because his qualifications, his teaching report, his teaching standards for the students are going to be low if he hasn't had time to prepare. That justifies other action.

TURNER: The questions you raise are important and especially since we are now faced with the needing to respond the cases. The language in the original policy, which I don't have at my finger tips right now, anticipate some of this. Maybe for the next meeting you could look back at the actual language of the policy that we passed and then come back to us. I think some of what you are asking, Ray and Henry, is covered in the policy. I am not sure if all of it is. It may be that we would be better off if we had the language in front of us.


SIDHU (Alternate for Karen Teeguarden): Service by the faculty members has been a very important factor for IUPUI. That has been a great strength of IUPUI. My question to Chancellor Bepko is, have we tried to convince the Trustees to keep service as an important factor for rewarding in promotion and tenure of the faculty members or in calculating the contributions of the faculty members in general? We are talking about the work load in the teaching courses. Service should be included in calculating the work load. I think service needs to be paid some attention because, if you neglect service, some of the members, those who have been active in university service may drop out of it and that will be a great setback for the progress of IUPUI. My question is, are you going to try or have you tried to convince the Trustees to pay some attention to service?

BEPKO: Yes. There is a group working on defining service and its value to the institution right now. Bill [Plater] may want to comment on that.

PLATER: There is a task force jointly appointed by President Warfel and myself to look at professional service with the goal of issuing a document that we can take a look at as faculty it will help in recording and documenting the work of faculty in service and making it known, not only to ourselves for the faculty rewards process, but also to the public such as the Board of Trustees. I think the work of that committee is very important. It is chaired by Jeff Vessely and I am sure he would be very eager to hear from members of this Council about their interest in the work of that task force. I would also say that the Strategic Directions Charter talks a great deal about service. I think this will be a very important subject for discussion among faculty during the coming year. The point that you are making is to be foregrounded in those discussions. So, I think there will be many opportunities for us on this campus and university wide to address the issue of service and its role as a part of our overall responsibilities.

The final comment that I would make is that in the Teaching Capacity Model we have tried to take into account service of two particular kinds. One is the service that is rendered in mentoring and advising students which I tend to think of as being part of our teaching responsibilities, but in some people's minds is regarded it as service. It is important to record and document that work of the faculty. Of course, there is administrative service--people who are department chairs or advisors of graduate programs, etc. The model tries to take that into account reporting that part of the faculty work to the Trustees.

SIDHU: Somehow we are getting either the wrong signal or feeling that service should not be given that much importance that it has been given in the past. That is the reason I asked that question.

BEPKO: There is a question that I know is lingering here that I would like to answer even though it hasn't been articulated and that is, what is this Strategic Directions project going to do to our campus planning process, which we have been developing for a number of years? As you recall, last year we distributed documents reflecting the thinking of groups that were at work in envisioning the future of IUPUI. We had planning concepts built around four ideas that the institution's quality was the most important factor in developing its future. That collaboration was a key to our future. That centrality -- the location of our institution -- was key to our future and that identity issues were very important to achieving the kind of institution we would like to develop. All of that goes forward in partnership with the Strategic Directions project. In fact, there is tremendous overlap. The planning ideas that we have had on our agenda and that have been in front of you for some time now coincide directly with the Strategic Directions task force reports. So, you will be hearing about these projects going forward together and you will be receiving documents and reports from groups that will include your membership as well as the membership of people in the administration as the fall term unfolds and as we move into the spring. I should also mention that the funding that has been set aside to support Strategic Directions projects will be looked at with the hope that our campus planning and the Strategic Directions will coincide and that we will have funded proposals, initiatives, that will attract funding in this process and that will reflect both the Strategic Directions initiatives and our own initiatives.

Finally, I think it is important in this setting to make one point about all of this planning; that is, that we have thought all along that IUPUI would be something special and different. It would not be exactly the same as Bloomington. If we define ourselves in terms of Bloomington, I think we will lose --not only because politically it will be very difficult to convince the State of Indiana that they should have another Bloomington without disparaging Bloomington. I don't think the state wants another Bloomington. What they want is a new model -- something that we can provide in this setting because of our quality, because of our history of collaboration, because of centrality in our location, and because of the developing identity that we will have that sets us apart from Bloomington. I think we will inherit the future and we won't do it because we are going to emulate and insist on a particular teaching load that originated in Bloomington. I think that the most important thing for us to do is to make that our new identity so that people have sufficient appreciation for it and can join the bandwagon that will cause this campus eventually to be the flagship, if you want to use that expression.

PETERSON: I have a question about administrative positions. I saw a line in the newspaper a month of so ago about the combination of two administrative offices. Apparently David Robbins' office was combined with Bob Martin's office. This is positive in some ways. It would reduce the number of Vice Chancellors by one by doing it. I was unclear as to the rationale for this -- whether there is a move to centralization of some of these facilities or whether this was just an expeditious move or whether it is true.

BEPKO: We were trying to respond to your oft-repeated comment that we have too many vice chancellors so we did something about it. [laughter] Our concern was primarily for showing in a way that affected our own work, and that will require some sacrifices on our part, that we are just as serious about the costs of operating as we have asked others to be. We think we can handle this new combination of responsibilities without losing anything. We think that we will be able to do the same sort of work that we did before, but with less in the way of senior people. It won't result, we hope, in any loss of services.

PETERSON: That was our concern as faculty. Obviously, we have enough concern and that is there are too many administrative persons which will detract from our overall budget of the campus.

BEPKO: We want to do more with less.

PETERSON: We are all apparently trying to do that.

TURNER: That is the end of the Question and Answer Period. We will move on to our next agenda item.


TURNER: You have before you the draft of the Principles of Undergraduate Education at IUPUI. Our business today is to discuss these principles. You have seen them before. They have been out to the schools for consideration. Those responses have been brought back. They have been to the committees of the Faculty Council and now we need to look at and consider them and, if possible, to endorse them as principles that would be used campus wide. Kathy, would you talk a little about this?

WARFEL: You will remember last year we constituted the Council on Undergraduate Learning and agreed that it would serve as a forum for discussion about Undergraduate Learning issues campus wide. The reconstituted Council has the dean of each of the schools with an undergraduate mission or the dean's designee, an elected faculty member from each of those schools, the offices of the Faculty Council, plus the chairs of Budgetary Affairs, Student Affairs, and Academic Affairs committees, administrative members on it. It has turned out to be, I think, a very useful forum for working towards consensus. You also remember when we agreed on the CUL process that the CUL was not going to be making decisions. It was going to be facilitative decision making.

We are at the point with our campus wide Principles of Undergraduate Learning, started out as campus wide Principles of General Education. We have initial input from each of the schools. It has been analyzed. The analysis has been sent back out to schools. It has been sent to our Academic Affairs and Student Affairs committees, etc. Pretty much at this point all the groups have signed off on these principles as being what we can agree to campus wide.

Looking at these principles was on this Faculty Council's agenda for May but the wrong attachment was sent out so we didn't get a chance to look at it last May. I had been asked by the faculty in SPEA why they are not demonstrated in Table I since they are in fact a significant part of this. Barbara had indicated that it was an omission because of the timing and many apologies. SPEA is also a very important part of the Undergraduate Learning mission.

So, at this point this is a chance for the Council to have an opinion about these nine principles that have been, if you have read this document, carefully called from what each of the school statements about general education or undergraduate learning said.

SPECHLER: I think that this is basically a good job and I like the principles, but any process of integration depends on the kind of questions that are asked and the method of collating answers. Very curiously and very troubling to me is the fact that the international dimension which is identified explicitly in our Mission Statement that was just promulgated is totally absent from these nine principles. There is no mention whatever of the fact that our country is becoming more and more a part of the local society and that our economy, our poverty, and our culture is intimately and more and more connected with the international reality. No mention of this. It can't be that schools are not aware of this. Our school, the School of Liberal Arts, certainly has what I would call international dimension -- a foreign language. The School of Business has what is called an international dimension. Somehow in the collation of this document, that was entirely deleted. I would like to call on the Council to add the international dimension as a tenth principle which will explicitly be considered by the Council on Undergraduate Learning. About one dozen colleagues and I have consulted and we bring forth a page which has been endorsed by a number of members of our faculty and which explains why this principle should be explicitly recognized as it is in our Mission Statement and how it could be implemented throughout the campus. So, I would like to move that this proposal be forwarded to the committee for study and report.

WARFEL: Martin, it doesn't fit under Understanding Society and Culture?

SPECHLER: No. A lot of things fit, Kathy, but I noticed that professional philosophy is mentioned, professional economics is not mentioned, but professional philosophy is mentioned. Why? If it is acceptable, let's put it in. I don't think that there is any great importance to whether it is a separate principle. We are not going to teach principles, but the important thing is whether we are going to teach about our international connections on this campus. I very much think that we should and so do more than one dozen of my colleagues in the School of Liberal Arts just in a preliminary canvas of their opinion.

WILSON: In the Council of Liberal Arts and Science we would include international education and we do under Understanding Society and Culture. We are having discussions about what exactly does that mean in curriculum and part of our discussion has included foreign language. So, it is actually in there. I think faculty understand it to be in there. It is not excluded just because the word 'international' isn't in there. Culture doesn't mean just American culture or Indiana culture or Indianapolis culture. It can mean culture period -- culture all over the world. I don't see any problem.

BALDWIN: If we had the words, instead of Understanding Society and Culture, we would say 'Understanding the World's Societies and Cultures.' That would include all societies and cultures. Indiana society is a broad culture.

WILSON: But, by not specifying it, you don't exclude it.

BALDWIN: No, but I think there is an interest in...

WILSON: But, we can do that for every special interest on this campus and try to include every special word to include everybody's interest. For example, in Library Science, maybe that should go in there too, because it is....

BARLOW: When we did the Council of Liberal Arts and Science principles we didn't try to do it in terms of sound bytes. This list here is almost a list of sound bytes. We specified for each principle that we had what that actually meant and were clear about some of the international dimensions. I think the conception here is a bunch of sound bytes. We know what sound bytes have done to politics in this country. I didn't notice this, but because I was so aware of the presence of the international dimension in some of the original documents that I took for granted, but there is a danger in having a document where it doesn't have a couple of phrases here and there, without specifying exactly what those phrases mean. That hasn't been done. Ten years from now someone could act on the assumption that there is no expectation of anything international in general education.

In one of the principles listed, Principle #1 Core Skills, it was felt necessary to specify what those core skills were to make sure that none were left out. It seems to me when you say, under #4, Understanding Society and Culture, we could be equally specific. I think what Jim Baldwin suggested is as simple as possible to solve this problem. I think the point that Martin made is a good point. I think we need to get international in there somewhere.

WARFEL: Those are very important points. It has been a long road to get to this document and I don't think that anybody views this stage right here as "Oh good! We have done that, we can now go on a do something else." It is an incredible accomplishment to have gotten as many factions as already agreed on these nine sound bytes. So, I would suggest, if we could say today that we accept this as the starting point and where do we go from here? The next step is to flush these outs, to define more clearly what we mean.

BARLOW: There is a motion on the floor that Martin made. Martin, would it be satisfactory to your motion, if Jim Baldwin's suggestion was added to say, "Understanding World Society and Culture?"

TURNER: It is not exactly on the floor. It didn't get a second.

BARLOW: Oh, it didn't. VERMETTE: I second it.

TURNER: It has now been seconded.

BARLOW: I agree completely with Kathy about doing this as simply as possible, but I think we have to get it in there somehow.

KOLESKI: The committee, to get this far, should be commended. They have done a remarkable job in trying to raise our awareness of "cultures" and "societies." I like the idea of the gentleman from the Library [Jim Baldwin]. Our School of Social Work was faced with the same issue in relation to re-accreditation. This led us to rethink our society's relationship to others in the world as to social and economic well-being, social problems, and social services. With due recognition of the fact that we live in multiple cultures in our society, we had already embraced the concept of the plural "cultures." The School, thanks to one primary person and a few other key people, has a long standing international program. But, we were still using the singular term - "society" in our curriculum material. It is just not possible to do that nowadays with people, goods, services, ideas, information and decisions flowing across societal boundaries. We now use the plural -- "cultures" and "societies." Many of the things that transcend boundaries are positive for us in the United States and for those in other countries. But, we also must be aware that when Glaxo makes a decision in England, it affects 1,400 jobs in North Carolina. We in the United States do the same to other countries. We live in a world of "cultures" and "societies" and we have to recognize that there are both positives and negatives in the reality of growing international relationships.

NG: Point of information. According to the handwritten note at the bottom, everyone should have two years of foreign language?

SPECHLER: That is the opinion of Lucila [Mena]. It is just to show you, Bart, that some people would go even further than I would. [laughter]

NG: The School of Science has no language requirement for graduation. I am not sure what the motion is.

SPECHLER: The motion is not to adopt here. The motion--I'll accept Jim's idea or other ideas--that is not the issue. The issue is to have international dimension considered on its merits by the appropriate committee and not here. That is all that is in the motion. This is to show that it is feasible. I would ask people to support simply the idea of referring it to the appropriate committee for study and report.

TURNER: The motion, then, would accept that we could go ahead and give our blessing to the document as it has been shaped and add to it, as we send it along, the statement that the further committees consider specifically international dimension?

SPECHLER: That is fine, Richard.

VERMETTE: I have a question for Martin. Do you want the international dimension to become a tenth principle or do you want it worked into #4 "Understanding Society and Culture?" If you look at Table #2, on the next page under #4, would adding it in there be sufficient as one of the possibilities or dimensions to that particular principle?

SPECHLER: The answer, Rosalie, is that I prefer a tenth principle, but as we all do who engage in this there will be give and take. The real importance is not whether it is ten commandments or 613 commandments or some other count, the important thing is what we do, how it is implemented. If the implementation takes the international dimension seriously, as I think this proposal does, then whether we have five, nine, ten, or 600 principles, really doesn't matter.

KUBITSCHEK: I support John Barlow's comment because it seems to me that one of the ways to get all of these groups, these factions, to agree on something is vague language. I would point to #9 -- Communication --which I had assumed would be writing, reading, and speaking. If we look at what Communication covers on that fourth page, there is a lot about collaboration. Communication and collaboration are not the same thing. You can make a case that they are related, but they are certainly not the same thing. I would like to know what is meant by communication. There is nothing there spelling it out. If it is not reading, writing, and speaking, what is it?

WARFEL: I would suspect that collaboration is under Communication because the idea is that one needs to be able to communicate in order to collaborate.

KUBITSCHEK: If we are going to have collaboration as a principle, I think it ought to appear directly as a principle for approval.

ORME: I am not sure I know at this point what it is, but before we go into communication and collaboration, I think there is a motion on the floor referring to the second. Should we not know whether that motion passes first?

TURNER: We have a motion to send along with whatever our disposition is of these principles, at least to add to it a suggestion that the international dimension be included explicitly as the principles are disseminated and incorporated. Included in that suggestion will be the recommendation that it be included as an independent principle or as a part of a expanded definition of something like Principle #4. I trust that implicit in that, Martin, is your willingness to send along your specific recommendations to whomever.

ROTHE: Point of order. What is the exact motion? Are we approving this. If we are approving this, we have all sorts of problems with something being added on when we have no idea of what the exact wording is.

TURNER: The principles have been developed through the process that the Council on Undergraduate Learning has adopted as its procedure and have gone to schools as well as to committees of the Faculty Council. At this point, all or at least most of these bodies have accepted this version of the principles. It is our intent then, if we can do it today, to approve these as the principles that will be used across the campus as the shaping forces in the undergraduate curriculum.

WARFEL: What we are doing now is saying, "Okay, the CUL has worked on this and this is what we have come up with so far, please comment on it and, if the Faculty Council's comment is "It is not too bad, but we are not going to sign off on it until you fix this international issue problem," that is fine. If the Faculty Council wants to say "I think this is a reasonable place for us to be, we endorse these principles, but we strongly suggest to the CUL that the international dimension be worked out and please report back to us." That is fine.

ROTHE: If you want that last one in the form of a motion, I would be happy to make it. What we have now is nothing specific.

WARFEL: I thought that the motion was that one message this Council is sending back to the CUL is that the CUL should, through the CUL process, bring up the international dimension and see if everyone who has already agreed to the document as it stands and will agree to the document with a stronger international statement. It was my understanding that the motion on the floor does not say "We will accept it with that." It is just that all by itself.

ROTHE: Would somebody please read the exact motion?

SPECHLER: The original motion said that the committee will consider and report about international dimension. Now, if you don't figure that there would be any way that the international dimension would be appropriate, you should vote "No." If you think that it might be worth thinking about, I urge you to vote "Yes."

TURNER: Is that acceptable to you as a motion? Is that clear, Carl?

ROTHE: Is that an amendment?

TURNER: We did not bring this to the Council in terms of a specific motion. It is an item for discussion because that is the way the procedure is set.

ROTHE: So, we have no motion?

TURNER: What we can do as a Council is choose to approve these principles as they stand and then we can also add on Martin's suggestion about the international dimension. We can do that separately. The motion that is on the floor is Martin's motion. The motion that the Council can pull together to decide on, if they choose to do it at all, is that the Council approves of and recommends these as the nine principles on Undergraduate Education. What happened is that Martin's motion is on the floor and we can vote on that.

WILSON: I actually would vote on that motion to get rid of it because I think that he is right. We need to have it more explicitly stated in here exactly what we mean. Maybe not exactly what we mean by these things. If we are too exact, we will never get it passed. But, we ought to be a little more explicit and not, as John said, just have a set of sound bytes that we can't define.

STOCKBERGER: Do we have the authority to add in words at this point and then approve it? So, could we could add "Understanding World's Society and Culture" and then approve it?

WARFEL: The whole problem with getting this sort of thing campus wide is that this doesn't belong to the Faculty Council. It belongs to the Faculty Council and the school faculties. It is not something that is brought to us because we are "the" final word on it. I suppose we could say a final, "No" and that would have a pretty strong impact, but it really isn't our document. It is a campus wide document.

KOLESKI: Point of information. Is this a report to the Faculty Council? Then, doesn't this come in the form of a motion that we could vote on and then follow up with Martin's proposal?

WARFEL: It is being brought to the Faculty Council to see if the Faculty Council can endorse these principles.

KOLESKI: Can we vote on this document and then go to Martin's motion?

TURNER: We could had we presented it as a report that had that as its motion.

KOLESKI: We didn't record the motion?

TURNER: We can. It didn't come in that form; Martin's motion got on the floor first.

WARFEL: Can we call for the question on Martin's behalf?

TURNER: We can respond to Martin's motion and then proceed to the focus on the principles themselves.

KARLSON: Point of information. Exactly from what committee is this being brought to the Faculty Council? Is that a committee of the Faculty Council or is it a committee of some other organization? Then, for what purpose is it being brought to the Faculty Council?

TURNER: What you have before you was brought to you from the Executive Committee.

KARLSON: So, it is a committee of the Faculty Council. As a committee of the Faculty Council we, as the Faculty Council, have the right to change that report of the committee and report on it as changed if that is what we want to do. If it is merely being brought to us for purposes of information and a straw vote, that is something different. I would like to know exactly what the status of this document is so that we can know what we can or cannot do with it.

TURNER:: The status of the document is that the Executive Committee is bringing it to your attention for your discussion and understanding and with the possibility that the Council will decide that these principles are indeed valuable as they stand and, therefore, vote the approval of these principles as part of the undergraduate learning process. It certainly is true that the Council has every right to change however many words in this report as it approves it. As Kathy suggested, that is something that has a very big cost in terms of time. So, it is something that shouldn't be done lightly.

KOLESKI: Point of information. We can't amend something that hasn't been passed. So, we have to pass something in order to amend it.

TURNER: No. We can change the report as submitted before we vote on it.

ROBBINS: A little bit of history might help this discussion. We got to where we are today as a result of actions this Council took over a year ago to assign responsibility for this issue to the Council on Undergraduate Learning. And, as part of that action, we restructured that Council in a way that we felt would adequately represent all the interested constituencies in that process. I think that what we should do now is respond to how we feel that process has gone. That is what Martin Spechler is doing. The group he represents looked at the process and concluded that the international dimension of the principles was inadequate and they are now asking the body that we charged with the responsibility to review that. All of that is quite appropriate. But the notion that the product, i.e., the principles, be brought back to this body for approval isn't an appropriate follow-up to our action last year. For the very reason that Kathy points out, having this body try to deal with the adoption and approval of the principles leads us, as predicted, right where we are now. We appropriately assigned the responsibility to the Council on Undergraduate Learning, and we should now simply comment on what we think the quality of that process has been and instruct them to continue the process.

LANGSAM: My biggest concern about all of this is to send a document back that we approve part of it but say, "You haven't exactly done it." What is the group that gets it back do with a document that we have approved but we told them that they are not finished? I think that perhaps we would be better off if we feel that the international component is an issue, to approve Martin's motion, send the whole back to the committee and get a document we know what are going to approve. If we send back 92 percent of it with this eight percent that we don't know, we are going to kill a lot more trees, they are not going to be able to proceed because they have this thing hanging around that they are waiting for us to hear from them and then approve. I would like to call for the vote on Martin's motion. Once we do that, then we can take up tabling the product until we get a response from them that we can vote on. I don't see how we can vote on something we don't know what it is exactly. That is what I think we are doing. I would like to call for the vote.

TURNER: The question has been called. There is no controversy about that matter. Could we then take a vote on the motion as made by Martin and seconded by Rosalie? All in favor of the motion, say "Aye." Opposed? [A few nays] The ayes have it and the motion passes. The next order of business will be the decision as to whether or not we take a position on this document today.

KARLSON: I move that we resubmit to the committee with directions consistent with the motion which we just voted on.

PENNA: I second that.

TURNER: Is there discussion of this motion?

WYMA: I would like to comment on earlier discussion concerning the Communication principle (Item #9) in the report. In my opinion, the descriptions of communication are worthy of further consideration. I would like the Council to review the descriptions of Communication in terms of writing, reading, and speaking.

TURNER: The process is meant to be one of moving towards consensus all along and that at any point in the process regarding any of these points you are welcome to make comments. If we, on the other hand, would like to develop an individual motion for each one of these suggestions or questions, I suppose we could do that as well.

LANGSAM: Excuse me, but unless I am misunderstanding what I am reading, Table #2 is not really exactly the committee's definition of what the principles are, but phrases from different schools which they think reflect that...this is not a definition. We are really left with sound bytes and phrases because it says "Table 2 contains a list of all key phrases used by the school. The key phrases have been grouped under the principles to which they apply." I am not sure that is right, but I don't think those are definitions. I think that is what some people have been thinking they were.

KREMER: You can see the problem that you got with general education with this discussion. This is why it is sound bytes. What we have in this table thus far are all of the key words that we use in every school.

LANGSAM: In what?

KREMER: In documents that each was asked to say what are the key objectives, the key statements that you think about general education. We took that set from each school and cut out, literally on paper, the key concepts in each school. We ordered them and we took what we thought were the most descriptive statements to describe that grouping. So, you are exactly right. These are not intended to be definitions. What they are is what every school gave us. It so happens that international is not mentioned here because it was not a key statement that we saw in any of the school documents. This process has been going on for five years. It is a long, long time and I can tell you that in every discussion in which this comes up, no matter whether it is this group of close to 50 or 5 or 2, there is disagreement about what they think. One of the reasons that there aren't statements here is that to narrow this down to absolutely what we can agree on, we had a document that was put out roughly two or three years ago that had a set of descriptive statements. That created a great deal of concern. Our hope is now to at least define the areas and then go from there.

In addition, it has been a concept, is that these are not things that we want to put anywhere on the wall of a building and say these are our principles. This is supposed to be an involving document. What I think ought to be done, in my opinion, is approve these and then the next statement we would like for you to strongly consider international dimension and then, by all means, try in your next step to define what each of these are. What we will do is go back to each school, investigate how they do this, how each school defines it, and then we will come back with a statement like this that indicates what each school thinks these principles mean.

TURNER: The motion on the floor is that we resubmit this to the committee along with the suggestion about international dimension. We are going to close this discussion very soon.

KOLESKI: Often we have heard that 'a camel is a horse put together by a committee.' But, the thing goes and you don't get your feet burned if you have some sort of transportation. If they have gone this far, let's support them.

ORME: If I am reading this correctly, this document was not brought to us today to approve, but rather to review and there is to be continual modification of this before it is redrafted and redistributed.

TURNER: That is true. We can simply review it as we have and leave it. The Executive Committee simply raised the possibility that upon review we might want to agree. That hasn't happened.

ORME: Rather than trying to approve the document in this session, it seems to me it might be more fruitful to invite those who have comments to forward them to someone who is appropriate so that you can consider them as they start to redraft this document rather than getting hung up today as to whether we can approve the exact wording is in front of us.

KUBITSCHEK: I don't believe in approving first and defining second.

TURNER: The motion on the floor is that we send this back to the Council on Undergraduate Learning with our suggestions about how they might see its definition and that we are withholding our approval at least for the time being. If there is no further discussion, all in favor of that motion, say "Aye." Opposed? [a few] Abstentions? [none] The motion carries. We will send it back to the Council on Undergraduate Learning.


TURNER: Let me, if I may, call your attention to the Proposal for an IUPUI Undergraduate Curriculum Development and Review Process. You have seen this before. It has been revised again. This is the document which asked the Council On Undergraduate Learning to use this Curriculum Committee to negotiate and develop proposals from across the campus. We are bringing it to you today from the Executive Committee to ask you to approve this Undergraduate Curriculum development and review process. That is the motion that is on the floor. It doesn't need a second. Is there discussion of the proposal for the IUPUI Undergraduate Curriculum Development and Review process?

LANGSAM: I need a point of clarification. Does this mechanism replace all existing school curricula committees?


LANGSAM: So then, presumably, what would happen is a course would go from this school curricula committee to this committee?


LANGSAM: I guess several of my points is that I am not totally clear how to know which courses would go to this for approval and, more importantly, if it is an add on. It already takes close to a year to get a course approved and if you count the time to get it into the schedule of classes, you are talking about a year and one half. I am not sure this process is going to expedite developing courses at the undergraduate level. That is a concern and I would like somebody who is involved in this to speak to it for my own better understanding of how this will function and how it will speed up or slow down getting new courses approved.

BARLOW: There is no curriculum committee on campus at IUPUI. There is for graduate courses. This is not meant to be a curriculum committee to approve every course that is proposed by any means. The purpose of this committee is to mainly review conflicts in curricula and particularly to satisfy the needs that this campus has. We have Responsibility Centered Budgeting no kind of committee that would be able to consider when schools were teaching courses that really belong to another school. It is more or less an appeals committee. We have such a committee at the graduate school level but we never have had one at the undergraduate level. It may be required to consider specific courses, but ordinarily ...

LANGSAM: So, the review process is its main function?

BARLOW: It also serves to make suggestions too.

KARLSON: Would this then have the authority to tell, for example, the department of psychology that they couldn't teach a particular course because it should be taught in the School of Education?

WARFEL: Let me try to clarify that. This document describes a process and part of that process is the creation of the IUPUI Undergraduate Curriculum Committee that would report to the Council on Undergraduate Learning and through that Council mechanism to all of the schools and to the Faculty Council and the committees and the campus administration. One of the roles of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is to keep abreast of courses that are being developed and also to receive concerns from faculty about the dispute issue. This Curriculum Committee does not sit in judgment about disputes. The Curriculum Committee receives concerns about interdisciplinary curricular disputes and, under the guidance of the CUL, it assembles appropriately constituted faculty and administrator working groups to find solutions. This committee doesn't make any decisions at all. This committee keeps on top of the situation, tries to facilitate the development of curriculum, tries to facilitate working out solutions to disputes, but it is not a "court." It is not an authoritative courts of appeals. It is just a group that has as its charge "Would you please go out there and keep track of what is going on with undergraduate curriculum? When you see something come up that needs fixing, let's figure out a way to fix it."

WILSON: So, what this is, is an improvement over the process as it exist right now. I will just give you one example. With all deference to Dean Plater who did an excellent job in this, we had a dispute between the anatomy department and the department of biology over teaching anatomy. The department of anatomy said, "Anatomy should be taught in Anatomy. Of course, that is why we call it the anatomy department." Whereas, biology has historically been teaching service anatomy courses for nursing and allied health for years. It came up as a dispute. Who should do this? Finally, the only way it could be solved was that somebody had to decide, and in this case it was Dean Plater, what would allowed and what would not be allowed in teaching courses in anatomy on this campus. The problem with that is that you end up having to send it to higher administration because that was the only way to dissolve the dispute. We had to bring in an administrator to help us sit down and do it. It would have been better to have a faculty group sit down and do it because this is something that is supposed to be in the hands of faculty.

I think that this particular document is a very well worded way of avoiding a couple of problems. One problem is that some people don't want to have a curriculum committee that sits up and decides these things -- just decides them as an authoritative court -- for lots of different reasons. So this is very carefully worded to avoid that and to keep curriculum decisions in the schools with the faculty where those decisions really belong.

TURNER: Due to the lateness hour may I ask if we are ready to vote on this proposal today?

WILSON: I had one more point. I just gave this document to the Agenda Committee in my school to bring back to the departments for discussion because that was my direction and I gave it to them at the very first meeting. This has not been discussed in my school as was promised to be done. If it is approved today, this hasn't really been discussed.

WARFEL: This is just like the other document we had. Our committees have been involved in developing this document throughout the entire year. The Academic Affairs Committee has been involved through their representation on the Council on Undergraduate Learning in doing this. Today we are bringing to this Faculty Council and, if the Council says "Yes, we accept this" and your school says "No, we don't accept it," then the CUL has a problem. Then the CUL has to say, "okay, I guess we don't have it quite right yet." So, the fact that this body expresses an opinion about it today, it is a parallel thing with your school. We are not supreme over your school. Nor is your school supreme over the opinion of this Council. It is one of those campuswide consensus things. Everybody is going to be asked to comment on this. If we can comment on it today, fine and if we can't, we can't.

NG: It seems to me we have commented about it enough. Do we need a vote?

WARFEL: If you could vote that you like this, that would be great.

TURNER: As you ready to take a vote on this? All in favor of expressing approval of this structure as developed by the Council on Undergraduate Learning, please say "Aye." Opposed? [a few] Abstention? [none] The ayes have it. We will announce to the CUL that the Faculty Council has considered this and is happy with it as it is presented.

I would like to apologize for not getting to the agenda, especially to John Kremer who came to report on the Task Force on Student Evaluation of Teaching. I hope we can persuade him to come back again. If you will allow me just a couple of minutes, was there anything on the IUPUI - IV Tech Office that had to get announced today?

PLATER: No, but JoAnn Switzer very kindly came to the meeting today as well. If I may take one minute to explain something. Most of you know that IUPUI and Ivy Tech formed a joint center on the 38th Street campus that was in operation for the past two years. That center served its purpose reasonably well. However, we had a review committee made up of several representative faculty chaired by Scott Evenbeck. Some of the members were Bart Ng, Richard Turner, and others who were directly involved with the operation of the Joint Center. We were overtaken by events with the decision to close the 38th Street facility and thereby close the physical center. In continuing our conversations with Ivy Tech about cooperation, our program evolved, if you will, into an office of coordinated programs that continues to be directed by JoAnn Switzer with the purpose of trying to avoid needless competition between Ivy Tech and IUPUI in offering courses particularly in the General Education areas. We will try to work together so that if we are offering courses at off-campus sites, we are doing it at a planned, deliberate fashion. In addition, JoAnn will continue to work with Ivy Tech to make it possible for students who are transferring from Ivy Tech to IUPUI to have the benefit of the student services that we can provide to coordinate work between, for example, the Financial Aids Office, the Admissions Office, etc.

Finally, the office will work in helping market to the public an understanding of the relationship between IUPUI and Ivy Tech so that our missions are clearly differentiated but also that we have substantial areas of overlap. In these areas we are working closely together for the benefit of the citizens. That is being carried out by JoAnn and an office that is equally funded by IUPUI and Ivy Tech. We wanted to let you know this evolution and, if you have questions after the meeting, you may ask JoAnn or me.

TURNER: Thank you, Dean Plater. We are running out of time, however, the agenda items which we have not discussed today will be on the agenda for next month's meeting.


TURNER: The meeting is adjourned.