Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Faculty Council Meeting Minutes
September 4, 1997
School of Dentistry, Room S115
3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
Members Present: Simon Atkinson, James Baldwin, Trudy Banta, Gerald Bepko, Henry Besch, William Blomquist, Linda Brothers, David Burr, Janie Canty-Mitchell, Ellen Chernoff, Edward DeSchepper, Jeanette Dickerson-Putman, Joseph DiMicco, Nancy Eckerma n, S Edwin Fineberg, Mary Fisher, David Ford, Julie Fore, Janice Froehlich, Paul Galanti, Linda Gilman, Lawrence Goldblatt, Richard Gregory, Dean Hawley, Sara Hook, Dolores Hoyt, Maymanat Jafari, Elizabeth Jones, Juanita Keck, Robert Keck, M. Jan Keffer, Bruce Long, Thomas Luerssen, Steven Mannheimer, Edward Mannix, Angela McBride, Byron Olson, William Orme, David Peters, Richard Peterson, William Plater, John Pless, Rebecca Porter, Amanda Porterfield, Gerald Powers, Frederick Rescorla, Maher Rizkalla, Je an Robertson, Beverly Ross, Carl Rothe, William Schneider, Martin Spechler, David Stocum, Susan Sutton, Soren Svanum, Rosalie Vermette, Jeffrey Vessely, Marion Wagner, Kathleen Warfel, Jeffrey Watt, Dorothy Webb, Robert Weetman, Charles Yokomoto, Marshall Yovits, H. Oner Yurtseven.
Alternates: Dolores Hoyt (for Philip Tompkins), J. M. Kapoor (for Roberta Greene), Miriam Langsam (for John Barlow), Rebecca Porter (for Richard Fredland), Simon Rhodes (for Dring Crowell).
Guests/Visitors Present: Victor Borden, Alan Crist, Mark Grove.
Members Absent: Stephen Allen, A. James Barnes, Paul Bippen, Ulf Bjork, Thomas Broadie, Trevor Brown. Karen Cobb, Michael Cochran, Michael Dalsing, Dan Dalton, Jeremy Dunning, John Eble, James Faris, Naomi Fineberg, Carol Gardner, Sanjiv Gokhale , Robert Hall, Stuart Hart, Robert Holden, Henry Karlson, P. Nicholas Kellum, Stephen Leapman, Norman Lefstein, Yan-Yun Man, Najja Modibo, Bart Ng, Michael Parsons, Melinda Phillabaum, Robert Shay, Robert Tarver, Donald Warren, Charles Webb, Harriet Wilki ns.
Agenda Item I: Call to Order
Porter: Welcome to our first Faculty Council meeting for this academic year. Those of you who are returning members may recall that last year we started off by modeling the "Starship IUPUI" tee-shirts. In the tradition of a new piece of apparel eve ry year, this year you all noticed that the people at the head table are now attired in the IUPUI University College caps commemorating the establishment of University College.
If you will allow me, I would like to introduce the individuals at the head table, although I believe most of you know them. Starting to your right, we have William Schneider (President of the IUPUI Faculty), William Plater (Executive Vice Chancellor a nd Dean of the Faculty), Gerald Bepko (Chancellor), Rebecca Porter (Vice President of the IUPUI Faculty) and, acting this semester as Parliamentarian, Carl Rothe, who is a long time member of this body and also a member of the Executive and Constitution a nd Bylaws Committees, and Bernice Chumley, Administrative Secretary for the Faculty Council and the Staff Council. Welcome to all the returning members and a special welcome to those of you who are joining the Faculty Council for a new term.
Agenda Item II: Memorial Resolutions
Porter: It is the tradition of the Council to acknowledge individuals who have served at IUPUI and who have died. Faculty members have memorial resolutions presented. We have two memorial resolutions: K. Mildred Bearss from the School of Nursing an d Eugene Debs Selmanoff also from the School of Nursing. Since we are in the School of Dentistry Building we also thought it would be appropriate to note a tragic accident this summer that claimed the lives of two School of Dentistry library staff -- Eliz abeth J. "Lilly" Halpin and Mark E. Fitzgerald. I would ask that you stand for a moment of silence.
Agenda Item III: Approval of Minutes: April 3, 1997 and May 1, 1997
Porter: Included with your agenda were minutes of the last two meetings of the Faculty Council -- April 3 and May 1. Are there any additions or corrections to be noted to the April 3 minutes? Hearing none, are you ready to approve the minutes of Ap ril 3?
Mannheimer: So moved.
Porter: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of April 3, 1997. All of those in favor, say "Aye." Opposed, "No." The minutes are approved.
Are there any additions or corrections to the May 1, 1997 minutes? Hearing no additions or corrections, is there a motion to approve these minutes?
J. Keck: So moved.
Porter: All of those in favor of approving the minutes of May 1, say "Aye." Opposed, "No." The minutes are approved. Thank you very much
Agenda Item IV: Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko
Bepko: I would like to start by asking Bill Plater to give our annual report on enrollment as we begin the new semester and also to comment on some plans that we have that are an outgrowth of the Task Force on Research and Graduate Education chaire d by T. K. Li and that involve the potential of recruiting a new campus officer for Research and Graduate Education.
Plater: Thank you, Jerry. I am very happy to bring good news about enrollment, though, as I said at this time last year, most of you could tell by the parking lots last week that there was not a decrease in enrollment. I am pleased to confirm th at. The headcount enrollment for IUPUI was up ever so slightly by 25 heads, 18 of which were here in Indianapolis. The other 7 were in Columbus. But, it is significant that our actual person count continues to creep up. We have not yet reached the record point that we did in, I believe, 1992, but in the last three years we have made appreciable progress back towards that record enrollment. The most significant news is that the credit hours continue to go up. This year overall we had an increase of two per cent. At the official census point we were teaching 5,042 credit hours more than we did last year. In general, the enrollments are up in all schools, at least in terms of credit hours, although there are four schools where there are some concerns that may be due to particular issues, but there are some enrollment decreases. These are in Education, Physical Education, Nursing, and Journalism. Otherwise, most of the schools are either showing appreciable increases or holding steady.
There were significant changes in the headcount in most schools with most schools experiencing a decrease in the number of students, but those loses were made up, of course, by the increased credit hours. There were two schools that were atypical. Thes e were the schools of Library and Information Science (an entirely graduate program), and the Herron School of Art. Both of those schools had significant headcount increases. Otherwise, there were decreases which mean that we continue the pattern of more full-time enrollments. In fact, this fall we have almost 52 percent full-time enrollments. At this time last year we had just barely crept over the 50 percent mark. Again, this reflects a trend that has been going on for several years.
Within all of these enrollment figures, I think it is important to note that we would have had a 420 person drop at the undergraduate level if there had not been a significant increase in the Undergraduate Education Center. Let me remind you that this will be the last year of the UEC. Next year students will be admitted to University College and we will make appropriate adjustments. The point I wanted to call to your attention is that the increase in UEC, as opposed to UECP, was 381 students. We had on ly a 19 student increase in the UECP. So, there was an appreciable increase in the students in UEC as opposed to UECP.
One area of concern for us in the enrollment picture is at the graduate level, in particular, graduate non-degree. This is an area that should be, I think, a growth area for IUPUI, but for the last three years we have had a pattern of decrease. Again t his year there was a slight drop in graduate non-degree. There are some changes that may be possible for us to make in this area by more aggressive marketing and by paying attention, perhaps, to increased recruitment of masters level students. We are goin g to take a serious look at recruitment of master's and graduate non-degree students. This is probably a good point for me to note that with Gene Tempel's departure, Trudy Banta is assuming responsibility for the Enrollment Management Committee. This is a group that has worked during the past 18 months to help guide the campus in an overall enrollment strategy and to guide our marketing efforts with appreciable results -- as we have seen in the past two years.
As a consequence of some of these changes, other factors that have occurred might be of interest to you. The average age of our student body continues to decrease a little each year. The average age of a student at IUPUI is now 27.1 years of age as opp osed to 27.4. But, if you have noticed, as I have in my classroom, I have a hard time finding older students. There is a higher proportion of students who are of traditional age. In fact, it is the 18-20 year old cohort at IUPUI that has increased most si gnificantly. That 18-20 year old group increased by 8.7 percent this year over last year. I think significantly the average credit hour load in this group, the 18-20 year olds, was 12 credit hours. On an average, that group of students is a full-time popu lation.
There are two other enrollment matters in which I think you will be interested. We had a truly significant increase in the number of international students this year. That group increased 18.6 percent. This happened without any appreciable effort to re cruit these students. Word has gotten out that IUPUI (Indianapolis) is a good place to come for a lot of reasons. I think this is, again, a potential area of real growth for us. It is one that we need to begin to think about managing actively and paying a great deal more attention to. This is a subject that the Enrollment Management Committee will take up during the year.
The enrollment of our minority students has also continued to increase. The total population of minority students this year is 14.9 percent, a one percent increase over last year. The population of perhaps most interest here in Indianapolis is the Afri can American student body, which has increased by a little over eight percent this year from last year.
In past years, you have asked about the quality of the students and we have not had much information. I am not sure that we have a great deal more this year, but I would like to give you at least some basic information that is now available about the q uality of our students. One indicator that we are drawing more well prepared students is that we had a significant decrease in the number of enrollments in the 000-099 course level associated with remedial courses. This is the first time that I know of in a number of years where there has been a decrease in the enrollments in that level of course.
We can report on SAT scores, though, as always, we would caution about using SAT scores as an actual indicator of quality. This is something that we have paid attention to and that the faculty has expressed interest in, in the past. There are three cat egories that I can summarize. First, those who are directly admitted to schools. Their average SAT score this year was 1,055 which is up very slightly from the previous year when it was 1,041. Second, the students who were directly admitted to UEC had ave rage SAT scores (combined math and verbal SAT scores) of 1,005 which is up even more slightly from 1,004 for the previous year. And third, the UEC Population, which had a combined SAT score this year of 874 which was up slightly from 855. If you put all o f these together and combine the three rather distinct populations of students, the combined average is an SAT score of 941 which is up from last year's score of 926. In other words, we are attracting more full-time students and, at least by this one indi cator, slightly better prepared students.
The final comment that I would make about enrollments has to do with the retention. Here the news is less good. As I think everyone knows, we were successful in receiving the grant from the Lilly Endowment for addressing retention issues. We have made some very significant promises to the people of Indiana about improving retention and, unfortunately, we begin this year with an actual drop in retention of first to second year students. The decline is a retention rate of 55.8 percent of students retaine d this year from last year. This is in comparison with the previous rate, 57.2 percent. It is not a large drop, but there is reason for us to be concerned, particularly in light of the commitment that we have made to increase significantly retention from first to second year. There are some variations within the populations of students. As you might expect, the overall retention rate for full-time students was not nearly as bad as that for part-time students, but with the Lilly Retention Grant and with th e formation of University College, I believe we have some measures in place to address this problem. At this time next year I hope that we will all receive news about an increase in our first to second year retention rates.
That probably is far more information than you would like to have about enrollments, but if you have questions, we have two experts in the back who would be happy to answer your questions. Victor Borden and Mark Grove, both of whom have a great deal of detailed information, would be happy to provide it after the meeting or at your leisure if you have inquiries. If there are questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Spechler: I think it is wonderful news that we have received this grant to address one of the most serious problems -- Indiana University's retention of students and reduction of their frustration -- and I know we intend to do that without compr omising our academic standards. Could you very briefly outline what you see as our strategy and besides the promises, what kind of strategy we had in mind to win this grant?
Plater: We, in cooperation with the other seven campuses of Indiana University, have developed a broad framework that we have all agreed to live within. The framework allows considerable variation from campus to campus, but the strategies have t o do with increasing the engagement of students in the academic life of the campus through greater social activities, learning communities, service learning, and all kinds of other things that will draw the students into the life of the campus. We have de veloped a series of supplemental instruction activities that are, what I think of as 'co-curricular,' and that involve mentoring and tutoring outside of the classroom, but in coordination with the departments and schools. I think the most substantive and important piece will be curricular measures that are to address the introductory courses, in particular courses that tend to be the most difficult for students to master such as mathematics, writing, the basic skills courses, and the large introductory le cture courses where it is difficult to create a sense of community and engagement because of the numbers. There will be other activities built around the academic program, but I think the most important ones will involve those key first-year courses. Univ ersity College will be the center of the activity but many, many of the departments and schools will be involved in this. The proposal itself, Martin, is some 200 pages long of which the IUPUI portion is probably 30 pages, outlining in significant detail the programs and ideas. I would just say that we have a lot of good ideas at the beginning. However, we are also committed to assessing the results frequently and have made a commitment to ourselves, as well as to the Endowment, to change strategies if it appears that things are not working. I think this body, and certainly other groups on campus (faculty, Faculty Council Academic Affairs Committee, the Council on Undergraduate Learning), will be paying close attention to the results.
Ng: When was the SAT score recentered?
Borden: We started reporting these recentered scores last year. It was recentered the year before and so, half the population could recenter and half the population took ____ [inaudible].
Ng: So, this increase in SAT scores has nothing to do with recentering?
Borden: Nothing. We are evaluating the increase all on the basis of recentered SAT scores.
Plater: If you have other questions, Victor and Mark would be happy to comment later. Let me very quickly mention the development of a search committee which we are in the process of forming. We are discussing with the Faculty Council leadership possible participants in the committee. The charge to this committee will be to search for a new campus level officer who will hold the title of Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education and Associate Vice President of Research for Indiana Univ ersity. This office grows out of the report of the committee chaired by T. K. Li. That report was distributed to the Council late last spring, and hopefully, it is in your files. If not, we would be very glad to make copies available. The report will be d iscussed at the October meeting of the Council. Certainly by that time the committee will be formed and, hopefully, will be underway. The office will have a number of significant changes. It will combine overall responsibility for Graduate Affairs on this campus along with the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs that was headed by Dean Wendell McBurney. Since Wendell's retirement, Doris Merritt has been acting as the Dean of Research and Sponsored Programs and has begun to work with George Walker in the coordination of Research and Graduate Activities as they relate to Indiana University, and with Louise Perenza as they relate to the Graduate Affairs of Purdue. We have begun, therefore, to implement, on a trial basis, some of the merged activities o f the proposed new office.
The other activities that are underway are to take a fresh look at the committee structure. Some of you who serve on the Graduate Affairs Committee know that this body is about to have some minor adjustments in anticipation of a very careful look at th e way this committee can serve our interests with graduate education at IUPUI as we look forward to the future. This is a great moment for us because of the very impressive results we have had in external funding for research and a commitment to continue this growth in the decade ahead as many of the traditional sources of funding diminish and are replaced by other growth opportunities. This campus is ideally situated to participate in some of these new funding opportunities coming through contracts and o ther opportunities at the state and local government level as opposed to the federal level. Having an officer who is attuned to the relationship of graduate and professional education and research should enable us to take advantage of these opportunities as they come up. We will have a fuller discussion of the restructuring and the implications of this when the task force report is presented in October, but we wanted you to know that we believe the search will be underway by the time that discussion takes place here.
Bepko: Just one footnote to the discussion about enrollments. Bill mentioned that the one area in which we had some drop was in graduate non-degree enrollment. Victor Borden just sent an e-mail around last night that puts this into perspective. In non-degree enrollment we are 12th in the United States -- of all 1,568 accredited colleges and universities, we are 12th in non-degree enrollments. At the graduate level, generally, we had some interesting positions for IUPUI. We are in the 14th positi on nationally out of all 1,568 institutions in terms of first professional enrollments (Medicine, Dentistry, Law, veterinary science, divinity, and related graduate programs.). We are 14th out of all those universities. Ahead of us are NYU, Georgetown, Ha rvard, Ohio State, Southern Cal, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and 13th is Michigan. Right below us is the University of Illinois at Chicago, Boston University, University of Florida, and George Washington University which are all interesting institution s, if you think of them as counterparts. The total of graduate and professional enrollments puts us 49th nationwide which is still in the top 50. That is interesting for IUPUI. Certainly, we think of ourselves as being where we ought to be, but it reflect s a perspective in context of the graduate credit and non-degree enrollment.
I think there is even a broader perspective of the campus that we ought to start the year with. Enrollment issues are something we ought to be happy about, but I think there are many other things as well. I don't know how many of you were involved in t he new faculty orientation this year, but the impressions that were created by the new faculty that came in were overwhelmingly positive. We have another bumper crop of new faculty to enliven and enrich the institution generally. The orientation program w as better attended, I think, this year than it has ever been before. One by one, in meeting the new people that have joined us this year, I was as impressed as I have ever been by any group of new faculty. We have an enthusiastic faculty in general. We ha ve always had a good standard of collegiality on the campus. I think that continues in this body this year. We will take up some issues, including the ones that are on the agenda for today, that I think put us into the forefront in terms of faculty discus sion and faculty renewal. The Policy on Faculty Review and Enhancement in particular, I think, is something that we should be proud that we have voluntarily put on our agenda. The administration has attempted to maintain this level of collegiality and hig h spirits by continuing our progress of administrative reviews.
Just a word on that. The Rosentraub review is completed and we have finished discussions about it. There will be a report on it shortly. The reviews on Bill (Plater), Lillian Charleston, and Scott Evenbeck are just about finished and ready to be report ed on. Earlier today we agreed on a panel of people to be reviewed for the coming year. We will announce that and have the committee appointments ready at the next October Council meeting.
The faculty has generated tremendous excitement in the community and that is reflected in the number and volume of gifts that have been made to the University. Our gift income is up again by a very substantial percentage over last year. We are in the h igh teens of millions each year now and I think we will probably break through the $20 million per year barrier in pretty short order. This morning we had a four hour discussion on the Campaign for IUPUI in which IU Foundation Vice President Phil Hardwick said that he thought that over the next five years we should break through to the $30 million a year mark in annual giving as a result of the Campaign for IUPUI.
Our research figures, as Bill mentioned, continue to go up. This past year we had over $128 million in grants and other awards for faculty work. The first month of the new year was what I think was an all time record for any one month. We had over $23 million in awards for the first month of the year which, if extrapolated out for the full year, would move us up to Johns Hopkins. [laughter] We have all kinds of facilities developed and underway. There are eight different projects in some stage of devel opment. Some of them are about finished. We will dedicate later this month the Indiana University Cancer Research Institute which is an enormously important addition to the School of Medicine and to the whole university. Included in those eight projects i s campus housing which I know is something that you have been interested in and have asked questions about along the way. We did have a meeting of the IU Board of Trustees in June that resulted in some publicity about housing that made it sound as though we were not probably as far along as we really are. I think the financing of this project has become an issue. I think we can resolve it, but we are working on that and I hope sometime during the fall term the Trustees will give approval to a final financ ial plan so that we can go ahead with this first phase of a new era of housing for IUPUI on the west edge of the campus.
In addition to our own facilities, people who come to campus not only talk about how extraordinary our own physical facilities development has been, but they also talk about our surroundings. Everything around us is flowering. If you haven't been in th e White River Park since the river walk and all the other amenities were finished, you ought to take advantage of that. It is really a superb adjoining property for the university. It is seamless. You can walk into White River Park without knowing you are off campus. I think right now, more than ever before, you can see, as I did today at noon, we had a concert on the mall or the Wood Plaza in front of the library where the fountain is, and there was a jazz group there that played at noon today. Sitting t here on the steps, the grand staircase leading up to the library, looking at the Wood Plaza in the foreground and the cityscape in the background, I think that we have the most beautiful urban campus in the world today. That might have seemed like an over statement some years ago, but I think right now it is a very fair assessment of what is out there.
We have taken further steps with respect to the Clarian consolidation. Notwithstanding an article that appeared in the Indianapolis Business Journal this past Saturday or earlier this week, depending on when people read the IBJ, I think that the consol idation is still well on track. The hospital part of it is going extremely well. In fact, we just won a national award for the manner in which the human resource issues were handled by Indiana University and IUPUI in making the transition for thousands of employees from the Indiana University payroll to the Clarian payroll and all the incidental arrangements that had to be made -- all the personal human problems that arose from that kind of a transfer. It was done so well that we won a national award. The physicians are still working their way through the issues that will inevitably arise when we not only confront managed care on the one hand, but also the tendency toward consolidation of practices on the other with previously Methodist oriented physician s and our IU faculty thinking through all the implications of associations of different kinds. We must keep an identifiable faculty for the School of Medicine and for the university. That is the thing that we are working on most of all. Making sure that w e have the same commitment to teaching and research that we have always had among the physician faculty at IU.
We can take pride in the start of University College this fall. University College has gotten a lot of attention throughout the Indiana University system. The Indiana University Trustees have been very excited about this. They put on their agenda a spe cial visit to University College when they come here in December for their regular meeting. University College, along with all the wonderful things that have gone on have continued to create attention for IUPUI around the country and in the world of highe r education. We have a whole bunch of people that have been out this summer at seminars, conferences, institutes, and colloquia of various kinds dealing with higher education and addressing the major issues in higher education today. One of the first inst itutions mentioned in almost all of these various higher education forums is IUPUI. We can be thankful to all the people who have taken the message about IUPUI out to the higher education community, but in particular Bill Plater has gained great recogniti on and brought a lot of attention to IUPUI for the papers that he has presented and the thinking that he has done about higher education. All of this leads to things like the grants that we have been getting.
Yesterday we received news of Housing and Urban Development grants that were given to a handful of universities nationwide for community partnerships. We were at the top of that list. It also contributes to the sorts of things that we see each year in the rankings. We haven't yet made it into some of the ranking systems because some of the ranking systems are based on different types of criteria, but the one that gets read the most and I think influences the way people perceive higher education institu tions is the U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges. That just came out about two weeks ago. IUPUI, along with lots of urban universities, ranked in the third tier of national universities with other urbans like the University of Alabama/Birmingha m, the University of Illinois/Chicago, Virginia Commonwealth, and Temple as well as with other campuses that are not particularly urban in their orientation like Arizona State, Louisiana State, the University of Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah. In the fo urth tier we continue to see right below us other urban universities like Cleveland State, George Mason, Colorado/Denver, Missouri/St. Louis, Louisville, the University of Memphis, and some of our Indiana institutions which don't have an urban orientation such as Ball State and Indiana State. I think people will come to realize that these urban institutions are becoming more important and really are now center stage in American higher education. We are, at IUPUI, one of higher education's hot spots. The k ey to all of this, I believe, is the IUPUI spirit reflected in this body more than anywhere else over the years and that high level of collegiality that permits us to stay focused on the most important goals and objectives of the institution and not be di stracted.
To make our little contribution to continuing that collegiality today, we wanted to resurrect something that existed some years ago, which we have not observed in recent years, but which was designed to recognize the new members of the Faculty Council. We had a reception after the first or second Faculty Council meeting each fall term. The reception was in honor of new Faculty Council members. We would like to resurrect that. We are hosting a reception in the cafeteria downstairs. I think any stairwell will get you there. If you end up in a room with dentists working on patients, you can try a different stairwell. [laughter] It is in the cafeteria which has doors that open out onto a patio. On such a beautiful day we can either be inside or outside. We look forward to seeing you at that reception to congratulate the new members and to greet everyone for another new and, we hope, even more successful academic year in 1997-98.
Porter: Thank you very much.
Agenda Item V: President's Report: William Schneider
Schneider: As usual the Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculties have given you all the good news. I am not going to give you bad news, but I thought I would say a little about the work that lies ahead of us. The Executive Committee and the chairs of the standing committees of the Faculty Council got together last week and went over the agenda items we hope to be working on for this year. The UFC committees had a similar meeting. We will be meeting in three weeks with the Presidents of the Facultie s of the schools on campus (the campus governance leaders). In fact, if any of you are Presidents of the schools on campus, would you please let me know or let Bernice know.. There is a long list of matters that we will take up. I will tell you a little a bout them in groups.
There are a number of items having to do with faculty governance changes and improvements in the existing structures of committees. For example, at the end of last year the Budgetary Affairs Committee recommended the creation of a Technology Committee. Given the amount of money and the use of technology, it seemed to be a matter that was not clearly enough or directly enough amendable to advise from Faculty. The Executive Committee has decided to create at least an ad hoc committee for the year to look into the matter of establishing a more permanent committee by interviewing the various parties involved. There is a description of the new charge attached to the agenda for today describing what that committee will be doing. It turns out to be particular ly timely given the changes that will be taking place this year with the new Vice President for Technology at Indiana University.
We also have revised the composition of the Planning Committee and given it a charge that will emphasize our longer range planning and exchanging of information. This will help it advise Vice Chancellor Banta in developing the goals and mission for the campus. We are also asking for a report after one year to see what that committee might recommend.
The school budgetary affairs committees were not able to meet with the campus Budgetary Affairs Committee for a workshop last year, but that is high on the agenda early this fall. Bob Keck, along with help from Patrick Rooney, will undertake this for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the overall goal of trying to coordinate Faculty Council and the school faculty governance more closely.
One other task which we hope to accomplish this year is to develop campus wide search procedures. I hope that will be coming to the Council by the end of the year.
There also will be some changes in support for Faculty Council, both in personnel as well as technology. The Web Page is still alive and well although it needs to be updated. The goal is to facilitate information both to you and from you in the course of the year.
Two other things. The IU Academic Handbook was revised last year and, as they say, is in the mail. You should also be receiving a copy of the revised Indiana University Academic Handbook. As luck would have it, our supplement is not far behind. For a w hile we were actually ahead, but it is undergoing some last minute editing and, after twisting a few arms, I got a date for projected arrival in October, though that may be subject to change.
Under the heading of 'Faculty Affairs,' one of the most important and probably an item that will take up a good part of our time, is the Proposed Policy on Faculty Review and Enhancement known in other states and other quarters as Post Tenure Review. I n fact, we will begin discussion of that item today.
There are a couple of other Faculty Affairs items that we will be taking up, if not completing, this year -- such as a Policy for Merger and Elimination of Programs which is a carry over from the policy adopted the year before last on Financial Exigenc y. Another item that came out of the (TERA Awards) last year was the allocation of funds for faculty development. The decision on how to allocate those funds, plus the work on the Faculty Review and Enhancement, convinced us that the question of investing in faculty and improving the quality of faculty is one that is worthy of examination. Under the heading of 'development' the Faculty Affairs Committee will be taking a look at the activities that already exists as well as new activities and funds that co uld help achieve this goal. Part of the funds, for example, that came in conjunction with TERA, will go to faculty development of part-time faculty. We are going to be looking at that much more broadly.
There will be a few items coming our way as usual from the University Faculty Council and the Trustees. Some of them we have already begun. The question of non-tenure track faculty (formerly called Tenure and Ineligible Faculty) was not completed last year though much progress was made and continued to be made over the summer. That will, I am sure, be coming back to this body before going to UFC for action and ultimately to the Trustees. We may need to make some strategic decisions about taking parts o f it in order because it is a very large task. It is one that doesn't only affect us, but it affects all areas of the workforce in America today, as you know, if you paid attention to the UPS strike.
There is a proposed change in the sexual harassment policy which initially was thought to be fairly minor but it appears there are some more significant problems. That may come to the campus for a review.
The Policy for Partial Family-Related Leave, which was approved by UFC, was actually presented to the Trustees at their June meeting and some questions were raised which we are going to be trying to iron out with the Trustees.
The Chancellor mentioned the Trustees. They will be meeting on this campus on December 5, 1997 and February 27, 1998. The University Faculty Council will be meeting here at IUPUI on October 14 and November 11. All of those meetings are open to the publ ic and at the UFC meetings you can even speak if you wish. I would urge you to come.
One thing has already been alluded to about the next meeting in October of the Faculty Council. I will mention two items in particular that will be coming up. The Proposed Move to the NCAA Division I, though you think we may have finished with it. We w ill probably have a more formal resolution to act on before it goes to the Trustees later that month. That meeting in October will be held in Kokomo. We will also continue to talk about Faculty Review and Enhancement, and we will begin to take up the Rese arch and Graduate policy report with either Doris Merritt and/or T. K. Li to respond to questions about it.
Porter: No doubt we will have a busy year.
Agenda Item VI: Question and Answer Period
Porter: Consistent with our tradition, we have listed a Question and Answer Period. We would like to limit it to no more than 10 minutes. I would like to remind you, but particularly to provide emphasis with this new arrangement, it is going to be very difficult for those of us at the front table to know who is speaking. As Martin Spechler demonstrated, would you please indicate who you are when you wish to speak. To catch the eye of someone at the head table you may have to really raise your hand and wave more vigorously than in the past because there are some of you who I am not seeing. If I appear to be ignoring you, it is not intentional. Are there any questions?
Warfel: Earlier we were talking about the problem we have with student retention. Martin was asking about our very practical strategies to do something about that. I would be remiss if I didn't remind the Council of a fairly mundane but very imp ortant issue and that is the issue of child care. A recent survey of students who did not return to IUPUI showed that three percent put down as their reason, problems with child care. We do have plans for a newer and larger child care facility on campus w hich will help, certainly not solve, but will help with the child care situation. I was wondering if we could have an update as to the status of that new facility.
Bepko: Unfortunately, we have not made good progress on this. I think it is at this stage something that we are embarrassed about because we haven't made better progress. It is tied, in its current plan, to the housing project. It will be depend ent on our progress with the housing project. If we can't proceed with the housing project, we have to spin it off altogether and just build it or renovate a building for it. The variables have been such that even though we have been more and more eager b ecause the time has come and gone since we should have done this, the variables have been so numerous and some of them so uncertain that we have not made better progress. One of the other variables is the State Board of Health Building which is still bein g discussed with the State Budget Agency. We have been talking to them for over a year now about taking over the facility (actually we proposed discussions years ago but we have been talking for a year) and have not been able to resolve the future of that building. That is interrelated with child care as well because it could be that if we don't have the option of building the child care in connection with housing, that we could move something into the State Board of Health Building. That would free up sp ace in an appropriate building that could be easily renovated for child care. The most likely candidate for that would be the AO Building. It is a matter of frustration for all of us that we don't have this finished yet. I am sorry that we don't have bett er news.
Warfel: I know that you understand the sense of urgency there is out there on this issue. I think we should be embarrassed if we don't have something for child care soon.
Bepko: I think that is a fair comment.
E. Jones: This is an issue which I brought up last year and it was sort of left as sensitive and that has to do with the selling of tobacco products on campus. Given the activity this summer with lawsuits and settlement with the tobacco industry , is that an issue we could now deal with more directly?
Bepko: I don't know whether that is a question for the University administration or whether that is a question for the group here at large.
E. Jones: I know they sell tobacco products in the bookstores. That seems kind of counterproductive.
Bepko: We have indicated that it would be no great loss for the University although there would be some lost revenue, I believe. But, the revenue loss would not be great enough to cause us to want to resist the notion that the campus should be t otally smoke free, as it is, but also free of any sale of tobacco products. I think this body itself is divided on that issue. There are a lot of people who feel strongly otherwise. In that type of situation, if this body gave us a mandate, I think we wou ld follow it with no question. But, I think the groups that advise us and set broad policy, especially on issues like this that are part of the ethic of the institution, I think that we ought to hear from you. I think this group is divided.
Schneider: We can take that up at the Executive Committee and see whether and how we might want to resolve it.
E. Jones: I will look forward to that. Thank you.
Porter: Are there other questions? If not, we will move forward to the next item.
Agenda Item VII: Unfinished Business
Porter: Our next item relates to IUPUI Circular 97-03 which is in your packet. We provided this to you ahead of time so that you would have an opportunity to read though it and understand the background. This is coming to you from the Executive Com mittee and Bill Schneider will present it.
Schneider: The background of this is that last year you, as Faculty Council, acted favorably on a report by an ad hoc committee to revise the Board of Review procedures and include a mediation process. The mediation process called for a committe e that would act as an informal and, in some cases, somewhat more formal, mechanism to resolve disputes before they went to the Boards of Review. The problem was that procedure was to start July 1, but we didn't have the committee available to receive req uests. We needed time to work out election procedures. What the Executive Committee agreed to do was to appoint an interim group in case any matters came up before we could devise the election procedure. Although we promised to do that in September or Oct ober, what we decided to do was to put it on the same election cycle as the Boards of Review which is in January. Therefore, what we are asking you to do is to formalize the interim mediation committee that is listed on Circular 97-03 and allow us to wait until January to create the more formal mechanism for election.
Porter: Therefore, the Executive Committee is bringing forward the motion as printed on the circular. Is there any discussion on the motion to create a five member faculty mediation committee to serve until January? Hearing no discussion, we wil l move forward to a vote. All of those in favor of the motion before you, say "Aye." Opposed, "No." The motion is carried.
You have before you the slate that the Executive Committee is presenting. As we indicated, there is an opportunity for nominations from the floor if you have consent of the individual and they meet the criteria of having experience. Are there any nomin ations? Hearing no nominations, the nominations will be closed. We are suggesting that we elect these individuals by acclamation.
Porter: All of those in favor, say "Aye". Opposed, "No." [Motion carried.] Thank you very much.
Agenda Item VIII: New Business
Porter: Now we will move to what should be the more interesting discussion. We are going to move into a discussion of a document that has been put together by the Faculty Affairs Committee. Sara Hook is chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee. We th ought it would be a good idea to begin with Sara giving you a few comments of introduction and then we can have a discussion so we have a sense of what this body thinks about this proposal.
Hook: You have before you a document entitled Faculty Review and Enhancement. This document was prepared over the past few months. Most of the work took place in the spring semester. We started with a small subcommittee from the Faculty Affairs Committee. We reviewed an extensive number of Post-Tenure Review policies from other colleges and universities around the country. We did a lot of reading. We talked to other faculty. We then made some philosophical decisions about what we might want such a program to look like here at Indiana University and particularly IUPUI. From there, after we drafted our policy and circulated it though our subcommittee, we went to our full Faculty Affairs Committee and had them look at the document and give us feedb ack. At the same time, Dean Plater was kind enough to meet with me and look through the policy. Toward the beginning of June our Faculty Affairs Committee met for a final time before the summer break. We approved sending forth the policy as we had finishe d it up at that time. Over the summer Becky Porter was kind enough to meet with me and, while we made no substantive changes, we did move some paragraphs around and did some general word changes to make it more compatible with other policies that are alre ady in the Handbook.
I would like to say some preliminary words about Post Tenure Review before we address the document. I have done a lot of study of this issue and I know it is an extremely contentious one. It was a very difficult one to face myself, being a tenured, ful l rank faculty member. The thought of having to put together dossiers every few years was really not too attractive to me. As I started looking at the full issue, I realized there are ways to accomplish the kinds of things we want to accomplish, I believe , with this document in a very positive proactive way. One form of Post Tenure Review is the 'every five years all faculty will' type of policy. The other is what is we might call an 'initiating mechanism' or a 'triggering mechanism. I like the word 'trig gering', but some other members of the committee didn't care for that so I was willing to make that change. In these types of policies, only in the event of chronic substandard performance, would such a review be triggered. So, we are not doing a broad br ush 'everybody has to do it.' We are only catching the few faculty members who maybe do need some special assistance. I was reviewing some tapes this summer and the consensus seems to be nationally (this was a whole session devoted to Post Tenure Review), the consensus is, when we are talking about chronically deficient faculty members, we are talking about one to three percent of the full faculty population. So, it seems silly to some people that we have to have a broad policy -- everybody has to do it e very five years -- to catch one to three percent of faculty members who may need some special assistance.
Another aspect of our policy is that we decided we wanted to be very, very positive, not punitive. So, our policy is a two-track policy. There is the consideration of a faculty member who, through annual reviews and reports, is shown to be chronically deficient, and a mechanism whereby that faculty member will sit down with a peer committee and have a faculty development plan developed for them. The other track of this is for the faculty member who really would like a change. Perhaps they want a rebala ncing of their efforts; perhaps they have a new research interest and they know that it could be several years before this will begin to bear fruit in terms of their productivity and they also need faculty peer assistance in not only guiding them in the a ppropriate activities they should seek in order to reach their goals, but also the Dean's commitment for funding or release time or whatever there may be.
You will notice that this is quite a lengthy document. We have tried to build in a very positive proactive stance. You will notice that it is very heavily tied in with the need for faculty development and I think this blends well with our new commitmen ts coming through the TERA program for faculty development. Only in the case of a faculty member who at the end of their faculty development plan still was not getting with the program would there be significant sanctions. These are already taken care of in some of our existing policies on Dismissal for Misconduct and Incompetence.
We have worked extremely hard on the document. I think it serves our purposes well. I think another statistic I heard is that 69 percent of universities and colleges either have a Post Tenure Review, have been thinking about Post Tenure Review, or in f act are drafting Post Tenure Review. I feel that it is the kind of an issue that is there to stay. I would rather see us draft something that fits our specific needs here within our own campus and university than have something else adopted that might not address our specific needs and issues here. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Vessely: I didn't actually read all of this but did you talk about the person who is one of these chronically deficient people who says, "Well, maybe if I just change my disciplinary course of action I will get better." This is a person who mayb e has done faculty development and hasn't been going anywhere with that and says, "I will just change courses here" and the University then would make some investment and they would become chronically whatever. Was there a provision that said at least tha t one enhancement piece would not be available to you if you had already been identified as chronically deficient?
Hook: There are numerous safeguards built into the policy; not only in terms of safeguards for the individual faculty member so today they don't just suddenly decide that 'I am deficient in some area.' There are also safeguards built in for the University's interest. I think what became particularly clear was not wanting a development plan where suddenly the University was investing significant amounts of money or perhaps granting generous release time and then nothing came out of it. There is t hat protection. Also, the plan does envision bench marking steps along the way. So that if a faculty member one year into their plan still has not achieved the bench mark, then at that time there could be some sanction. So, what we are trying to avoid is 'today I decided I want to do this,' then big money gets invested and three years later I haven't done that. We put in those safeguards and we are very cognizant of not wanting investment that was not going to be returned.
Vessely: That is something that I noticed in my years on sabbatical leaves -- that is that the University did make investments and people would come back with a new plan because they didn't get very far with the old plan. So, I can see that same possibility.
Schneider: There is a peer review committee that makes the judgments of whether or not the request is reasonable. So, there is that safeguard. I wanted to add one thing to Sara's comments which is what we are going to do with this. We obviously want to hear questions, feedback, problems, etc. that have to do with this. We would also like to hear some suggestions about the best way to make sure that all the faculty know about this because this is something that will affect all the faculty. If you have some suggestions along those lines, please make them known. Finally, up the line the University Faculty Council, the Trustees, and the President of the University are very interested in this. It may very well become part of our overall University po licy. We have tentatively made the commitment not to enact it immediately for both our sakes, in case there are some changes up the line that would require revisions. We are going to start discussion, but we are also going to give them a chance to see whe ther or not this may become a university policy. In that case we may have to wait for them to catch up with us.
M. Fisher: I have two comments after having read this in depth. One concern I have is in the multiple places where a lot of decision points are left to schools. That would leave a lot of potential for great variability from school to school and then the fairness issue comes in as to how it can be done equitably and I think that would also put some legal concerns on the University if there was not fairness across schools. The second comment is that there was a comment concerning directors and dep artment chairs being provided training on leadership and personnel management. That was one sentence. It seems to me that that is a weakness that really needs to be expanded and formalized within this process and assured so that the initiation mechanism i s emphasized.
Hook: Your point is very well taken about the personnel training. We felt absolutely convinced that that is a problem because when you don't feel confident of your knowledge of human resources management or labor law, you don't feel confident to go ahead and make these decisions. So, we were very cognizant of the need for that type of training and assistance.
M. Fisher: Could that be expanded?
Hook: I have made a note of that.
Slocum: There are a couple of things that stood out to me that I think need to be perhaps changed or slightly modified. One is the use of the term 'academic freedom.' That is a very vague term. We don't really know what 'academic freedom' means. Some people think that it means anything that a faculty member wants to do or doesn't want to do inside the classroom. That is academic freedom. In other words, there is no limit to that whatsoever. The second point is that it says review criteria and th e level of performance which might result in a faculty review shall be determined by each school, with a written policy available to all faculty of the school. However, the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" must include the concept of lack of eff ort, rather than merely the lack of results." Unless we have some definition of what 'lack of effort' means, I don't think anyone would ever be able to prove that there is a lack of effort on the part of the faculty member.
Hook: Your point is very well taken. I think that what the committee was cognizant of, in that case, was in terms of not penalizing someone for lack of results when, perhaps, the research had not yet come to fruition, when perhaps the teaching h ad not fully come to development. This is truly trying to get away from that and look more at what inputs had this person made to try to be productive.
E. Jones: On the last page of the document, Item #8: "The faculty member shall have the right of appeal and retains all rights of appeal ...." To what body did you envision that going to? Would it be the Mediation Committee or Board of Review, o r Promotion and Tenure? Where would that go? Did you identify that?
Hook: I would think it would be the Board of Review.
E. Jones: Somehow that ought to be stated.
Spechler: I think this is splendid work on the part of the committee. I speak as a member of the committee. There are two serious points. One has been alluded to that the schools, as far as I know, do not have a very definite policy for this con cept of a minimum acceptable level of performance. Does that mean that if one aspect of one's performance is unsatisfactory, that the Balanced Case is somehow deficient? I don't know, but that seems to be the crux of the matter. It will require a lot of w ork on the part of the schools to define that. I myself don't think that these criteria have to be comparable across schools given the enormous difference in expectations of the various schools. But, my colleague may know more about the legal situation th an I do.
It is envisioned that a faculty member's record will be examined, at least in part, by an elected committee at the school level. That is very familiar to us in another context -- Promotion and Tenure -- which some of us are going through now. As chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, I can tell you it is a very difficult and arduous task even for people who have been in academic life only a few years. When we are talking about people who have been around for quite a few years, the record will be more extensive, more complicated, complex. It will certainly involve some health considerations, family responsibilities, and a whole host of things. My question is, on what basis will this elected committee evaluate such a complicated record, and, I must say in human terms, often very sensitive questions.
Generally speaking, even in the School of Liberal Arts, and we are all liberally educated people, it is very difficult for somebody in one part of the school just because he or she is elected, to evaluate work in another part of the school. I imagine t hat is true in most of your schools as well. So, [inaudible] reference will be made to outside evaluations. This is my main point and the one that came home to me again and again this week in a long meeting on promotion and tenure.
These procedures have become very burdensome. It is particularly difficult to get outside letters the way we do for promotion and tenure. It will be far more difficult, I predict, to get outside letters in this kind of context because the record is far more complicated, more lengthy, and because of the human aspect of it. We don't pay for outside letters for promotion and tenure. We probably could never pay enough to get letters from the outside on such delicate matters and they will be delicate. Even though the committee has done splendid work up to now, Sara, I think we have some more splendid work to do.
Porter: As you are reviewing this procedure, I would remind you to look at the policies that are in place for dismissal for tenured faculty for academic misconduct and incompetence because you need to understand what is already in place to see h ow the review process could lead into a dismissal process for incompetence.
Langsam: In the section that talks about Guiding Principles, there is a statement which states: "A corollary of this policy is a fair and equitable early retirement system which provides faculty with the opportunity to retire from their position s in a dignified manner." I have two or three questions. One is, do you have any more sense of what that means? Does that mean that I can get tenure at 30 and then retire at 32?
Second, it worries some of us older people in the room, since any attempt to make changes in the 18/20 rule would, according to the IRS, endanger the 18/20 for everyone. So, any modification to allow retirements earlier than 64 under 18/20 would have d isastrous results. So, can you be more specific about what this exactly means?
Hook: Your points are very well taken. The committee made a conscious decision that retirement was clearly far outside of the realm of this document. We did want to make it very clear that there has to be some examination of retirement. What I w ould not want to see happen is this document used as a hammer to force a more senior faculty member to retire. Certainly, there has to be a better way. I look at employment models. I look at the corporate models. It is cruel, it is heartless. We could be the new employer of the 21st century in terms of our humanity and our permitting the employees to not only work with dignity but also to leave that work with dignity. That was just philosophical but we do see that as needing to be worked on.
Weetman: This touches on what I was going to comment on. I am not commenting so much on chronic deficiency -- I think that is clear -- but on how this relates to an individual having some uncontrollable change in their situations, say disability or that sort of thing. A faculty member may need to change their role due to disability.
Hook: We didn't really, in our deliberations, address the issue of disability. This is more for the faculty member who wants a change in their career or research or teaching -- new venues of activity rather than one precipitated by ill health, f amily reasons, or disability. This was not even within the realm of our consideration.
Weetman: So, I think it needs to somewhat be in the realm of your consideration.
Mannheimer: I agree with Marty. This is splendid work and very informative. I have a comment, mostly a suggestion. It would seem the stress or flex in this system is going to come at a managerial level, at the level of the dean or the chair. The se people are going to need some sort of personnel management skills or training or such. I would further suggest that, at least in the case of Herron, and I would suppose in other schools, there is a need for unit mission statements that accommodate this kind of a concept, to talk about selected emphasis or de-emphasis of teaching, research and service over the course of the faculty member's career -- and how the individual's evolution may dovetail with an evolving unit mission. Without a mission stateme nt written with these considerations in mind, and without some managerial skills at the mid-management level, we're going to have some real problems. Again, I think it is wonderful work, but when we enact it, and I hope we do as expediently as possible, t here is going to be some need for an administrative directive perhaps to the chairs and the deans to get this stuff done quickly. I don't know how much of a process that is going to turn out to be, but it's necessary, I think.
Chernoff: I had a concern about how this program meshes with, as you mentioned, the existing rules about incompetence or academic misconduct. The way I read this was that you had two academic annual reviews and then perhaps the constitution of t he committee, which then made recommendations that will probably take a year, and then a couple of years to try to do what the committee suggests you should do. If you have somebody who is genuinely incompetent or doing something really awful, that sounds like they have got five more years before you can get rid of them. My own department has run into that with a former chairman.
Hook: You have identified a major tension in the document, the tension to balance faculty protection with administrative ability to act in a timely fashion.
Porter: However, if you do something that is really awful, the policies can be enacted without going through the review process. That is why I was encouraging you to go back and look at those two documents so that you could go back and see if it is clear how these different situations would play themselves out.
Chernoff: I think there may be lesser situations where somebody may simply not be filling their obligations properly as a teacher, etc. They could say, "Well, I insist on going through this process."
Schneider: It is not meant to substitute for it. It is meant for the kind of gray area in between. But, that is clearly where it falls. It falls between the faculty doing their job as they are supposed to and the dismissal.
Wagner: I am also on the committee and was on Charlie's subgroup. There is a point here that would really relate to us and that is that many of these situations should not [inaudible]. We are now talking about Plan B. Plan A is voluntary so that is a different issue. But, for Plan B, in order for that to happen there should be two negative annual reviews. I think part of what the committee wanted was for the folks who were being paid big bucks to be administrators, to do that in order to enter t his process, the person would twice not meet a minimal standard in an annual review. One would think that someone who gets an annual review that says 'you are not doing well' would understand the need to make changes. If in fact it happens twice in a row, then this process starts. We believe that many situations could be dealt with administratively if the administrators had that information. It is not just Human Resources. Some of the administrators became administrators because they are really good teach ers or researchers and maybe they should get some training in administration. But now, if in fact this process has occurred, we would move into Plan B, but often this should be dealt with at the school or department level before that time.
Porter: If possible, we would like for you to think about bringing the discussion to conclusion so we do have time for our reception following the meeting, but I am not indicating that I am going to cut you off..
Rothe: On the question of annual reviews, the implication is this is done by the chair of the department. It seems to me that this is dangerous to have these annual reviews only by the chair. There should be some kind of departmental peer review as well because sometimes a chair can go along with incompetence and this can go on for years and years. So, in addition to being particularly critical of a faculty member's performance, they can be particularly not critical. So, it seems to me that the need for some departmental peer group annual review might be added.
Hook: You have raised a point that I think is similar to what Steven Mannheimer has raised in terms of schools now needing to do some fairly significant work in a lot of different areas in order to make this kind of a policy work. Schools really do vary on what they have already in place. For instance, our school already has a career plan and a faculty annual summary report and there is an effort to match the mission of this school with the individual research goals, teaching goals, and service goals of the faculty member. I do think there is great variation in schools and schools will have to do some work to make this policy effective.
E. Fineberg: My department in the School of Medicine has developed a mission statement and performance criteria. In order for this policy to come into play I think that one additional element would have to be added and that is the requirement th at departments and schools develop mission statements and criteria performance so that, in fact, the addition performance could be judged against those.
Spechler: I would just like to add that this document should be read along with the two documents that were mentioned and also the Teaching Capacity Model, which has been accepted as policy at Indiana University. That Teaching Capacity Model env isions a substitution between teaching effort, research, and service efforts. Also when it was discussed and passed in this body about two years ago, it called for something along these lines and particularly that people who are asked to teach more becaus e their research efforts have been less successful than in the past, should be extended the opportunity to revive their wish if at all possible. I want to emphasize this, we had particularly in mind, female faculty members who may have spent quite a few y ears serving the teaching and service needs of this university and would like to get promoted. But, if they are teaching a great deal, it may not be possible for them to restart their research efforts. Of course, that can apply equally well to men. The im portant part of the Teaching Capacity Model is reversibility and I think that is a principle that we should continue to embrace.
Porter: Are there any suggestions about ways for distributing this among the faculty so that indeed we have the faculty informed and this could be widely discussed?
Robertson: I am not sure how to distribute it, but I do think when it is widely known to the faculty, Plan A and Plan B ought to be clearly separated in the way that they are explained. I think Plan B is going to be so overwhelmingly punitive in tone that Plan A is going to be swept up in the negative attitude towards Plan B and people will be reluctant to participate in Plan A for fear of being stigmatized.
Hoyt: I am assuming that it would be best going to the individual faculty councils for their schools and let each school report back to the Council or perhaps that has been done.
Schneider: We will take this up when we talk to the presidents of the school councils. I wonder if it has been useful in the past to have open campus wide forums. Do you think that might be appropriate?
Peterson: I would suggest a blanket mailing on the one hand, but on the other hand, to hand something out to everybody on campus that is multiple pages long and as complex as this is, I am sure you are not going to get very much reading of it. O ne of the things that might be done, if you are going to send this out, is have a discreet summary that might peak people's interest at the beginning of that document that would be balanced, obviously, but they would get the main points. The document woul d be there to clarify the points and to have them read if they really have a specific interest in it.
Mannheimer: I further suggest that this be posted on the Web and perhaps presented in a workshop of the chairs of the schools' tenure and promotion committees.
Porter: We will continue discussion of this and keep you informed of what is happening at the UFC and other levels. We will have continuing opportunities. Is there any other new business to bring before the group?
Agenda Item IX: Adjournment
Porter: Hearing no other items of new business, we will stand adjourned as long as you promise to go downstairs to the cafeteria for the reception. Thank you.
[Minutes prepared by David Frisby, Coordinator, UN 403, 274-2215 (Fax 274-2970), email@example.com : http://hoosiers.iupui.edu/faccoun/faccou.htm ]