Present: Administration: Trudy Banta, Chancellor Gerald Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: P Nicholas Kellum, David Stocum, George Stookey. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, W Marshall Anderson, Margaret Applegate, Susan Ball, Joseph Bidwell, Lynn Broderick, Paul Brown, David Burr, Kenneth Byrd, Lucinda Carr, Karen Gable, Patricia Gallagher, Robert Havlik, Nathan Houser, Dolores Hoyt, M Jan Keffer, Michael Klemsz, Missy Kubitschek, Miriam Langsam, Golam Mannan, Rebecca Markel, Bart Ng, William Orme, Fred Pavalko, Richard Pflanzer, Edward Robbins, Jane Schultz, Mark Seifert, Erdogan Sener, Stephen Stockberger, Kathryn Wilson, Richard Wyma, Charles Yokomoto. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, Henry Besch, S Edwin Fineberg, Paul Galanti, Carlyn Johnson, Robert Lehnen, Byron Olson, Carl Rothe, Martin Spechler, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette, Harriet Wilkins, Marshall Yovits.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Deans: J M Kapoor for Roberta Green, Najja Modibo for Kathy Krendl, Shirley Ross for Angela McBride, Pat Fox for Doris Merritt, Dolores Hoyt for Philip Tompkins. Elected Faculty: Robert D. Rigdon for Charalambos Aliprantis, Julie Fore for Dana McDonald, Connie McCloy for Rebecca Porter. Ex-Officio Members: Melinda Phillabaum for Virgie Montgomery.
ABSENT: Deans: John Barlow, A James Barnes, Trevor Brown, Robert Holden, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, Robert Shay, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Merrill Benson, Diane Billings, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Michael Cohen, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Carlos Goldberg, William Hohlt, Antoinette Hood, Elizabeth Jones, Henry Karlson, Raymond Koleski, Stephen Lalka, Debra McDonald, Debra Mesch, Michael Penna, David Peters, Richard Peterson, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Bernadette Rodak, Brian Sanders, Mark Seifert, Anantha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, Jerrold Stern, Karen Teeguarden, James Wallihan, Karen West, Mervin Yoder, Susan Zunt.
VISITORS: J. Herman Blake (Vice Chancellor (Undergraduate Education), Erwin Boschmann (Faculty Development), Chuck Gilkerson (Sagamore), Mark Grove (Registrar), Robert Martin (Vice Chancellor Administration/Finance), Beverly Ross (Nursing), William Schneider (History Department and newly elected President of the Faculty), Larry Wilkins (Chair, Budgetary Affairs Committee).
AGENDA ITEM I; Call to Order
TURNER: I would like to call this meeting to order.
AGENDA ITEM II: Approval of Minutes: March 7, 1996
TURNER: The second item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of March 7 which have been submitted for your approval. Is there any corrections to these minutes? (The motion was made that the minutes be accepted. That motion was seconded.) All in favor of approving the minutes, please say "Aye." Opposed? The minutes will stand as approved.
AGENDA ITEM III: Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald Bepko
BEPKO: There is something I would like to do at the end of the meeting, and that is to say a few words of praise and congratulations to Richard Turner and Kathleen Warfel as they retire from their roles in the Faculty Council.
For right now, let me make three quick points. The Strategic Directions funding for proposals that have been made will be announced tomorrow at the Trustees' meeting in Bloomington. We have gone over the proposals and have some preliminary indication that quite a number of proposals are going to be funded. I think it looks good. I will mention one of those that we are quite confident will be funded in a few moments. By tomorrow afternoon there should be word all around campus about the successful proposals. There will be quite a number of people on this campus who will receive word that their proposals were funded.
Last Wednesday night, as many of you know, the Campaign for Medicine was concluded and the celebration which took place at Eli Lilly and Company with a gala dinner was marked by a couple of announcements -- one of which was an announcement by RandyTobias, the CEO of Eli Lilly, that Lilly's total gifts, which were expected to be about $7 million, and that were announced at the beginning of the Campaign, also held at Eli Lilly, those total gifts had grown and in fact Eli Lilly was responsible for $24 million for the Campaign for Medicine. The total of the campaign was just a shade under $211 million. There was a goal of $130 and we missed the goal by over $80 million. [laughter] There is a news release that is available for the Campaign for Medicine if you are interested. It has more of the details on the campaign.
Finally, I apologize for being late today, but the Trustees earlier this afternoon in their meeting in Bloomington approved in substance the definitive agreement for the consolidation of the IU and Methodist hospitals. Following that, there was a news conference up here in Indianapolis at 3 p.m. in the Conference Center that announced that the Methodist board had earlier (one week or ten days ago) approved the same definitive agreement. There was a ceremonial signing reflecting the agreement in substance to the voluminous definitive agreement that reflects an important next step in the consolidation of IU and Methodist hospitals. I hope this won't offend anyone, but we have been talking about this in terms of a "marital" metaphor. In 1994 there was a courtship that began between IU and Methodist hospitals. In March of 1995 the engagement was announced. Once the engagement was announced, there had to be a thoroughly prolonged period of meeting each other's relatives, which has taken place over the last 14 months. Today, the marriage ceremony was performed, at least most of it was performed. There is a period now of what sometimes is called 'legal due diligence' with information that could not be shared before between these two organizations. [laughter] The reason the information couldn't be shared before is something called "anti-trust laws" which Paul Galanti can tell you more about if you are really interested. It is not likely - it is very unlikely, that anything will be discovered that is new in this final stage of examination of each other's books -- things that couldn't be revealed before without violating anti-trust laws -- it is the highest kind of probability that on January 1 the consolidation will be completed.
The new organization will begin to operate the hospitals and the marriage will be consummated. We believe the step is a good one for everyone. It will be very important for the School of Medicine. We think that this step will position the IU School of Medicine to move truly to the forefront in academic medicine. It may be the most important thing that will happen in this era of academic medicine. Other medical schools are having a very difficult time figuring out how they are going to deal with an extraordinarily complex healthcare market that is focusing more and more on competition and making it more and more difficult for academic medical centers to generate the patient flow that is necessary for medical education. This puts Indiana University in a very, very good position -- much better than most of the other medical schools in the country. It will also be good for the city and the state. It will keep in Indiana home-grown management and control of one of the state's and one of the country's most important healthcare organizations. It will keep in Indiana this extraordinary nationally distinctive and powerful center for complex medical care that will result from the merger of the IU and the Methodist hospitals. I think it is a very important step and one that will be studied for the next seven or eight months before the date on which the switch is thrown and the new organization starts to actually operate the hospitals. There was a news release on that subject as well. I thought it would be good for you to have copies of this. If you are interested, you will know everything and perhaps a little more than was discussed at the press conference today.
TURNER: Thanks, Jerry.
AGENDA ITEM IV: President of the Faculty's Report: Kathleen Warfel
TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the President of the Faculty's Report with Kathy Warfel who will present her "swan" song.
WARFEL: There will be extra points for anyone who can explain to us why they call it a "swan" song. [laughter] I want to clarify something about the constitution amendment that is out for a vote at this time: the constitutional amendment about Academic Unit Organization. When it first went out, we heard from the University librarians that there was a significant problem from their point of view in that the language, if taken absolutely literally, would exclude them from serving as elected members on the Faculty Council. They suggested some alteration to this document which was already in mid stream. I consulted with the Constitution and Bylaws Committee and their response is IUPUI Circular 96-20. While they saw the point of the librarians, they felt that in terms of process we should go ahead with the vote on this amendment but then the first thing next year will be to clarify the librarian language. For the record, I think we should all operate by the guidelines that it was certainly not the intent to exclude librarians from membership on the Council because they do not use the terms "teaching, research, and service." For the sake of moving things along, if we do have a vote that this constitutional amendment is accepted, then we will look for the Constitution and Bylaws Committee next year to go ahead with the librarian clause so that everything is in good shape.
Annually the President is supposed to report about the Faculty Boards of Review. At this time, Board #3 is still in the process of a formal hearing. This is the "old" Board #3. The other two Boards, as newly constituted for this year, have very recently each received a grievance. As of today another grievance has been submitted to me. They are all pending and that's about the extent of the report I can give on Boards of Review.
This time of year could be an appropriate time to look back and see what we have accomplished. I hope you all know what we have accomplished. I will focus on what we didn't get done and what we can expect to do in the coming year, or years, should the Executive Committee next year think that these are important topics.
We need to expect reports from some administrative review committees. At the University level, not our level, the review of Chancellor and Vice President Bepko should be winding up soon. Next Fall, I guess, will be the first time we will be able to officially hear about a campus review of the work of Vice Chancellor Herman Blake. Other administrative review committees that got initiated by this campus are actually more Bloomington oriented.
We have some campus search and screen activities still pending for the Director of Athletics, the Dean of the School of Dentistry, and the Dean of the School of Engineering and Technology.
We had another item that we thought about putting on the agenda today, but, as you can see, the "adjournment" category would have fallen off the page and we would not have been able to adjourn. [laughter] Therefore, we decided to save it for next year. It is a draft document principles or guidelines for this campus regarding Copyright, Publication, and the General Research Dissemination Practices. I think it will be a very important document for the Council to discuss and adopt and it should come up first thing in the Fall.
Then, there is a cluster of items which are all related and need to be woven together. One of them is the concept of Post-tenure Review or Post-tenure Accountability that we will be revisiting in a general way starting today. But, in terms of possible actual policy adoption, will be deferred until next year.
At the same time, we are continuing our discussion about Faculty Work. At the instruction of the Board of Trustees, we are discussing the reward for faculty teaching. From our Task Force on Service we are talking about the reward for faculty service. At the UFC level, there is a discussion of restructuring faculty governance. So, we have a lot of things pending all of which really center around defining and clarifying and redefining possibly the nature of faculty work -- how it should be assigned, how it should be rewarded, and how faculty should govern the institution for the sake of making the institution as good as it can be. These are changing times. There is some unhappiness with the climate in terms of not feeling so collegial, not feeling so much like the "old academy." I think it the process of moving from being the "old academy" to being the "new academy" we really have to be very careful and use our faculty governance structure to protect the best of what we have always been and had as we move into something that looks a little different and feels a little different. We have to be careful to say the essence of what it is we are about.
Those of you who were at the Honors Convocation last Friday heard the IUPUI Campus Campaign presentation, and although the Campaign is not over, the Campaign this year, with donations from faculty and staff, has raised $138,000+ which is up dramatically over the previous years. While on the one hand we hear about poor morale and unhappiness with the campus climate, on the other hand there does seem to be a real willingness on the part of faculty and staff to give to the institution to make it better. I congratulate everyone who worked on the Campaign and everyone who donated. With that, I think I will turn it back to you, Richard..
AGENDA ITEM V: Election of Executive, Nominating and Promotion and Tenure Committees
TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the election of the Executive, Nominating, and the Promotion and Tenure committees. I will turn this over to Dolores Hoyt, the chair of the Nominating Committee.
HOYT: The committee members are distributing the ballots. I would like to thank everyone who was willing to stand for this election. It is an important process and we appreciate your willingness to be slated.
[The results of the elections were as follows:]
Executive Committee: Henry Karlson, Bart Ng, William Orme, and Charles Yokomoto
Nominating Committee: Sara Hook, Paul Galanti, Jeffery Vessely, and Harriet Wilkins
(Harriet Wilkins will be Chair of Nominating Committee for 1996-97)
Promotion & Tenure Committee: Meredith Hull
[Following the election, Dolores Hoyt requested permission to have the ballots destroyed. The tally sheet will remain in the Council Office. Permission was granted for destroying the ballots.]
AGENDA ITEM VI: Report of the Budgetary Affairs Committee: Lawrence Wilkins
TURNER: The next item on the agenda is the report from the Budgetary Affairs Committee with Larry Wilkins.
WILKINS: Thank you, Richard. The Budgetary Affairs Committee has dealt with several important issues this year, not the least of which is something that you already are well aware of and I won't dwell on. We have been quite active in developing the proposed policy and procedures for dealing with matters of financial exigency on campus and its affect on faculty members which was passed by this body and forwarded to the Chancellor and approved and will go into effect in July.
Another item that the committee has been concerned about for some time and we have made significant strides with this year is the improvement of financial planning data. The committee wishes to thank and commend Vice Chancellor Bob Martin for his assistance in helping us develop that information. The committee has benefited greatly from documentary assistance from Bob Martin. He has also been an enthusiastic and energetic participant in the committee discussions and has been very responsive to the comments and questions coming from the members. We believe that we have moved the committee in very positive directions toward an assessment of budgetary matters on campus from a perspective of management of total resources. The quality of information that has come from Bob Martin's office has been quite good. Therefore, we wish to publicly thank him for his efforts. We are continuing the dialogue with Bob in developing that information.
With respect to the budget hearings process, it has been a matter of consideration for a little over one year; at the suggestion of Dean Plater, to consider ways in which the budget hearings process can be streamlined and made more meaningful, again with a perspective on planning and management of total resources and a review for the purpose of determining what a given unit's objectives are and how well they have accomplished those objectives from their own perspective from. It is under consideration by the committee and Dean Plater to coordinate the hearings process with the state biennial budgetary process.
The committee plans to work closely with Vice Chancellor Banta in developing guidelines for submissions of information and documents to the committee for unit deans and directors. A traditional function of the committee has been to participate in the annual hearings on budget requests by unit deans and directors. We did that this spring. The process involves a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of the committee as well as the other participants. We have made a report to the Chancellor with our recommendations for funding of some initiatives. A copy of that report is going to be attached to this report for review by this body. The committee has made some specific recommendations about improving the process in general and with respect to the review of the Strategic Directions Charter proposals which were a significant part of the submissions by deans and directors this year. Those proposals produced an extra reading load as well as an extra load in terms of the review and discussions by the committee. A portion of those proposals are still under advisement by the committee as that process continues to evolve and proceed.
The committee has also made some recommendations about improvements in the review process for Strategic Directions proposals. Specifically, the committee made recommendations for budget requests independent of Strategic Directions Charter proposals totalling just over $500,000. The committee made recommendations to the Chancellor for approval of one-time cash expenditures for programmatic improvements in six different units in that amount. It also recommended one base increase of $20,000 for one unit to fund the conversion of a part-time faculty position to a full-time position. So, in terms of its traditional function, the committee has continued to perform in that way. In cumulative form that is the essence of the committee's recommendations. The details of those recommendations are included in the report that was forwarded to the Chancellor.
One issue that has been banging around in the committee for some time has been the issue of infusion of new monies and reallocations for non-academic initiatives in service or support units in comparison to infusion of new funds for reallocations for academic programs. More specifically, that issue has been whether the collective budgetary growth in support units that stems from such initiatives might be outdistancing growth in academic units.
Patrick Rooney, who is a Special Assistant to Chancellor Bepko, has conducted a study of administrative overhead as a percentage of academic expenditures, creating a ratio. At the committee's request, he reported his analysis and findings from that study and participated in a lengthy discussion with the committee about his findings. Again, this study is attached to this report. In summary, his analysis indicates that from August 1989, at the start of Responsibility Centered Management, through August 1995, the ratio of administrative expenditures to academic expenditures has remained fairly steady. The range is plus or minus two percent of the mean for that five-year period. In the last three years it has actually declined by a couple of percentage points. As a result of that discussion and a subsequent discussion with Chancellor Bepko, who has opened a dialogue with us on that issue, the committee plans to further refine the study and maybe conduct a couple of spinoff studies. The committee plans to continue the dialogue as well with Vice Chancellor Martin on that issue.
That is sort of an introduction in the future business of the committee. The committee already has on its calendar four significant issues, including the one I just mentioned. More specifically and concretely (1) to review the methodology for campuswide assessments of academic units, (2) a continuing dialogue with Pat Rooney on the subject of administrative expenditures, (3) what I have already mentioned in connection with the budgetary review process, continuing dialogue and working with Vice Chancellor Banta on ways to improve the hearings process, and (4) a review of budget implications with plans for new academic initiatives that have surfaced in recent months including a proposed center for Earth and Environmental Science and a proposed school for public health.
With that I will stop with my remarks and open it up for questions and discussion.
E. FINEBERG: You mentioned the ratio of administrative/academic budget has been relatively stable. What proportions do they currently have and what percentages?
L. WILKINS: The ratios that have persisted, according to Patrick Rooney's study for example we take all support responsibility centers, including pass throughs and unavoidables -- the ratio has been 34 percent to 36 percent with an average in the five-year period of 35. The total, including all support centers, excluding University Library, without pass throughs and unavoidables, ranges from 21 percent to 24 percent with an average of 23 percent. Within the last three years there has been a decline of one percent and two percent in those two categories respectively.
YOKOMOTO: Is there a goal that has been set as to what would be a good figure?
L. WILKINS: This represents the first stage of assembling concrete database and that only in part, Charlie.
YOKOMOTO: Do you think that there is anything in the past to try to establish some reasonable goals?
L. WILKINS: I would think so.
LEHNEN: Have you had any experience about what the ratio is with our peer institutions?
L. WILKINS: That is one of the spinoff studies that we would like to look into.
LEHNEN: Might I suggest that you try to relate whether the administration has anything to do with the performance measures of the institution?
L. WILKINS: That is also a matter of continued concern on the part of the committee.
LEHNEN: This is a very familiar issue of K-12 education.
SPECHLER: I believe in last year's report of the Budgetary Affairs Committee it was pointed out that the method for setting the assessments because of the lag in that method have caused some particular difficulties to schools when your enrollment falls. You are familiar with that issue. Under Subir Chakrabarti's chairmanship, it was suggested that that assessment method be changed to be more sensitive to the ability of schools to pay. Obviously, with many fixed costs when a school suffers a decline in enrollment they are going to experience financial difficulty in any case. But, if the assessment does not fall, that aggravates the problem. Have you made any progress in making these assessment tools more current in order to avoid this difficulty?
L. WILKINS: I guess the short answer is, no, we haven't made progress in terms of reformulating rules. It is a matter of significant concern on the part of the committee. We have had discussions with Bob Martin on this. The committee is aware of some anamolies in the methodology that can produce some "glitches" for the lack of a better term. The committee is aware that the lag time between the data that forms the basis for the cost allocation drivers can produce some apparent disparities. We are going to actively pursue a review of that methodology and development of perhaps some revisions of the algorithms that are used. In that sense, we are making some progress, but in terms of developing concrete revisions of formulations for algorithms we have not reached that stage.
BESCH: It is rumored that there is a small campus south of here that builds ships and flags and that they adopted the model of RCM that was generated by IUPUI with significant changes. Is it possible to compare the data from that campus compared to this main battleship campus?
L. WILKINS: I believe that it is possible. At the moment, we don't have the data but there have been inquires made about generating those data.
WARFEL: This is not only the battleship campus, this is the Star Campus. [laughter]
TURNER: Thanks for all the good work of the committee. Your committee has worked very hard.
AGENDA ITEM VII: Promotion and Tenure Committee Report
TURNER: We will now move to the next agenda item which is the report from the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Jerry Powers was supposed to give this report but I don't see him here today. Is there someone from the Promotion and Tenure Committee here today? Are you going to give the report, Bill [Plater]?
PLATER: I would just observe, on Jerry's behalf, that he was chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee this year. This is the second year of the new format of the committee with the combined promotion and tenure committees and the new means of representation. This is also the first year under which Panel E cases were considered by the campuswide committee. Last year was the first year in which librarians were considered by the campuswide committee. So, there have been some significant changes, in addition to structure. I would observe that the procedures (the committee processes) worked extremely well. I think all of you would be very pleased and proud of the way in which the committee operated and of the base on which decisions were made.
I have distributed to you a summary of the cases that were considered. This is information that you can look at your leisure. We provided last year's data as well as this year's data. I know that there is one question that you probably would like to raise. I very carefully laid out the information so I could bring it and give you the exact answer, but I forgot it. The question is, what difference was there between the recommendations of the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee and the recommendations made by the Dean of the Faculties and the Chancellor? The brief answer to that is there was only one case where there was a difference in the recommendation that was made. In fact, that case was a divided recommendation where the Promotion and Tenure Committee had recommended tenure without promotion and the Chancellor and I recommended to the President neither promotion or tenure. Otherwise, there was agreement betweenthe Promotion and Tenure Committee and our recommendations to the President and to the Board of Trustees. That accounts for the difference in the summary. For example, looking at the very top line of 'Promotion Only', there were 36 cases considered; 31 of which were approved by the Board of Trustees. That means that 31 cases were recommended by the Promotion and Tenure Committee; 31 were recommended by the Chancellor.
Bill Orme was on the committee. Bill, did you want to add anything to this? [Shaking his head no.] I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. [There were no questions.]
AGENDA ITEM VIII: Preparing for the Post-Tenure Review Discussion
TURNER: We will move on to the next item which is the discussion of Post-Tenure Review. As Kathy suggested and as we mentioned last month, we are essentially bringing this part of the Task Force report on the table with the expectation that we will get the discussion started now, hear your questions and concerns, and then in the Fall be ready to look at a formal document and a policy on Post-Tenure Review or at least take up the discussion.
What has been distributed are the documents that came out of the Task Force on Faculty Appointments and Advancement regarding Post-Tenure Review. The first is the draft resolution, the second is an implementation document, a form for Post-Tenure five-year review, and then the last part of that Draft Document, Draft Document 18. In addition to that, there is a memo from Becky Porter from the Faculty Affairs Committee raising some questions and looking at some issues. Then there are some assumptions about Post-Tenure Review that were gathered first by Kathy Warfel when the matter came up a couple of years ago and then recast somewhat by me.
The committee of the Council discussing this right now is the Faculty Affairs Committee and they have already begun. Becky Porter could not be here today, but Charles Yokomoto is going to talk to you about what the committee has discussed so far.
YOKOMOTO: In actuality, we really haven't begun formal discussion of the Post-Tenure Review documents. We have begun discussion and primarily we have raised questions rather than come to conclusions. We are a long way away from coming to conclusions.
I think I was selected to give this report because I was the most confused about the committee's current position on the collective documents surrounding post tenure review. The post tenure review documents are IUPUI Circulars 96-18a, 18b, 18c, and 19. Since we have only a few minutes reserved for this discussion, I will get to what I consider the main point that we should be aware of now.
Remember we just finished talking a bout Incompetence, Financial Exigency, and Misconduct. Those three documents took a considerable amount of Faculty Council time, and in those cases, we only debated the process -- they already existed as concepts. Now, we have the concept of post-tenure review to discuss as well.
The current position of the committee, as best as I could tell from the discussion, is that there are many questions that must be answered and research that must be done before the committee will be ready to make its recommendations.
During a hurried discussion at its latest meeting some points of view were shared, including the following:
1. Has the lifting of the age cap really caused faculty members to stay beyond their period of satisfactory performance, requiring a major change in the review process for tenured+ faculty?
2. If the lifting of the age cap is not a problem, what other problems or problems does post-tenure review address, and are there other ways to solve them? Is it for faculty development (formative) or faculty evaluation (summative)? If the purpose is faculty development, should the process be different than if it is to weed out non-productive faculty?
3. To what extent do schools on campus conduct annual reviews of tenured faculty (not be confused with the filing of an annual report)?
4. How will the "cost" of this additional review process be absorbed, especially in departments with large numbers of tenure faculty? If a department has 25 tenured faculty and five are reviewed each year in addition to the review of probationary faculty and tenure/promotion review, could this time be put to better use?
5. With the already approved process for dismissal for incompetence, would a more informal review process serve us better, triggering a formal review only for just cause?
6. Can the current system of incentives be tweaked to achieve whatever goals post-tenure review would achieve?
7. Have acceptable faculty roles at different stages in an academic career been clearly established such that a peer committee, perhaps years younger than senior faculty, can make the right decision on post-tenure review?
As you can see, the Faculty Affairs Committee has more questions than answers. Let the fun begin! We will be glad to hear your comments and take them back to the committee.
TURNER: This is the point at which we would like for the Council to instruct and give some direction to the Faculty Affairs Committee about the kinds of things it wants them to address.
WILSON: I think it would be a good idea to look around at other universities that have adopted this. There have been some articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education covering, for example, what Ohio State has done regarding this and they haven't fired anyone in all the time they have ever done it. That kind of data might tell you that you are doing this for faculty development purposes. You could find out what their results are and their experience.
YOKOMOTO: It would be good to know why an investigating university like that ... At Ohio State they are very generous. Ohio State has coupled it with an earlier than normal retirement plan.
LEHNEN: In the document I see a reference to the formative versus summative approach. If this is viewed as faculty development, I hope the committee will sensitive to the somewhat conflicting purposes of those approaches.
YOKOMOTO: I am sure it will. Rebecca Porter did go to an AAHE conference where this topic was discussed at length by representatives from other universities. Some say it should be used for formative purposes and some say for summative purposes. I guess we have to determine what problems we are trying to address.
WILSON: You mentioned department chairmen and what their roles are. I guess the question was, "Isn't what department chairmen doing right now good enough?" Is that what you are saying.
YOKOMOTO: I have heard from at least two department chairs who say they would like something like this because I can't get certain people to work. Is it because they are ineffective as chairs? What is wrong with the old system that someone would want something that applies to everyone, but they really want it for a few people. So, is there something in that system that could be tweaked rather than putting a whole new layer on top of everything. That is why I put that question in.
E. FINEBERG: I think it would be important to define what the problems really are. We need to perhaps even survey the campus department chairs, administration, and the faculty to see how they define the problems.
MANNAN: Charlie, would it be useful in the sense that we could come up with a list of objectives for the review process and the intended consequences of the review process? Do we know what the objectives for this post-tenure review and what are the consequences of this post-tenure review?
YOKOMOTO: I never really got a handle on that issue in the ten minutes that we spent discussing it at the last committee meeting. My answer is, I don't think we know. Martin, do you know?
SPECHLER: Charlie, you gave a very good summary of our Faculty Affairs Committee discussion, but let me say that our committee was talking as if the purpose would come down from some mountain in the desert. I believe that that mountain has spoken and is now silent. [laughter] Therefore (CHANGED TAPE AT THIS POINT) I think we should enunciate about what the purposes ought to be.
TURNER: If you will remember, the recommendations that we are looking at now came from the Task Force on Faculty Appointments and Advancement. Therefore, a lot of the search for information and deliberation has already gone on in that committee. I am sure the Faculty Affairs Committee would probably want to return that document and to get the input of those who were on the TFFAA. That is on the table. The Faculty Affairs Committee will be dealing with this and we will pick it up off the table in the Fall.
AGENDA ITEM IX: Proposed Changes in the Student Code
TURNER: We will turn now to the Proposed Changes in the Student Code. If I may remind you, we distributed that document with the agenda for the April meeting and we discussed it briefly. We thought at that time that we might be able to return to it in the Fall. We may be able to return to it in the Fall, but not for very long. Therefore, we need to talk about this document at some length and in some detail today since it is scheduled to come up before the University Faculty Council at the first UFC business meeting in the Fall.
WARFEL: It was on the UFC agenda at the last meeting in April subsequent to our last meeting. You will recall that our discussion at this Council pretty much amounted to sending the IUPUI UFC representatives to the UFC meeting to say, "Wait a minute. You will have to table this until we have time to look at it." That is basically what happened. We do have this month and probably September for our Council to comment on it further before it comes up for further discussion and possible action at the UFC meeting.
It was tabled with one exception which I shall explain to you. The Bloomington Faculty Council and subsequent by the UFC Faculty Affairs Committee came up with a number of concerns and motions regarding the Student Code. When word of one of those motions in particular got out, there was a lot of concern. The particular concern that caused all of the fuss was a concern over the composition of the Commission that would hear a student's grievance against a faculty member. There was such a disturbance that the President was very interested in settling in some way that tumult particularly between the students and the faculty. So, the whole code was tabled except for the discussion and action regarding that concern and motion. Martin can speak to this in a while.
The actual motion addressing the concern was that when hearing grievances against a faculty member the Campus Grievance Commission shall consist of four tenured faculty members and one student from the campus involved. This would have been a change from three faculty members and two students and it would have been a change from faculty members to tenured faculty members. So, there was a fairly lengthy discussion at the UFC about the wisdom of this, but the upshot is that the motion to alter the document was defeated. It is at least President Brand's understanding that when the document, as a whole, is taken back up off the table in the Fall, that this part of it will be considered done with and it will just be the remainder of the document that is up for discussion.
Martin, do you want to say anymore about that Faculty Council meeting?
SPECHLER: I just want to say that we owe Kathy a debt of gratitude that she was able to delay this. Subir Chakrabarti told me that our Student Affairs Committee has had very little chance to look over a quite corpulent document. Our Student Association has been advised. So, we have not really been full partners in the development of this document at all. Kathy Warfel, I think, in her usual way has made it clear that that is not acceptable in the future. But, we did get about a five month reprieve on this document. Therefore, it is really important that we made up our minds about this before the Fall so that we can bring amendments and in a moment I will tell you the amendments that your Faculty Affairs Committee is recommending.
WARFEL: Subir could not be here today but I have a written report which I just got and which sharing with you isn't going to be easy because it just says, for example, "Line 186......." Therefore, it is hard for me to share this with you today, but we do have suggestions from our Student Affairs Committee in hand. Maybe our Faculty Affairs Committee should be the focus for today.
SPECHLER: We read this document carefully. Let me tell you, for those who haven't had the chance to read this, that is a largely technical revision and updating which we find to be to the good and not very controversial. Let me tell you about one thing, first of all, that we find favorable in this change and something that we probably should have done years ago. This document calls for a much more stringent attitude towards amorous and sexual advances/relations between a faculty of any type and a student under that faculty member's responsibility. In the past, only if an advance was turned down was it considered sexual harassment. This document, I believe quite properly warns people that romantic relations between students and faculty members is highly inappropriate. It is likely to make trouble for all concerned and should be avoided. I believe that is a big advance and something we should welcome as part of professional conduct in a university.
There are some other matters, some big and some small, that your Faculty Affairs Committee would like to call to your attention. The first three have to do with the Campus Grievance Committee. That Campus Grievance Committee, after various administrative instances, may hear a complaint from a student against a faculty member for racial, sexual, or other kinds of harassment and properly so. But, what should be the composition of that Campus Grievance Committee about a matter that could unsettle a colleague's career very seriously? It is a settled matter that the Campus Grievance Committee will have five members (3 faculty and 2 students). That was voted overwhelmingly in the University Faculty Council, though we opposed it. Bear in mind that these campus grievance committees are really an extreme measure. Almost all of the complaints will be settled long before and we hope in a discreet and fair minded way. This is really an extreme situation where the controversy can't be settled easily. We are suggesting that the chair of the campus grievance committee be a tenured faculty member not engaged in full-time administration. Let me say that the AAUP, in which many of us are members, has collected a lot of unfavorable experiences on this matter especially where the administrator in charge, with Affirmative Action, are very much deeply involved on a full-time basis . We feel that the chair of the grievance committee should be a tenured faculty member. They should be tenured because these are controversial matters which often take a lot of time. They should be a faculty member because only a faculty member is aware of normal discourse and conversation in a classroom. As you will see, we want the Code of Student Ethics to allow maximum free and open discussion of controversial matters in the classroom. Only a faculty member can judge when a discussion, something that comes up, is normal in a class over a controversial matter or whether it represents a breach of professional ethics. That is really the purpose of 1,2, and 3. The chair should be a tenured faculty member. A quorum requires at least two faculty members so that we don't appear at a grievance committee with one faculty member and two students and proceed. That seems inappropriate. Thirdly, that clinical faculty, now a part of our faculty, could be considered for membership on the grievance committee. That is the purpose of the first three. We would invite your approval so that members of the UFC next fall would be instructed to vote in that direction. If you approve any or all of these five, we will let the various authorities know and try to get a friendly amendment made. I think the first three are rather small revisions. Relatively uncontroversial compared with 4 and 5. Richard, do want to pause here to talk about 1,2, and 3 and then we will go to 4 and 5?
TURNER: It is a motion.
SPECHLER: The Faculty Affairs Committee would move this resolution that (1) the chair of the Campus Grievance should be a tenured faculty member not engaged in full-time administration, (2) that a quorum would require at least two faculty members be present, and, (3) that clinical faculty would be eligible to participate. Those are related matters so let me pause here to see if there is any reaction or questions.
ROBBINS: I had a question about #2 -- the quorum requirement of at least two faculty. Would that be the only requirement for a forum?
SPECHLER: I think a quorum is three - a majority.
ROBBINS: There is some other language that establishes a quorum. This is just amends it to include at least two faculty members?
SPECHLER: I think the normal expectation, because I wasn't able to find any language about the quorum, but it does not require that all five members be present. So, the normal expectation, wouldn't you say, Ed, is a majority have to be present to conduct business?
ROBBINS: I would think so.
BALDWIN: So, no hearing will be held unless a majority of the members of the grievance commission are present.
NG: So, the meeting can actually have a quorum as a quorum with no student present?
SPECHLER: That is correct according to this language, but we can rely on the Student Affairs Committee to look at that. That is a good point.
ORME: The language in the packet that was handed out last month says that a hearing may not be held without the presiding officer being present. Would that provision be set aside if there were a quorum with that officer?
SPECHLER: No. The chair has to be present. So, it would be the tenured faculty member who is the chair and one other faculty member at least have to be there. That prevents there being a clear majority of non-faculty on a grievance committee.
LANGSAM: Aren't there some time lines involved in this activity that might be, say for example, that this board has to act within a certain time? If two students and one faculty member show up and the chair or whoever don't show up don't you then violate the time lines?
SPECHLER: That is correct and that is included. We had no dispute about that.
S. FINEBERG: I think after the discussions at the last University Faculty Council meeting that language would have to include at least two faculty members and one student in order to constitute a quorum. I think you are going to have to amend that.
SPECHLER: I think that is a good point, Ed.
TURNER: You will take that as a friendly amendment?
SPECHLER: Yes. That is fine. I would think that the Student Affairs Committee would press that matter. It is not inconsistent. I think Ed is perfectly right about chances for passage without a student being present. It would then say that a quorum would require at least two faculty members and one student be present. Can we proceed with the more controversial matters?
TURNER: There is a motion on the floor. The motion is that this body urges the Faculty Affairs Committee to pursue the first three items. The second one having been amended as described. Is there further discussion on this? Hearing no further discussion, I would like take a vote on 1,2, and 3 bundled together. All in favor of instructing the Faculty Affairs Committee to go forward with these three changes to the document, say "Aye." Opposed? Abstentions? The "Ayes" have it. you want 4 and 5 funneled together?
SPECHLER: No. We will do them separately.
TURNER: The motion now on the floor is that this body approve and urge the Faculty Affairs Committee to go forward and recommend this change to the University Faculty Council. That the use of alternative campus procedures, (Section II.F.3, line 1279ff) for handling racial and sexual harassment complaints cannot be approved until they are examined and approved by faculty governance.
SPECHLER: Unless you read this very carefully, you wouldn't have noticed that on about the 40th page of the document it envisions an alternative set of procedures. Alternative to the ones that are explained in the first 20 pages or so of the document. But, there is no description of these alternative procedures. It is said that those were procedures which could be used in particularly sensitive matters of sexual and racial harassment. We recognize and accept these are particularly difficult cases and that it may require more discretion, it may require more secrecy, it may require different procedures. But, we can't accept the idea that a faculty member (a colleague of ours) would be subject to this disciplinary action under procedures which we have never seen. The Bloomington Faculty Council's Faculty Affairs Committee has voted an amendment similar to this one. If you vote for this, what we would do is advise Ellen Brantlinger, Subir Chakrabarti and the Affirmative Action officers that we must be able to examine their procedures. If they are found acceptable under the circumstances, we will advise you. But, we simply are not willing to take what my great English teacher used to call 'a pig in a poke' which means we don't know what we are getting. It seems to me common sense that you can't be judged on procedures which nobody has ever seen. So, I ask your approval for this provision. It is not really an amendment. It is a provision that we must see and approve those alternative procedures. We are not saying that we won't take them. We are not saying that they are not appropriate. We don't know.
TURNER: I read this as 'handling' instead of 'handing.' [Correction on handout]
S. FINEBERG: I think the wording ought to be positive. In other words, we should basically review the procedures for handling cases of racial and sexual harassment.
SPECHLER: Ed, Number 4 is not wording for the document. It is just a provision. I agree. It is better to put it forth positively. You can put it anyway you want it, but let us see the procedures and then we will tell you whether they are okay.
BURR: I want to make sure that I am in the right place. Assuming that I am, it doesn't say anything in here about judging a faculty member. The way I read this is that there is a process for negotiation which involves the Affirmative Action Office to try to resolve a complaint without having to go to the extent of the grievance procedures. I am not sure there are any procedures. It doesn't indicate that there are any procedures. There is certainly is no judgment indicated here. I don't really see what is wrong with this particular passage. I think you have over interpreted it.
ORME: I have sort of a different a question. The Affirmative Action Officer clause caught my eye as well. I wonder, because I don't know, whether procedures might be followed through that office or whether some of this might not be mandated by law. If it is statutorily or mandated, the approval of this body doesn't matter.
SPECHLER: We really should get informed better from the Affirmative Action Office. I have been in touch with Shirley Boardman about this and have asked repeatedly. We have just not received it. These two points are good points. We would like to know what is this alternative procedure and what could it possibly mean?
BALDWIN: Just a question of clarification. These are the Affirmative Action procedures that are in place generally governing the staff and the working conditions of everybody for the university. Is that what we are talking about here? So, the question is whether those are appropriate for student / faculty disputes? If they are designed for employer / employee disputes, can you really "box" a student / faculty thing into the same area?
ROBBINS: Martin, I have a question as to whether #4 really relates to procedures under the Grievance Committee process or if it relates to general procedures for handling charges of racial or sexual harassment?
SPECHLER: It is general procedures. It is an alternative to the grievance procedure. What we don't want is an "in camera" procedure under rules that may or may not be fair.
ROBBINS: Alternatives to the Grievance Committee procedures or the grievance procedures? Under the first three we were talking about the Grievance Committee function. Under #4, it is not clear to me whether we are talking about the way in which the grievance would be handled or it would be an alternative to having a Grievance Committee handle it which is implied in the first three.
SPECHLER: I believe it is the second one. It is an entirely different section of the document.
LANGSAM: Martin, there is another question that bothers me. Are you saying that if the campus developed an alternative procedure, that procedure for every instance would be considered or are you talking about approving generically an alternate?
SPECHLER: It is the second one, Miriam. That is the usual procedure. If, as somebody has suggested, this campus needs a slightly different procedure because of the importance of health and medical schools on this campus, of course, this body would be the one to approve it and that is provided for in the document.
LANGSAM: But, if a student went to the Affirmative Action officer and demanded action, would you consider that to be a new case or a new procedure? Because that would trigger the Affirmative Action officer involved in investigating a grievance.
SPECHLER: Would I consider that a new procedure? I imagine it has been done before. I think it is of interest to us, as a faculty assembly, to know what the Affirmative Action officer is doing and what sanctions could be possibly be invoked.
ORME: It strikes me that, to address that issue, that the wording is that this isn't an alternative in the sense of either/or. It is supplementary in the sense that a Grievance Committee procedure could be proceeding but the student could also go through this procedure. It is not opting in or out of one or the other. This is in addition to what take place with the Grievance Committee.
SPECHLER: I think you are right.
TURNER: Martin, do you want to go ahead with the vote?
SPECHLER: It would be helpful. This is advice. This is not language to be placed in any document. This is simply going along with our Bloomington colleagues to request 'Let's see your procedures before we approve them.'
TURNER: The Faculty Affairs Committee is asking that we approve the suggestions and go forward with this. All in favor of approving this provision, please say "Aye." Opposed, say "Nay." The ayes have it. Martin, we can do one more in a few minutes.
SPECHLER: The fifth one is perhaps the most controversial of all. It requires that you have read the document carefully. Let me take you through one of the three provisions in this document which raises some questions in my mind. Let me say that our committee did not have a chance to discuss this at length. I am making this motion on my behalf as a member of this body and not as spokesman for the committee. If you are looking at your document at lines 179 to 182, you will see that this document legislates a kind of student code which could chill discussion of some rather controversial matters in the American society and in the state of Indiana. Let me show you how this works. It works the same way with respect to sexual harassment, racial matters, and also matters of sexual orientation. Essentially, the same. Lines 179-182 points out that harassment, based on sexual orientation, I don't have to tell you -- a very controversial matter, that a student's harassment would include (reading beginning with line 161) -- Harassment includes any behavior, physical or verbal, that victimizes or stigmatizes an individual on the basis of sexual orientation. Then, at line 179, it says: If the conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working for learning environment.
It seems to me and some others on the committee that this coming pretty close to foreclosure of all discussion of things which, in my estimation, must be discussed on this campus and other campuses in America. Racism, prejudice against people of certain sexual orientations, matters of conflict between the sexes, etc., all of these are highly controversial matters today and could very well come up appropriately in this or that class. In a religion class, the prohibitions against homosexuality are appropriate academic matters. These controversial matters could, and I believe should, be fully discussed. That discussion, I believe, might well make some members of the class uncomfortable. Some things that a student or even an instructor would say could be exceptional to someone. We have many examples of this. If we accept the Student Code which says that verbal behavior which stigmatizes an individual and creates a hostile learning environment is something that could be sanctioned under this, we are coming, I think, too close. Too close to limiting the kind of discussion which, in my opinion, will be liberating and progressive. If we appear to limit that, we are going to drive it underground and we are going to create a lot of resentment among people who feel that their opinions, religiously or otherwise based, are no longer acceptable in the university forum. I think that is wrong.
Two years ago the University Faculty Council turned down a similar proposal against fighting words, something that would make somebody feel uncomfortable. Unfortunately, in a university that does want to discuss controversial matters, some people will feel uncomfortable some of the time. I think it is the price we have to pay for free and open discussion. Therefore, I recommend to you #5, that in the truth of this code and not subtracting from this code, we add one provision -- that nothing in the code shall be construed as limiting free and open discussion of matters of morality and public policy. So, that if a teacher or a student wants to discuss the appropriate role of women, of homosexuals, blacks, or Jews, in American society that may make some of us uncomfortable, but I think we have to sit still, listen, and respond.
TURNER: That is the motion on the floor. Is there any discussion of this motion?
ORME: It seems to me, Martin, that the upshot of the assumption here is that someone who disagrees with the curriculum or the special part of the curriculum will jump on this clause to try to shut down that conversation. I am not sure that is a fair assessment of what this says. I think there is a big difference between being uncomfortable and being in an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment or learning environment. I understand the concern that this could be an open door to quieting who disagree or to keep from hearing things that you don't want to hear, but it seems to me that there would be a burden of proof for someone making that allegation. I think there are many more potentialities that there might be such an audience that couldn't be shut down if you don't have this kind of clause. While I recognize the danger that you are talking about, I have faith that the process will whittle out those without merit.
GABLE: I would like to support Bill in that contention by pointing your nose in the direction of line 179 which says The conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or learning environment. I think 'unreasonably' is the key word. That goes back to the logic direction in a reasonable process.
WILSON: I don't think we can underestimate what can offend some students. It would surprise you. I taught freshman biology classes for many years and talked about eggs and sperm and people's faces turned red. There are some people who are highly embarrassed by that. If you mention evolution in a biology class, every year it raises questions like "What about Jesus?" They immediately see a religious issue and it is offensive to some people. You have to treat it very carefully, but you cannot under-estimate how easy it is to offend some students.
LANGSAM: As someone who works with students, the particular clause that Martin is concerned about, has served as a very helpful safeguard to faculty and what their goes on in their class. Because what you can have is a student harassing other students and the faculty and as long as you can say to the faculty member, "You must continue to provide a healthy, good learning environment for all students." We had a student two years ago who sat in a group introduction and said as people were introducing themselves, "I think that person is a fag. I think that person is a queer." Under what circumstances do you remove that student? This statement, because it is 'unreasonable' and creates an uncomfortable situation, can be the tool in which you can evict a student who is acting in a horrible sort of way. I have some fairly strong feelings about preserving this.
We have recently also had another issue come up in a religious class where a student's concept of what an open discussion means is their right to stand up and dominate the class discussion and say whatever they want. I understand where you are coming from, Martin, but I don't it gets us to the place that you are talking about. In fact, I don't want in my class a discussion which somebody else has the right to decide is the appropriate, unlimited, open discussion about a topic. Do you want people to spend the rest of the semester talking about Jesus in your class, Kathryn, or do you want to get on with it?
S. FINEBERG: I think there is merit in most of what everyone has said, but I do think that there are people in our classes who are very thin skinned and could, in fact, mistake free and open discussion for personal attack. I don't think #5 precludes the other wording. It is an additional protection which I would like to have in my classes should I make an inappropriate remark which would offend someone. I think it is very easy to offend overly sensitive individuals. That could be mistaken by that individual as being a creation of an unfavorable learning experience.
TURNER: I think we need to move on an take a vote on this. Before we do that, I would like to make sure that the attendance sheet is still moving around. Could we now move to a vote? The proposal before us is that we instruct the Faculty Affairs Committee to bring to discussion the Student Code at the University Faculty Council, # 5, as it has been presented to us. All in favor, please say "Aye." Opposed, say "Nay." [a few] The ayes have it.
If anyone has other comments to make about the Student Code, you need to get them to the Faculty Affairs Committee and/or the Student Affairs Committee as soon as possible. Thank you.
AGENDA ITEM X: IUPUI Personal Completion Compact (Circular 96-21)
TURNER: We will now move to the next item of the agenda which is the IUPUI Personal Completion Compact. You have Circular 96-21 that you should have picked up as you came into the room today. This is for your information. The chair of the Personal Completion Compact Commission, Stuart Hart is here and ready to answer your questions. We have five minutes to do this. Stuart, could you introduce the Personal Completion Compact and tell us what you want. This is not for a vote. This is for your information.
HART: This is clearly at the information item stage. You have a copy of it and I hope you have had a chance to look at it. If not this time, you probably looked at the material we have been disseminating for comments throughout the last year. Certainly you have months and you may very well have years to raise issues, to make recommendations, etc., because it is our intent and we have stated it clearly, and you will find on the next page in fact, the page after the memo that went to the Council on Undergraduate Learning, it says "effective date to be determined." It is our point of view that date is to be set only when the Commission, the Council on Undergraduate Learning, and the Faculty Council consider the Personal Completion Compact design and is ________ the support sufficiently well developed to make implementation appropriate.
What we have done is we have launched a process which is basically an exploratory experimental process to determine what might be the best form of a design for this campus to provide assurances to all who are interested that our students will be able to pursue their studies in a responsible manner and in good, strong, cooperative relationships with us they will be able to complete their program in a reasonable period of time.
All of you know that this was stimulated by President Brand's initiative which has come to be known as the 'Grad Pac' at Bloomington. As the CUL and the Commission it formed looked at that initiative and we looked at it with a collection of people who started out with _____________ it all the way from feelings of strong antagonism to wonder, amazement, and to really fairly positive feelings about it. As we have worked through the different issues, we have come to agree that moving in this direction makes sense to the Commission and that our design would have to be special to the conditions and potentials associated with IUPUI and not another campus. So, that is why ours looks different from the Grad Pac policy statement that many of you have had a chance to look at. The Council on Under-graduate Learning endorsed this as the working document for the next period of development. It did not approve it as IUPUI's commitment, but endorsed it as the general direction that we believe makes sense which will then be further refined through the work that occurs. We have three schools which have already decided to join in this experimental or exploratory process --- Engineering and Technology, SPEA, and the School of Education. We would welcome other schools. We would very much like to have other schools, other academic units, to join us in this exploratory process so that we can identify those particular principles, those mechanisms, etc., that are going to be most effective and that we feel most comfortable with.
The only point that was raised at the last meeting of the Council on Undergraduate Learning was that it might be a good idea to change the name from Personal Completion Compact to Personal Achievement Compact, which also makes a nicer acronym. We would be happy to have your advice on that and every element of this two-page overview and advice for the principles and assurances document that we have developed which now is simply waiting further review and what might be _______________ logically from the experience that we have in the next few months and in the next few years. I would be happy to take any questions now and certainly in the future.
YOKOMOTO: In #6 it says "IUPUI will pay for the coursework..." does it really mean that the department will pay for the coursework?
HART: What it means at this point is that we aren't quite sure how that is going to work out. The Commission wanted to make the point that we believe this design we are developing should have a strong commitment from the campus and that we would need to find funding methods and some support for the campus in general and determine in this exploratory process just what level of responsibility individual units might assume. That question has come up repeatedly and in the CUL meeting before the last one I asked for advice in regard to just where we might place financial responsibility when a school that is offering the program is unable to or finds that it is not going to offer the program that it had promised the students versus the situation in which the school that has promised the program is able to offer its courses, but those other programs that provide support courses have taken steps that mean they are not offering those particular courses that are needed for students. No one had a ready answer and I think that we all recognize that we have a good deal to learn as we work through these early attempts to implement the design and the intent.
STOCUM: Regardless of what unit is going to be responsible for planning the coursework that needs to be taken by students, I think all should be aware that under the current concept of RCM, other students will pay a hidden tax in the fee remissions that are given to students for lack of being able to take courses. I will give you an example. It is totally hypothetical and it probably would never work out quite this way. If the tuition per year is $2,400, based on $100 per credit hour and 24 credit hours, the hidden tax would be $960. You would remit that student $2,400. The rest of the students in the unit would collectively have to pay $960 for that student. I think that is something that we should be aware of when we are trying to work through this thing. I think it is going to pose a tremendous challenge to everyone because of the enormous bureaucracy that is represented in this document.
SPECHLER: I think David is right especially when you realize that this procedure is to apply to every student, whereas Grad Pac is voluntary. A few students may do it, other students will not. The burden on advisors, already heavy, is going to increase. I believe that the weakest point of our academic programs is our academic advising. That continues to be the case. When you talk to students, that is their chief complaint, after parking. [laughter]. If this procedure will lead us to get serious about academic advising, by faculty, not by people who know little about what is going on in our academic programs, then I would say it is good. But, if it is just another piece of paper that is floating around for every student the costs, over and above what David Stocum said quite rightly, is going to be too high.
HART: Some of the schools plan to make it purely voluntary. Students may choose to use the plan or not. There is a very strong component within this which gives the schools and academic units the right to determine the manner in which they will develop and offer this.
AGENDA ITEM XI: Report on the UEC, the Old Library, and the New Student Center/Multipurpose Building
TURNER: I would like to apologize to Bob Martin. I hope that the report on the use of the old library and the UEC can be done at the beginning of next year, or if there is a paper version which can be distributed, maybe we can do that.
AGENDA ITEM XII: Question / Answer Period
[Time did not allow for this agenda item.]
AGENDA ITEM XIII: Unfinished Business
BEPKO: I think it is important that we observe the work that the leaders of our faculty governance organizations do; particularly, the leaders of the Faculty Council. I would like to say a word of special thanks to Richard and Kathy. Richard has been an excellent Chair as he demonstrated today, holding the gavel with gentleness but yet firmness, and with very good humor and a very sharp wit as well. He has also been a person who has demonstrated really sound judgment in all of his work as a faculty leader. He has been tapped for a variety of responsibilities above and beyond his role as Vice President of the IUPUI Faculty Council. Just within the last year, he was a member of a Task Force for the Strategic Directions project. He also served as a member of one of the review panels on the Community of Learning. So, if your proposal went there and you didn't get a very good score, you will know one person to blame. [laughter] More seriously, he is a wonderful and good friend and colleague, a great conversationalist and companion, and , I think, one of the key members of our IUPUI academic community. I have a plaque to present to him and it reads as follows: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis recognizes Richard C. Turner for superb service as IUPUI Faculty Council Vice President, 1994-1996. [applause]
Kathy Warfel has been leading faculty governance for four years as Vice President and President. I think in that four-year period she has presided over the Faculty Council in a time when faculty governance on this campus has really matured and flowered. She has also become a leader of the University Faculty Council as co-chair. She has been a major influence to all of Indiana University's activities. She has been involved in the Strategic Directions process in a very fundamental way as a member of the Steering Committee, helped to select all of the task forces who have helped shaped policy with respect to the final Strategic Directions proposals. She also has made a major mark in the University by sheparding a number of very important projects through faculty governance and policy in the University. The most recent was the Clinical Ranks proposal, which was so important to this campus. It had such difficulty at the UFC, and Kathy's leadership was indispensable in achieving the good results that we had. She has also sheparded the results of that now long ago active Task Force on Faculty Appointments and Advancement. A number of the proposals have come forward and become University policy. In the process of this, she has earned the respect and the affection of everyone at Indiana University.
When she began her work as the leader of the Faculty Council, we talked about one special interest of hers, which was the status of women at IUPUI. In a moment I will say a couple more things about this, but it is clear that there will be a number of developments from Kathy's work in faculty governance, but one of those and perhaps the most important of those, will be that she will have changed and reshaped Indiana University and IUPUI in terms of the status of women and the way women play roles, leadership roles in particular, at IUPUI. I had the pleasure of writing a letter of support for Kathy in hopes that she could be appointed to the Commission for Higher Education. This is something that was discussed in the last Faculty Council meeting. I can't say anything that would be better than to read a couple of things that were written about her in that connection.
"Kathy has been an excellent faculty leader, spokesperson, and advocate for good causes both at the campus and university level. As President of the IUPUI Faculty Council and Co-Secretary of IU's University Faculty Council, she has guided discussions of several complex issues to a very successful conclusion. In the course of these discussions, she has demonstrated a superb ability to encourage constructive dialogue and harmonize initially different points of view. She is thoughtful and articulate and has been especially effective in expressing the concerns of faculty. The reason she has been so effective, in my view, is that she has an exceptional depth of understanding of the work and interests of faculty. There are special sets of sensibilities and textures in the life of faculty. They derive from the solitary nature of much of faculty research, the extraordinary personal sense of accomplishment that flows from helping students grow intellectually, and the unique collegiality that comes from dedicating one's self to the life of the mind. Kathy understands these phenomena in a way that few faculty leaders do and she has been very effective in expressing the fundamental needs of our faculty culture to various different persons and groups. This may be the most important reason for selecting Kathy as a member of the ICHE. It seems that one role that is played by the faculty member of the ICHE is to help lay persons understand our particular culture, to help them appreciate those features that are inherent to the learning process. As a leader of the Indiana University faculty, Kathy has been particularly good at dealing with Trustees and members of the public, not just as an advocate, but as a person who describes our work clearly, directly, and culturally."
I have heard more than one person say that they have not understood the work and needs of faculty until they had engaged Kathy on a particular point. For all the things that Kathy has done, I think that we could create no better recognition than to see the work of the Task Force on The Status of Women come to fruition. I am pleased to be able to say that the Center for Women, which is one of the principal recommendations of the Task Force, will be created in very short order. I can't say a whole lot more because you will find out about that tomorrow when the official announcements of the Strategic Directions funding are made, but needless to say the Center will be created and a variety of activities will spread greatly across our campus that really were initially generated by Kathy's work. I am especially pleased to be able to say that there has been created, through pledges from anonymous persons, an endowed fund that will be used for professional development for women and that will be awarded in the form of Warfel Fellowships for women who are interested in professional advancement and interested especially in executive leadership. The Warfel Fellowships will be a permanent memorial to the outstanding work that Kathy has done. In recognition of this, we have a plaque that reads: Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis recognizes Kathleen A. Warfel for superb leadership as IUPUI Faculty Council President, 1994-1996. [applause]
AGENDA ITEM XIV: New Business
[Time did not allow for this agenda item.]
AGENDA ITEM XV: Adjournment
TURNER: The meeting is adjourned.