Faculty Council Meeting

December 7, 1995

School of Dentistry, Room S115

3:00 p.m.

Present: Administration: Chancellor Gerald Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: P. Nicholas Kellum, Angela McBride, Doris Merritt, David Stocum. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, Charalambos Aliprantis, W Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Susan Ball, Jana Bradley, Kenneth Byrd, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Karen Gable, Carlos Goldberg, William Hohlt, Nathan Houser, Dolores Hoyt, Elizabeth Jones, M Jan Keffer, Raymond Koleski, Dana McDonald, Bart Ng, William Orme, Michael Penna, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Erdogan Sener, Akhouri Sinha, Karen Teeguarden, Kathleen Warfel, Kathryn Wilson, Charles Yokomoto. Ex Officio: James Baldwin, Paul Galanti, Juanita Keck, Justin Libby, Steven Mannheimer, Carl Rothe, Martin Spechler, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette.

Alternates Present: Deans: J. M. Kapoor for Dean Roberta Greene, James East for Dean Kathy Krendl. Ex Officio Members: G Roger Jarjoura for Robert Lehnen.

Absent: Administration: Trudy Banta. Deans: John Barlow, A James Brown, Trevor Brown, H William Gilmore, Robert Holden, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Philip Tompkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Merrill Benson, Joseph Bidwell, Diana Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Lynn Broderick, Timothy Brothers, Paul Brown, David Burr, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Lucinda Carr, Michael Cohen, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Patricia Gallagher, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Robert Havlik, Antoinette Hood, Henry Karlson, Michael Klemsz, Missy Kubitschek, Stephen Lalka, Miriam Langsam, Golam Mannan, Rebecca Markel, Debra Mesch, Fred Pavalko, David Peters, Richard Peterson, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Brian Sanders, Jane Schultz, Mark Seifert, Erdogan Sener (replaced Kent Sharp), Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon Jerrold Stern, Stephen Stockberger, James Wallihan, Karen West, Richard Wyma, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt.

Ex Officio Members: Henry Besch, Ronald Dehnke, S Edwin Fineberg, Carlyn Johnson, Stephen Leapman, Byron Olson.

Visitors: Barbara Albee, Barbara Cambridge, John Morgan (Staff Council), Dean Carol Nathan, William Schneider.


TURNER: Let's call this meeting to order. We have a relatively rich, but short agenda today. At the end of today's meeting we will move from this room to room 117 for the State of the Campus Address.


TURNER: Roman Numeral II will be our quickest item. Since Chancellor Bepko is going to have plenty to say later on he is foregoing his Administrative Report for today.


WARFEL I do have a couple of things I want to mention. I said at the last meeting that President Brand was going to have a discussion and luncheon with our Executive Committee and Campus Planning Committee. He has decided to divide that into two separate lunches so the Executive Committee is meeting with him tomorrow and then after the holidays are over he will have another session at which he can talk to the Campus Planning Committee which, as you know, is the committee that consists of the chairs of each of the standing committees or their designee with Dana McDonald as the overall chair of that committee plus Vice Chancellor Banta. I wanted to follow up on that.

Last time we also raised the question about what is moving along in regard to the Task Force on the Status of Women Faculty. That committee report will be forthcoming. As we all know, there is almost too much going on this semester university-wide and on this campus and to help the work of that task force. Becky Porter who, of course has nothing else to do, [laughter] has agreed to help the task force with the reports. So, we will expect to see that in the new year.

One of the things that you had a chance to pick up is a synopsis from the University Faculty Council meeting which was November 28. This isn't the synopsis of the entire meeting, but it does show the four official resolutions that the UFC passed in regard to the Strategic Directions Draft Charter. The first is simply asking the full Council to give the Agenda Committee permission to act in the way that the RFP process toward funding suggests that the Agenda Committee will act because it isn't something that the Agenda Committee really, otherwise, should take on.

The second is a statement that was originally passed by the Bloomington Faculty Council. It is a fairly lengthy statement about how important faculty governance is in making decisions within the university.

The third is a statement about our continued commitment to the value of tenure for faculty.

The fourth was offered at the end of the meeting as sort of a wrap-up resolution to bring closure.

This is just for your information about how the Charter went at the All University Faculty Council.

In regard to the Strategic Directions funding process, as promised Vice President Walker is planning informational sessions about the request for proposals process. There will be a university-wide program on December 13 from 2:00 until 3:30 p.m. On this campus we will be able to participate in that in ES 2132 for those at Columbus there is a room at Columbus also. For those who are not able to participate in the live session, there will be a video made of it and personal consultations and also there is to be an official designee on each campus to, again, help people who aren't familiar with this format in developing proposals. Do we know who our campus liaison is?

PLATER: I assume it will be Erv Boschmann because on the following day there will be a campus-specific workshop to follow-up on the university-wide one. We will plan additional workshops for faculty and staff who would like assistance in preparing proposals.

WARFEL: That is Thursday, December 14. Do we know where that is?

PLATER: I am sorry. I don't know. It has been posted on E-mail and will generally be available.

WARFEL: Lastly, among the many important things we have before us this year is the whole issue of the nature of Faculty Work and changing times, work assignments, etc. Dean Plater has been preparing a memorandum and the Executive Committee has reacted to several drafts of that memorandum. We all agree now that it is time to distribute it more widely. Each of the Council members will be receiving a copy of that memorandum with a cover letter indicating how important the topic is and that the discussion needs to continue in a broader form. That is all the new I have.


TURNER: The next item on the agenda is an announcement from the Task Force on Service and Jeff Vessely will present that.

VESSELY: This is the draft of the Report on the Task Force on Service. There are copies available in the back of the room if you didn't get one earlier. We are asking that you take this back to your individual faculty organizations to discuss it. We think it is somewhat self-explanatory. We have included at the very end of the report the three-page memo that came from Dean Plater and Kathleen Warfel that established the Task Force. If you want to know what we were about, you can start at the end and then go back to the front. We would like to receive your feedback on or before March 8, 1996 so that we have time to rediscuss it. We are hoping to establish some sort of workshop schedule maybe to include some discussion in or around the Moore Symposium. That timetable would allow the task force to review your comments. We hope that two and one-half to three month time period, even though the next 30 days of that we won't probably be having faculty meetings, but maybe in January or February you can set that up and have some discussion and circulate it to your faculty. We have some discussion on how we might get this on the E-mail to see if people would review it that way. We would ask that your comments come within the next two to two and one-half months. Thank you.

TURNER: You are asking for a response to the report in its draft form but we are not to ask committees formally to respond to it at this point. Is that correct?

VESSELY: When you read it and you think it needs some review by a committee, that is certainly appropriate. We have gathered information from peer institutions and the various schools and our sources may have caused us to overstate or understate the case in an individual situation. Any of those things that would be consider to be more factual may not be quite accurate. Our timetable would have us to come up with some sort of a handbook type information by next fall and so we want to make sure it reflects what is actually happening in the area of service as it relates to the promotion and tenure process, the merit process that we have in place. So, if you think it is appropriate to ask a committee to react to it, we would consider that appropriate also.

TURNER: Thank you, Jeff.


TURNER: Our next item is the Draft Policy for Dealing With the Effect of Financial Difficulties Upon Faculty at IUPUI. Lawrence Wilkins and Rebecca Porter who are the chairs respectively of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee will present the report to you. We are simply distributing the policy today. They are going to walk you through it. We will talk about it in some detail at the January meeting.

WILKINS: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about this draft. We began the process of formulating this policy in April. We geared up in mid to late May and met frequently and regularly through the summer right up through September and October. What you have before you is, by my count, the 12th significant draft of this proposal. We have looked at it and have banged away at it for some time. It is a pleasure to pass this document on and have it run through other minds.

We started with the idea that in order to be acceptable and coherent the document must have at its core a set of principles. So the first task that this joint subcommittee of your two committees undertook was to develop a set of Starting Principles, or core principles, if you will, to serve as the heart of this policy. We arrived at five principles that are either expressly stated in the document or are inherent in it. As you move through this document and as you think about it, I believe that you will see these important principles in this document in one form or another.

The first being that when dismissal of individuals with academic appointment are considered as a possible solution to financial problems, it ought to be under the most extreme circumstances and as a last resort.

The second and very closely allied with this notion is that when we, as an institution, reach this point, such decisions and the execution of the decisions should be a collaborative effort on the part of administration and faculty. That it shouldn't be a hierarchy goal vertical process. But, that it should be elements of the institution moving together toward the solution of the problem that threatens the institution.

Thirdly, this collaboration should be continuing and should be for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the continued effect of financial problems.

Fourthly, whatever plan is developed as a result of this process should be flexible because of the complexity of IUPUI and its many elements.

Lastly, the focus of solutions that are developed in this process should be as close to the source of the identified problem as possible.

Again, I think you will find each of these principles either expressly stated or inherent in the document. Becky is going to give you an idea of the process that has been formulated in this document.

PORTER: As you will recall, last year the Council dealt with the policies on Dismissal of Tenured Faculty for Incompetence and Academic Misconduct. When the Faculty Affairs Committee first started looking at then what would be the third reason by which tenured faculty could be dismissed, we came into the concept of financial exigency. As was indicated as we looked at the overall process, it seemed better to generate a document that talked about faculty and administration in a collaborative process through a variety of levels of financial difficulties leading up to the most severe conditions. That is why you see this document talking through a series of levels of difficulty and how faculty and administration can work together.

The document cannot be called succinct and that is why we took the strategy of trying to walk through the overall process in an outline format to give you a view of what you will be reading as you study it.

We had to start off by first defining what we are proposing as the "Normal Financial Conditions." In the normal financial condition there should be a local budgetary affairs committee, a school-based committee that consults with the dean in the development of the budget so that the idea is that faculty will be continually well informed about the financial status of their school. As part of the ongoing budgetary review process, the campus budgetary affairs committee has an overview and that means that on a broad perspective the health of the institution is review.

What is critical in the policy but really doesn't show up until later on is when we are in this normal financial state that each school faculty will develop the policies and procedures that would guide the development of a financial exigency plan. The intent is that before we get to that final state of having to decide how individuals would be selected for dismissal, that the faculty of a school will have the opportunity to think through what are the values that they want to be embedded in that selection process. So, in this plan should be considerations about rank, length of service, the importance particular positions because there is only one person who is going to have expertise in a particular area but that is critical to the academic unit meeting its mission.

The next level that is described is referred to as "Impending Financial Difficulties." The definition says this is an early stage of financial difficulties. For example, it is recognized in the budgetary review process that there is an anticipation that during this academic year all the financial reserves will be exhausted and it is now time to begin looking at taking actions to restore the financial health of the unit.

The recognition can take place internally within the academic unit based on the dean or based on the faculty budgetary committee process or can be identified externally through campus administration or the campus budgetary affairs committee.

As you look through the document, by convention if you see Budgetary Affairs Committee referred to with small letters that is referring to the local budgetary affairs and when it has capital letters Budgetary Affairs, that is referring to the campus level. Actions suggested at this level of financial difficulties are looking at ways of increasing revenues as well as looking at ways of reducing costs. For example, looking at ways of reducing physical plant or equipment costs, looking at administrative and support personnel costs. These are not costs related to tenured faculty salaries.

The campus Budgetary Affairs Committee role at this point in time is to review the plan that is developed within the unit and, if it is a problem that crosses more than one unit, to really look at coming together with a joint plan that reflects both the campus Budgetary Affairs Committee input and conversations with representatives from the Deans' Council and the Chancellor's Office. Again, the collaboration between administration and faculty.

At the next level we termed it a "Financial Crisis." These are conditions which could seriously jeopardize the health of the institution such as problems that could not be resolved at the school level or a problem that did not respond to the locally generated plan. Attempts were made to increase revenue and decrease costs; they were not successful. It may be that there are external circumstances which are continuing to change which are worsening the situation. At some point we had to say, there are all of these other things that could happen but we are not going to be able to enumerate them.

In this case it is the responsibility of the campus Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Chancellor to notify the Faculty Council so that the financial state is broadly known. A plan is developed by the local budgetary affairs committees and the deans to increase revenues or decrease costs. There are suggestions of ways to reduce costs. At this stage it may include non-reappointment of probationary faculty. This is non-reappointment so we are not terminating probationary faculty in the midst of their appointment term, but notifying them that they would not be reappointed. During a financial crisis no involuntary dismissal of faculty or librarians with tenure can occur, and, no involuntary dismissal of faculty or librarians serving an unexpired appointment term. So, it would be probationary faculty who would be notified of non-reappointment.

The deans would submit a plan to the Chancellor which would include the faculty's position on the plan so that the faculty have an opportunity to indicate their support or areas in which they disagree with the dean's plan. The plan is forwarded to the Budgetary Affairs Committee for review and recommendations and those recommendations then go back to the Chancellor who will implement the plan as it is modified or approved.

At the final level we have "Financial Exigency." This is defined as when conditions pose an imminent threat of indefinite duration such that the central mission of the campus is in jeopardy. This is looking at a situation where severe actions are required in order to save the institution. There is a process by which financial exigency is declared. The Chancellor asked the Budgetary Affairs Committee to consider the possibility. The Budgetary Affairs Committee then is charged to consult with the Faculty Affairs Committee and with others as is appropriate. The Budgetary Affairs Committee must respond back to the Chancellor within 30 days. The Chancellor discusses the recommendations with the President of the Faculty Council and with the chairs of the Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee and, based on those discussions, will decide whether or not to declare the campus in a state of financial exigency. That declaration would take place in an open forum so the faculty will be aware.

The next step is to formulate a plan. A task force is appointed to formulate the plan that includes appropriate administrators, faculty and librarian representatives. There is discussion about who should be on the task force so again we are building in the opportunity to make sure that appropriate faculty are part of the task force. Specific recommendations are submitted by the affected units as to how the plan should be composed. Again, this is where it is important that the schools have in place their standing policies and procedures on how one would go about making these decisions. This plan would include identification of the specific individuals to be dismissed. At this point, only essential administrators, support personnel, and non-tenured faculty should remain. If we are to the point of dismissing tenured faculty members, the intent is that we have looked at all other ways of resolving the financial crisis.

The plans are brought together by the task force. It is then forwarded to the Chancellor. The Chancellor then forwards the plan to the Budgetary Affairs Committee, Faculty Affairs Committee, Faculty Council Executive Committee, and others as is appropriate for their discussion and recommendations. Those go again back to the Chancellor who finalizes the financial exigency plan and notifies administrators, faculty representatives, the President of Indiana University, and the IU Board of Trustees. There is a requirement of regular reporting to the Faculty Council for the duration of the financial exigency and this declaration is for a one year time frame. If it is resolved within one year, then the process must be reconsidered. At the conclusion of the period, it is specified that again there is a broad report as to what has happened.

The final section talks in terms of dismissal of specific individuals. The Chancellor notifies the individuals who are to be dismissed by certified mail. Tenured individuals receive two years notice or an amount equivalent to two years' salary and benefits or a combination of those two elements. Other employees receive the normal notice for termination.

There is a right to a Faculty Board of Review. The Faculty Board of Review hearing can address whether or not policies and procedures were followed, the validity of judgments and criteria for identification of who was to be terminated, and whether or not the criteria were applied properly. The right to request to Faculty Board of Review on hiring and rehiring issues is retained for three years.

As you read through this section, you will note that the institution is committing to trying to re-hire individuals who are dismissed, if at all possible for a three-year time frame. All dismissed tenured individuals shall be offered reinstatement before hiring of replacements for vacancies can begin. Individuals who were not reappointed or were terminated prior to expiration of a term shall be offered reinstatement before hiring a replacement for that individual. If there are vacancies due to attrition, there is only essential replacement hiring and, if at all possible, dismissed individuals will be considered for those attrition vacancies.

There is also a section which talks about special considerations which are given to the dismissed individuals looking at the possibility of could they be retrained or appointed to serve in another position if there is an opportunity for an appointment in another unit, or to another campus. There is a list of what we call "Affiliated" status privileges for three years to allow the opportunity for the individual to remain in contact with IUPUI and also the opportunity to continue in terms of scholarly productivity which would help them find another position.

That, in a brief summary, is what is contained in the document. What we would like you to do is take this back to your colleagues to begin the process of generating the broad discussion. If you have questions or comments or areas that you think we need to go back and look at again, I hope that you will forward your comments to Larry and me so that our respective committees can look at those areas.

TURNER: Thank you, Becky. We will discuss this further in some detail at the January meeting and take some action on it. It will be distributed to all members of the Council by then. You have your copy today and those who aren't here will receive it in the mail


TURNER: We have a few minutes left for a short question and answer period.

HOYT: To follow up on what Jeff said, would it be possible for both of these documents to be made available electronically. They are both somewhat lengthy and it would help us with the distribution with our colleagues to be able to tell them where to access it rather than trying to make a lot of copies of it.


KOLESKI: Where specifically would it be available electronically?

HOYT: I didn't know what the options would be electronically.

TURNER: I don't have a sense of how many people have the kind of access to make that a fair decision.

WARFEL: I think what we can do, Ray, is to see where we can put it and then let everyone know where it is.

KOLESKI: The reason is, on the first one, Financial Exigency, we are talking about a return date of January for discussion.

WARFEL: That one may not make it on time. But, certainly the second one, there is more time.

PLATER: At a minimum, we can put the documents behind the IUPUI Home Page. There is a section for faculty governance issues, and you can access the documents there. We should be able to mount them very quickly. So, if you have access to World Wide Webb and Internet, you can find the documents shortly.

KOLESKI: In our schools half of the computers have access and half don't. So, if it came in another way, by E-mail, it would be better.

CAMBRIDGE: In regard to the Task Force on Service, there will be a series of three workshops in January, February, and March for faculty to look at the document and also to try to apply the criteria in the document to actual artifacts people are now using when they are representing their service. The workshops will be advertised in the Office of Faculty Development booklet about faculty development activities in the spring.

ALIPRANTIS: What is the rumor about the Promotion and Tenure Committee for Purdue and IU systems? I understand that IU is 50 percent plus one and Purdue requires two-thirds. Are these rules going to apply this year?

PLATER: We followed the procedure of votes being recorded and reported; all dossiers being sent forward. A dossier is considered, a candidate is considered, and a vote is taken at each level. Where there is a committee, the vote is recorded, and that vote is forwarded along with the dossier to the next higher level. At Purdue, in the past, not always but frequently, if a dossier did not receive a two-thirds majority, it was stopped and did not go forward to the next level. Now, all dossiers will go forward.

NG: Do you or Chancellor Bepko actually make recommendations on promotion regarding the people in Purdue schools?

PLATER: Yes. That has always been the case.

NG: So, I think Roko's question may be, would you be making a positive or negative recommendation based on a two-thirds or 50 percent vote? How will you make the recommendation?

BEPKO: Recommendations will continue to be made based on a reading of the file no matter what the votes may be.

WARFEL: So you totally disregard the opinion of the . . . [laughter]

BEPKO: Contrary to popular view, that is not so. Those, of course, are of influence but not controlling. I think that was so even when there was a policy requiring two-thirds votes. I don't recall specific cases, but it seems to me that we have had somewhere the case may have stopped but it was resurrected because of the belief that the file was stronger than Panel E had credited it with being.

PLATER: This is a status report on enrollments. Some of you may know at the end of the regular registration, which we are now calling "Priority Registration," we had enrolled about 2,000 students fewer than last spring. I am pleased to tell you that as of today most of that has been made up. In fact, at the end of formal registration yesterday we were only 102 students, in terms of headcount, behind last spring. That is one-half of a percent, but we were actually ahead in credit hours by almost one percent. Beginning today and tomorrow a wash out will occur. This is a removal of students who have not yet paid their fees. There will be an attrition, as there always is, but there is an opportunity for those students, by special arrangement, to pay their fees and to be reinstated. So, we hope we will not have a significant loss. In fact, we are hopeful that the spring semester will actually begin with perhaps one student more than we had last spring. We can say that our enrollment increases continue. We need, at this moment, 103 students.

The efforts that many of the schools and individual faculty made during the past few weeks have really paid off. We think that there were about 300 or 400 students who enrolled who might not otherwise if there had not been that individual contact. So, it is making a difference and we encourage you not to let up, but in fact to see if we cannot turn this around and continue for two consecutive semesters with our enrollment increase. Thank you.


TURNER: We will now move to unfinished business.

PORTER: May I speak on behalf of the IUPUI Handbook Committee? Those of you who have noted that you did not yet receive your copy of the IUPUI Supplement to the Indiana University Academic Handbook will be pleased to know that as a holiday gift soon to be in the mail will be the supplement. On behalf of the committee, we are presenting a copy of what it will look like to Chancellor Bepko and Dean Plater to publicize that please be looking for this. It should be in the mail soon. I think you will find it very useful in terms of being a place where you can find a tremendous amount of information. As you receive it and begin reviewing it, the Handbook Committee is already in the process of planning the next edition so give us feedback and let us know.

WARFEL: A special congratulations to that committee for coming in on time. It is a real undertaking to keep the Handbook up-to-date. Thank you very much.


TURNER: Do you have some new business, Martin?

SPECHLER: Are questions and answer still in order?

TURNER: We already did that.

BEPKO: Which do you have -- a question or an answer? [laughter]

SPECHLER: The question is an old question that has not yet been answered. We are certainly glad to see more students taking advantage of IUPUI. Some of my colleagues are worried about the quality of these students. I again would like to renew my question of what has happened to whatever objective indicators we have about the quality of students we are taking into IUPUI? That is my first question, Richard. The other question will wait until later.

PLATER: I would like to respond briefly to Martin's question. We can provide further information but in specific response to your question and inquiry, we arranged a faculty forum on exactly that issue in this building about two weeks ago. It was a panel led by Subir Chakrabarti, chair of the Student Affairs Committee, with participants including Bob Sandy and Victor Borden. They talked for a little more than one hour to an audience of about eight or ten colleagues. There was extensive discussion and review of all the data about the characteristics of the students that we are admitting and all of the criteria that went into the U.S. News and World Report rankings.

TURNER: I think the question is probably not one that we can answer in the time that we have left.

WARFEL: At this point, where can Martin go to find the answer?

PLATER: He can go to Victor Borden.

TURNER: It may be that the Student Affairs Committee needs to look at that, but they would need to construct a more useful question than just "What is the quality?" because it is a complex question.

BEPKO: I think it is also fair to say we have more information now, more insights into the different dimensions of the student body than we have ever had before. We really do have a lot of information and it permits a much better policy analysis now than we have ever been able to mount before.

SPECHLER: I would look forward to any information that might be available on this subject.

KOLESKI: Does Victor Borden know we are coming?

PLATER: Victor has a number of reports which are prepared that address the issues. Whether the answer to the specific question you have raised is readily available is something he would be able to address. We can make those reports available.

BEPKO: First I think we should get the dated reports that Victor Borden has generated and distribute them right away.


TURNER: I am ready for a motion to adjourn. [Motion was made and seconded.] The meeting is adjourned. We will now move to Room 117 for the State of the Campus Address.