Members Present: Administration: Trudy Banta, Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: John Barlow, Paul Bippen, Angela McBride, Doris Merritt. Elected Faculty: Susan Ball, Lynn Broderick, Paul Brown, David Burr, Kenneth Byrd, Michael Cohen, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, William Hohlt, Dolores Hoyt, Elizabeth Jones, Miriam Langsam, Golam Mannan, Rebecca Markel, William Orme, Richard Peterson, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Ken Rennels, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Jane Schultz, Erdogan Sener, Akhouri Sinha, Stephen Stockberger, Karen Teeguarden, Kathleen Warfel, Kathryn Wilson. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, Henry Besch, Paul Galanti, Carlyn Johnson, Byron Olson, Martin Spechler, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette. Visitors: Erwin Boschmann (Faculty Development Office), Mark Grove (Registrar's Office), Robert Martin (Administration/Finance), Patrick Rooney (Chancellor's Office), Rick Ward (Academic Affairs Committee). Parliamentarian: Harriet Wilkins.
Alternates Present: Deans: J. M. Kapoor for Roberta Greene, Naja Modibo for Kathy Krendl, Dolores Hoyt for Philip Tompkins. Elected Faculty: Robert Rigdon for Charalambos Aliprantis, J. M. Kapoor for Raymond Koleski, Richard Fredland for Charles Yokomoto. Ex Officio Members: Melinda Phillabaum for Virgie Montgomery (Staff Council).
Members Absent: Deans: A James Barnes, Trevor Brown, Robert Holden, P Nicholas Kellum, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Robert Shay, David Stocum, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, W Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Merrill Benson, Joseph Bidwell, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Lucinda Carr, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, Robert Havlik, Antoinette Hood, Nathan Houser, Henry Karlson, M Jan Keffer, Michael Klemsz, Missy Kubitschek, Stephen Lalka, Dana McDonald, Debra Mesch, Bart Ng, Fred Pavalko, Michael Penna, David Peters, Virginia Richardson, Brian Sanders, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Jerrold Stern, James Wallihan, Kathleen Warfel, Karen West, Richard Wyma, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt.
AGENDA ITEM I: Call to Order
TURNER: I will now call the meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM II: Approval of Minutes
TURNER: I would like for you to look at the second item on the agenda that is the approval of the minutes for October 5 and December 7, 1995. Are there any corrections to these minutes? Hearing none, all of those in favor of approving the minutes, say "Aye." Opposed? [none] The minutes will stand as approved as distributed.
AGENDA ITEM III: Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald Bepko
TURNER: We will move on to the next item which is the Administrative Report with Chancellor Bepko.
BEPKO: I have just a couple of items about Strategic Directions and the universitywide planning process. Tomorrow morning we will send to Bloomington to Vice President George Walker's office the remaining proposals that were not sent last week. As those of you who are most familiar with this process will know, the original date of March 1 that was selected as the deadline for submitting proposals was extended to March 8. There was a plea to submit as many proposals as we had ready on March 1 and we did that. There will be another batch that will go down tomorrow along with campus recommendations. These are recommendations developed through a process that involved faculty committees and it is the campus administration's view that, with a couple of exceptions, we have just taken all of the recommendations of the priority rankings of the faculty review process and will forward that down as the campus' priority rankings and recommendations for the Strategic Directions proposals. So, you will know if you got a good rating from the review panels here on campus, that rating will be reflected precisely in the campus' recommendations that are made to George Walker's office in Bloomington. I mention this because the proposals that came from this campus were really outstanding. I think that it is yet another indication of the high quality work that goes on on this campus that we had such a large number and such high quality proposals as a part of this process. I do not think there are many campuses, particularly in the relatively short period of time that was available to complete these proposals, that could come up with the kind of creativity and depth of thinking reflected in these proposals. I think congratulations are in order to the people who have proposed these projects and to the whole academic community for another manifestation of excellence.
In addition to the proposals and the funding that will come through this Strategic Directions process, President Brand has asked that there be a system of reporting and accountability that goes beyond the funding. He has sent a memo to deans, and I believe it also is designated for departments and a variety of other people. The memo sets forth a list of offices within the university that ought to be responsible for developing, within the Strategic Directions framework, goals, measurements and benchmarks so that we can talk about this on a continuing basis within the university and so that Myles Brand can report to the Trustees on how we are doing. It isn't just the funding of these proposals. It is the response of the whole university community to the Strategic Directions Charter. I hasten to say that doesn't mean that everybody is going to do something in response to every one of the entries in the Strategic Directions Charter. It may be that some departments will deal only with some of these Charter provisions, but it is an opportunity in a way for the whole university academic community to show how it is going to proceed, maybe not at all but maybe aggressively in response to any particular SDC provision. That memo and that list of assignments are now broadly distributed in the university community. The response in its first version must be done by March 31. We have an idea that I think will make it easier for us to respond on this campus than on other campuses because we had so much planning, mission/vision/values, goals and objectives and measurements already documented for programs at IUPUI. We are going to be able to do a first draft of the response to this request for information, which at other campuses is going to go out to everyone and hundreds of people literally. The Bloomington campus probably will be involved in responding to this in its first version.
In our first version we are going to use the materials that have already been gathered in Trudy Banta's office. We are going to prepare a first draft of a response that we will make available widely to the Faculty Council and to the schools so that all of you can see it. All the deans and department chairs will have an opportunity to make sure that these responses are the right ones. It will help us meet this very ambitious deadline of March 31 without wrecking your spring break or the spring break of many other people. I should mention that all of the matters gathered in Trudy Banta's office have come from the schools and the departments, have been gathered by the campus administration over time, have been developed by all of us, have been seen by everybody before. So, it is not as if there is going to be something new in this document, but it will be an easier way to respond. By the time you see it, there will already be something on paper so you can see how it will look when it goes to Bloomington on March 31. If you want to change it, add to it, or subtract from it, you will be able to do so. I say that in particular so that it will enhance your enjoyment of spring break, both knowing you won't have to do any of this and knowing that we will be here working on it. [laughter]
One other point. President Kathy Warfel and I have just been talking about this and she may wish to add comments. There is a proposal to reward outstanding teaching being made by Trustee Ray Richardson. I think you have a copy of it judging by the fact that you are all holding an orange piece of paper. So, you can see what he is proposing to do. However, there has been a new development with respect to this and that is that Ray has said that he did not intend for the money for this $1,000 cash bonus for 25 percent of the faculty each year to come from salary increases that would otherwise be given. He did not intend that to be a part of the usual allocation of resources to compensation. But, he intended for it to be possibly from a new source of funding that would be an addition to tuition for students in the coming academic year. In other words, we would raise tuition and use the money to provide this 25 percent cash bonus.
This will be a discussion item for the Trustees' meeting coming up later this month. Our reaction to it has been that it is a form of management from the level of the Trustees that is not helpful, that it is micro management. That, while we would like to experiment with incentives of various kinds, this one incentive, which may be something that many of us would agree with, that we should find ways to reward excellent teaching even better than we do today, but, introduced as it is suggested here, it would be disruptive of other plans, other initiatives, other experiments that are under way to try to create good incentives for the type of conduct that we wish to stimulate on campus. This would not be a particular helpful thing at this time. That is only our view of it at this moment. You will have your own opportunity to comment.
One final thought. There is, as you probably know, on campus, the 1996 version of the Olympic Trials in swimming. It is a little bit of a nuisance if you are trying to go through the Natatorium or park in that garage. I think it is probably more crowded than it is ordinarily. This is another event that brings much national attention to the campus, and I think, is a good thing for the university especially if it brings people here who in the process become familiar with what an excellent university this truly has become and will be even more so in the future.
TURNER: Thanks Chancellor Bepko.
AGENDA ITEM IV: President of the Faculty Report - Kathleen Warfel
TURNER: We will now turn to the President of the Faculty Report with Kathleen Warfel.
WARFEL: Regarding Trustee Richardson's suggestion about rewarding outstanding teaching, Ed Greenebaum and I attend the Trustees' meetings and we had a similar reaction about the level of involvement with this sort of decision making. It hasn't been too long, I am sure many of you will remember, when the UFC and then the campuses wrote salary policies carefully incorporating faculty into the decision making about salaries and the principles about how different things would be rewarded. Initially, when we believed that Trustee Richardson's suggestion was going to use up some of the limited salary money, we were even more alarmed than we are now. It is just something for us to continue to watch.
Also, for your information I have included a copy of the latest draft on the Clinical Ranks. This draft formulates many, but not all, of the suggestions made at the February UFC meeting. It is for action at the UFC meeting on March 26 in Ft. Wayne. It will be very important for all of our IUPUI representatives to be there. We predict that this will pass the Council, but it is important that we have as many positive votes show up in Ft. Wayne as possible.
SPECHLER: Kathy, on that subject, I didn't know whether you were going to mention it, but it is fairly important to this campus that the clinical ranks proposal pass. There is one remaining issue that some of our colleagues may not be familiar with. We had very powerful presentations by the deans of the School of Nursing and the IUPUI Law School which were quite effective and persuasive. But, the question is whether teaching in a clinical setting ought to be extended to the School of Social Work which is primarily here in Indianapolis and to the School of Education which is very important here in Indianapolis. These schools have not spoken up as forcefully, if I may say so, as the other schools. Let me say that they ought to. If they want to be included in the clinical ranks, they really have to speak now or they will wait another year before there will be another opportunity.
WARFEL: One thing that I did not copy for each of you, but you will be receiving, is a copy of the proposed changes in the Student Code. This will be an action item at the University Faculty Council in April. Unfortunately, these multiple changes were drafted by the Student Affairs Committee of the Bloomington Faculty Council in spite of the suggestions that such a procedure was not the way to go about it. As soon as Bloomington accepts them, they will go to the UFC. The campus Student Affairs Committee should now have this to begin work on it. In any case, you will be receiving a copy and you can look at it and comment on it.
Of other interests coming up from Bloomington, I was in receipt of a discussion document in which Bloomington faculty were talking about Division I status for IUPUI. Some of you may find it interesting and perhaps amusing. If you want a copy, you may have one. That is the end of my report.
TURNER: Thanks, Kathy. Any of you who are members of the University Faculty Council are urged to attend the UFC meeting in Ft. Wayne this month. If you find that you are unable to attend and you can't find somebody to go in your place, we would be glad to help you find a substitute so give us a call.
AGENDA ITEM V: Election of President and Vice President
TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the election of President and Vice President. Dolores Hoyt, the chair of the Nominating Committee will handle this.
HOYT: Members of the Nominating Committee are distributing the ballots. Vote for one person in each category. For President the candidates are Gerald Powers from Social Work and William Schneider who is on leave right now but will be back in time to do this. For Vice President the candidates are Rebecca Porter, School of Medicine (Allied Health Sciences), and Martin Spechler from the School of Liberal Arts. I would like to take this time to thank all of the people who were willing to be considered because it is a very critical position and very time consuming so we are extremely pleased to get volunteers.
[The result of the elections were as follows:]
William Schneider, School of Liberal Arts, was elected President and Rebecca Porter, School of Medicine [Allied Health Sciences] was elected Vice President.
HOYT: I would like to ask permission to destroy the ballots.
LANGSAM: I second the motion.
TURNER: All in favor of this motion please say "Aye." Opposed? [None] Abstentions" [None] The ballots will be destroyed.
AGENDA ITEM VI: Proposed Resolution: Grade Indexing
TURNER: While we are waiting for the ballots to be counted, we can move on to the next item on the agenda, the proposed resolution on Grade Indexing. Rick Ward will lead this discussion.
WARD: I am representing Academic Affairs Committee. I was not able to come to the last meeting for the first part of our response to this part of the resolution. I am assuming that this is something that you all have seen. In response to the resolution regarding Grade Indexing (Circular 96-04) we drafted a response after two meetings in which we discussed this proposal. Basically, to summarize our thinking on the response, we didn't address the idea of Grade Indexing as a merit in its own right. Instead, we were looking at it as a means of getting at the idea that there is grade inflation. Our response to grade inflation, which I understand was discussed last time, was essentially that we weren't convinced that there was a problem and, moreover, we were definitely not convinced that this was a way to get at it. Particularly with regard to indexing, it was really unclear to us from the resolution itself what value indexing would have in addressing a problem we weren't sure existed. We were quite concerned about where this resolution was coming from in terms of issues of academic freedom. We basically felt that, at this point, this is not a good idea.
I would also like to say that I know Bloomington's faculty has picked up grade indexing as a way of conveying information to their students. I note on their document that they specifically say that the Educational Policies Committee of the Bloomington Faculty Council notes that "grade indexing is not intended, in any way, to reveal or curb perceived grade inflation. Whether or not grade inflation exists is not relevant to the issue of grade indexing. Rather, the existence of variable grading policies, which occur naturally in any university setting, would suggest the usefulness of grade indexing in providing a context for understanding the meaning of the grades." So, I think that the Academic Affairs Committee's response to this would be, if this campus is interested in doing grade indexing and wants to put it in that context and get it back to us as a discussion item, that would make some sense to us. In regard to responding to a particular resolution, the Academic Affairs Committee was against the resolution as indicated in the letter.
TURNER: What are you asking of us?
WARD: I am unclear about that. I am not sure what procedure we normally follow when we have a resolution from the Trustees. I assume that it would be nice to have some response from the Faculty Council supporting our recommendation that we, at this point, not follow the proposal.
WARFEL: We did have the report of our campus committee the last time and understood, even though it wasn't officially discussed, what the advice of our committee here was. At the University Faculty Council last week we heard the report of the University Faculty Council's Educational Policies Committee. You have a copy of that before you. The advice of that committee on Grade Indexing was that it isn't a solution to Grade Inflation as we find out. The Bloomington faculty has agreed, by a close vote, to make grade indexing available internally for the students at Bloomington. They are working with the Registrar to determine exactly how such a policy will be fleshed out and implemented. The committee suggested that the decision to index or not should be left up to each campus and advised that we allow Bloomington to go ahead, observe their trials and successes and then, with that advice under our belt, see what the other campuses will do and how they might do it. The UFC accepted that report. Ed Greenebaum and I officially asked President Brand to take the summary of opinions about that grade indexing and the grading policy forward to the Trustees. Without faculty governance voting in favor of their resolution or voting against their resolution, we have the mechanism to advise the Trustees. It seemed to me that what we were coming up with was not out of line in any way with the advice of your committee. So, that is where we stand now.
TURNER: Thank you.
AGENDA ITEM VII: Draft Policy on Dealing With Financial Difficulties
TURNER: Item #7 on the agenda is the Draft Policy on Dealing With Financial Difficulties. This is a document that was introduced in January. We have talked about it in February at last month's meeting and we are about to begin the discussion again. Our hope is that we can, with the revisions that have been made, move on to some resolution and perhaps vote on this today. Rebecca Porter will discuss this item.
PORTER: I hope that when you came in you picked up a document that is labeled IUPUI Circular 96-06 which contains amendment language. If you will recall, last time we adopted two amendments. There was a proposed third amendment which generated considerable discussion. Now you have a revision of that third amendment which attempted to incorporate concerns that we were hearing. The primary concern that is addressed in this amendment deals with the hiring of part-time individuals. That language is contained in item c that tried to capture the thought that, if part-time positions had been a tradition within a unit, one could continue to hire in part-time positions, however, again with the directive that they should look for efforts of reinstating dismissed tenured faculty. Some of the other changes you see represented is a creation of a heading for each of those categories so that there is parallel structure. I assume we want to go one amendment at a time.
TURNER: Yes. Is there any discussion of the proposed changes?
LANGSAM: I move that we accept the changes. [the motion was seconded]
TURNER: That is the motion from the committee and therefore does not need a motion.
LANGSAM: Then I will second the motion.
TURNER: If there is no more discussion...
LANGSAM: Call for the question.
TURNER: The question has been called. At present we are calling the question on all of them.
PORTER: On all of them? I thought we were taking them one at a time. Let's do them one at a time and right now we are doing what is labeled "Amendment #3 which is basically the first page.
TURNER: We are voting on amendment #3 which is the first page. If there is no more discussion, all in favor of Amendment #3, say "Aye." Opposed? [There was one] Any abstentions? [None] The motion passes.
PORTER: Amendment #4 is in response to an issue that was brought to our attention by colleagues who have their primary teaching on the IUPU Columbus campus. Dean Paul Bippen is here and can address the rationale.
BIPPEN: Thank you. The faculty has looked at this proposal on several occasions and have had at least three separate meetings to discuss this topic in addition to multiple E-mail conversations about the issue. A vote was taken and the majority of the faculty in Columbus asked that the amendment, as written, be adopted. I would be glad to speak more to it, but the rationale of the faculty in Columbus is that they meet the same promotion and tenure guidelines as do colleagues in Indianapolis and that, as a result of that relationship, they should be covered by the same policies in Columbus as those that apply in Indianapolis.
SPECHLER: Paul, I heard the rumor that the Columbus campus has been recognized as the ninth independent campus of the IU system. [laughter] I don't know if that is true, but you are the person to ask. If it is true or if it becomes true, how would that affect your position on this matter?
BIPPEN: I would go first to the assumption that Columbus is about to be recognized as the ninth independent campus. I think that assumption is not true. It is not likely. I don't believe that Columbus is likely to be recognized at the ninth campus of IU, but is likely to remain a branch campus of IUPUI. The name has been changed and that was don e to give recognition to IU and Purdue in Columbus as opposed to linking Indianapolis to the names that we use in Columbus. It is true that the name of the campus was officially changed. In fact, my title has also changed. But, both of those were changed to recognize our organizational maturity as a campus in Columbus, but in no way to presume that there is going to be any change in our organizational relationship to IU or to Purdue for that matter.
WARFEL: Although the language is very short and straightforward, it isn't clear to me what this really means in the case of financial difficulty? Does this mean if we have trouble on the Indianapolis grounds that we can look for solutions in Columbus or does this mean that Columbus is a sub unit? Given what it says, I am not sure what it means.
BIPPEN: The intent of the faculty is that Columbus, for this policy, be treated the same as any other academic unit of IUPUI.
WARFEL: So, in the case of financial difficulties at Columbus, these are the policies and steps that you would follow?
TURNER: Is there any other discussion of this? If there is no other discussion, is the Council ready to vote? All in favor of approving Amendment #4, say "Aye." Opposed? [None] Abstentions? [None] Amendment #4 is approved.
PORTER: Amendment #5 is a little more complicated than it may appear on the surface in that, if you will recall or if you have it with you, last time we adopted proposed amendment #1 and proposed amendment #2 which dealt with Section 2a and then the paragraph at the bottom of the page. We then had a discussion within the Faculty Council that raised some questions about whether the language was clear about 'what could be considered' and when you had the Faculty Board of Review, what can they look at and at what can't they look. This led to the wording that appears in the amendment that we gave you today which is under Section 2b. Having added the wording in Section b, there was a sense of some need to clean up some language in Section a and in the concluding paragraph. There are rather minor language changes and are meant to clarify. I want to make sure that the Council is clear on the background of these changes. If you are recalling that we had addressed these items before, you are recalling correctly, but we are trying to make the language as consistent and clear as possible.
TURNER: Is there any discussion of Amendment #5?
SPECHLER: In a previous discussion I raised the issue of whether removing all the identification of a grievant would serve her or his interest in this matter. I just want to be clear, before I vote for this, about a letter from the grievant to this Faculty Board of Review. I see in (a) that another Faculty Board of Review could consider issues of adherence to policy and procedures. What I would like to know, Becky, is would (2a) bar a letter from a signed grievant saying that "in my case these procedures were unfairly implemented" on the grounds that a letter obviously does not remove the identification of the grievant. So, I would like to know whether this would harm the interest of a grievant by disallowing such letters or other kinds of testimony which must bear the identification of a person involved?
PORTER: Let me address that in two parts. The phrase, "if, but only if, all information identifying the grievant has been removed..." is part of the amendment that was passed by this body last time. So, that does not represent new language that we are introducing. So, it is an issue that this group addressed at the last meeting. My premise behind removing the information is that we don't want the person involved in the Faculty Board of Review revealed by actions within the institution. If that person chooses to make themselves known, then they are self-revealing. My understanding of the intent of this is to make sure that the confidentiality of the process is protected and that the institution in no way makes known the individual. If that individual chooses to go public, I don't see that this policy prohibits them from becoming public.
SPECHLER: I am very grateful for your putting that on record. With that understanding, I would be happy to vote for it.
PORTER: I am not an expert in Faculty Boards of Review, but that would be my understanding. It is a reasonable interpretation.
ROTHE: Because the Faculty Boards of Review have to be totally confidential, supposedly, how is this information going to be known in the first place? This information is going to be transmitted without the identification of the grievant.
PORTER: How would anyone know that there was a Faculty Board of Review that had dealt with a similar situation?
ROTHE: Yes. What is the definition of "in the strictest confidentiality?"
LANGSAM: If I understand what it says, is let's say we have a hearing about a problem with Henry Besch. If material from that Board of Review, which is essentially internally confidential, was introduced to a subsequent Board of Review, which is what it says here, in order to protect Henry, the second Board of Review, which is not required to be necessarily confidential about Henry because they are not involved in that first Board of Review, we would remove the identification of Henry so the second Board of Review would not find out. What we are interested in is the procedures and the discussion of policy and procedures, say in the School of Medicine. So, if in Henry's case we find out one whole series of things and then in the case of another member of the same school we find out that they are doing something entirely different, that is what we are interested in establishing. We are not interested in establishing that as Henry Besch. That is exactly what it says.
PORTER: Thank you.
WARFEL: To answer Carl's question, I think because the President of the Faculty is the person to whom the grievant comes, if the President says, "Well, we just had that complaint from somebody else last month", then that is how you would know.
TURNER: Are you ready for the discussion? Lacking any further discussion, I would like to ask for a vote on Amendment #5. All in favor of Amendment #5, please say "Aye." Opposed? [None] Abstentions? [None] Amendment #5 passes.
PORTER: It is appropriate now to act on the entire document as amended.
TURNER: What we have before us is the entire document, the Policy on Dealing With Financial Difficulties. You received it last month.
PORTER: In reviewing this document I have been told that there may be a couple of typos. I hope that you will not mind if we clean those up having now identified them before we transmit it on its formal way.
BESCH: May I recommend the same procedure for a misplaced "only?
PORTER: If we have a misplaced "only," I hope you will tell me where it is.
TURNER: We will take that as a friendly amendment. Picky, but friendly.[laughter]
SPECHLER: Becky, if you will bear with me for just a minute about this replacement. I am very concerned about the use of part-time instructors on this campus. We, in our committee, have discussed that language. The question is of part-timers being used for financial reasons to replace tenured faculty who may be terminated in a financial exigency. My understanding of your language, now that we are discussing the whole document, is that if a department -- let's say the department of English, which uses a lot of part-timers -- say has 60+ people and they have a financial exigency, then I understand that the meaning of "replacement hiring" to say that they can hire up to that 60. hiring." Do I understand that right?
PORTER: Remember that in this process we have gone through a phase of financial difficulties and financial crisis before leading up to financial exigency. Along that way, through the involvement of the school level budgetary affairs committee, everybody who could possibly be gotten rid of has been removed before we get to financial exigency. So, there is language in that process that talks about getting rid of anyone who is deemed as non-essential personnel and they should have been looked at very carefully through this process. Things are still going bad. So, we are now moving into the financial exigency plan which, again, is involving school level review as well as campus level review trying to identify how can we best deal with this situation?
The language, as you pointed out, is not specific. In the discussion from this body last time there seemed to be some sentiment that because some of our units use part-time people and it is an essential part of what they do and to preclude them from hiring replacements would assure that they would never recover. That is what led to the crafting of the language. You are correct. The Faculty Affairs Committee remains concerned about the idea that part-time instructors could be used in place of full-time instructors. The Faculty Affairs Committee is committed to the idea that it is the full-time instructors who should be here to carry out the entire academic mission.
SPECHLER: That is fine. I just want to get on the record because this could (let's hope it never does) become actual, but if it did in the hypothetical case that I gave where a department has a substantial regular staff of part-timers who are doing good work, does this mean that you could hire up to a certain number or you could do anything you wanted in way of hiring part-timers in place of tenured faculty? My example was 60 or whatever the historical number has been, my understanding, just to repeat, is that replacement hiring means that you could hire up to that number, but not beyond it. That wouldn't be replacement. That would be substitution, at least as I would use the word. Could you be clear about what we are permitting here?
PORTER: Note that in the placement of this section that Section C, which is on page 10, talks about procedures and we talk about notification of dismissal, and faculty boards of review. Now we are saying, "Alright, we have dismissed the tenured faculty. We are in the year in which the financial exigency plan is running. In the spring semester a part-time person leaves the university. Can I hire a replacement for that part-time person?" The answer is "yes." That is permitted. It is permitted to hire a replacement for that part-time position asking that the unit consider first going back to the dismissed tenured person and trying to bring them back, but that isn't absolutely mandated. They can hire a replacement. It is dealing with that time period within the constraints of the financial exigency plan. Not going out to what was some past high in terms of the number of part-time faculty.
TURNER: Is there any other discussion? If there is no further discussion of the document as a whole, I would like to ask for a vote on the document. All in favor of adopting the Policy on Dealing With Financial Difficulties that is proposed and amended please say "Aye." Opposed? [One] Abstentions? [Two] The motion to approve the document passes. The document will become policy on this campus. Thank you, Becky. Thanks also to the Budgetary Affairs and Faculty Affairs committees for all their hard work on that policy.
AGENDA ITEM VIII: Faculty Work
TURNER: We will now move to the next item on the agenda -- the Faculty Work Memorandum. This refers to the memorandum on faculty work prepared by Dean Plater, as the statement at the bottom of page suggests, that he is prepared to gather the assumptions about Faculty work that are operating on this campus. It has been circulated widely. It has been presented to the Council before for the purpose of discussion so we as a Council can respond to the document, say what we like about it with the notion that Dean Plater will revise it. Then, after the discussions are finished he will offer a final version of it which is an announcement of the assumptions about Faculty work that are operating on this campus. Our job is to respond to that, to find the places where we agree and disagree, and when we disagree what our suggestions are and what our course of action will be in order to keep this conversation going and to modify the assumptions and to institute whatever policy changes need to be there in order to fit whatever we ultimately are going to agree on. We have said before that this is a very important subject. It is something that touches on some very important aspects of our professional and institutional lives. Therefore, this is a discussion that we feel is very important. With that, I would like to call your attention to a document that Kathy Warfel has presented. Do you want to introduce this, Kathy? Then we will open it up for discussion.
WARFEL: I think there is a great deal of good in the memo as it is and it is extremely helpful in having us all understand certain basic things about our work at IUPUI. I would offer this proposal as a means of keeping part of the discussion going. If you had a chance to read through this, you will have the gist of why I am coming forward with this. My proposal is simply to ask for the discussion to continue and for our Faculty Affairs Committee to continue to talk with Dean Plater about particular aspects of the document. The particular aspect mainly being the really absolute authority that the memo at this point gives to the administrator. I would like the Faculty Affairs Committee to at least consider the possibly of writing some guidelines similar to those that we have in our salary policy where, of course, the administrator sets the policy, but there is an advisory faculty elected group that participates in that process.
TURNER: As we continue the discussion, I urge you to follow Kathy's example. In addition to what we have to say, we are taking notes and we will collect all of this as best we can, but it would be very helpful if you could write up or send to us on paper or in some other manner, any suggestions you may have.
MANNAN: I move that the Faculty Council adopt these three proposals and guide the Faculty Affairs Committee to work with the Dean of the Faculties on the basis of these proposals.
LANGSAM: I second that.
TURNER: It has been moved and seconded that the Council support the proposals that you have before you and, in a sense, regard that as instructions to the Faculty Affairs Committee. Is there any discussion on this motion?
WILSON: Is this going to mandate that department chairmen calls up a committee when he makes assignments to work? When I read "Departmental work assignments of all faculty/librarians should be determined..."
WARFEL: I think we should declare that the simple proposal is that the Faculty Affairs Committee continue to work with Dean Plater to discuss these suggestions, to analyze the implications, to advise us whether these are useful suggestions or terrible suggestions. I think in voting today we would not be voting that "Yes, we love these three suggestions." But, only that the Faculty Affairs Committee should work on the ramifications of them and the language of them, and come back and advise the Faculty Council.
PORTER: The Faculty Affairs Committee did discuss the Faculty Work document at our last meeting. What we found is that it was very informative in presenting an administrative philosophy dealing with a variety of different items. In the absence of the specific applications, we were dealing with a lot of "what ifs" or we dealing with "Well, it could mean this in one circumstance and that in another circumstance." So, directing the Faculty Affairs Committee to work in a specific area would give us more focus in terms of what was expected of us rather than being presented with a broad document that didn't show us direct applications. This type of motion would probably allow the committee to be more effective in its discussions.
SPECHLER: I think that the legal situation at Indiana University, a public institution, makes clear that the Trustees, the President, and the responsible administrators do have the power to assign work responsibilities to all of us -- staff, faculty. I wouldn't have thought that needed additional belaboring. But, I think it has, on the whole, been exercised with restraint and fairness. I was rather surprised that we would have to have such an extensive document to make clear what most of us have realized for a long time. What we want, of course, is some protection from depreciatous exercise of the powers that I think everybody has to recognize exists. These have been quite rare. But, what are the protections? I don't think there are very many in this document that Kathy has brought forth, but I think there could be others brought in short of organizing AAUP or a labor union on the campus.
The first thing is that your assignment should be cleared with your direct supervisor. It is the purpose, it seems to me, of a chair or our school dean to guarantee the morale and proper functioning of her or his school. I don't think it is the duty or the direct responsibility of higher deans, vice chancellors, or chancellors to do that and I don't think they have done that. I think it is a protection of faculty members to have direct recourse to their own chair and their own dean. The dean or the chair should have to tell you, "Well, this is your responsibility. It really is important." If the dean or the chair disagree with such reassignments, then their option, in fact, their duty, is to resign, if the assignment is sufficiently unfair to affect the morale of their unit. It seems to me that would furnish more protection of the faculty from depreciatous action than what we have here. So, that is what I would like to suggest to the Faculty Affairs Committee in which I happen to sit. I will bring that up again as a possibility because I don't think this document does much for us.
Secondly, on a small matter, Kathy. In #3 of the proposal you say that "A chair or other administrator who reassigns a faculty member to a teaching, research, or service position at another site and outside the area of expertise solely as an unwarranted punitive measure or means of encouraging the individual to resign from the faculty should be sanctioned." I question the word "solely." If that is any significant part of the motivation for such reassignment, it is unwarranted and wrong in my view. So, of course there is always some legitimate reason that could be brought for reassignment, but I don't think that some auxiliary reason is sufficient to protect an administrator from sanction in the case of a clearly depreciatous action. I would like to suggest that we strike "solely" as a signal which probably it should have been clear in the first place that we don't use reassignments as a way of punishment. We have much more civilized ways of doing things.
LANGSAM: As the seconder, I like the concept that was suggested that the top paragraph, rather than the specifics, are what I was seconding. In other words, we are suggesting the continued dialogue. I view these things as examples and, therefore, do not think anything at this point is a necessary activity because they are examples and we would hope in the dialogue that there are more that they are subtracted from. That was the spirit in which I made my second. What Martin is doing is not exactly what I had in mind. So, I thought I would mention that.
TURNER: The issue before us is whether or not we should as a body exhort the Faculty Affairs Committee to consider these matters.
MANNAN: I agree with Miriam that my intent was just what she suggested. We understand that the university is a collegial institution. It is a jointly governed institution between the faculty and the administration. Any document relating to faculty work should preserve the balance between faculty's rights and academic freedom and the administration's need to govern and should not be tilted in favor of one or the other.
TURNER: Are we ready to vote on this motion to take this proposal and recommend that the Faculty Affairs Committee consider this?
ROBBINS: Call for the question?
TURNER: The question has been called. All in favor of this motion, say "Aye." Opposed? Abstentions? [None] Now we are ready to discuss the Faculty Work document again.
ROBBINS: I would suggest that whoever is going to consider this also consider another issue that has occurred to me. The issue is related to the principle in the document which suggests, appropriately I think, that faculty work and a feeling of equity among faculty for their work relies heavily upon a sense of fairness, particularly in terms of the magnitude of their workloads -- not necessarily the way it is divided among the three areas of teaching, research, and service, but in terms of how much they work. Faculty should be able to how much they do with what other faculty do and have a sense that it is reasonably equitable. That seems to me to be an important principle. But, it does rely upon a fairly clear sense among faculty of what other faculty do. I am afraid there isn't as clear an understanding among faculty of how the level of their work compare with others as there should be . It is easy to me that the institution ought to have a better way for faculty to understand what it is that each of us do so that we could make a judgment about whether or not some people are able to get by doing very little while others are working very hard. I have a hard time myself making these judgments as I look at faculty I know. In a sense, I don't know very much about what other faculty do. The closest I have come to that is when I have served on promotion and tenure committees where you get an opportunity to read a dossier and see the kind of things that they are doing. But, beyond that, I don't have a very clear sense about what the magnitude of faculty work is among my colleagues.
BALDWIN: That sounds a lot like work indexing. [laughter]
SPECHLER: In answer to Ed's point, which is a very interesting one, I haven't noticed, Ed, a sense of inequity floating around the campus. I think it would be very unhealthy if there were such a view, especially, in light of the fact that people have different capabilities. They have different outside responsibilities and, more importantly, at least for me as an economist, they are paid vastly different amounts. It seems to me that someone who is making a six figure salary is paid to be more active and more successful. That is why they are being paid that. Someone who is making $30,000 or $35,000 as a faculty member has different expectations. Now, I am really surprised, Ed, that you would say that you are not aware of what your faculty members do. In the School of Liberal Arts we have primary committees in every department and we review all our colleagues every year. One of the beneficial side effects of this review, in my opinion, is that faculty realize how active their colleagues are. Those colleagues may not have published something in a big name journal this year, but they were active in service and they introduced a new course. It sharpens the awareness within the unit that we are a unit. The performance of a unit depends on every one doing what he or she does best but not necessarily the same thing. I was really surprised that you would say that. Don't you have in your school a committee on which you would be the natural one to serve that reviews what people do?
ROBBINS: First of all, I would like to respond to your notion about the basis for salary distribution. I would certainly hope that it is based on market factors rather than upon the value of our individual work and magnitude for individual work. I hope that I work as hard as those who make the six figure income and I hope that my work is just as important. I recognize though that the market plays a different role in all of that and I can accept that.
To the notion about how we understand what our colleagues do and that when are on those committees that looks specifically at those things. When I have sat on tenure/promotion committees and I have faculty colleagues' dossiers before me and I will tell you that I have a very good appreciation, but not everyone is on the committee. I am not on the committee every year or even very often thankfully. As a result, that process itself does not, for me at least, provide a sufficient opportunity for me to understand. I will tell you, at least in our unit or at least in the circles in which I participate, there is a great deal of talk about faculty colleagues and whether or not they work hard or not and whether or not they are off playing golf, or whether they are doing their research. There are discussions of that type. It has just been my sense that there isn't as much of an opportunity for us to know what our colleagues do. I think if we knew we would appreciate much more how equitable our work is. I do have a sense of equity myself, but I just did not feel that we have in place a system that might give us as good of information about our faculty colleagues as we could. I don't have a proposal for what that system should be, but I think I would like to have the Faculty Affairs Committee take a look at it and see whether or not there is a better way for us to have a shared vision of what it is that we all do.
ORME: I appreciate Martin's platonic view of a department in which it functions best when everybody does best what they do best. But, that is not always in real life the case. Sometimes what we do best ceases to be deemed valuable. Sometimes new things come along that are deemed more valuable that we don't know very well how to do. It is reassignments in those areas that cause friction and problems. That is what we are looking to the Faculty Work document for answers to, I think, in part.
I am also concerned about what protections we actually are afforded. Sometimes what seems depreciatous may not be. What doesn't seem depreciatous can be. I am also concerned about outside activities as outlined in the Faculty Work document. If I chose to augment my income by becoming a bagger at Kroger's, does that embarrass the university and am I precluded from taking that position? That is kind of an absurd example, perhaps and perhaps not. I am concerned about what is it exactly that the university is saying they have ownership over if we agree to become an employee of the university? It is those perimeters that concern me. It is that, that I think partly Becky was alluding to when she said we have a lot of abstraction here that really can't be discussed without something tangible to hang it on. What does this mean in the real world?
LANGSAM: I have a question that is puzzling me regarding the whole issue of work load. When I first came to what was then the Downtown Campus, the letter that I received of employment was extraordinarily specific in some areas and incredibly vague in others. Over the years it has been my sense, though I am not directly involved with the employment part of the school, that we have tried to be much more specific in order to let faculty who are being hired know what the terms of their employment are and certain expectations. I am real interested in how those terms in letters, especially for the first three years that first period, relate to some of the things that are being talked about in reassignments and to what degree that letter, for example, is some sort of legal agreement between the employee and the university. Suppose the letter states that your teaching load is going to be x. What happens if suddenly at some level the person responsible for you said, "Oh No! You are going to have a teaching load of five courses. There will be five different preparations and I expect you to run the Campus United Way as well." What are the implications of that? I am not sure anything I have seen really addresses that. Do we need to change the kind of letters we send out if we develop a policy about work load? I am just raising a question and I don't know the answer.
PLATER: Let me respond briefly. I think you are right that the memorandum does not address explicitly the point that you are raising. It is my observation that letters of initial appointment have increasingly been specific about the first few years, as you have suggested. I think we, in fact, insist that there be some language that says overtime the assignments can change. It would be my assumption that, if a faculty member received such a letter and it said "for the first three years your teaching load is this and your laboratory assignment is that and you will have this much support" would be, if not a legally binding document, it would be such a strong contract that we would be obligated to honor it. If the terms of the appointment were breached, the faculty member should immediately have relief through a Faculty Board of Review. I would assume that peers would say "Yes, that was a reasonable assumption. It was a promise and it needs to be honored by the institution."
MCBRIDE: I am speaking as a dean to say that I think that the big problem that you run into is over time when you are dealing with someone tenured, particularly if you are in a field that is changing quickly. I can imagine if you are a chaucer or scholar you could really think through what the next few decades might hold for you in terms of being a chaucer or scholar. If in fact you are a health professional these days, you are wondering about the next six months in terms of what things are going to hold. I am speaking generally to development over time of assignments in light of abilities needed. Two things are true about my school. One is, if you look at where the growth is, it can shift widely so you can have a period where those just entering into practice are in demand. That was true three years ago.
There is greater interest now in post RN and education. That involves different courses. A school, therefore, needs the capability of redeploying faculty to different programs. I would say that what needs to go with any redeployment is also some facilitation of faculty development. Administrators need some flexibility. Ninety-five percent of almost every school's budget is invested in its people. That is your resource. So, when you are thinking about delivering a program, you really need to not have any language that binds you to what a faculty member is asked to do in the first year, three years, or five years. There needs to be sensitivity to evolution in terms of the demand of the programs with changing needs. I am thinking of sponsoring at my own school next year a series of sessions for everybody to attend by way of Continuing Education because the health care system is changing so much. There are certain skills we all need. I want to build on what Miriam said in terms of being flexible in initial letters. I am scared that any initial letter, would forevermore be some sort of a legal contract for what is expected of a faculty member in a world that is quickly changing. I think it is a problem of the world changing so much. How can you adapt?
MANNAN: I can appreciate the statement that in changing times you have to make adjustments. Because of that, it may be necessary that many people have to do something different than what theyand it can be settled in a collegial manner. Part of the problem is the nature of the university. What is this place? Is this a business or is this an educational institution? The document at one point said the university is not a business. It should not be run like a business. It is not that we have managers here who can hire and fire workers and lay off as IBM does.
While later the document suggests the university is a big business. There is a tension there. Is it a business or is it not? This will decide how we are going to make those changes. Are they negotiated? Are they going to be something that all of us are happy about?
MCBRIDE: May I respond to that comment? The University is not just a business, but I find that there are lot of discussions where administration is portrayed as being concerned only about money. By contrast, the faculty are portrayed as being concerned about academic quality. You then wind up getting discussions at cross purposes as if it were either/or. As administrators think about using their biggest resource they need to be flexible. I want administrators also to say, "They are not just going to make arbitrary assignments." I agree with that. The delivery of programs must be concerned with the real constraints that each school has. Certainly with Responsibility Center Management you have to be regularly thinking through, Where are your revenues and how do you deliver the programs within the existing resources?
MANNAN: Could those both of those be done even in a collegial environment?
MCBRIDE: I would hope so.
MANNAN: I think that is the nature of the debate.
RODAK: I am thinking in terms of how specific the school and some of the programs are. In reading this document, I thought "This is impossible. Nobody could ever come up with a statement that is going to satisfy both documents and is going to satisfy everybody as to what everyone's workload should be." A lot of emphasis is put on those who bring in the most money by this proposal. We have to do a lot of research. There has been some dissention among some of the "troops." They don't want to teach more than one course because they don't have time for their research and they have a one-half million dollar grant. I'm reading this and I am thinking, "Okay, where do we stand on all of this? How can we come up with some kind of 30 percent, 30 percent, 30 percent?" I am very confused and I don't see how we can come up with something that is going to satisfy everybody.
LANGSAM: I would like to compliment Angela because I think one of the things that she said was part of what I think is important. She talked about the need to re-educate, on a constant basis, the people within the school. I think that that is so critical especially in some schools where things are changing. If a redeployment has to occur, then there are some very serious and very resourceful and intensive issues to be discussed as to how much money does one invest in a colleague that has been here for 20 years to allow them to successfully and competently deal with that reassignment? I think that is a very important issue for the faculty to just not to have the sense. I don't think anyone here thinks that way that one day I wake up and I am teaching Chinese history. Therefore, I think that is a very important element and something we need to discuss. I have a friend at the North Carolina school who has been an associate provost and she is leaving that job and going back into Latin American history and the university is giving her six months to re-tool herself to prepare to get back into the classroom even though she has done some teaching. That is the kind of example of a switching of emphasis which I think is the kind of thing that I would like to hear us talking about. It might now be possible in all cases, but some kind of way that an individual who is being asked to do a very different assignment would have support from the university to make that possible. I think that it is very important to think about the changing of workloads. There is nothing in the document that suggests to me that is something you would not find worthy of discussion.
PLATER: I think in fact the emphasis group, primarily through departments and schools, does an extraordinary amount of that already trying to make appropriate adjustments for the reinvestment of faculty work in new areas. You gave an example of an administrative appointment to faculty work or indeed asking a faculty member to development confidence and expertise in a new area which I think is especially true in Nursing. We do that. We can't do as much as we might like because we don't have unlimited resources, but we are very sensitive to that.
ORME: I would once again like to get back on the map the notion of the basic question. If I join this institution, how much of me am I giving up? Part of the difficulty in dealing with Dean Plater's memo is that it covers a lot of ground and numerous issues. One is the notion of arbitrary versus negotiated assignment. Another is the notion of conflict of interest. There is the notion expressed of conflict of commitment. It seems to me that the Academic Handbook does actually have a Trustee's policy that addresses the issue of conflict of commitment. It seems to me that the Academic Handbook, as I read it, is much more laissez-faire in demanding less of the faculty's commitment than this document seems to. I just wanted to put that issue back on the table. You may have seen a recent Dilbert cartoon where one of the employees asked, "What are they going to ask for next, our first born son?" In this cartoon somebody was looking over the contract and they said, "What is this about having the rights to our DNA and all derivative products?" Therefore, I want to put this back on the map. I invite you to look at that memo very closely in the respect to conflict of commitment and see if this is what you, as faculty, are willing to accept.
TURNER: Is there further discussion? I think that we may finish talking about this here this afternoon, but the conversation can't be over. I hope that you will send your concerns along so that we can gather together and offer to Dean Plater before long a concentrated response and ask him to incorporate these concerns. We will also give advice to the Executive Committee and send these along to faculty committees as we see fit. The matter of faculty work is not something that can be settled in a semester's worth of faculty meetings. It will come up again. We are going to have to come back to these issues. All of us ought to take the time and energy to make ourselves experts and informed about these matters so that in discussions such as this, but certainly within our own schools and departments, we are able to make this discussion something that we get very good at since it is something that will affect us a lot. Thank you very much for your help with that discussion.
AGENDA ITEM IX: Question / Answer Period
TURNER: We will now move to Item #9 on the agenda which is the Question and Answer Period. We will take 10 minutes for this item.
COHEN: When you began you talked about how nice it was to have the Olympics Trials here, and I think we all appreciate that, you also said that it was a nuisance for some people. It is actually pretty much of a disaster for a lot of our staff. We have sent letters and made phone calls to parking and have encouraged people to call if they are at all distraught. There has to be some kind of policy that at least some of the spaces in the parking garage and maybe even in some of the lots nearby are provided for at least the staff who work in the building. Faculty don't mind running around as much. There has to be some policy because there are times when you try to get in there and large vans are parked all over so that two spots are taken up by one van. There seems to be no distinction between A, B, and E. At times the guest parking lot is still fairly empty. I don't know what the policy is, but they just can't say, " We will deal with this." There has to be a policy so that some spaces are saved. I don't know whether a shuttle lot from one of the outlying parking lots might not be a good idea. If you are going to an event, you are just going from one place to another, whereas the faculty, staff and students are in and out at all different times.
BEPKO: I thought we had a plan for the garage by the Natatorium and that it took into account the principles that I think you would suggest that there be some permanent parking for staff. Bob Martin who was here for the whole meeting must have known that somebody was going to ask this question because he slinked out of the door about 15 minutes ago. [laughter] I think you are right. I thought we had such a plan in place. I am sorry if there has been more of a nuisance than we thought. We will find out and somebody will call you in particular, Michael, to see what we can do.
SIDHU: Mr. Chairperson, I ask the Council for permission to speak. I was not going to speak because I wanted to talk to Chancellor Bepko privately on this matter but the question has been raised. I have talked to Mr. Nolte and Mr. Martin and the problem is that all the spaces for which we have been charged money (A,B, and E) are being taken in the morning by the special events people by 8 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.. The answer we are getting, or at least the response we are getting, is "Sorry, we cannot handle it because that is the agreement between the people who organize these special events." Therefore, we are being thrown out and go wherever we can find a space. So, for the use of some space money has been collected from two persons which is illegal. We believe it is not the right thing to do. If anyone else parked in that area, they would be ticketed. There needs to be, at a higher level, some kind of agreement or discussion about this. Nothing is happening and I don't think anything is going to happen. We are in a big mess.
BALDWIN: This was discussed yesterday in great detail at the Parking Advisory Committee. I think the people in charge know the concerns. I have never seen a meeting get so intense. One of the problems that was pointed out is that someone coming to these events tried to drive a van which was too big into a parking space and they couldn't back up because of all of the cars behind them. That sort of thing causes an echo for about two hours afterwards. The problem is people coming into the garage who don't normally park there. Another problem is that they don't care where they park in that garage. There are A,B, and E areas in that garage. They are all assigned. We understand it. Most of the people who come to use the Natatorium on a regular basis understand it, but when you are driving a rental car or a company car, apparently there are tickets just lying all around on the floor because people who get the tickets just rip them up and throw them away. That makes it very difficult for Parking Services to track them down. Everybody knows that. So, part of the problem is the mix of the reserved A, B, and E parking with the visitor parking garage and don't who don't know the rules. Even if they know the rules, they thumb their noses at them.
SIDHU: I don't think there is a solution.
BALDWIN: Oh, I think there is a solution.
SIDHU: There are solutions but the only thing is that those solutions have not been tried. I think the money that is collected on these occasions from paid parking on the first floor should not be collected. Either the faculty should be allowed to park in there or those people who are coming as guests. Secondly, divide this crowd into three garages. The third possibility is that they should be given surface parking and let them use the shuttles. There are some possibilities, but unfortunately, so far nobody has seriously tried to explore those possibilities.
JONES: I am also in the garage. One of the things I think happens repeatedly is the people who use the garage don't get any advance notice of what these agreed upon policies might be. I think if students knew to anticipate the arrival of all these people, they might even get there at 7 a.m. and beat them all out. I don't think there is good dissemination ahead of time about what to expect in the days coming up. That would be helpful.
BEPKO: That is supposed to be done. I don't know that it wasn't done. I did see a couple of memos on the swimming competitions, but I can't tell you when they were sent or to whom they were sent, but that is supposed to be in our plan for any kind of outside event on campus. If there is going to be any impact at all on parking, warnings are given in advance, or if any streets are going to be closed even for a brief period of time. We have that understanding that we give notice. We have a standard notice list that we send memos out to. Apparently, you didn't see anything on that.
JONES: I have had innumerable students miss classes or be 40 minutes late because they have got caught in the parking situation.
BALDWIN: I had a student mention something to me and it relates to this general problem. This whole fiasco of the garage has come too soon after the Board of Trustees' negative vote on intercollegiate sports at IUPUI. We are not good enough to have our own sports team, it seems, but we are going to host the nation. That's a colonial policy.
SPECHLER: For me, the parking situation was as good as ever this morning. They had people out there testing whether your A sticker was counterfeit or not. [laughter]
BESCH: Was it? [Laughter]
SPECHLER: Well, he thought so but a $100 bill convinced him otherwise. [Laughter] President Brand has announced that he is going to be supporting better day care facilities on all of our campuses. I think all of us will welcome that situation. Day care facilities have been miserable on this campus and I would like to ask, in light of that move on his part, how would that affect our plans to move ahead with more adequate day care on this campus?
BEPKO: There are a lot of things going on. I don't know if anyone can predict now which of the plans will materialize. We have a request for proposals pending. We have had quite a number of responses from private companies for the inclusion of child care facilities and a new housing development that we have envisioned for the west end of the campus. There is a proposal that has been made through the Strategic Directions process that has been forwarded from the campus with the highest recommendation for a part-time child care and expansion of Beth Jeglum's facility in the Mary Cable Building. There is also developing a series of proposals to try to tap into the funding that is going to be made available or earmarked for child care facilities. Whether that funding will go into a new facility built by a private developer, whether it is an expansion on Mary Cable, something that we are not inclined to think is a good idea because we would like to blow up the Mary Cable building at some point. [laughter] Somewhere that money will be, we think, put to work to create more child care facilities on campus.
There are two kinds of child care facilities and we have to be careful about how we allocate because what we have now is mostly for employees. I think that is a great concern and we would like to make sure we have child care facilities for those employees who need it. There is a greater concern growing for child care facilities for students who really have no other options. We would like to try to develop that dimension of child care more. I think things will happen. We have explored things over the years and none of them have worked very well. In competition with other space demands, child care has not been a high enough priority to cause us, for example, to say that faculty whose offices are on the fifth floor of the School of Liberal Arts, should have even smaller offices than they have now in order to make room for child care. Space is at a premium. Child care, I think, now is a higher priority than it has ever been. We have some money and I think things will happen. We did look, though, at a facility on 16th Street by Stadium Drive that was a child care facility and has since been converted into something else. Beth Jeglum and others who looked at it said, "We would rather wait and get something better on campus than buy the facility on 16th Street." So, we passed on that. That is the sort of thing that has gone on over the years.
We do have one question that was asked in advance of the meeting. Somebody said, "What is this I hear about a faculty survey?" Trudy Banta is here to speak to that question.
BANTA: Most of you know that two years ago a faculty survey for IUPUI faculty was distributed. It was a nationally supported and sponsored survey, on faculty use of technology. The sponsor ran into some difficulty and so it was a year before we got any results to report. We have taken some time getting those out to you in the form of a Research Brief, but you should have seen that memo within the last couple of months. We would like to follow up on that survey now and see how faculty use of technology has changed in the last two years. We started with technology questions and combined those with some others to give the sense of general campus perceptions of programs and services. This will be coming out the week of March 18. This is a plea for you to fill it out and send it back to us. Thank you.
AGENDA ITEM X: Unfinished Business
TURNER: Is there any unfinished business? [None]
AGENDA ITEM XI: New Business
TURNER: Is there any new business? [None]
AGENDA ITEM XII: Adjournment
TURNER: Is there a motion to adjourn? [So moved] We are adjourned.