APPROVED: September 5, 1996



January 11, 1996


3:30 P.M.

PRESENT: Administration: Chancellor Gerald Bepko, Trudy Banta, William Plater. Deans: John Barlow, P Nicholas Kellum. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, Susan Ball, Joseph Bidwell, Lynn Broderick, David Burr, Kenneth Byrd, Naomi Fineberg, Dolores Hoyt, M Jan Keffer, Missy Kubitschek, Rebecca Markel, Dana McDonald, William Orme, Bart Ng, Michael Penna, Richard Peterson, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Bernadette Rodak, Jane Schultz, Erdogan Sener, Stephen Stockberger, Karen Teeguarden, Kathleen Warfel, Charles Yokomoto. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, Henry Besch, S Edwin Fineberg, Juanita Keck, Byron Olson, Carl Rothe, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette.

ALTERNATES PRESENT: Deans: Shirley A. Ross for Angela McBride, Dolores Hoyt for Philip Tompkins. Elected Faculty: Robert Rigdon for Charalambos Aliprantis

ABSENT WITHOUT ALTERNATES: Deans: A. James Barnes, Trevor Brown, H. William Gilmore, Roberta Greene, Robert Holden, Kathy Krendl, Norman Lefstein, Doris Merritt, John Rau, Robert Shay, David Stocum, Philip Tompkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: W. Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Merrill Benson, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, Paul Brown, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Lucinda Carr, Michael Cohen, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Paul Dubin, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, Robert Havlik, William Hohlt, Antoinette Hood, Nathan Houser, Elizabeth Jones, Henry Karlson, Michael Klemsz, Raymond Koleski, Stephen Lalka, Miriam Langsam, Golam Mannan, Debra Mesch, Fred Pavalko, David Peters, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Edward Robbins, Brian Sanders, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, Jerrold Stern, James Wallihan, Karen West, Kathryn Wilson, Richard Wyma, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt. Ex Officio Members: Ronald Dehnke, Paul Galanti, Carlyn Johnson, Stephen Leapman, Robert Lehnen, Justin Libby, Steven Mannheimer, Martin Spechler, Marshall Yovits.

Visitors: Erwin Boschmann (Dean of the Faculties Office), Barbara Cambridge (Dean of the Faculties Office), Julie Fore (School of Medicine Library), Mark Grove (Registrar's Office), Harriet Wilkins (Chair, Constitution and Bylaws Committee).


TURNER: I would like to call this meeting to order.


TURNER: Distributed with the agenda were two memorial resolutions, One for David M. Dickey and one for Bruce V. Mitchell both from the School of Dentistry. I would like to ask you to stand for a moment of silence.

Before I turn to the next item on the agenda, I would like to note that we have many items of business that might take a good bit of time. Therefore, I am going to place some time limits on some agenda items. My expectation is that we can probably handle the election of the Faculty Boards of Review in 10 or 15 minutes. The discussion and the possible vote on the Allied Health Sciences amendment will take about 10 or 15 minutes. That leaves us about 30 minutes each for dealing with the discussion of the draft policy of Dealing With Financial Difficulties and another 30 minutes for the Faculty Work Memorandum. I think those are both expandable. We will have about 10 minutes under Unfinished Business to receive and announce the results of the Faculty Boards of Review election. We are going to look for a few minutes to see if we can come back to the General Education Principles and come to some kind of determination on that. That will probably take about five or ten minutes.

I will be watching the clock and calling the discussion to a close so that we can get to everything. With that explanation we will now turn to the Administrative Report with Chancellor Bepko.


BEPKO: I have taken the lesser amount of time than was allocated for each of these activities and have backed that up to 5:30 and find that, in a very subtle fashion, you have given me 84 seconds for the Administrative report, which is a little too long actually. [laughter]

I would like to mention three things. One, because it is so interesting and important. Two, enrollment, because it is so timely. The third involves some deadlines which are coming up.

The first one we are very proud of. Last month we noted how much national attention is coming to the faculty and to the programs of IUPUI. Every week we learn something new about the activities on this campus and how they are being appreciated and lauded by faculty members and the University people all across the country. Today I would like to ask the person who I think is most responsible for one of the more important developments of the recent past. That is our own member, Bart Ng who, along with one of his colleagues in Bloomington and a couple of other colleagues from around the IU system, has shepherded a National Science Foundation project to the funding stage, nearly $3 million for new approaches to teaching math. Bart, will you mention that?

NG: We have been recommended for funding of our proposal, the title of which is "Mathematics and Undergraduate Education: A New Framework for Mutual Invigoration." By the way, a referee who read our proposal, Becky [Porter] would appreciate that, said "This sounds like an excellent proposal for physical therapy." [Laughter] But, in spite of that remark, he still recommended that we be funded.

We will be receiving about $700,000 a year for four years. This is a full partnership between us and Bloomington together with the various other campuses within the IU system to develop a new approach for interdisciplinary course development. Essentially, we tried to aim to raise the "numeracy" all students, rather than the just math majors, across the board. So, this is not really just for teaching people mathematics for mathematics sake, but rather trying to put mathematics in context so that students will understand and appreciate how mathematics is essential.

We already have approximately 60 or 80 faculty members from approximately 20 different departments all over the IU system on board. In fact, we will continue to solicit new ideas and the possibility for new proposals for course development. We are still working on the final details. Dan Mackie and I are the principals. You will hear more from us as things get developed and as we get going on the project. The bad news is that our original proposal was cut substantially, but I think we still did reasonably well. It is one of six grants awarded nationally. I think Jerry mentioned the other schools. They are the University of Pennsylvania, Poly Technical Institute, Dartmouth, Oklahoma State/Nebraska. Thank you.

BEPKO: Congratulations, Bart. [applause] Next Bill will give us the enrollment report as of the opening of the semester.

PLATER: There is good news, though I must begin by saying that we did not match our Spring enrollment headcount of last year. The campus as a whole is down 1.1 percent (that is about 285 students) from Spring a year ago. There was more significant decline at the Columbus campus. If you look only at Indianapolis, the decline was about 184 students, a decrease of a little less than one percent. There continues to be evidence that our marketing efforts are paying off and that we are doing a better job of attracting new students as well as retaining current students.

The significant good news is that our credit hours were up overall by about 1.2 percent. Many schools enjoyed enrollment increases in terms of credit hours. This reflects, by and large, the trend we have more full-time students and it accounts for the reason that the credit hours have gone up while the headcount has actually gone down. Most of the schools that had enrollment decreases anticipated them and planned for them, so I think overall we are in very good shape for the Spring semester.

BEPKO: Do we know about other campuses within the IU system?

PLATER: We do not have definitive information, but I can say that all of the campuses that we know about have had decreases in the headcount. Most of them reported decreases significantly greater than ours, some in the six, even, or eight percent range. Most of them have also had decreases in student credit hours, though not all. Some have had the same pattern that we have had. Bloomington was down slightly in headcount and also down slightly in credit hours.

NG: You said there would be _______ last spring. Is that a year ago last spring?

PLATER: That is correct.

NG: So, there are fewer freshmen matriculated this semester. Is that correct?

PLATER: I am sorry Bart, I cannot tell you now whether the decrease is in the first-year students. Mark may have a sense of whether it is beginning students or not.

GROVE: The incoming population, Bart, for the Spring semester will be down. Alan doesn't have the final figures yet, but as of Monday of next week we will be able to answer more of these questions. Because we had a good increase in getting students in the Fall, many of those are carried forward in departments such as mathematics and liberal arts who are benefitting from that strong beginning class this past fall.

BEPKO: Finally, many have asked about the Strategic Directions (SDC) proposals, funding, and how the campus is going to provide encouragement, advice, and evaluation of proposals that emanate from IUPUI. Trudy Banta will give you some information about that.

BANTA: Most of you have picked up the Strategic Directions Proposal Guidelines and another piece on workshop schedules. We have engaged in a two year-long planning process at the campus level to involve as many faculty as possible in thinking about the IU Strategic Directions and the proposals that will come in. We have seven study groups, each organized around one of our IUPUI aspirations and goals, with appropriate Strategic Directions topics under each. Those study groups are now involved in the review process. Each of the study groups has named one representative to an overall review panel that will carefully read the IUPUI proposals and make comments that we hope will strengthen them as they go forward to the university-wide process. There is time for pre-proposals to be reviewed, shared with the study groups and a response communicated to the Pis. February1is the date for full proposals to be sent to Research and Sponsored Programs. Immediately thereafter, they will be reviewed by the IUPUI panel. By the middle of the month they will be further reviewed by the Planning Committee, which represents the Faculty Council in this process. This committee will have an opportunity to look at the proposals and make some judgments about relative priorities. There will also be some reviews by the administration -- the deans, vice chancellors -- and ultimately the proposals will be sent with some recommendations to be processed in by university-wide review panels. Are there any questions about the IUPUI review process?

PETERSON: I was under the impression that all proposals could go forward whether or not they are approved at the campus level. What is the real story on that?

BANTA: Every one will go forward, it is just that there may be a special endorsement by the Chancellor for some. These will be ones that he feels are particularly good in terms of campus directions and priorities. These are ones that we feel are particularly good. There may also be multi-campus proposals that will come in strongly when viewed together with all the others from the IU system. Are there any other questions?


WARFEL: I will take just a few minutes to make sure that everyone is on the same wave length about a number of issues. Barbara Cambridge handed out a document about Modifications of Principles of Undergraduate Learning. This is what Richard said we were going to look at under Unfinished Business. You remember in September this Council expressed three reservations about the principles and it is hoped that this material will solve the problems that the Faculty Council had back then. Although you need to pay attention to what is going on at Council, if you can simutanenously look this document over so we can discuss it later.

It is past time by a few weeks for me to officially tell people how many unit representatives need to be elected to the Council next year. Letters will go out to the heads of the school governance bodies, but briefly I will say that the schools that will need to be electing unit representatives for next year's Council include Continuing Studies, Dentistry, Engineering and Technology, Liberal Arts, Law, Medicine, Music, Physical Education, Science, SPEA, and the University Libraries. The other schools have representatives continuing and we will not be adding new unit representatives from those schools next year. The unit representatives' names are to be submitted to the Executive Committee by March 15.

Other election related things that are going on include the at-large election and the election of representatives to the University Faculty Council (UFC) are proceeding as they should be.

You will recall that we had the faculty vote on the constitutional amendment regarding the non-voting membership of the Staff Council President and the Senior Academy representative. Those ballots are all in, but the official ballot opening committee has not been able to meet with Bernice because of the holidays and the weather. As soon as those ballots are tallied, we can officially report to you on that.

Something to look forward to at our next meeting which is an important issue is the Academic Affairs Committee. They have looked at the resolutions from the Trustees about Grade Indexing and Grading Policy. They will be submitting something to the Executive Committee and we will bring it to this Council in February.

Concerning Faculty Boards of Review, we do have one formal hearing stage of a faculty board of review in process now and which concerned Faculty Board of Review #3. One of the members of Faculty Boards of Review #3 was on sabbatical so, according to the rules, the Executive Committee replaced that individual with someone else. It was Peg Fierke who was not able to serve on that Board and we replaced her with Justin Libby who had been elected to Boards of Review in the past and who was in fact willing to take on this job. That is the only Board of Review that is active at this point, although there is another request for a Board of Review in the very early stages.

Some of you had asked that the documents we are working on now -- the memo about Faculty Work, the Draft of the Policy Dealing With Financial Difficulties, and the draft report from the Task Force on Services -- are in fact going to be available on line through the IUPUI World Wide Web Home Page. I have more information for anybody who wants it right now. Those of you who are on an E-mail system will receive a message regarding this. That is all I have to report today.

TURNER: Thanks, Kathy.


TURNER: We will now turn to the election of the Faculty Boards of Review. The Nominating Committee will conduct this election.

HOYT: You are to vote for four for the first Board and for three for the other two boards.


TURNER: We can continue with Agenda Item VI. The Constitution and Bylaws Committee has brought before us the proposed Allied Health Sciences amendment. I would like to turn the discussion over to Harried Wilkins, Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. I would also like to mention that Harriet has agreed to act as the Parliamentarian for the Faculty Council for the rest of the year.

H. WILKINS: With your agenda you received a document which says "IUPUI Faculty Council Constitution and Bylaws Committee" with the amendment proposals. Before I give you some background on these proposals and make a motion for your actions, let me ask you to make one change. Toward the bottom of the first page in Article IV Faculty Council in the section which will be new, the last sentence says, "The organization of University librarians." I would ask you to change that to "the University Libraries." The last sentence will now read "The University Libraries of IUPUI shall be considered an academic unit."

Let me give you some background and then ask you to take some action on this proposal. At the time that the School of Allied Health status was changed to make it a university wide school with its own dean, but reporting to the Dean of the School of Medicine, Allied Health came to the Executive Committee asking whether it would be appropriate for them to be represented directly to the Council. The question was given to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. It tended to be the sort of thing that we would look at the beginning of the year and worry about for a while and find it easy to put on the back burner because it was difficult to deal with. We couldn't find a way to resolve it. Finally, this year we came back to it one more time. We have had conversations with the faculty organization of the School of Allied Health Sciences. We have had conversations with various deans who were involved. What we agreed to, we hope, is not only a way to resolve that particular question which brought the matter to our attention, but also to give you some language about the definition of academic units for the purposes of representation to the Council which we feel is more appropriate and better placed. As we began to look at the location of the information in the Constitution, we felt that we were looking at something which was in the wrong place. What we really needed to be looking at was the definition of academic units in terms of representation to this body, not in some sort of abstract, isolated way. The definition in our current Constitution is in the section which talks about the exercise of faculty rights. We felt that was an inappropriate place for the definition to be located. Therefore, we are bringing you a couple of amendments which will relocate that definition and change the language of that definition.

The first amendment then is to change Article III of the Constitution. Article I talks about faculty membership, Article II lists faculty rights and responsibilities, and Article III is devoted to exercise of rights and responsibilities. What we are proposing to you is a new section A which will be a statement about the way faculty exercise their rights and responsibilities in academic units and then to re-letter the other sections so that Section A. Faculty Council now becomes Section B. Section B. The Review of Council Actions will now become Section C and Section C. Meetings of the Faculty will now become Section D. Our rationale is that it is in academic units that we have our basic exercise of the faculty rights and responsibilities outlined in Section II. It is more appropriate for that to be the lead item in Article III. That is the substance of this first proposed amendment, placing the statement about Exercise of Rights as Section A and moving the others down with no change of language.

PETERSON Relative to that, there is more to Article III, Section D. than that one sentence. What happens to the rest of the original Article III?

H. WILKINS: Most of the rest of the section is moved to Article IV. Article IV is where we propose to put the information defining academic units for the purpose of representation to this Council. We propose to do that with the language that you have at the beginning of the article, before the section about elected members. Right now Section I has ex officio members. Section II is a long section on elected members and then Section III has alternate members. Section IV has student members. That latter part may be changed if the amendment which was passed last year has been confirmed by the faculty, but we haven't done anything with that except to change the letters. What we would propose is that we move the Elected Members to be the first section under that article and before we get into the a, b, c, d, e, f, of that we have this preamble which you have in italics.

Faculty members dedicated to teaching, research/creative work, and service shall represent academic units. To be entitled to representation on the Faculty Council, an academic unit shall have its faculty organization documents on file with the President of the Faculty, be headed by an academic Dean, and be certified by the Chancellor of IUPUI. The University Libraries of IUPUI shall be considered an academic unit.

The major change there is to take out that language about whom the deans report to and to add the language which we found in an old constitution. Fortunately one of our members, Carl Rothe, keeps everything. He found an old constitution from the days when the Faculty Council was new and the University was growing along and adding new academic units. At that time there was a piece of that constitution that said that when new academic units were formed on the campus that the way the Faculty Council came to recognize them was through "certification by the Chancellor." Our proposal is that we pick up that old language from the old constitution and we make it clear that it is a dean who is the head of this academic unit and that we also try to get faculty to organize themselves in their units and to have their organization on file. I suppose that this could give the Executive Committee the authority, if somebody doesn't file their constitution with them, to decide that they don't get representation here. I don't know whether the Executive Committee would choose to do that. For a long time we have had something in the constitution about the faculty organization documents being on file. That is really not new. To answer that question, the information which was formerly in Article III, we have now proposed to move to Article IV.

The third proposal is a proposed amendment to the Bylaws. As part of the action that we would like for you to take, we would ask you to say that this would not go into effect until after the constitutional amendments would go into effect. The reason is that constitutional amendments don't go into effect until the following academic year. Bylaw amendments can go into effect immediately. Right now, in the language about representation to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, Allied Health is named specifically as having one of the representatives from the School of Medicine, and while we like the people from Allied Health, we really didn't think they deserve two representatives. By taking them out here and presuming they would then have direct representation to the Council, they would have their representation on the Promotion and Tenure Committee in the same way everyone else does. These changes don't do anything to the way that the School of Medicine and the School of Allied Health run their business or, as we understand it, won't do anything to the way that the Promotion and Tenure procedure is done over there. This is just a matter of representation to this council and to the committees of this council.

I don't know how you would like to proceed, Dick, whether you would like general questions or do you want to do it item by item?

TURNER: There is a motion.

H. WILKINS: I would suggest that you act on them one by one. I would move, on behalf of the committee, that the amendments to Article III as outlined In the document, be approved by the Council.

TURNER: Is there a second? [Seconded] Is there any more discussion? If not, we can move ahead to a vote. It doesn't need a second. All In favor of adopting the change In Article III, Section A, as recommended by the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, indicate by saying "Aye." Are there any opposed? [none] That passes.

H. WILKINS: On behalf of the committee, I would recommend that the proposed amendments to Article IV, as outlined in the handout, be adopted with the change.

TURNER: Is there any discussion of Article IV?

WARFEL: Can we go back to reinserting the phrase about "be certified by the Chancellor of IUPUI?" I am concerned that there may have been a good reason that it was taken out of the constitution. I don't know if Carl remembers why it disappeared. If I ask myself, "What does it mean?" I am not sure what it means. You are the Chancellor, do you know what it means?

BEPKO: [shaking head to indicate no]

WARFEL: Does this give an evil chancellor the right to say "I don't care that you are the School of Medicine, I am not going to certify you for Faculty Council purposes?"

H. WILKINS: I suppose that would be an option.

GALANTI: Wasn't it sort of the opposite way? To prevent the situation where a non-academic group that is called a unit and has as its head someone designated "a dean," but which is not truly an academic unit as we think of such units, saying "We are entitled to membership on the Faculty Council." They might, in fact, have an organization document. They might be headed by a dean, fudging on the word "academic." This is sort of a safeguard for the chancellor giving him or her a chance to say, "No, you are an administrative unit or you are a non-academic service unit, therefore, you are not certified as an academic unit for purposes of the Faculty Council."

WARFEL: Couldn't we let the Executive Committee do that?

ROTHE: If I recall correctly, it seems to me that part of the rationale is that the administration is the one who decides who is going to be a dean. Therefore, with that bit of logic, if they make that decision, it is then their responsibility as well as prerogative to decide whether they should be considered an academic unit for purposes of the Council. Since that point starts at the administrative level, it seemed to us to be adequate to stay with that language. Of course, the other alternative is, as you say, the Executive Committee making the decision. It seems to me that if we are going to do that, then it should come back to this body not the Executive Committee. It just seems simpler, more straight forward and reasonable to assume our Chancellor will make the right decision.

BEPKO: I think that, while I may not have been altogether enamored of the idea at the time, I think that this body has sought to re-define the relationship between the administration of the University and the Faculty Council by having the Faculty Council be more independent. The symbol of the partnership used to be that the Chancellor was the presiding officer at the Faculty Council meetings. We all decided together that it might be better to have the Council itself act as an independent body. For that reason, as well as for the fact that the administration does appoint the deans, so there is already one opportunity for the administration to participate in the decision as to what units are represented, I think it would probably be as well to have the certification actually done by the body itself. That is true of Congress. That is true of state legislatures. Those bodies certify membership and it is not the executive branch of government that does the certifying in most cases. However, at the same time, I would raise a question that may be answered easily, but I don't see the answer to it, and that is, there may be more than just Allied Health that is envisioned or covered by this proposed change. We have IUPU Columbus which is not now represented, but which is a unit of sorts, does have an academic dean, and could be certified, I supposed, so that there would be another entity that has faculty members in it who could be represented under this language.

H. WILKINS: The difficulty as we worked with it, is that almost every time we came up with language, then we would start through the list of all the units that we knew and try to see who that brought in and who that excluded. Because of the great variety of organizational structures here, it gets extremely complicated. I think you are probably right about Columbus.

ROTHE: Part of the reason, for example, that the Columbus campus, most of those units are already parts of other units.

BALDWIN: Except for the Purdue schools.

H. WILKINS: I don't think that the committee would object if someone wants to propose an amendment to change the language from 'Certified by the Chancellor' to 'Certified by the Faculty Council.'

BEPKO: If I could just comment on Carl's comment. I think he is right in that the Columbus-based faculty are members of departments up here with the exception of the Purdue faculty, although they are Purdue statewide technology and technically they are not IUPUI faculty at all. But, that is also true of Allied Health faculty today. Allied Health faculty are members of a unit that is represented.

BESCH: It is very clear that the section that we created to keep Allied Health from having a representative was that section which read, "which reports, by virtue of a dean directly to the Chancellor." As regards idea that the chancellor might be the certifier. today I would agree with your comments that we are in a different situation than we were when that language was written. In fact, the chancellor certified the numbers of faculty, by an article, the individual faculty of all units, according to our Constitution at that time.

BEPKO: I think we agree.

PETERSON: With respect to the dean of the School of Allied Health Sciences, do you appoint him or is he appointed by the Dean of the School of Medicine?

BEPKO: The incumbent was appointed by the Dean of the School of Medicine.

PORTER: but, at that time, we did not have school status. At that time we were a division within the School of Medicine.

PETERSON: Under these conditions, if a new dean were to be appointed, would you be the one responsible for appointing that dean?

BEPKO: I think the answer would be that the reporting line still goes through the dean's office. all university offices are appointed by the trustees, but the first recommendation and the appointment of the search committee would be in the dean's office of the School of Medicine. I think that is how it would work even today, even though we have designated Allied Health as a school, and even though the head of the school is a dean. Because of the reporting line the first recommendation and the search committee would be in the dean's office within the School of Medicine. That is not to say it will always be that way. I think that most everyone envisions this as a process of gaining independence, but it has been a step at a time and not dramatic. So, it may be in the future Allied Health will be a separate school.

PORTER: I am Becky Porter of the School of Allied Health Sciences, but I sit here as an at-large representative. The language has been troublesome. But, the concepts I hope is abundantly clear. We are an undergraduate unit who sits within the School of Medicine. Our faculty concerns and our interests are different than the interests of our School of Medicine colleagues. We ask that we have the opportunity to be represented in this body so that we may speak on our own behalf. Without having representation that is recognized within the Faculty Council, there are opportunities which we miss. For example, there was a meeting at the beginning of this academic year where the presidents of faculty organizations were invited to talk about what was happening on this campus. Because we are not recognized as a unit for Faculty Council representation, even though we have a president of a faculty organization and that faculty organization has been separate from the School of Medicine since I joined the faculty in 1976, we were not invited. It wasn't intentional. It was an oversight, but we would ask that we have an opportunity to be visible and be vocal on our own behalf.

TURNER: Is there further discussion? Is there any suggestions on changing the language?

ROTHE: What is the status of the Chancellor versus....

H. WILKINS: No one has done anything. If a member of this body wants to make a motion for the amendment, they may do so.

BALDWIN: I would so do that. If the language could be changed to 'be certified by vote of the Faculty Council.'

BEPKO: I second that. [laughter]

TURNER: Harriet, you suggested that at least that would be a friendly amendment.

J. KECK: Could you repeat it for some of us who are getting hard of hearing in our old age?

BALDWIN: I make a motion that the language be changed to read:

and be certified by vote of the IUPUI Faculty Council."

TURNER: Is there further discussion? Hearing none, we can move to a vote. All of those in favor of the amendment to language as proposed. All in favor of amending it as suggested, say "Aye." [Unanimous] Those opposed, say "Nay." [none]

PETERSON: What is the form for certification? I don't know if we have a protocol for certification within the Bylaws of IUPUI Faculty Council.

H. WILKINS: There isn't anything right now. We can take that back to the committee. It would seem to me that when the president brings the kind of report that she did today about what elections need to take place for next year, sometime in that process there would need to be a proposal of the academic units recognized for the following academic year.

TURNER: Are there other questions or discussion? Hearing none, let me ask you to vote on the language as amended. All in favor of Article IV as presented and amended, say "aye." [unanimous] Those opposed, say "Nay." [none]

H. WILKINS: On behalf of the committee I would move that the Bylaws be amended under Article III, Section C: Composition. Description of the Promotion and Tenure Committee and that this bylaw change go into effect after the constitutional change goes into effect.

TURNER: Is there discussion on this motion?

WARFEL: In the current Section C.1. Composition:-- as you have your italics here, you don't include the last sentence that is currently in number 1- Composition. The last sentence is "the chair of the committee shall be elected from and by the members of the committee."

H. WILKINS: I apologize. That is an oversight and it should be included in there.

WARFEL: So, you didn't mean to eliminate that sentence.

H. WILKINS: We did not mean to eliminate that sentence. If you would add the last sentence of that current section: the chair of the committee shall be elected from and by the members of the committee."The only change that we intend is that the #3 will be changed to #2 and that Allied Health will be eliminated as specifically having ________ representative.

TURNER: Is there any further discussion?

BALDWIN: I would like to ask a question about the term 'library faculty." Does that refer back to the library faculty of the university libraries of IUPUI and not all of the librarians on campus?

ORME: That is all of the librarians.

TURNER: Are there any other comments or questions? If not, let me call for a vote on this last section as proposed. All in favor of the language suggested by the committee and as clarified in the discussion, say "Aye." [Unanimous] Are there any opposed? [None]

H. WILKINS: Regarding the proposed amendments to the Constitution, first of all, the faculty is notified that this Council has taken action and then following that notification, a ballot is sent to the faculty. For the first two, that will be the procedure that will be followed. Thank you very much.

TURNER: Thank you, Harriet.

RODAK: I am Bernadette Rodak, School of Allied Health Sciences. As President of the School of Allied Health Sciences, I would like to thank and commend the committee for all their hard work. [applause]


TURNER: We can now move on. I think my idea about time limits on each item is deteriorating. We can turn to Agenda Item VII - the Draft Policy on Dealing With Financial Difficulties. I will ask Larry Wilkins and Rebecca Porter to lead the discussion. We have 30 minutes to move to through the discussion of this document.

PORTER: We made a presentation last month to walk individuals through the document so it was not our intent to repeat that presentation today. Rather we are here to listen areas of comment.

TURNER: The floor is now open for discussion. In this case, the policy takes into account dismissal for financial exigency, but the committee has expanded to the whole range of financial difficulties. We need to talk about this. We need to understand clearly what is at stake here and say what we want to happen. The Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee have worked on this long and hard and what they bring you today is the result of that effort.

WARFEL: I think it is a very fine document and I think that the process of working with several committees together touching base often with the administration has been extremely useful. I hate to jump too far to begin, but I was wondering if you could clarify on what is now page 10, when we are talking about Faculty Boards of Review, so that individuals who have in fact been dismissed can have a Faculty Board of Review. In "A" the document says that the findings of Faculty Boards of Review in previous proceedings involving the same issue may be introduced. I wondered if one of you could clarify what you mean by that.- - the actual details of individual previous cases or summary documents.?

L. WILKINS I think the intent is more toward summary documents and conclusions reached by other Faculty Boards of Review as opposed to the details on a given grievance or controversy. It seems to me the main operating idea in that sentence is that individual boards of review don't have to operate in a complete vacuum for the purpose of deciding cases that are likely to be similar in terms of the subject matter of the grievance. But, it is not an intent to widely disseminate the delicate and potentially embarrassing details of a grievance or controversy.

PORTER: I just want to note that this particular one deals with the policies and procedures of declaring financial exigency. That process isn't specific to an individual. It is whether or not the administration and faculty actions have proceeded in the sequence that has been described. If the procedures were not followed for declaring financial exigency, it is not specific to an individual, although there may be difference faculty boards of review that are sequential to hearing a person's appeal based on this lack of following procedures.

WARFEL: Later in the document, after "C", if says that the merits of the overall financial exigency plan shall not be subject to the board of review. So, what you are saying really is that a grievant can't ask for a board of review saying, "Look, it isn't fair that I am the one that they got rid of. They should have gotten rid of this other person."

L. WILKINS: That is not the intent of that at all which is one reason why we did put FINANCIAL EXIGENCY PLAN in caps. That refers to a specific document that is developed through this rather detailed process at the institutional level as opposed to an individual decision in which the plan as implemented at a particular unit or school level.

WARFEL: In my mind, I had that financial exigency plan naming names about who is going to go.

L. WILKINS: That is the over-arching document under which particular decisions are made after it is developed and approved through the approval process.

PORTER: The intent is that the Faculty Board of Review would look at whether or not the criteria for applying was unfair to the individual. That certainly is within the purview. The plan is developed through an extended process with multiple opportunities for faculty input. We were concerned that the Faculty Board of Review, if they went back and said, "Well, instead of doing this cut here, you should have tweaked the budget there." It would take them too long and it would be a very small faculty group who was looking at a plan that had been agreed to by a much broader group. We will make sure that is clear.

WARFEL: I like what you are saying now. I think I had the wrong idea about what the plan was.

PETERSON: I had a question about the process. I certainly appreciate the work that this committee has done and the protections that have been built into this document. But, relative to process, as I heard this described last time and as we are discussing it this time, it seems like there might be some time... I am wondering if, before this is to be done and when the process is done, can the committee give me some idea of what the timing of this will be? Is it a matter of months, years, or decades before we can go through this process of getting an approved exigency document?

L. WILKINS: The committee itself was concerned about time in many respects. I think the orientation of the committee was to devise a process that allowed us as a collection of decision makers to act with dispatch but without having to act so quickly as to maybe unintentionally tread on rights or entitlement. I think that the time frame that emerges would be better stated in terms of months rather than weeks and certainly not years.

PETERSON: Some of these decisions obviously have to be made reasonably quick once you find that there is a significant...

L. WILKINS: In fact, you will find a fairly well defined time frame in the sense that once a financial exigency is declared, it has a life of one year. If the problem is not well underway to being resolved, the process must begin anew in terms of declaring financial exigency and perhaps revising the plan.

BALDWIN: I would like to go back to the issue that Kathy raised, because there is something that is still bothers me. On page 10, 2.A, the last sentence, "The findings of Faculty Boards of Review..." I think from the discussion meant the findings with regard to general procedures, but the way the sentence reads, it looks like they would actually be able to ask for the final documents of a board of review that was done three or four years earlier. I always thought that those things were supposed to be confidential. I would hate to see, having served on a board of review, that these things float up ten years later without any effort to protect the confidentiality of the names or the people on the review, etc. When we do the boards of review, we tell people that they are confidential among the group, the plaintiff, the chancellor and the President of the Faculty. We have to tell them that maybe 10 years from now there might be a case where it will be dragged up and who knows who will have it? Is that what is intended?

PORTER: No. The intent was that if there were a finding that in this specific case of declaring financial exigency, that there had been a fundamental flaw in the process, the Chancellor had declared it with none of the consultation that is envisioned in this document, that finding could be presented to a subsequent board of review involving someone who was dismissed within that time frame.

BALDWIN: So, the document would ask from the Chancellor is the findings of the boards of review with names and dates in it. Would you want those deleted for confidentiality purposes?

PORTER: Clearly this is an area that is raising a concern. If you will allow us to go back and think about how we can better clarify the intent and provide the appropriate protection, we will be delighted to work on this again.

BESCH The Constitution requires the document be destroyed after three years so in a situation of four years or ten years later, the documents wouldn't be available.

L. WILKINS: I can't imagine a question of the policy and procedure involving the implementation of a financial exigency plan that has a life of one year arising 10 years later. I take your point of view as a valid one that there needs to be some qualifying terminology to limit the reach of evidence to be brought before the board of review. I think we can fix that.

YOKOMOTO: I have been on two boards of review and in both cases we were told to only look at the procedures and not on the merit of the particular case. When you say the validity of the judgment, isn't that getting into the domain of merit now or am I misreading it? Does this now mean that the boards of review have expanded their domain?

BESCH: I have been associated with I think 12 board of review cases and we have never rendered ourselves to only the procedures.

WARFEL: Charlie, the actual language in the "Purpose" section of the bylaws reads: The Faculty Boards of Review shall determine whether appropriate procedures were followed, whether the grievance arose from inadequate consideration of the qualifications of the faculty member or librarian, whether presentation of erroneous information substantially affected the decision and whether essential fairness was a accommodated throughout the decision-making process." So, whoever told you that you could not follow procedures was erroneously misleading you.

L. WILKINS: It seems to me that that is not the effect of the subsection that Charlie just mentioned. Those subsections are addressed to the problem of redoing the entire process of deciding whether financial exigency exists. I don't think any of us here want to be involved in any sense in a faculty board of review that is charged with that kind of responsibility or take it on. I think the streamlining that is involved here is seeking to pursue the interests of faculty members who would like to have these decisions made by some reasonably early date. I have also served on faculty boards of review and I know how complicated and strung out it can get. It seems to be that it doesn't work to faculty members' interest to have a board of review process strung out in this kind of a case.

KUBITSCHEK: I wasn't here last time and so I don't know if I am raising something that people have talked about already. On page 11, under "Replacement and Reinstatement...", ...all tenured faculty and librarians shall be reinstatement and a reasonable time in which to accept or decline it before hiring can begin for full-time or part-time replacement faculty or librarians..." I am concerned about the part-time replacement faculty. If you are offered a part-time job as reinstatement, you might well not be able to accept that. The movement toward part-time faculty I think completely undermines a university. We have been trying to cut down on part-time faculty in favor of full-time faculty, and it would be a great temptation after a large cutback to replace with part-time faculty. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think that is wise.

PORTER: We certainly are not advocating replacing full-time faculty with part-time faculty. We were trying to build in a protection so that people who were dismissed would have an opportunity for employment. Again, we will go back and look at the wording to see if we have clearly expressed our intent.

L. WILKINS: It seems to me that what we were trying to do was be all inclusive. Would striking "full-time or part-time" satisfy your concern? Then it would read: ...before hiring can begin for replacement faculty..."

TURNER: The ordinary situation would be for tenured faculty or librarians to be full-time.

L. WILKINS: The thinking is that it started out as "can begin for full-time replacement." Then, the question was asked, "Doesn't that mean that they could avoid that by hiring part-time?" We said, "No." It seems to be that we now go back to the more general idea and prohibit replacements without an opportunity for...

PETERSON: When one uses the term "reinstatement," does that mean that that faculty member would be reinstated without full tenured faculty status at the time that that position was re-offered? Or, would they have to start all over again with the tenure track process?

PORTER: That was never our intent.

PETERSON: You would need something specific. You would be at the same status at which you left and I hope that no one would interpret it any differently.

GALANTI: The use of the word "reinstatement" rather than re-hire to my mind satisfies that. The simple meaning of the word "reinstatement" means that you come back as you were, not starting from scratch. I have a great deal of trouble with the "re-hire." The word "reinstatement" I have no trouble with.

PLATER: One of the reasons for me to participate in the committees' discussions was to urge some flexibility for units that are under financial exigency. In this regard I would say that reinstatement might mean coming back at a lower salary than you left if that unit's way of addressing financial exigency in part were for everyone, for example, to have a reduction in salary. So, I think we ought to understand that It means reinstatement in the context and I would certainly agree that a person ought to come back at full rank and comparable salary, if there had been some other kind of adjustment. But, what I am arguing for is allowing us enough flexibility to deal with whatever the financial exigency is. I would say the same thing applies to part-time faculty. I think said something about this to the committee before and I would argue that one way in which a school or unit may address, financial exigency is by relying, in part, on part-time people to help it through a transition period. By removing that as a possibility, we may compound the problem.

J. KECK: I don't want anyone to think I agree with Bill on regular terms, [laughter] but when I had my hand up before he spoke, that was exactly going to my comment. If you take part-time out, tenured faculty almost by definition means full-time, does it not? It that is taken out, that means while this person is gone you can hire part-time people to fill that faculty position. I would strongly urge putting part-time back in because that then states that that person's position can't be filled by anyone at any level until that person has been offered that position back again. I didn't read that at all to mean that we could fill with part-time. That told me that it gave us no permission to fill with part-time.

TURNER: So, you don't agree with Bill.

J. KECK: I did agree with Bill, didn't I?

TURNER: No. [laughter]

J. KECK: then, I definitely don't agree with Bill. [laughter] I am saying we need the flexibility for part-time because if you have someone out there who can already do that, the person who lost their position should be the first person to be hired back part-time.

PETERSON: But, it is cheaper.

J. KECK: But, it is not fair.

TURNER: There was another concern raised earlier concerning people who had been full-time, tenured being invited back, and thereby following the language, but offered not a full-time reinstatement, but a part-time reinstatement.

J. KECK: But, you can't fully replace a tenured faculty with a part-time position which can't be tenured.

L. WILKINS: Tenured and unemployed and tenured and part-time, if those are the only options, [laughter], I want an opportunity to decline or accept the position.

BURR: This is a different topic. Do you want to stick with this topic or do you want me to go on?

TURNER: Hold on a minute.

FINEBERG: I would interpret it to say that if there is only enough money to hire someone part-time, the full-time person who is let go should be offered that job before you start hiring other part-time people. But, what I think it should also include is that accepting that does not take away their right to request a full-time position which become available the next year. In other words, they could say, "We gave you this part-time job, therefore next year we can open up a full-time job and we don't have to consider you because we have already given you this. Therefore, I think they should have the opportunity but I think it should not preclude their rights to the next full-time job that opens up. Maybe that somehow needs to be clarified in there.

FORE: It seems to me that, if you take out both the words "full-time and part-time" and just say "before hiring can begin for replacement faculty for any vacancies," if a vacancy comes up and it is a part-time vacancy, you are going to fill with that person. So, if you don't state either way, it doesn't seem that limits you to only full-time people.

ORME: Maybe I am confused about the issue, but it seems to me that what is lacking in some sense is a statute of limitations of some sort. Maybe that is more than a three-year period. If you are reinstated as a part-time and that is all that is offered to you under conditions of financial exigency, does that status not revert back once the exigency is lifted? If there is that kind of clause, then it seems to me perhaps to address the concern. I think the concern is you are going to be stuck with the option of either being unemployed or being employed part-time forever.

TURNER: David, do you want to go ahead with your concern?

BURR: On Page 8, in the two paragraphs in the middle and at the bottom of the page that deal with guidelines of dismissing existing faculty when it becomes necessary, I notice that not one time is there mention of quality of faculty in how you decide who is dismissed and who is not. There is one statement relative to individuals who say we should weigh factors such as rank, seniority in rank, and length of service, and in the bottom paragraph it says "Dismissal of a faculty member or librarian with tenure in favor of retaining a faculty member or librarian who has not attained tenure is a departure from AAUP policy and jeopardizes the academic freedom and economic security implicit in tenure that is acknowledged by Indiana University." "It can be justified only in the extraordinary circumstances..." It seems to me that is not necessarily beneficial to the university. I am sure that we are all tenured here so we probably think it is, but in fact, shouldn't we be trying to retain the best faculty regardless of their rank for tenure consideration?

PORTER: We tried not to impose views from the campus level on to each of the academic units as to how they were going to weigh a variety of different factors. That's why built into this is the principle that the schools will establish the policies and procedures for selecting individuals for dismissal. One school may say we think quality, however that is measured, supersedes some of these other factors such as seniority. But, as a broad campus level group, we did not find it possible to agree that we could decide for other academic units.

BURR: Well, in a fact you have. It says "any plan that retains untenured personnel while dismissing tenured personnel must clearly and convincingly justify the departure from policy." The strength of all these statements suggest to the school that they should not be doing this instead of just saying, "It is up to the school. here are the factors that you should consider, tenure certainly being one of those."

PORTER: But, tenure is the principle that is protected in the Academic Handbook.

BURR: But, in a case of a financial exigency there are lots of protections that have to be reviewed and that is only one of them.

FINEBERG: David, I think it would be difficult to dismiss a tenured individual, but not impossible. I think if the decision of the unit is made on the basis of that person not carrying out quality work any longer, then they have to justify their decision. I think the concept of the protection of tenured, but not a tenured person could not be dismissed for cause, I think that is appropriate. A person like that, according to this, could not be dismissed because I don't think that would be considered extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program _______. So, the case you just gave would not be the case of a tenured faculty member.

YOKOMOTO: I think if you go back to the beginning of that paragraph, it talks about centrality and quality in the school. So, I think quality is in there. The middle of the paragraph only starts talking about weighting factors to be considered as you are using the criteria for dismissal. mission in making your plans. For me, it says quality in the beginning.

BURR: The quality you refer to here applies to components of a school. I never see quality of faculty referred to in this.

TURNER: We have another five minutes to devote to this unless you decide we need more time than that in which case we will continue this next month.

PORTER: I would like to invite individuals, as they look through this and have areas of concern, to submit alternative wording to either Larry Wilkins or to myself, Rebecca Porter. We are both available via E-mail or other forms of communication. We have given this our best shot in trying to be clear, but after you work with something for an extended period of time, I think you lose some of your objectivity. You can help us out if you not only identify the problems, but also suggest a solution.

WARFEL: Shall we schedule this for the February agenda with the idea of voting on it? Do you think that is a reasonable time frame?

TURNER: Are we going to be ready to vote on this and live with it if we adopt it in February? In the meantime, be ready for that discussion. Send any suggestions you may have to Becky or Larry.


TURNER: If we could move on to the next agenda item which is the Faculty Work Memorandum. We have only about 15 minutes for this discussion. If we need more time we will either extend the meeting or reschedule discussion at another meeting. I would like to call your attention to the document that is up for discussion. It is a memorandum addressed to academic deans, department chairs, and IUPUI Faculty Council from Bill Plater and subject is Faculty Work and it is dated December 8, 1995.

This is a document that has been drafted and reviewed by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has been through two drafts of it and now bring it to you for discussion. Its origin and its assumptions are outlined at the beginning. It is an explanation on the part of the Dean of the Faculties about the relationship of administrative offices to work and presumably this will shape decisions in the future if it meets our approval.

WARFEL: Without coming across too strong, I do want us to get in the record that the cover that came from Richard and me tried to explain that the Executive Committee had gone through this a number of times as it was being revised. We are bringing it to you, not as something that the Executive Committee endorsed in its entirety, there were some bones of contention, but it just seemed to be time for us to stop talking about and time for a larger audience to look at it. It is supported but not endorsed.

TURNER: In my field a lot of times we deal with text and make decisions about what we are supposed to do with them, but we operate without the writer being present.

PLATER: I offered to leave. [Laughter]

TURNER: Now we have the author present so you can go right to the source if you have questions.

PETERSON: I think we have a slight problem. Some of us didn't read our agenda carefully enough and the memo was apparently placed in our briefcase to be read at some later date and didn't get into our Faculty Council packet. So, I am without information to look at during this time. I am not sure how many people have it here to enter into a useful discussion.

TURNER: Dick, that was a royal "we." How many of you are willing to buy into Dick's explanation? [a few]. Dick, your suggestion then is that we don't discuss it as yet?

PETERSON: I would like to have a copy before I discuss it in detail. But, if anyone does have discussion items that they want to bring up, I certainly can note that, but I don't want to make that the final decision until I am able to discuss it with the document in front of me.

ORME: I would like to ask one fundamental question about the outcomes of our discussion. Are we discussing so that we can in effect say, "No, these philosophies should not prevail" or "Yes, these should stand?" What is the perceived outcome? We can discuss from now until forever, but what is the desired outcome of these discussions?

TURNER: I take it that what we have before us is the Dean of the Faculties' thinking on these matters that have been opened to discussion, and in some cases, dispute. The attempt is to clarify and to establish the understanding of what these various parts of the handbook are and various other practices which have been discussed over the past. Presumably, if we read it and agree, then we all understand the rules under which we are operating. If we disagree, then we have an occasion, it seems to me, of identifying the terms before we the discussion.

ORME: Are we then to tell the Dean of the Faculties to think differently?

TURNER: I think so.

PLATER: You have done it before. [Laughter]

TURNER: Part of the argument has to do with who gets to say what about what, when. Our position is that some of things are not up for us to decide one way or the other. If we agree with that, then that is fine. If we don't, then it seems to me that we need to say our piece and try to identify the ways in which that is not true. This is our occasion to begin that discussion or, if this is not true, what is in fact true?

NG: What if we agree to disagree? Then what?

TURNER: I don't know, Bart. These are matters which are going to affect our work and what we do in a lot of ways. A lot of people lately have expressed a sense of concern about the regard, the place, the role of faculty. There certainly have been a lot of predictions made about what we are going to look like in the year 2000 and thereafter. So, the kinds of procedures, assumptions, and values as spelled out here ought to be things that we are concerned with.

BEPKO: I don't know if it is possible or desirable to try to anticipate every possible turn in the discussion and say what we will do if we reach that point. I think the important thing is that Bill has done an excellent job of setting out issues in a way that both reflects substantial experience and wisdom in academic life and it is provocative too. I think that the discussion is the important thing. We ought to discuss, try to reach agreement, consensus, and if we don't, we ought to worry about how to resolve that when we come to it.

WARFEL: I agree. I think that this is an excellent document for our discussion. If the Council members haven't studied it and thought about it, we need to reschedule it because this is not something that we should sit here and not pay attention to.

PLATER: I would say that the discussion should go on at several levels. I hope, in fact, the most significant or detailed discussion will occur at the department level where so much of our lives is effected by decisions that are made by administrative officers. It certainly should be discussed by schools and by the Council. I would urge you to take back this document and talk with the department chairs and with other colleagues at the department level. The only other thing I would say, perhaps partially in response to Bill's question, is it seems to me that it is important that the faculty have a general understanding of how, if I were called upon to interpret a policy or to deal with an issue, how I would respond? What the framework would be? I am trying to give that insight here. Not to say that every case can be determined by what is stated here, but we all ought to have a shared understanding of what the interpretation would be rather than fearing, perhaps, the very ad hoc, personal decisions that are made one way for one person and another way for someone else. I have tried to say what I think the rules are, what the policies are, etc.

TURNER: We will postpone this discussion until the next Council meeting. I think that it is very important that you dig out your copy. If you don't have a copy, as Kathy mentioned earlier, you can get it off the Web. If you don't want to get it off the Web, you can call the Council Office and Bernice will be glad to send you a copy. We ought to be able to come next time to talk about this and see where it goes. The Executive Committee has spent a lot of time with this. As Kathy suggested, It is not our document, but we offered responses to it in a number of ways and in detail. It has changed a lot since its first version. I won't say it is easy to change this document but it is changeable.

VERMETTE: May I ask just one question? It is unclear as to what the status of the final document will be. Is this going to end up being a policy statement?

PLATER: I don't think so. It is possible that out of the discussions we have there could in fact be policy statements. My intention is to do nothing more with this document than what is being done right now.

TURNER: So, we will discuss this at next month's Council meeting.


TURNER: We have a few more minutes for questions and answers. The floor is open.

J. KECK: I don't have a question I just need an answer. Is Mark Grove still here? [He had already left] The problem occurs for those of us who teach at 8:00 a.m. on Monday morning when registration is not over until however late it goes on Friday night. For those of us who teach by Distance Education and you can't see people and you can't pass around a piece of paper to see who is there and you have people who don't know whether they are to be in your class or not. It is difficult to figure out particularly if you meet with a class only once a week. We have registration problems. People are trying to get into your closed class and you don't want to let them. It is difficult to wait another entire week because then it is even harder to say, "No, you can't come to class." I wondered if there had been any consideration given to having registration end at a time that a person could get rosters to people who teach that first morning. I didn't get rosters until yesterday afternoon. That may not have been a registration problem. That may have been the School of Nursing's problem. If you teach at 8:00, there is no way you can get a final roster. It is a problem.

PLATER: I can't say for certain, but I believe the problem was because registration was extended until Wednesday due to the bad weather. This is an abnormal situation. I think your point is still valid. I see no reason that partial rosters couldn't be issued as long as everyone understood that the registration was not complete and that you would receive your official roster at the time that registration ends. So, we will make inquiries to see if we can avoid this in the future. It would probably only occur in January.

J. KECK: Some people can pull the rosters up on the system, but I personally cannot do that. I also can't get them early on Monday morning as I am in class at 8:00 a.m. The faculty don't have access to that kind of information.

BEPKO: We ought to be able to fix that.


I would like to turn quickly to the two items that we have under Unfinished Business. The first is the report from the Nominating Committee on the election of the Faculty Boards of Review.

HOYT: I will give the names of those people who were elected.

Faculty Board of Review #1: Emily Hernandez, Betty Jones, Colleen Larson, and John O'Loughlin

Faculty Board of Review #2: Barbara Albee, Judith Ernst, Richard Pflanzer.

Faculty Board of Review #3 Gayle Cox, Fred DiCamilla, Jeffery Grove.

I would like to have permission to have the ballots destroyed. The tally sheet will be retained in the Council Office.

TURNER: All in favor of this motion, say "Aye." Opposed? [None] Abstentions? [none] The ballots will be destroyed.

Now I would like to move to the next order of business, the Principles of Undergraduate Education. Barbara, would you explain what we are being asked to do?

CAMBRIDGE: At their September meeting there were some points raised about the Principles of Undergraduate Learning which had been brought to the Faculty Council. Those points were brought back to the Council on Undergraduate Learning which asked John Kremer and me to return to the original documents that came from all of the schools regarding the Principles of Undergraduate Learning. We made two modifications in the principles. and one clarification. We sent those back to the Council On Undergraduate Learning which accepted those and asked that they be brought forward to the Faculty Council. What the Council on Undergraduate Learning is asking for now is the Faculty Council's admonition of the Principles of Undergraduate Learning.

TURNER: The last time they were here there were some questions raised. Those questions have been addressed and presumably the document has been revised, in order to accommodate the concerns. The reason for bringing it up at this 11th hour and asking for it to be done now is that, if we can agree and vote on this, then people putting together proposals for the Strategic Directions initiatives will be able incorporate these agreed upon affirmed principles as being part of the campus mission and directions. So, if in fact it clears us at this point, then it has that benefit. The principles are before you. The motion is that these be approved as the principles that will guide and shape undergraduate education at IUPUI. That motion is on the floor and it comes from the Executive Committee and doesn't need a second. But it does need some discussion.

S. FINEBERG: I think there is nothing to comment about. These are all principles that I believe we can support fully.

TURNER: Is there any other discussion? Hearing no further discussion, let me ask for a vote. All in favor of approving the principles as presented today, say "aye." Opposed? [none] Abstentions? [none]

BEPKO: We ought to be able to fix that even if we have unusual conditions. You should still have a roster in your hands.

TURNER: Are there any other questions?


TURNER: Do I hear a motion to adjourn? [so moved] We are adjourned.