Approved: November 7, 1996


Faculty Council Meeting

School of Dentistry, Room S115

April 4, 1996

3:30 p.m.

Members Present: Administration: Vice Chancellor Trudy Banta, Chancellor Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: John Barlow, George Stookey, Angela McBride. Elected Faculty: W Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Susan Ball, Merrill Benson, Paul Brown, Kenneth Byrd, Lucinda Carr, Michael Cohen, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, William Hohlt, Dolores Hoyt, M Jan Keffer, Raymond Koleski, Missy Kubitschek, Miriam Langsam, Golam Mannan, Dana McDonald, Bart Ng, William Orme, Fred Pavalko, Richard Peterson, Richard Pflanzer, Rebecca Porter, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Erdogan Sener, Karen Teeguarden, Kathleen Warfel, Richard Wyma. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, Carlyn Johnson, Byron Olson, Carl Rothe, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette. Visitors: Victor Borden, Erwin Boschmann (Dean of the Faculties Office), Chuck Gilkison (Sagamore), Mark Grove, Jeffery Vessely (Chair, Student Affairs/Task Force on Service), Richard Ward (Academic Affairs Committee).

Alternates Present: Deans: J. M. Kapoor for Roberta Greene, Stephen Jay for Robert Holden, Nasser Paydar for Doris Merritt. Elected Faculty: Robert Rigdon for Charalambos Aliprantis.

Members Absent: Deans: A James Barnes, Trevor Brown, P Nicholas Kellum, Kathy Krendl, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Robert Shay, David Stocum, Philip Tompkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, Joseph Bidwell, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Lynn Broderick, Timothy Brothers, David Burr, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Lucinda Carr, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Joe Garcia, Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, Robert Havlik, Antoinette Hood, Nathan Houser, Elizabeth Jones, Henry Karlson, Michael Klemsz, Stephen Lalka, Rebecca Markel, Debra Mesch, Michael Penna, David Peterson, Brian Sanders, Jane Schultz, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, Jerrold Stern, Stephen Stockberger, James Wallihan, Karen West, Kathryn Wilson, Mervin Yoder, Charles Yokomoto, Susan Zunt.


TURNER: I will call the meeting to order.


TURNER: I would like to call your attention to two memorial resolutions which were attached to the agenda. The first one is for Constance Adams, School of Nursing and the second one is for James A. Norton, School of Medicine. I would ask that you rise with me in a moment of silence.


BEPKO: First, possibly later that this month you will receive more information about and there will be an announcement about the definitive agreement that has been proposed between Indiana University and the Methodist Hospitals of Indiana to complete the arrangements for the consolidation of the IU/Methodist Hospitals. It is scheduled for later this month. There is still some uncertainty because of the variety of issues that are being discussed, but that may come later this month. I will mention it today so you will know in advance that it is coming. There is nothing surprising about this movement. It is the same basic plan that was described last year in March that will create a new entity that will manage the IU and the Methodist hospitals. That will give the IU Medical Center and the School of Medicine, in particular, a much better opportunity to withstand the pressures of competition in the healthcare world in the future.

Secondly, we have had a program called the "Forum on Issues in Higher Education." It is a forum that takes place two, three, or four times a year. It was our effort to try to elevate the discussion in the larger community that already takes place but that is not on a high enough level in our view. We found that those who were inviting speakers to come to the city of Indianapolis to talk about issues in higher education were not representing the full range of views. Therefore, we thought we should create this forum that would give us in the academic community and people in the larger community an opportunity to hear from national figures who would develop subjects that would help raise the whole level of understanding in higher education in the community. We think it has been modestly successful and we hope that you get invitations and that you participate. I know some of you have participated. We have picked a theme each year. The year before this one we selected, "Higher Education and K-12" to explore the various relationships between our public schools and universities. This year we had affirmative action on our agenda because of all of the national discussion on affirmative action and some of the political activity that is taking place (for example I have just returned from an accreditation visit at a university in California - one of the Cal State campuses - where there is a tremendous amount of discussion about affirmative action, civil rights, and the California Civil Rights initiative which is on the ballot in November). There has been within the last month a decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that covers the state of Texas and a couple of other southern states called the "Hopwood Case" that dealt with the University of Texas law school's program of diversity and held that the program was unconstitutional. There are all sorts of things breaking in the field of affirmative action. Therefore, we thought we should not only add the second year of sessions on affirmative action in our forum on Issues in Higher Education, but that we should, at the suggestion of Richard Turner and Kathy Warfel and others, try to expand this discussion, try to encourage faculty members to become involved in ways that would be related and I hope helpful to the courses that they are teaching and maybe have students involved to try to create and enlighten discussion of affirmative action in the university community as well as in the larger community. We think this is one of the nation's most difficult issues and one that needs all of the contributions that we can make to keep the level of discussion at the highest possible level. If you are interested in this, please let us know.

As you probably will hear from Kathy, we are pleased to see the University Faculty Council address and resolve the Clinical Ranks issue that we have worked with for so long. I won't say any more about that than to say that this was a task extremely well done by our faculty governance leaders here at IUPUI, in particular Kathy Warfel, who I think has been responsible for a congruence in faculty and university leadership in bringing this matter to a conclusion. Congratulations and thanks to all of those who were involved.

Related to that, I think you may be aware that there will be a change again in the membership of the Commission for Higher Education. There is a faculty member seat on the Commission for Higher Education. It was first filled by our own Barbara Cambridge four or five years ago and that set the standard for quality in that office that no one has been able to live up to since Barbara was there. But, in an effort to try to get back to that level of quality, we think that it is time once again for someone from IUPUI to be nominated and to be selected by the Governor to fill that post. We have had in the interim faculty members from other university campuses around the state. Kathy Warfel, as you know, is leaving the position of President of the IUPUI Faculty and I can think of no one better in higher education in Indiana these days, right on the heels of her success as President of the IUPUI Faculty and as co-chair of the University Faculty Council, than Kathy to fill that position in the Higher Education Commission. It just happens that Barbara Cambridge is the chair of the Nominating Committee for it. [laughter] We have two challenges. One is to, first of all, talk Kathy into agreeing to be nominated and to serve, if she is selected. I trust that you will all join with me in trying to influence her to do that. [applause]

WARFEL: I have a sign right next to my telephone that says, "Just Say No."

BEPKO: That is task number one. The second task will be to encourage our other colleagues from other campuses at Indiana University to be as supportive as all of us will be and to do what we can in strategic ways to try to help the Governor understand what a superb choice Kathy Warfel would be for this spot on the Commission. We will be talking to you more about that. Barbara, can you give us a sense of the time frame of all of this?

CAMBRIDGE: The nominations need to come in to the Nominating Committee by April 25. Although we think Kathy is an excellent candidate, the nominations are open to other people who would want to self-nominate or nominate other colleagues who might be good for the position. The nominations go to the Higher Education Commission in August. The reason this is wide open this year is that there is a change in law. Previously, the universities were cycled through the system. For instance, one year only faculty members from Ball State could be nominated. The next year only faculty members from IU Tech could be nominated. The new law says that a faculty member from any campus can be nominated and that there is a two-year term. We are expecting a large number of nominations. The Nominating Committee then will limit, cull and interview a subset of those people nominated. By law, we are required to give to the Governor three to five names of faculty members from throughout the state. The Governor's office then interviews those three, four, or five candidates and decides on the person for the appointment.

BEPKO: One final note. In the back of the room you will find copies of a document that we described at the last Faculty Council meeting. It is a document that is organized around the Strategic Directions Charter. It is a document that we were invited by President Brand to submit by around the first of April. In this document we were to list all of the things that we are doing to pursue the Strategic Directions Charter. In a few minutes you are going to hear from Dana McDonald. I see Trudy Banta is here who may supplement what I am going to say and may help Dana as well because this was done in Trudy's office as well as with the able assistance of Victor Borden who is here as well. We were invited to list the goals that have been set by us as a campus or by schools, if individual schools have goals, under each of the Strategic Directions Charter provisions.

As we explained last month, this could have been an enormous and time-consuming task if we had been required to turn to the schools and to departments to say, "Please read the Strategic Directions Charter carefully and develop goals, timetables, measurements, and benchmarks, that you could use to show what your responses are to the Strategic Directions Charter." We didn't have to do that. Instead, we had on file in Trudy's area, the Office for Planning and Institutional Improvement, the plans, goals, benchmarks, and measurements that were already developed in the schools pursuant to our campus planning process. What we have done through the month of March is to take those planning documents that have been filed by each of the schools, take the entries in them, and reorganize them in a way that causes them to coincide with the terms of the Strategic Directions Charter. They are the same goals and the same measurements but now they are in a different format and they have been included in the format of the Charter and in this document. The document has been circulated to the deans' offices in all of the schools and we have received comment back from the deans' offices. Now, it is available for you to read if you have insomnia. Please review and look at your own school in connection with these different sections of the Strategic Directions Charter and see what is in there. In any case, if you have any comments on this, we would like to have them from you. We think that this actually has turned out to be quite an impressive document not only because it contains responses to the provisions of the Charter, but perhaps more importantly, because the responses are real. This was not an exercise of filling in the blanks or of responding in perfunctory fashion to a universitywide planning document. These responses are the real live and vital planning that has gone on throughout the campus the last few years, but plugged into the Strategic Directions Charter. I think Trudy, Victor and others who have worked on this deserve congratulations for a job really well done. [applause] They also made it possible for you to have a spring break. Trudy, do you have anything to add?

BANTA: Just that in addition to being school goals, they are connected to campus goals which are connected to university goals. I think it is wonderful that it is so easy to go back and forth between them.


WARFEL: I was certainly going to begin by talking about the Clinical Ranks document. I think we are all relieved and pleased that it is finally through the University Faculty Council. For the written record, I would like to recognize the role that many of us in this room played in addition to myself.

Richard Turner, we remember was chair of the Task Force on Clinical Ranks that came up with the core that we worked from. Within the School of Medicine, Dick Peterson and Steve Leapman, Naomi and Ed Fineberg who are here today played a very important role in champing this and then communicating with the Dean and the Steering Committee in the School of Medicine to come up with a document that would work for that school.

Rebecca Porter as chair of our Faculty Affairs Committee has done so many things this year, but supporting the passage of this document was very important.

I particularly would like to recognize however the work of Martin Spechler as co-chair of the University Faculty Council Faculty Affairs Committee. It was really Martin who helped the traditionalists at the Bloomington campus come to understand the need for clinical ranks. I think without him we may not have had the success that we had last Tuesday. So, thank you very much.

The Trustees' pending resolutions on Grading Policies and on the Indexing we have talked about at this Council and at the UFC. For your information, I brought a copy of language. It starts off with Amended Resolution Regarding Grade Inflation. This is a resolution that we believe will be substituted for the original resolution from Trustee Richardson. He has unofficially agreed that this would be an acceptable resolution to him. We think that this is progress first because it recognizes in the Whereas's that the assessment of student learning and assignment of letter grades is the responsibility of the individual faculty member. Also, it is an improvement because it broadens the scope of the discussion that is stimulated and asks not for a written policy, but for a written summary of the departmental discussion. Again, this has not been passed by the Trustees but we do presume that it will be. What is going to happen to the resolution on Grade Indexing is less clear. Ed Greenebaum understands that it is to be tabled. I am not sure that I understand that. We will let you know what does happen with these resolutions. Whatever happens will happen at the May Trustee's meeting.

I would like to encourage people to remember about the Honors Convocation that is coming up. This is an event where faculty can make an appearance in their academic robes and show their support of students who have worked so hard and done so well. I think it means a lot to the students and to the students' families to see a large number of faculty show up for the event. Therefore, I encourage you to join us there.

Finally, a reminder about the open forum discussion one week from today on discussion of the Report on the Task Force on the Status of Women Faculty. It is my understanding that will be at 3:30 in the University Library's Auditorium. That concludes my report.

TURNER: Before we move to the Calendar Adjustments let me return the floor to Chancellor Bepko.

BEPKO: I noticed that we have a new member in our company today and that is the new Acting Dean of the School of Dentistry George Stookey. Accustomed as he is to being in this room, he is not accustomed to being at Faculty Council meetings. [applause]


TURNER: Rick Ward, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, will now report on the Academic Calendar Adjustments.

WARD: Thanks Richard. At our February meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee Mark Grove presented a few minor changes that needed to be made to the calendar, particularly for spring 2003, believe it or not, and spring 2004. We needed to bring those changes to this body for formal approval.

GROVE: In 1992 the Council passed calendars through the year 2006. The following year we extended that to 2010. Part of our interest in doing so was being able to secure the RCA Dome and Convention Center for Commencement. The Alumni Association believed that putting our dates further in advance we had a greater chance of getting the Dome when we needed it rather than having a calendar driven by when the Dome was available.

We have since found that the Dome decided that having a two-week trade show, which follows us every year at commencement, which, for some reason seems more valuable than our one day. Therefore, we have had less flexibility in getting that third Sunday where the calendar so requires to make that possible. Recognizing the Dome already wasn't available for the third Sunday in 1997, 1998, and 1999, we made the adjustment previously to have those semesters begin on Saturday (spring term) rather than Monday. That avoids the conflict for students who would be taking their finals Sunday afternoon for Weekend College when they otherwise should be graduating. The Council approved that change at that time.

Now that we know the dates are further booked by this trade show, we recommend a similar change for the two years -- 2003 and 2004 which means that the calendar will start two days earlier -- on a Saturday rather than on Monday. Obviously, it has very little impact on most of you in your teaching. You will still do your Monday or Tuesday starts typically. It will affect Weekend College. Dean East has already agreed to this change.

The Council asked that we bring the calendar forward to you on a regular basis. This is part of that effort. The committee meets every year to review the calendar for any other things that may have happened since the previous time addressing issues that may have been raised, calendar issues, or processing issues such as Professor Robbins raised a couple of years ago (maybe last year) addressing flexibility of students in having their fees adjusted for late starting and early finishing. We have made some technical changes in the Bursar and Registrar's system which make that much simpler. It takes the burden off the students. So, this is a minor change for those two years involved. We certainly recommend your approval.

TURNER: This is a report from the Academic Affairs Committee so the recommendations stands as a motion on the floor and it doesn't need a second. It is open for discussion.

APPLEGATE: I would like to raise one more time the question of whether Commencement will continue to be on Mother's Day.

GROVE: Commencement will be on Mother's Day as long as the Hallmark Corporation makes that possible, I think. We don't have a whole lot of choice. If we are going to have it on Sunday, we can't go a whole lot earlier in May and we can't get the RCA Dome facility on the third Sunday. That is the problem. Our goal in setting the calendar so far in advance was intended to have commencement fall on the second Sunday (Mother's Day) about one-half of the time. But, the facility that we have to use for Commencement, the only one in town that will support Commencement, isn't available on the third Sunday because of this trade show. We have managed to secure it a couple of times. You will see one date in there in the year 2006 on May 15 which is the third Sunday. That year we will avoid Mother's Day. We have no choice because of the way the facility is available. As long as the campus sticks to Sunday, we have no choice.

PETERSON: We have no other facility in this city that can accommodate us?

GROVE: It is a combination of the arena and meeting rooms which limits our options. It is not the size of the Dome proper. It is the size and number of meeting rooms. We obviously don't need 60,000 seats for the ceremony. But, as you know there are individual school ceremonies which use all the exhibit halls (A-E)-- School of Nursing, Law, Medicine, etc. They all have their own separate ceremonies before or after. So, we need the facility as much for those rooms as we do for the Dome.

PETERSON: What about Market Square Arena?

VESSELY: The last time we used Market Square Arena we had to go all over everywhere afterwards. What was traditionally a nice post ceremony became almost nothing because people either couldn't find where they were going and once they got into their cars decided not to go there. It was not a very good alternative.

GROVE: One final note. In the back of the room you will find copies of a document that we described at the last Faculty Council meeting. It is a document that is organized around the Strategic Directions Charter. It is a document that we were invited by President Brand to submit by around the first of April. In this document we were to list all of the things that we are doing to pursue the Strategic Directions in the Charter. In a few minutes you are going to hear from Dana McDonald. I see Trudy Banta here who may supplement what I am going to say and may help Dana as well because this was done in Trudy's office as well as with the able assistance to Victor Borden who is here as well. We were invited to list the goals that have been set by us as a campus or by schools, if individual schools have goals, under each of the Strategic Directions Charter provisions.

As we explained last month, this could have been an enormous and time-consuming task if we had been required to turn to the schools and to departments to say, "Please read the Strategic Directions Charter carefully and develop goals, timetables, measurements, and benchmarks, that you could use to show what your responses are to the Strategic Directions Charter." We didn't have to do that. Instead, we had on file, in Trudy's Office and the Planning Office, the plans, goals, benchmarks, and measurements that were already developed in the schools pursuant to our campus planning process. What we have done through the month of March is to take those planning documents that have been filed by each of the schools, take the entries in them, and reorganize them in a way that causes them to coincide with the terms of the Strategic Directions Charter. They are the same goals and the same measurements but now they are in a different format and they have been included in the format of the Charter and in this document.

TURNER: Is there any further discussion? Maybe we could find out what this trade show is and we might want to go. [laughter[

GROVE: For you fixer-uppers, it is the National Hardware Convention. They not only take over all the meeting spaces, they took over all the corridors, as well as hallways. It is an amazing operation.

TURNER: If there is no further discussion, let me call for a vote on the motion that stands before you concerning the changed dates as recommended by the Academic Affairs Committee. All in favor of approving the changed version of the Academic Calendar, say "Aye." Opposed? [1] Abstentions? [0] The vote carries and it is our recommendation that the calendar be changed.


TURNER: We will now move to the Report on the IUPUI Strategic Directions Response. You have Circular 96-11 which is attached to your agenda for today. Dana, will you lead the discussion for this?

MCDONALD: We will discuss the document that you have in front of you with the Planning Committee's involvement and administrative input and direction. You are looking at a display of 24 successful proposals which are successful in that they carry this campus' recommendation to the groups that are making the decisions in Bloomington. These are 24 out of a total of 89, I believe, which were ultimately submitted. Of the 24, 21 were chosen through a complex process in which four groups made recommendations and those recommendations were combined to a final result which was discussed with the campus administration. The campus then enriched those 21 with three basic long-term proposals which will be helpful to the campus long-term planning. Therefore, there are 24 out of the first round which carry a campus endorsement.

The four groups that met, for your information and reminder, were, first, the IUPUI Review Panel which was composed of nominations from the study groups (these are faculty nominated by their peers) and the Planning Committee and from administrative positions. Those panelists had to have experience in reviewing proposals of a high level and depth of experience that would give this a good, serious, and thorough review. That group reviewed the proposals in total (i.e., the final, full proposals).

Another of these was the Study Groups which this campus had convened to examine various parts of the Strategic Directions Charter as it can be applied to our campus and our specific goals. Also, there was the Planning Committee itself, which is composed of the chairs of all the other standing committees so that there is a history of understanding the kinds of discussions and desires that the faculty here have put forward over the last several years. Finally, a group of deans was also allowed to recommend various proposals that seemed to them to be extraordinary.

Those four groups together recommended proposals that they found outstanding. To be considered by the campus it was required that the Review Panels recommended it as an outstanding proposal. The others were substantive endorsements in addition. Those that received the top votes (21) were discussed with campus administration. After final review, it was certainly agreed that all 21were strong proposals. As a matter of fact, there were many more strong proposals than could be recommended.

So, there are 24 IUPUI proposals going down south with campus recommendations; 65 others are also going without that particular recommendation, but we hope strengthened by this kind of process. Certainly, it was a difficult thing for administration and for the faculty and administrators to respond to and complete the proposals on time. The deadline was terrible. The information sometimes was not clear. The final deadline was changed. There were a lot of difficulties and yet people persevered and a very strong batch of wonderful things went down. Not only are those proposals being considered, but, according to the documentation which we have all received, May 1, and that is only three weeks away, the RFP for round two is going to be issued. I presume that before May 1 we will hear something final about round one. Then, those of us who are unsuccessful can resubmit, the second due date being September 15. The feeling of the faculty groups that did the reviewing was that it was difficult. They were wonderful, some only good, some incomplete; however, they can all be revised and there is more money in round two. I think I should allow the administration to add to this.

BANTA: I think Dana has done a beautiful job. I only want to emphasize that the study groups are organized around the IUPUI aspirations, quality, centrality, collaboration, and identity and there are 19 goals under those. It is the aspirations and goals that you should have in your brochure that came out in the fall. If anyone doesn't have that and would like to see another copy of it, let us know. It is just like the first long document that you saw connecting our goals with this Strategic Directions goals. Thank you, Dana for your good explanation.

BEPKO: Just to highlight one point. Dana is right. Just because a proposal did not get into the 24 and have gone with the campus' recommendation doesn't mean they are not excellent. They are. They were all highly above average.

Secondly, just because it isn't in the 24, does not mean that the universitywide panels will not select proposals. Just because a proposal has a campus endorsement doesn't mean it will be selected. Just because a proposal does not have a campus endorsement does not mean it will not be selected.

Thirdly, there is round two, and perhaps round three, so that to not be successful in round one does not mean that there will not be funding. Also, we hope that out of the regular campus reallocation process our regular budgets setting that we are going to be able to do quite a bit more to try to fund or provide partial funding for Strategic Directions proposals that are not funded in the other processes. We are also looking at the proposals that will not be funded in round one of the charter process. We are looking for other opportunities. We have identified a couple of proposals that may be really excellent for outside funding and we have some other internal university funding sources like the Research Investment Fund that might be a good candidate to fund some of these proposals. We hope in the final analysis, when the dust settles, that we have lots and lots of these proposals funded and moving forward.

BANTA: Just to emphasize again, that quite a number of excellent, well-written proposals were not in this final group that was recommended. You have a sheet in this document called "Proposal Review Criteria." These were the criteria that seemed to be most important to the various groups that engaged in open and candid discussion and dialog about these proposals. As you can see, item three "The project is innovative--not just a continuation of something that is already underway." That was the judgment that collectively our review panel came to. The fourth one, "Benefits of the project are broad-based -- the impact goes beyond the department or school." The fifth one, "Collaboration with other programs/units is explicit -- needed linkages have been established." These are things that were important to those who reviewed this time. When we see the results of the deliberations that are going on right now with the central process panels, we will perhaps come out with a different set of criteria for judgment on the next set of proposals. We just wanted to be very open about the things that were used by these groups and to let you know what was on the minds of your colleagues when they made these decisions.

MCDONALD: Chancellor Bepko, do you know the $2 million that goes for child care, where it comes off these various millions?

BEPKO: I don't think that is part of this Strategic Directions process. That is separate. The $2 million will be added on to what was already earmarked for Strategic Directions.

MCDONALD: I may have misread the Sagamore article. The Sagamore, once in a while, is off the mark, but that is what I thought I read.

BEPKO: I didn't read that part of the Sagamore, but it is my understanding that it is above and beyond the Strategic Directions. Now, if your question is, where did it come from, I can't tell you. [laughter] That means I don't know.

SPECHLER: I have a question for Dana McDonald. I don't know all of the directors personally. I didn't bother to look up what they are doing. It seemed that there was a very high percentage of full-time administrators listed as director. That is not necessarily bad or out of line. I don't mean to quarrel with it, but, I wondered if that reflects the proportion of full-time administrators. What is that proportion and whether that reflects the proportion in the applicant pool, and if it is greater than the proportion of the pool, what do you think the reason is for this apparent disproportion, if there is one? Was it the short time horizon? A greater information about what the true criterion were? Can you be somewhat enlightening about this? The purpose of this question is not to pick a quarrel, but to see how we might increase the faculty success in the second round.

MCDONALD: I certainly have some ideas but I'll let the Chancellor answer that. I can say that in the group in which I participated (I was only in the Planning Committee) we were rather biased against the Administration because we felt that administrators are strong, they are rich, and they can take care of themselves. But, those of us who have these wonderful ideas needing implementation may not be successful in getting administrative funds. This is a chance to make a difference. As a matter of fact, when you are choosing what is best for IUPUI, you really are focused on the plans or the goals for the campus. That is exactly what our group was instructed to do. We were to look at the 19 goals of this campus which we had been working on in the committees for three years, and which you have all read. When we had to focus on those goals, it just turned out that administrative proposals managed to hit the target. Either they were really watching the goals or they had more resources. I don't know about that. The other groups, and how they came to the decision, I couldn't say.

BANTA: Could I also add that what you see here is generally the lead investigator? There were groups of investigators in association with almost all of these. If we were to list all the people who are associated with them, not just the principal investigator, you would find a good many more faculty

BEPKO: Administrators who are advancing the dark and evil interests of the university administration alone are more a suspect than when they are representing the faculty and I think in most cases these proposals were made on behalf of the faculties that these administrators represented. Richard Turner, for example, is in this group. He is a department chair and is based at our English program I think will probably involve faculty, will it not?

TURNER: Yes, and students.

SPECHLER: So, would you want me to believe that we faculty who would hope to get money in the second round had better pay more attention to these campus goals than we have up until now?

MCDONALD: That depends on whether the process is organized by the administration in the same way. We haven't heard that IUPUI administration will go through this process of determining what is recommended. I feel very strongly that it doesn't mean that only these 24 proposals on this list have any chance of success. It could very well be that the three groups of reviewers who are meeting in Bloomington, whose identity is mysteriously secret from some of us, might be quite disposed to look at this issue differently. So, I think that we have a good feeling about chance of success in the next round. But, I do think that we may have to worry about broad-based appeal. I think maybe that some of the faculty proposals that we were looking at, I have heard in these discussions, were wonderful for as well as a very well focused research effort. Broad appeal is a requirement.

CAMBRIDGE: Readers on the panels did not have a charge to look at campus rankings in the first readings of proposals. Campus rankings became important during the process, but each of the proposals that came forward got an equal read. Anybody who isn't ranked got clearly a full consideration.

BALDWIN: It's not just any old grant that we are asking for here. It has to be linked to these goals. Not just the IUPUI ones. But, some faculty thought, "Here is a chance to get some money to do my pet project." The links to the overall goals of the program, if they were there at all, they were only dotted lines. I think if people will bring this together next time and do what Martin just said, they will make sure their projects link up strongly to the expressed goals of the university.

SPECHLER: Jim, I think that was reasonably clear that it was to relate to one of the Strategic Directions. Perhaps it was carelessness on my part, but I wasn't aware that the campus recommendation was based on tying it into these 19 goals, but possibly I didn't read carefully enough. I appreciate what Dana says, yet I think that our campus administration is held in rather high esteem and, therefore, its recommendation is much to be desired.

TURNER: What Dana was referring to is just what the Planning Committee did. Their position was to look at it in terms of campus goals, but that was only one factor that went into the ranking. Others were the IU review panel which was 100 percent faculty driven.

MCDONALD: There were 11 criteria that were used to judge them.

SPECHLER: I think this discussion has been quite revealing and helpful. As for myself, when I put in a new proposal I certainly take into account the campus goals as well as the review criteria which I guess were generated ex-post but certainly seemed sensible.

TURNER: Is there any other discussion, suggestions, or questions about the Strategic Directions process? This round is coming to an end and there was $4 million available I this round.

MCDONALD: I have a page out of the RFP of the original documentation and it says that round two RFP is due, I assume from the President's Office, on May 1, 1996. The proposals will be due in Bloomington on September 15, 1996. That means that before school starts this campus will have to have completed its work.

TURNER: The pot is bigger for round two?

MCDONALD: Yes. I don't understand it. The first round is $1.4 million and 1 percent tuition increase, a quarter of a million appropriated by the legislature for university initiatives and $3 million one time funds from the President. That is this time. This total of $4.65 million is up to $9.4 million in round two. Round three is just one year away. This is three rounds in 18 months.

BALDWIN: To put things in context, I think if I remember from the Budgetary Affairs Committee, the total of the grants asked for, all 249 were over $50 million.

CAMBRIDGE: Could I just say that I think it is an extraordinary opportunity. I have been talking to people at other campuses in other states who have said, "What? You have money available?" I think we ought to put it in context. Our sensibility about these amounts when we in fact say $4 million isn't going to be able to fund a lot of things because there are so many states where there is not even $10 to do this kind of work. So, I think we ought to feel very positive about the fact that President Brand and others thought ahead enough to have all of this money available, even though we are feeling very hard pressed to do this work quickly.

COHEN: I also think we have to realize that the general funding we have is still below what we need. We are putting a lot of effort into new programs and that is wonderful. It is nice to have the possibility, but none of our schools are really up to the level of basic funding that we should be. It is sometimes very easy to get sidetracked and look at these wonderful new programs we are funding, but the basic maintenance of our basic programs suffer. It is really a tradeoff. I think it is unfortunate between basic undergraduate programs and special projects. I understand there is an increase in students to the university this fall. I think it was something like 12 percent. That is a lot of new students coming in and we have to meet their needs also.

NG: I think there is also another consideration. Mainly, the amount of effort and the cost associated in generating these proposals. We have got something like 200+ proposals. If you think about what kind of faculty time goes into making these proposals, assuming they are all good proposals, it is really substantial.

TURNER: I don't think that this closes this subject by any means. The process will, as Dana suggested, be upon us again very soon. It is certainly appropriate to bring this up whenever we have questions. Thank you.


TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the Task Force on Service Report. I would like to ask Jeff Vessely to introduce this report. This report was, as the opening page makes clear, a Task Force which was commissioned jointly by Dean Plater and Kathy Warfel. The Council and the campus administration has asked the Task Force to deliberate and this is what they have done.

VESSELY: There are colleagues here, Bob Bringle and Barbara Cambridge among others, who have been serving on the Task Force. I will ask them to defend me should the need arise or support me should that need arise, or have the door open for me should the need arise. When we started the deliberation with this Task Force the charge was that stimulate discussion among faculty about the role of service in the academic community and that we search out for recognition for this role, and in doing so, to ask other institutions like ours, as well as the units among IUPUI, about their sense of the role of service as it relates to the three tiered dimension of the university. That is what we set out to do.

What I think the process incorporated was, in our sense, a need to provide information though this discussion and search for other views on this so that service would find its place in the nix with teaching and research. One of my faculty colleagues said to me earlier on in the process, "When you do this, this whole process of teaching, research, and service is going to hell in a hand basket because everybody is going to want to do community service. It is an interesting part of the whole mix." One, I am not sure that would happen, but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to clarify the definitions of service, to find ways to evaluate service, to provide for discussion the kinds of criteria that we thought and discovered might fit into this. Then, if someone chooses to use service as their primary area for promotion, tenure, or merit, then they would have the same benefits that we have given to teaching and research over the years. We have produced handbooks on how to document your teaching. We have produced numerous kinds of documentation about the research aspects. So, our intent was to do something very similar to that in the area of service.

The draft that you have seen has definitions contained in it. We emphasize that area which we call "Professional Service." The linkage of the academic area of study to the service. In getting feedback, what we seem to have de-emphasized or seem to have suggested took a lesser place in this was what was called "Institutional Citizenship"; service on the Faculty Council, service on committees. We received a number of inquiries as to how strongly the Task Force intended to promote that notion. I can't answer that because we haven't reached the recommendations stage in our report, but we hope to do that very soon so that we will have an end-of-the-year report and then determine what might happen in the Fall if we were to try to develop handbook or guidelines or evaluation type criteria. I can say that it was never our intent to devalue the citizenship to the point where no one would want to do it. We attended workshops and seminars. We had people come visit with us among them was Ernest Linton who has written a monograph as it relates to professional service. The advice that we have always been given was that the most effective means of carrying forth the academic mission of any unit would be through academic-based service and that institutional citizenship may not fit that criteria as well as some other types of service. It was not an intent to devalue it to the point of losing participants. The other thing that we have done in that deliberation is to examine ways that we might recommend to various units on how those units could, in fact, increase their participation in those areas of Institutional Citizenship and the committee and council type service so that, in fact, it would be more productive than less, but would allow those people who choose to put their emphasis on academic-based service to do that while others involved in the citizenship area would know that, if that is all that they do, it may not be valued as much as the academic-based service would be.

The final item that we have been concentrating on a little more heavily has been the evaluation both in a criteria sense, who could best do these evaluations, and how would you document this. That will probably be a point of further discussion in how to better do that. But, who are the experts? There might be a debate that would exist that a faculty member might make to say that "my participation in a brown bag lunch about how my school, department, or unit can help solve a particular problem has just as much value as attending a national conference on the same subject." Those discussions will continue to take place. The Task Force has not reached any conclusion on that kind of evaluation and not prepared certainly at this time to do that.

I would ask Bob [Bringle] or Barbara [Cambridge] if there is anything they would want to add and then we can entertain questions. [They indicated there was nothing they wished to add] Are there any questions, comments, or reactions?

WARFEL: I follow your logic about the faculty governance / faculty committee type of work being citizenship activities. Therefore, unless one gets very out of sort of being expected and nothing special, I can follow you along that road until you come to the place where you say therefore the people who choose to do that shouldn't expect to be rewarded as much as the people who choose to be doing something else. I think if you are going to argue that this is just citizenship, that you ought to expect all citizens to be doing it. If you are not going to reward the citizens who are doing it, then you must punish the citizens who aren't. Or, I think if there is going to be a very bad effect on our committee and council work and it is not going to be in the best interest of those involved.

VESSELY: Quite frankly, in many regards this thing that we are calling 'Institutional Citizenship' has not been valued very much by many departments. When I was Secretary of the IUPUI Faculty, I remember handing off Boards of Review from faculty who said that their service work was not valued by their department or by their unit committee. Somehow they thought that met certain criteria and wanted to debate that point. I think part of the discussion was that to make this notion of service, if someone chooses that area to be widely accepted, there had to be a mix between the unit's mission and what the faculty member was engaging in. If it were solely that area of citizenship and it had the same check off value of something else, then units would not necessarily buy into the notion that service should have a similar place in that three-tiered mission. That at least was part of that discussion.

CAMBRIDGE: In the document we say that professional service may be internal or external to the institution and benefit society at various levels and then we identify four types: Student Service, Institutional Service, Discipline-based Service, and Public Service. Therefore, It is possible, in fact, to claim institutional service as part of one's professional service if the criteria apply. I think, Kathy, what you are saying is so important because there is a base line of expectation. If, in fact, the institutional service can meet the qualifications of, for instance, having some impact demonstrating some intellectual work, sustaining contribution and leadership, and communication and dissemination. That kind of service has as much opportunity, according to our document, of being warranted as any other.

WARFEL: While we are at that part of the document regarding the four types of professional service, providing care is listed both as a discipline-based service and then again as a public service.

CAMBRIDGE: It is listed in both places. Would you put it in one or the other?

WARFEL: Most of the items only appeared in one place and that particular one appeared in two places.

VESSELY: In terms of feedback, we have probably received much input from the health areas about things like patient care and 'what about the practitioner?' In fact, even in the definition that we thought was fairly general that said at the end of that sentence, was in their discipline or profession as scholar and teacher. There were some people who said, "But that doesn't include the practitioner." We saw the practitioner under scholar and/or teacher, depending on what it was they were doing. It filtered into more than one area because of that.

MCDONALD: I have the same question on that phrase for librarians because some librarians would have to stretch it or belabor the point to explain how they are either a scholar or a teacher.

VESSELY: Would they have to belabor that to those of us who are not librarians or to their unit group also?

MCDONALD: Possibly even to the unit.

VESSELY: We would certain entertain any suggestions of language that would be more inclusive. One of the things that we brought into it in this discussion with the practitioner, short of saying scholar teacher/practitioner, which then other colleagues will say, "But you didn't include something like librarians." Then the definition would on. We were trying to find two or three or four inclusive terms. Therefore, we certainly would accept via telephone, hand written notes, E-mail, or whatever some alternative terms that would be more inclusive.

KUBITSCHEK: The document talks about establishing a context in which service is valuable. I think that is very important because unless you can get tenure and more importantly, unless it is noted that you can get tenure on the basis of excellent service, the average age in this room is going continue to rise. I don't think that we are training junior faculty into institutional citizenship via our award system. That makes me concerned. On page 9 under the Expectations of Kinds of Professional Service, that in order to use service as the basis for promotion or tenure, one would have to document and be evaluated as satisfactory in each of the four kinds of service. That is not, on the face of it, at all unreasonable, but then at the end of the section, for annual reports and for other purposes faculty members may document and be evaluated in at least one area of service. I understand that to mean that you need to demonstrate in only one area of service something which is either a satisfactory, good, or an excellent rating which means that you could be excellent every year in service as you came up to the tenure proceedings, but not excellent in the sense that would get you promoted or tenured. I think that unless the annual report process is changed, the context itself won't change. You certainly don't want a clash in definitions between what is satisfactory, good, or excellent from year to year and what is cumulatively so.

VESSELY: The first place in which you have to demonstrate this is in the unit. We could write a campuswide document but it still is going to have to be accepted and interpreted by the unit. Part of the answer to that is how the unit handles the cumulative or the annual review process. We have had faculty members who have received excellent comments in a variety of categories and then stopped doing those things and didn't get much credit for what they did three or four years ago. So, part of it is how the unit is going to value that. As I am reading that, it was our definition of the term "evaluated." Part of the process is self-documentation, self-evaluation. The annual report in many units has an actual evaluation technique. I am at a loss to say why we singled out one area and talked about the annual report because it is handled so differently. I don't know whether Bob or Barbara can shed any light on that or not. I don't know what that is singled out.

CAMBRIDGE: It was a problematic error. We had a lot of debate about whether someone who went up on excellence would in fact have to claim activity and excellence in all the areas of service or in fact just one and whether there is a difference when one went for tenure and promotion and having to do all those versus having it as just one of the items that a person gets evaluated yearly on. Would we want to make that claim that they would have to every year have all four? So, this is a problematic discussion.

VESSELY: We should go back and review that. I am reminded a little bit from that discussion that, when we were talking about the annual report, very often that was what the units told us was used for the merit raise or for the notion of the classes they were going to teach or things that are going to happen the next year more so than the promotion and tenure. We ought to go back and try to make that clearer.

PORTER: Barbara Cambridge and Bob Bringle just completed leading a wonderful workshop where we talked about service documentation and used this as a model which gave an opportunity to come to an understanding of what I didn't understand out of this document. The part that I struggled with and would like you to address is Criteria #1 Dynamic Interaction of Service, Research and Teaching and perhaps you could explain what is mean by that and some of the problems that became apparent to the application of that.

CAMBRIDGE: We were thinking in there of the fact that as people makes decisions about what service activities they are going to be involved in that sometimes those service activities are chosen without any reference to the other work that the faculty member is doing. That is one reason that very often it is hard to make a case about the service one does if there is very little connection. So, we were looking at the kind of choices of service that one could make that would, in some way, relate to that person's research and teaching and that having some sort of interrelationship would make one be able to support the case for service in a stronger way. We had a discussion this morning in the workshop about that and whether it would be essential that every bit of one's service would be able to linked to one's research and teaching. We decided, at least the group that was working on that, that probably would not be the case. That there would be some service that would not be as directly related, but if it were that it would be a more able to be strongly supported if one could make one's case that way.

VESSELY: Remember, too, that we received lots of information from various units about current practices. That information had to do with service, teaching, and research and that interrelated. Most often it made some comment about the value placed on research that was interrelated to teaching and teaching interrelated to the research. We picked up on that theme. I think there is more refinement possible, but one of the things that came to light, there probably has been numerous instances, but an instance where someone who was teaching in an area, I'll use English as an example, and instead of teaching writing per se, they were teaching about this thing that they were doing service in, that they were interested in. Writing was part of it, but it wasn't really the main focus. They weren't doing service in teaching of writing and then bringing that back to their university classroom. The unit didn't value that at all. They didn't want to reappoint this person because they had gone off in their service area much more so than they had intended for them to do. It really didn't happen in English, but it happened in an area in which it was easy to do because the main subject was one that you could lots of examples as you teach and they happened to use the choice example which wasn't seen as related.

ROTHE: I am concerned about the service being defined almost solely by using our discipline and expertise. It seems to me service can also partly include the citizenship. I am particularly concerned that once a professor gets beyond tenure what we do after that. As mentioned in the document, you get older you do more to approach the service. As I read the document and from what you say, unless I am doing something for an outside organization (external group) and using my specific expertise doesn't count. Forget it. Serving on a school board, if I am an attorney or somebody who is related to an educator, would not mean anything because school boards don't need "engineers" as disciplines.

VESSELY: The key there is counts for what? Remember, the main focus of this is that the promotion/tenure process, and to a lesser extent, the merit decisions that are made. So, if you are a tenured, full professor, you may not need it to count for much. If your unit says that this is a good use of your time and there is no conflict, etc., then it is not going to be problematic. Again, remember that the units are the ones who initially have to buy into the notion that they are going to count service for something, and the feedback that we got early on was that those things that weren't either discipline based. That is why they didn't count service before now because their sense was that you were off doing something that didn't help the department or didn't raise the level of stature of the individual unit.

ROTHE: But, I will submit to you that there is a lot of career left after one gets to be full professor. The other thing is, do we have to look at the polls for what the units want to set the standards? It seems to me that there should be some mention of something beyond what will be strictly, purely discipline based.

VESSELY: Would you think it reasonable to say once you have reached a certain level that other criteria can be used?

ROTHE: That is fine, but I don't see it here.

VESSELY: This is the first we have thought about it. I thank you for that point.

APPLEGATE: I guess I want to support some of what he says. I certainly do worry about the post tenure and full professor people. I am also concerned about the idea that you have to so tightly link a narrow area of expertise that in fact you may become basically really boring. Sometimes it is what you get involved in and it makes a contribution based on the attitude of mind you have and the approach to problem solving that you have. To keep yourself so narrowly focused is so stultifying as to be unbelievable. I might like an engineering on the school board who takes a different approach to education and again I won't like the engineer's approach to education. My point is that sometimes it is the very stretching that is useful and so I liked your point about what impact you made, but I am very troubled by the point that everything has to be so narrowly focused. We can talk to the students about a broad education, but we don't believe in living in lives in that way.

CAMBRIDGE: It is clearly, I think, I mistake to try to say that all professional service will be disciplinary based. I think that one of the things that we have been talking is 'what is the difference between saying one is a biologist and one is a professor of biology?' Biologists can exist in a research lab somewhere but a professor of biology has a larger area of expertise than the biology subject content. The professor, in fact, has some knowledge coming out of the operation in an institution; professional knowledge that comes from longevity and activity in an institution. There is a knowledge base there. I think we were trying to acknowledge that in this document by using the word 'professional' and saying that the professional expertise can come from a disciplinary base, but it can come also an institutional base.

VESSELY: One other point is that many of us do service that we don't intend to count for anything. We don't intend that it is going to be documented in such a way that it is adding to our portfolio. We just do it. We participate in a city wide cleanup. So, it wasn't intended for all the service to fit into some area either, but I think what we were trying to do, if we were going to err, we were erring on the side of saying that if it gets to that point of choosing, from again what we are hearing from the responses for what is being supported by the various entities, that the academic-based side has some level of importance that might where you want to focus. If you are the younger junior faculty that is what you might do. We have had faculty members who served on committees and have been on Faculty Council and done a variety of things who are now teaching at some other university because it came to a point they thought because the reward system was a certain way that, that was going to be valued for them. And, it wasn't. So, one of the things that we are doing is pointing out what we knew from the historical sense was in fact true. That all service isn't valued like all other service.

TURNER: We are going to have to continue this for the next meeting, but we can take one last round of comments and then I am going to bring this discussion to a close.

VESSELY: Could I ask you to at least let Bob respond because I think he was on these deliberations.

BRINGLE: There are several points, but there are a couple that I will touch on. First, we had to distinguish between personal service and professional service. Secondly, we have to realize that there are different forms of recognition. Maybe the university needs more forms of recognition. Some forms of recognition are discipline-based. I am not rewarded for doing anthropology research, I am rewarded for doing psychological research. We actually have a broader definition than others we encountered because we allowed the three knowledge bases -- one based on the discipline, one based on the profession, and one based on the institution. Some definitions of professional service are limited simply to discipline-based knowledge. But, ours say disciplinary and professional. We talk about institutional expertise as part of the knowledge. I think we allow for those forms but it may not be as rich as what you are indicating, but I think that is part of the structure we have inherited. Only four academic units that we could find have criteria for service at IUPUI or at least reported that they had criteria. We are trying to put into place some of the mechanisms that would at least allow a faculty member or librarian to be recognized in various forms. I think we also have to keep in mind that we are not just talking about excellence for promotion. It can also be satisfactory performance for promotion or merit.

One final point and this was a point of discussion that we didn't resolve -- should some level of university service be necessary regardless of what forms of service one might do whether at a satisfactory level or at an excellent level? I would appreciate any feedback you have about that. Somebody does excellent professional service but is not on one university committee. Should they be able to claim excellence in service?

PORTER: I would like to request that the Task Force continue to look at this document keeping in mind the discussions that will be going on on this campus related to post-tenure review. I don't think this document can be viewed just as addressing younger faculty or faculty up to the point of mid-career and then it longer influences assessment Also, the discussions that will be going on in relationship to assigning faculty work where the value placed on service will not only have the potential to influence decisions made by the individual but may impact on the decisions that are made on a departmental level as how the individual will spend their time.

WARFEL: Part of the document talks about the timetable for the work of the Task Force and coming up with a handbook that will useful for the faculty on this campus. One thing that isn't in that time line is bringing the parts of this document that really might have the force of policy back to the Council for approval. For example, what we had already talked about for promotion and tenure cases based on service a faculty member must engage in such and such. That sounds like policy to me. If we as a campus are going to behave according to this, I think those core policies statements should be brought to the Council for approval before they are distributed for use.

VESSELY: It was our assumption that anything beyond a draft or revisions of the draft would come to the Council.

TURNER: Thank you. The Task Force needs to continue to hear from you. If we have time, we can continue this discussion at the May meeting. The discussion is not meant to happen only here; the Council has an investment and you, as members of the Council, I hope that you get in touch with the Task Force often.


TURNER: We will now turn to the next item on the agenda. I would like to call your attention to IUPUI Circular 96-09 which is the Proposed Changes in the IU Student Code. This is a document that came out of the Bloomington Faculty Council Student Affairs Committee. It was produced there and now it has been sent to the University Faculty Council and these are proposed changes to the IU Student Code of Students Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct. Our task for today is to discuss this to gather our own reaction to it, our own suggestions, and to send them along to the discussion at the University Faculty Council.

PETERSON: I will lead off the discussion. I guess the main concern that I have is that we have a very detailed, extensive document here which presumably will be a University document which may restrict us as individual units, individual campuses, individual units within campuses, and individual departments from forming documents that may be specific for the needs of a professional school, as an example. I am concerned that we have this much detail from a University Faculty Council level document. This is to be an all-university umbrella document under which everyone else will produce their own individual students rights documents. That may vary because of the individual needs of schools.

MANNAN: I assume that IUPUI has a Student Affairs Committee.

TURNER: Yes, they do have such a committee.

MANNAN: Have they had a chance to read this document? If not, it may be useful to have the Student Affairs Committee's recommendations and comments before we undertake it?

WARFEL: We have complained in the Agenda Committee of the UFC about how this whole process has been undertaken. This is accurately represented as something that the Bloomington Student Affairs Committee has spent a year or more coming forward with. Now, here in April, the rest of us are supposed to rush, rush, rush and approve it so it can be approved by the end of the year. I have a lot of problems with that process. Our Student Affairs Committee on this campus has had no more time to look at it than we, the Council members, have had to look at it. I think Dick Peterson's point is also a very good one. We have done much better as a university when the university policy is like the salary policy. The University level is a broad statement of basic principles. The campuses work under that umbrella and the schools under those two umbrellas. That is a much better way of getting along in a complex institution.

The response to those very wise and salient points has been, "Yes, but they have worked so hard. It seems a shame not to pass it at this point." I can also tell you that the Bloomington Faculty Council talked about it last Tuesday. They had four motions; three of which passed or were informally accepted by the Student Affairs Committee. Those motions had to do mainly with the Campus Grievance Commission, how it was formed and who sat on it, whether or not the members remained mostly tenured faculty. There were some other amendments as well. So, even the Bloomington Faculty Council has problems with this document.

MANNAN: I would still like to suggest that we send it to our Student Affairs Committee.

WARFEL: It has been sent there.

MANNAN: Then we should request the University Faculty Council not to take action on this one until we hear from our Student Affairs Committee and we discuss it and then we can send it there.

WARFEL: Would you like to make a motion?

MANNAN: Yes, I would. I would like to move that we send this document to our Student Affairs Committee and after receiving their recommendations then we can send our recommendations to the University Faculty Council.

WARFEL: I will make a different version of that. Given that it has already been sent to our Student Affairs Committee, but they have not had time to report back to us, therefore we move that the University Faculty Council not consider it until our campus has time to look at it.

TURNER: Is there a second to that motion?

BALDWIN: I second that.

TURNER: This motion is open for discussion. Is there discussion of the motion?

PORTER: I speak in support of it and also that the Faculty Affairs Committee would like the opportunity to look at this since it is a procedure that will impact significantly on faculty members.

TURNER: It is good to get the Faculty Affairs Committee asking for work. [laughter] Is there any more discussion of the motion? Hearing no more discussion, I would like to ask for a vote on this motion. All in favor of the motion, say "Aye." Opposed? Abstentions? The motion passes and we will convey our sentiments to the University Faculty Council.


TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the Question and Answer Period. I will turn now to Chancellor Bepko to answer the questions.

VESSELY: I understand from a couple of different meetings that I have in that there have been some other meetings, one recently with the Staff Council that referred to the RCB process as the reason that there is no campus unity or something to that affect. For example, the annual students' spring dance, which faculty and staff attend regularly, is that type of event. From one of these meetings they were planning some other event to bring the campus together as if this dance wouldn't do it or as if the most recent workshops or whatever wouldn't do it. In asking that question about, "Why do we need this event?" The response was that in Staff Council it was said that RCB has made competitors out of all of us. It is unit against unit fighting for the same pot of funds that we always fought for. In the old days everybody felt beholding to the Chancellor. Now you feel beholding to your RCB supervisor as the connection for the most immediate funding source. So, instead, of things focusing all the way up in the same direction it is a bunch of little directions. I guess the reason I bring that up is one to ask your response, but the other is that before this thing takes on a life of its own and people's perceptions starts becoming reality I feel we should take about it.

BEPKO: I wasn't at the Staff Council meeting where this came up and haven't heard about it, so I can't comment on it.

VESSELY: It has been within the last day or two.

BEPKO: I can say that we have more campuswide unifying events than we have ever had before. I think that has steadily increased. I am not sure that it is fair to talk about needing more events without acknowledging in any way that we have more all the time.

VESSELY: You will hear about this because I guess the end result was that they decided that somebody will be sent to visit with you about a source of funding for this campuswide event. We talked about the events that we had at the zoo in conjunction with our birthday celebrations and a variety of things. Those seemed to go right past everybody there. I agree with you that we have more of those events. It is just interesting that we have a perception that we don't have, but even more interesting that RCB is the reason we don't.

BEPKO: The Responsibility Center Budgeting gets blamed for almost everything that has happened that is negative after the inception of Responsibility Center Management. We have even had a couple of broken marriages blamed on RCM. [laughter] I will have to wait and hear what actually went on, Jeff. I don't really know about this, but I do think it is important to recognize that while we have tried to move financial responsibility and authority into the academic units where we think it belongs, because that is where the important decisions are made, we have simultaneously tried to do more unifying things at the campus level because we think that is an important feature of life in the university and we think we will all be better off if the campus is strong as a campuswide unit.

KOLESKI: My grandfather told of the analogy that went something like this. People aren't coming to a dance because RCM is like a leaky faucet in Allentown causing the Johnstown flood. [laughter]

NG: Jerry, can you up update us on what is going on with the Student Activities Center? Is there a definite schedule to move UEC from its present location into its new location?

BEPKO: I can't tell you a definite schedule, but there is lot of impatience on the part of quite a number of people, including me, on why it is taking so long for us to get this moving forward. I think it would be a good idea if we gave you a definitive report on that at the May meeting. Would that be okay?

NG: Yes thank you.


TURNER: Is there any Unfinished Business?

BANTA: I would like to say that the Faculty Survey we promised at the last meeting is in the mail. We do hope you will complete it. It is long, but I think it will help us evaluate quite a number of campus services.

KOLESKI: Can you tell us how it is going to be used?

BANTA: There will be a report on the contents given to every committee that can conceivably have an interest in it. Integrated Technologies and other services have given us questions to be in it so they can look at the ratings of their services. They will be very interested in those responses and we will try to follow up.

KOLESKI: The intention of the feedback is for what purposes from your department?

BANTA: I would hope that there would be some things here that would result in improvements in services.

KOLESKI: Thank you very much.


TURNER: Is there any new business? [None]


TURNER: I would welcome a motion to adjourn. [Motion made and seconded]