Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Faculty Council Minutes
October 9, 1997
School of Dentistry, Room S115
3:30 - 5:30 p.m.
I. Voting Members (104):
Absent---: Allen, Stephen (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Present--: Atkinson, Simon (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Present--: Baldwin, James (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Banta, Trudy (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Chancellor's Admin. designee);
Present--: Barlow, John (Ex Officio: Dean of Liberal Arts);
Absent---: Barnes, A. James (Ex Officio: Dean of Public & Environmental Affairs);
Present--: Bepko, Gerald (Ex Officio: Officer: Chancellor of IUPUI.);
Absent---: Besch, Henry (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Absent---: Bippen, Paul (Ex Officio: Dean of IUPU Columbus);
Absent---: Bjork, Ulf Jonas (Elected: Journalism 6/99);
Absent---: Blomquist, William (Elected: Liberal Arts 6/98);
Absent---: Broadie, Thomas (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);
Absent---: Brothers, Linda (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Absent---: Brown, Trevor (Ex Officio: Dean of Journalism);
Present--: Burr, David (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Canty-Mitchell, Janie (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Chernoff, Ellen (Elected: Science 6/99);
Absent---: Cobb, Karen (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);
Absent---: Cochran, Michael (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Absent---: Cronin, Blaise (Ex Officio: Dean of Library & Information Science) (Bloomington);
Present--: Crowell, Dring (Elected: Science 6/99);
Absent---: Dalsing, Michael (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Absent---: Dalton, Dan (Ex Officio: Dean of Business);
Present--: DeSchepper, Edward (Elected: Dentistry 6/98);
Absent---: Dickerson-Putman, Jeanette (Elected: Liberal Arts 6/98);
Absent---: DiMicco, Joseph (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Absent---: Dunning, Jeremy (Ex Officio: Dean of Continuing Studies) (Bloomington);
Absent---: Eble, John (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Eckerman, Nancy (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Absent---: Evenbeck, Scott (Ex Officio: Dean of University College),
Absent---: Faris, James V. (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Fineberg, Naomi (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Fineberg, S. Edwin (Elected: At Large 6/98. Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Present--: Fisher, Mary (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Absent---: Ford, David (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Fore, Julie (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Alternate: Fredland, Richard (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98)--
[via Rebecca Porter (Allied Health Sciences)];
Absent---: Froehlich, Janice (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Present--: Galanti, Paul (Elected: Law 6/98. Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);
Alternate: Gardner, Carol (Elected: Liberal Arts 6/99)--
[via Bob Sandy (Liberal Arts)];
Present--: Gilman, Linda (Elected: Nursing 6/99);
Alternate: Gokhale, Sanjiv (Elected: Engineering & Technology)--
[via M. Erdogen Sener (Engineering & Technology);
Absent---: Goldblatt, Lawrence (Ex Officio: Dean of Dentistry);
Alternate: Greene, Roberta (Ex Officio: Dean of Social Work)--
[via J. M. Kapoor (Social Work)];
Present--: Gregory, Richard (Elected: Dentistry 6/98);
Absent---: Hall, Robert (Elected: Science 6/98);
Present--: Hamant, Celestine (Elected: Allied Health Sciences 6/99);
Absent---: Hart, Stuart (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Present--: Hawley, Dean (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Alternate: Holden, Robert (Ex Officio: Dean of Medicine)--
[via Meredith Hull (Medicine)];
Present--: Hook, Sara (Elected: At Large 6/98. Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Absent---: Hoyt, Dolores (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Present--: Jafari, Maymanat (Elected: University Libraries 6/99);
Present--: Jones, Elizabeth (Elected: Physical Education 6/98);
Absent---: Karlson, Henry (Elected: At Large 6/98. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/98);
Present--: Keck, Juanita (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/99);
Present--: Keck, Robert (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Keffer, M. Jan (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);
Present--: Kellum, P. Nicholas (Ex Officio: Dean of Physical Education);
Absent---: Leapman, Stephen (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Lefstein, Norman (Ex Officio: Dean of Law);
Present--: Luerssen, Thomas (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Absent---: Man, Joyce Yan-Yun (Elected: Public & Environmental Affairs 6/98);
Absent---: Mannheimer, Steven (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/98);
Present--: Mannix, Edward (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Present--: McBride, Angela (Ex Officio: Dean of Nursing);
Absent---: Modibo, Najja (Elected: Continuing Studies 6/98);
Absent---: Ng, Bart (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/98);
Present--: Olson, Byron (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Parsons, Michael (Elected: Education 6/98);
Absent---: Peters, G. David (Elected: Music 6/98);
Present--: Peterson, Richard (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);
Present--: Plater, William (Ex Officio: Chancellor's Administrative Designee);
Present--: Pless, John (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Present--: Porter, Rebecca (Elected Officer: Vice President 6/98. Ex Officio: UFC Rep. 6/98);
Present--: Porterfield, Amanda (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Powers, Gerald (Elected: At Large 6/98. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/99);
Absent---: Rescorla, Frederick (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Present--: Rizkalla, Maher (Elected: Engineering & Technology 6/98);
Present--: Robertson, Jean (Elected: Herron 6/99);
Present--: Rogers, Richard (Elected: Business 6/99);
Present--: Ross, Beverly (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Present--: Rothe, Carl (Elected: Med 6/99. Ex Off: Exec C. 6/99, & UFC Rep 6/99);
Present--: Schneider, William (Elected Officer: President 6/98. Elected: At Large 6/98.);
Absent---: Shay, Robert (Ex Officio: Dean of Herron);
Absent---: Sothmann, Mark S. (Ex Officio: Dean of Allied Health Sciences);
Present--: Spechler, Martin (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Stocum, David (Ex Officio: Dean of Science);
Present--: Sutton, Susan (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Absent---: Svanum, Soren (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Tarver, Robert (Elected: Medicine 6/99);
Absent---: Tompkins, Philip (Ex Officio: Director of University Libraries);
Present--: Vermette, Rosalie (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/99);
Absent---: Vessely, Jeffery (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Wagner, Marion (Elected: Social Work 6/99. Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);
Present--: Warfel, Kathleen (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Warren, Donald (Ex Officio: Dean of Education);
Present--: Watt, Jeffrey (Elected: At Large 6/98);
Absent---: Webb, Charles (Ex Officio: Dean of Music) (Bloomington);
Present--: Webb, Dorothy (Elected: At Large 6/99);
Present--: Weetman, Robert (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Absent---: West, Karen (Elected: Medicine 6/98);
Alternate: Wilkins, Harriet (Appointed Officer: Parliamentarian 6/98. Elected: At Large 6/98)--
[via Carl Rothe (Medicine)];
Present--: Yokomoto, Charles (Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/98);
Present--: Yurtseven, H. Oner (Ex Officio: Dean of Engineering & Technology).
II. Non-Voting Members (3):
Absent---: Phillabaum, Melinda (Ex Officio: Staff Council President);
Absent---: Barlay, Thua (Ex Officio: Student Assembly President);
Absent---: Yovits, Marshall (Ex Officio: Senior Academy President).
III. Guests/Visitors/Others (non-voting):
Present--: Bartlow, J. Douglas (UITS Audio Engineer: Recorder);
Present--: Chumley, Bernice (Faculty Council Secretary);
Present--: Chumley, Bill (Retired: Purchasing);
Present--: Chumley, Jonathan (Guest);
Present--: Grove, Mark (Registrar);
Present--: Kulsrud, Bill (Business);
Present--: Merritt, Doris (Research & Sponsored Programs);
Present--: Moore, Mike (Athletics Department);
Present--: Rogers, Richard (Business);
Present--: Suhre, Vernon (Guest).
Agenda Item I & II: Call to Order & Memorial Resolutions.
Porter: Good afternoon, I think we are ready. We would like to start the meeting with our memorial resolutions. You have them listed on the agenda. We are remembering today Joseph Ingram, Alice Lynn, Bernard Morrell, Charles Slemenda, and Virgil St olting. Would you please stand for a moment of silence.
Agenda Item III: Recognition of Bernice Chumley, Faculty Council Secretary.
Porter: We have an opportunity this afternoon to recognize an extended period of service to the Faculty Council and I am going to turn the meeting over to President Schneider to make the presentations.
Schneider: Thank you. The item on the agenda - Recognition of Bernice Chumley, left out one important part. The recognition is upon the occasion of her retirement. So, believe it or not this will be the last council meeting that Bernice at least will be at the table, she's invited to come for old time's sake and see how things will go. But that will certainly be something new. Bernice came to IUPUI back in the 1960's before there was IUPUI. She worked in the Purchasing Department and in the Scho ol of Education before 1980 when she took up the job that she's been in since--mainly providing support to the IUPUI Faculty and Staff Councils. I've tried to count it up and I'm not sure I have it correctly, but at least nine presidents [Miriam Langsam ( Liberal Arts), P. Kent Sharp (Engineering & Technology), Glen Sagraves (Dentistry), Henry Besch (Medicine), Susan Zunt (Dentistry), Jeffery Vessely (Physical Education), Richard Peterson (Medicine), Richard Fredland (Liberal Arts), Kathleen Warfel (Me dicine), William Schneider (Liberal Arts)] or as they were called, secretaries of the faculty, she has served or put up with as the case may be. She has suffered us with patience and with good spirit all that time and with good work. As the faculty and th e campus have grown in size she's managed to take it all in stride. Now we've asked a number of the past faculty presidents or secretaries to come here. I thought it might be appropriate for them if they could come up in fact to the front so that we can s how something more than just a token of our appreciation. Would you please come down if you are a past president.
And here's a nice silver bowl. I'll read the inscription. Bernice Chumley in grateful recognition of 30 years of dedicated service to IUPUI. IUPUI Faculty Council October 9, 1997.
Bernice Chumley: Thank you. [Applause]
Chancellor Bepko: Can I say something to Bernice? You've been a good friend to all of us and a wonderful colleague, but there's somebody else in the Chumley family who's here that I think we ought to recognize. Because I guess you met your husba nd, Bill, in the Purchasing Department. [Laughter] Bill Chumley spent a career with IUPUI as well and retired just a couple of years ago. And Bill looks terrific--he looks younger now than he did when he retired.
Bernice Chumley: I want to introduce Dr. [Jonathan] Chumley and my good friend and neighbor, Vernon Suhre. And I'll have a couple more coming a little later.
Bepko: I think this is one of those wonderful situations where more than one person in a family is a part of the IUPUI family. Congratulations and best wishes.
Bernice Chumley: Thank you. Thank you.
Agenda Item IV: Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko.
Porter: Thank you and we'll now move on to the administrative report. Chancellor Bepko.
Bepko: Just a couple of very brief things. I'm going to have to slip out in just a few minutes to take a break, probably 15 minutes or 20 minutes, because the Commission for Higher Education is meeting today and tomorrow on campus and they're go ing to tour the Cancer Research Institute which was just dedicated last Friday. And I'm going to go over to greet them as they arrive. But a couple of things: there were questions asked about the timetable for childcare and we have a document here that la ys out the timing of the events that we project will take place this year leading to the start of construction next summer for an independent childcare facility. This is a timetable that has been created independent of the housing that we have been talkin g about for the last couple of years. We think that the housing is stalled for the moment. I don't think it's going to be derailed altogether, but it's stalled and we can't wait any longer for the housing to go forward. We will build the childcare buildin g as a separate independent facility on the west end of campus. It will be built in such a way that the housing can be built around it. It will be compatible and connected with the housing when it comes, but we think that we cannot wait any longer. This i s the time table that we now will follow. The need for an economic model and a new program statement is related to the fact that this will not any longer be part of the larger housing project.
Also, I wanted to report on the reviews that are contemplated for the year. We have four people who have been designated to undergo academic reviews this year. There are two deans: Dean Lefstein in Law and Dean McBride in Nursing, and two university of ficers: Mark Grove who's here, and Trudy Banta, vice-chancellor. Those will be the four for this year. I just found my paper that says that. We still have reviews pending and reports are in, or a report is in for one of these--the others are due any day-- for Bill (Plater), for Lillian Charleston, Scott Evenbeck and Mark Rosentraub. Finally, if I can just take a moment, we've been asked, or I've been asked, to represent the universities called the Urban 13, now 22 strong--sort of like the Big 10, getting b igger. The Urban 13 includes the urban public research universities across the country and I think we've talked about that group before. But we've been asked to testify before the Commission on Costs that Congress appointed and we're going to make some po ints on behalf of these public institutions that we think will show that we still offer a lower cost alternative because our tuition is lower and the cost of studying at these urban campuses generally is lower because students are commuting students and d on't have to pay the same housing costs that they would on pastoral campuses. Not only do we provide a lower cost option, and don't have some of the problems of sticker shock that have been associated with going to some universities -- we also have greate r costs in a number of ways which means we have used resources more efficiently and wisely than other universities. For example, we have greater costs because we are generally open to the public in areas where the public will come more often than they wou ld at other types of universities. That's particularly true with respect to libraries. And in the case of Indiana University, our library is open to the public and we are the research libraries for the Indianapolis metropolitan area. We also know that inf lation and the cost of living generally is higher in the center city areas where most of these urban universities are located. The higher education price index is also higher for us than it is in smaller communities. We do have more responsibilities to pr ovide preparatory training, preparatory educational experiences, for those students who have some deficiencies, such as not taking all the math classes that they should have in high school, and that is a cost that some other institutions do not have in th e same manner that we do. We also have greater costs for parking and security. We have, we believe, greater costs associated with a larger number of students with disabilities who come to study at urban campuses. The last years, I think, the last several years since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, have seen a larger and larger number of students with disabilities coming to the universities. This is a wonderful condition. It's a wonderful development, but we think that more of those s tudents are coming to urban campuses so we have more accommodations to make, and as a result our costs may be higher. And we also think that some of the cost figures that are showing for higher education in general are distorted because they use full-time equivalent students as the unit of measurement. And all of us know from working on campuses where there are part-time students that while in some ways they may be appropriately measured by a full-time equivalent standard, for many purposes each part-time student consumes as much and sometimes more of other types of services as full-time students would: counseling, advising, business operations, the Bursar, Admission's Office, Registrar, Financial Aids. All these offices provide just as much service in ma ny cases, in most cases, to part-time students as they would to full-time students. So, the FTE formula disadvantages us in an important way. And finally, many of the Urban 13 are relatively new campuses and they are young enough so that they were not ext ant at the time when funding was more plentiful from state governments than it has been in the last 20 years or so. We've grown up in a time when higher education funding from the state was declining. And as a result, we may not be in as good a position t o deal with some of the financial issues that have been raised. In any case, we think that the urbans look good. We charge less, we do more, and we've had some built-in disadvantages in financial terms. And that's the message we're going to convey to the Congressional commission on university costs. If you have any thoughts about this, about any of the points that I've just very quickly gone over or other ideas about cost issues that may affect urban institutions differently than others, please get in tou ch with us. We'd like to make this statement the best possible statement that can be made and we can use your help in making it better.
Porter: Thank you. Before we get into the administrative report, let me remind you the attendance sheet should be circulating among you, so if you could keep it moving so that we can record attendance that would be very helpful. A quick question .
Spechler: Martin Spechler, Professor of Economics. I'd like to go back to the childcare proposed time table which I think is a wonderful announcement, the proper thing to do, something we've been urging for years. I'd like to ask in principle wh ether the child-care facility will accommodate so-called drop in child-care or dealing with children who are not well? My experience, mainly with parents, especially single parents, is that they are absent from class not because their ordinary day-care br eaks down, but because--well, not because they don't have ordinary day care, they do--but because that breaks down in some way, or because the child is sick, and that causes the student to be absent, perhaps on an exam day. So, my question is whether the facility in principle will accommodate the occasional child in an emergency situation, or even as some do an unwell child.
Bepko: I don't think that the program is complete, and a definitive answer isn't possible at this time, but we are determined to have some kind of urgent care that's available, not only for the sorts of situations that you've described, but I'm told that there was an incident that took place just within the last couple of weeks where a student with a very young child, maybe 3 or 4 years old, left the child in a car while the student was attending class. It was discovered. There was an issue of w hether there had been enough nourishment during the day that the child was found. It was a tragic situation. And we want to make sure that we have services that can be available so that people are never put in that kind of position.
Porter: Thank you. On to the President's report.
Agenda Item V: President's Report.
Schneider: Yes, I'll try to make this as brief as well. We have a long agenda today. First. There's an article that I'd like to report on which was raised at the last meeting. It was actually a reminder of an item raised at an even earlier meeting about the sale of tobacco on campus. The issue was taken up by the Executive Committee, and finding no standing committee that we could refer it to, we've asked Betty Jones to form a small committee to look into the matter, including representation from s tudents and staff and then report back to the Faculty Council on that. The UFC will be meeting next Tuesday the 14th here on our campus over in the Conference Center. It starts at 1:30. The meetings are public and you can even speak if you get permission ahead of time and you're not a member of UFC. Among the matters that will be taken up is the proposed policy on Faculty Review and Enhancement. I think it's being called post tenure review there to attract attention. It's going to be the initial discussio n at the University level before it goes to the other campuses in the system. Finally just to let you know what's coming for our November meeting, I think we'll have some matters to take up, there'll be for example a continuation of the report on research in graduate education at IUPUI. We'll look at graduate education today, the research part probably in November. We will take up a matter of copyright and fair use, a proposal that has been developed--we'll need University sanction. You'll be seeing that between now and the November meeting. And finally, once in every President's term, the infamous matter of the number of "N" will be before us, appropriately in November. So, that will be coming, hold your breath if you want, but I'll let you know what we think about that then.
Porter: Thank you.
Agenda Item VI: Athletic Affairs Committee Resolution Regarding Move to NCAA Division I.
Porter: We'd like to then move on to the next agenda item which is the Athletic Affairs Committee resolution regarding the move to NCAA Division I status. A copy of that resolution is included in your packet. It is being presented by the Athletic A ffairs Committee. Bob Sandy will present this.
Sandy: The resolution reads: "The IUPUI Faculty Council endorses the move of IUPUI from the NCAA Division II to Division I."
Porter: Alright. That is the motion before you. Do we have any discussion? Did the Budgetary Affairs Committee wish to make a comment on this?
R. Keck: I have told the people on the Budgetary Affairs Committee by means of email and I can tell you that the people that responded are in support of this.
Porter: Thank you. You are going on record in order that the position of the faculty can be expressed to the Trustees as they consider this. Martin [Spechler].
Spechler: I'd just like to ask Bob, what appears to me in his reply, whether the Budgetary Affairs Committee has examined the report and has come to this conclusion on the basis of examination or otherwise?
R. Keck: We have seen previous drafts. We saw this draft that you have, I assume the same one that you have, we saw this draft Monday and we have had a chance to read this, I guess we'll say final draft, most current draft. I'm trying to respond to your question, is that not sufficient? I'll try it again.
Spechler: Well, if we can't monitor our students' reading I don't suppose we can monitor our committee members' reading. Bob, if you find a way to do that, please let me know.
R. Keck: No, I'm relying on you.
Plater: I might comment, because it may not be clear to all the persons on the Council, that there have been a series of drafts of this document. I'd ask Bob [Keck] and Bob [Sandy] to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that both committees h ave seen the various versions of this that have gone through rewriting as we've tried to improve both the format for presentation and the accuracy and the completeness of the information. They've participated in these discussions. It's not as though there wasn't a time to shape and help form the documents. Both committees have had great impact on the document that's now before you. And it was only in an effort to ensure that we had the best possible presentation that we waited till Monday to give the fina l version to the Board of Trustees. So, there has been a lot of talk and analysis that's gone into this report.
R. Keck: Okay. The reason I hesitated a little bit is we continue, well this year of course, there are new Budgetary Affairs Committee members and whether or not all the Budgetary Affairs Committee members have a similar understanding is probabl y, that's probably not the case. Some have a better understanding than others because of their interaction.
Sandy: I imagine the Athletic Affairs Committee saw an earlier draft, discussed it, forwarded comments, and voted unanimously in favor of this resolution.
Burr: Could someone just briefly review for me what the advantages are of the personal campus with no residency populations moving to Division I and also how much it's going to cost?
Sandy: The advantages are to attract and retain students, even though we're not a residential campus, or not yet a residential campus. The goal is that we'll attract athletes themselves. The figures refer to 273 athletes under the Division I pro gram. A substantial share of those will be paying their own way. And there are also some state funds that are attached to any new student--a capitation fee. And a further attraction of students who are the friends of the athletes or just interested in fol lowing a varsity program.
Burr: It doesn't seem to me we've had any trouble this year attracting students. Had some trouble retaining them, but I suspect that getting more athletes isn't going to help our academic credentials a great deal.
Sandy: On the contrary, the athletes we have attracted have a higher SAT score than the entry pool of IUPUI students overall. And that's perhaps not the case nationally, but we're better off by trying to attract varsity athletes--better off in a cademic terms. The figures are in this report.
Plater: I can certainly comment, but it may be appropriate to invite Bill Kulsrud who is the faculty representative to the NCAA and Mike Moore who is the Director of Athletics for IUPUI to also have an opportunity to comment with the permission of the Council.
Kulsrud: Well, I can comment on a number of those items, but with respect to the latter item, we have an item in the report that indicates in fact, that not only are the SAT's of the student athletes better than the overall SAT of our students, but the retention rate is far better. There was a study down at the University of Alabama in Birmingham years ago--this is the only study we're aware of that addresses this document--that [claims] on the average every student athlete brings 4 other studen ts with them. I could add evidence in that regard: Jason Collier, at Bloomington, is a basketball player--they estimate that he brought over 40 people from the surrounding communities. With respect to the other items, why we should be going to Division I? I can probably go on about those--I'm not--I think that as a practical matter, it's something that will help this campus gain an identity in the city of Indianapolis, and within our Central Indiana community as well. It's something to rally around. It's part of the educational experience. It's something our students want. I think if you take a look at this document, it pretty well addresses a lot of the points. This document's built for now. It's been evolving over the last five years. It's probably been longer.
R. Keck: It specifically responds to the questions about SAT and retention and grades and so on. You can take a look at page 13 of this document. Listen, that also shows you that I've read it. [Laughter]
Kulsrud: The other comment was about, I mean the other question was with respect to cost. And if you look at it, page 80, it gives you a complete budget that's been analyzed and reviewed and then reanalyzed. And without actually having money in the bank we think we can run a program that puts into balance the initial studies into numbers so you can see the year 2001, 2002 it will cost us 2.76 million dollars to run the athletic program. Which is a road in which particular the entire conference c ould plan and arrange this.
Porter: Betty, introduce yourself, please.
Jones: Betty Jones, Physical Education. I have a question about information on page 5 in the report, about gender equity, and it speaks to working toward that in terms of creating opportunities for female student athletes? What's to be done in t erms of the female coaches? At this point there are a lot more men than there are women coaches. Is there any plan to try to bring more women onboard as coaches?
Moore: In terms of bringing.
Porter: Identify yourself please.
Moore: Mike Moore, in charge of Athletics. It's a real good plan. We will be adding, our program will expand to nine female programs and seven male programs by the year 2000. Which in terms of gender--I'll address the coaching issue--in terms of gender the Athletic program will then closer, more closely reflect the makeup of our student body in terms of male versus female enrollment. Which is one of the tests meeting the gender equity requirements. We are, we will be creating additional coaching positions, for example women's basketball next year, should this come to pass. We'll be creating another full-time assistant coaching position, which our first charge has been in going out and trying to recruit. For example we just hired a new women's vo lleyball coach. And we're finding in athletics particularly, we're finding the pools of applicants, especially on the female side, for female coaching positions in the sports, the pools are very small. Our first choice is to include female coaches to coac h female programs and that will be our first choice, but if you look at the number of scholarships that we will be offering in the year 2000, you'll see we'll be offering, I don't have the exact figure, we'll be offering 56.8 scholarships to the women as opposed to 37 full scholarships for the men. A fact of life in athletics is for any particular program 10 men will walk on without a scholarship as opposed to one woman. So, we're being forced to do as many other programs. What we're doing is to put more scholarship moneys into the women's side of the program to attract more female student athletes. So, I think we have an advantage over programs that are more mature in terms of tradition and in terms of their structure and that we're able to add increment ally to our program. If you look at our budgets you'll find that like sports mirror each other in terms of operating budgets and those types of things. So, I feel very comfortable with our gender equity plan for the program.
Spechler: I don't have any problem as an economist with the intangible benefits of this. I think that they're conjectoral, but living in a sports mad world as we do, I think that this might have some marginal effect. Personally, I'm not dissatis fied with the IUPUI image as it is and I'm not sure that this will improve it marginally, but if people want it, the benefits to students are good. I think that the benefits are modest, but probably constant. Now the thing that's always bothered me is the cost of the thing, and before we vote for this I think we should be clear on what those costs are to the rest of the campus. As I read the appendix B Budget--and of course like all of you, I've had about 5 minutes to do this--it contemplates a 1/4 to a 1 /3 of a million dollars from Foundation money for this program. I assume that that's unkind money that could be devoted, at least in part, to other objectives of the campus, and there are some other needs.
Kulsrud: No. That's not correct. That Foundation money is money raised by the Metro Athletic Club, raised solely for athletics.
Spechler: Probably the gentleman who interrupted me has looked into the eyes of the people who give this money and knows exactly what they would do if it weren't going for athletics. So, I accept that. But then, another item here 5 times larger is the student athletic development fee. Now, I'm not a student and I assume that I won't have to pay this. We're talking about a million two. About half the budget as outlined, about 50% of the budget, is from the student athletic fees. If my division is right it means about $50.00 or so per undergraduate per year on a mandatory basis. Are we sure that the students will accept this for this purpose? By endorsing this we're telling the students this is okay, this is something that they should do. They hav e representatives and I wonder about that myself. Altogether, budgets are somewhat speculative. As they reach into the future they're even more speculative and you wonder who makes them up. But I think those are the big items that are more speculative tha n most. People, who have been at IUPUI sporting events, as I have, know that attendance has been rather low and the idea that we can increase ticket sales by a factor of seven in four years is something wonderful to think about. The students I've talked t o are not enthusiastic about this, but maybe it's just a random sample. So, I'd like to really raise these questions, because if we endorse this we're saying that these costs are the thing that IUPUI would like to do now as opposed to other things that we need on the campus. I have come to a conclusion about that, but I think before we vote we should face the figures rather squarely.
Plater: I think Martin [Spechler] is correct to call attention to the budget. I think that's the area that will be of greatest concern to the trustees and I want to assure you, but I also want the Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Athletic Aff airs Committee and other Faculty Council representatives who've been involved in this process to verify what I'm about to say. We paid a great deal of attention to the development of a budget and have consulted as fully as we can with the student leadersh ip, not only this year, but in previous years, and while it's fair to say I think that students are not enthusiastic about paying fees of any kind, there is general broad support for the development of the athletic program here for many of the reasons tha t have already been described. I think that we have not taken a survey of students though there have been some samplings taken that are more than random sampling by stopping students in the street or asking students in your class what they think about it. We believe that the student body is prepared to endorse this and indeed will speak favorably at the meeting with the trustees. They have on previous occasions and have had quite an impact in affecting the trustees' perspective on this move for IUPUI. I a lso would like to comment on the development of the budget, again I think Martin [Spechler] is correct, it's one thing to plan a budget here and to project it out 5 years and know what it's really going to be like, but we have been as realistic as we can, and this budget is being developed without general fund monies. That is an important distinction to make, which means that there is not the latitude that we might otherwise have in redirecting those monies elsewhere. And it's true that the presumption of the fund raising perhaps could be influenced to go somewhere else, but those people who have been involved in fund raising with athletics from the conference in which we hope to join and from other consultants at other universities whom we've employed to advise us on this are really very clear. People who give to athletics want to give to athletics and not to other programs. So, it's not likely that we would be able to persuade them to give to scholarships. However, one of the things that underlies the d evelopment of athletics here is a very close tie-in. Without academic programs, and for example, one of the scholarship programs will relate to community service so that athletes who accept a scholarship will agree to mentor. Young people at middle school s who aspire to be athletes can be influenced to pay attention to studies. Our student athletes can stress the importance of succeeding in school, so that they can in fact go on to college. There are a number of measures that have been taken to tie the at hletic program into the academic purposes of the campus. In large part, because we have the opportunity to create a brand new program. This is not something that has been in existence for fifty years that we're trying to adjust to current trends and curre nt ideas, but we really are building it for the future to support all of IUPUI.
Porter: Sir, is there a question?
Hook: I specifically requested to be on the Athletic Affairs Committee for this academic year because I still strongly believe that this move is the right one for IUPUI's future and particularly its identity. And even though I was predisposed to believe that, at our first Athletic Affairs Committee meeting I was more persuaded, in fact by the comments of the gentleman sitting to my right. Again reiterating the importance of IUPUI making this move, but also the danger if we do not in terms of our ability to place competitively in a variety of sports. And I wondered if they would be able to repeat some of those comments for us here today. I think that might be helpful in our discussion.
Kulsrud: Well I did basically summarize it in terms of where we are right now with relation to the program. I'm sure many of you've heard this many times before, but at present with the Division II program we're an independent. We're not in the conference, which means we presently have 175 student athletes who are ineligible to be in a conference championship or to lead in any post season competition at the end of the season. It has in terms of costs, if you run some of our basketball season tic ket brochures and think you all have for your informational purposes, hopefully you buy a few season tickets. It does have the schedules in there. Presently with our men's program we're playing Panhandle State. I'll be honest with you, for a year and a ha lf I've had to look in our directory every time to see if the schools the coaches give me are actually [unintelligible]. We play down, if there's any graduates of these schools I do not mean to slight you but I mean my whole career has been in Division I athletics. For at least [unintelligible name], Oklahoma, Panhandle State, Western New Mexico, and in many of these instances we had to travel there to appease. Our men's soccer program is--for many of you who don't know--is eleven and one at this point th is year. We should be twelve and zero. We're ranked nationally in Division II rankings but we're ineligible for any post season competition, the one thing that Division I does do for us. We talked about game receipts and I've talked to a lot of students a lso, in fact I met with the Executive Council of student government which endorses this proposal again. We endorse it the way it is. And we talked about us playing Butler on December 10th. And next year if we are in Division I, Miami of Ohio will be playi ng in the Natatorium gymnasium which will happen by Division I and I submit to you that pride and attendance and all those types of things are tied to the ability to compete for conference championships, the ability to create rivalry to which we have not had any at this point with anyone. And the ability to wear your school colors, whatever they are, and feel the pride of the institution and we said forever. And I've said since I've been here, our goals have our athletic program nearer the national recogn ition than the academic program has. And Division I athletics is something that can accomplish this.
Porter: Did Council members wish to continue the discussion or are you ready to vote?
[Unidentified]: I was just getting ready to attempt to call a question.
Porter: Well, if you won't call it, then we won't have to vote on it. If people, if I get a sense, are you ready?
Porter: Okay. The motion on the floor is that the IUPUI Faculty Council endorses the move of IUPUI from NCAA Division II to Division I. All those in favor say "Aye". Oppose "No". Thank you. The "aye's" have it and we will forward that to the Tru stees. What? Do you want to hand vote? Could we have, do we have to count the ayes.
[Unidentified]: Do you call it? If you don't call it you don't have to have it. If you want it, you have to call it.
Porter: Alright. Yes.
Schneider: Anybody call for a hand vote please? A hand vote.
Porter: We would like to be able to report.
Schneider: Since it wasn't unanimous.
Porter: All those in favor please stand and we'll begin a count off.
That's forty-eight for and one against, with two abstaining.
Agenda Item VII: Report on Research and Graduate Programs.
Merritt: Those members of the faculty here who've been elected to the IU graduate faculty will serve on this committee where there has not been that kind of elected faculty's involvement before. We think that will be helpful. The other thing that i s a little bit new is that every school now has matured to the point where there is some person in the Dean's office that has the responsibility for graduate programs. And we think it would be very useful to have those people with a pseudo administrative responsibility discussing policies together with the elected faculty members. So, that is indeed a change in that it brings a different kind of discussion to the floor. The subcommittee structure will remain essentially the same. There will be a subcommit tee on scholarships. Financial Aid which has always existed. There will be a subcommittee on curriculum that will, that if you will, the changes in curriculum, the new curriculum that will come through to be recommended to the various graduate campaigns a t IU and West Lafayette. Another partially new thing, it is not exactly new, but it teases it out of the structure to give it a little bit more prominence is the notion that one of the things that will be very important in the future on this campus is the development of interdisciplinary degrees particularly at the Masters level which will involve more than one school. And we have a group that is specifically charged with helping people tease out those subjects, develop new degrees, and serve our populati on a little bit better. As an example, I would talk about Public Health, which you all know and is now on its way. Another one that most recently has been just bruited about not even at the discussion stage is something in criminal justice. So, you can ju st guess how many opportunities there are on campus that in fact can be developed with a little nurturing. So, while I have said there are really no changes, I guess there really are. Perhaps the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Baldwin: Doris, on the reconstitution of the Graduate Affairs Committee, am I to assume that under ex officio members there would be a member from the Library?
Merritt: You may if you like.
Rothe: I mean when we talk of equal forums and resources to support them, probably the most important of these is library resources, and I think there should be some voice there.
Merritt: Not a problem. I would say there was one item in these recommendations that was not carried out because the times have changed a little bit and if you've read that carefully you'll notice that there was some suggestion that there be a p erson appointed to represent the Purdue graduate programs. It happens when I talk to the people in Science and Engineering and Technology that they have really soothed their differences and that they can do very well relating with the entire Graduate Affa irs Committee and the liaisons that they have set up with Purdue. And we don't need to have still another administrator for people to report and to feed through. And that we suppose two Purdue school choices.
Rothe: What fraction of the membership of the Committee are administrators and what fraction are full-time faculty?
Merritt: I'm happy to tell you there are more full-time faculty than administrators.
Rothe: And the reason for both the chair and the vice-chair to be administrators?
Merritt: So we can get things done.
Porter: Well, I don't want to rush you along, but on the other hand, so we can demonstrate that faculty too can get things done, are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much for coming to the meeting.
Agenda Item VIII: University College Report.
Porter: The next agenda item is a report from University College. And in order to give the report, I have to turn the gavel over to President Schneider because I'm giving the report.
I'm here on behalf of University College faculty by virtue of being the only member of the University College Faculty Executive Committee who didn't have a conflict during this meeting. The Faculty Council charged University College to regularly report to the Academic Affairs Committee and this is being implemented in the form of sharing minutes with the Academic Affairs Committee and also sending a representative to their meetings as requested. The UC Executive Committee and the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee thought it would be appropriate to briefly update the members of the Faculty Council on the activities of the UC faculty since they were appointed last spring. The University College founding faculty were appointed and charged with the implementation of the University College concept. The first students will be admitted to University College this summer although with the movement of UEC [Undergraduate Education Center] to the University College building and the transitions that are occ urring during the academic year, the presence of University College is already being felt. During the last summer the UC Steering Committee served as a screening committee for the University College dean candidates which led to the appointment of Scott Ev enbeck as the first dean of the University College. A search and screen committee was appointed for the positions of Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, and we also planned a faculty retreat, which was held in August. At the faculty retreat, the UC faculty co mpleted the first draft of the University College Mission statement and a statement of principles which are both still in the revision process, but nearing consensus on the wording. The UC faculty elected a five member executive committee consisting of: B arbara Jackson, Raima Larter, Bart Ng, Richard Ward and Rebecca Porter. The UC faculty also began the process of establishing the culture, which will influence the operation of this new academic unit at IUPUI. The faculty are engaging in moving beyond a b usiness as usual approach into a new vision of what University College as an academic unit should be. The search and screen committee chaired by Doug Lees has reviewed approximately 150 applications for the Associate and Assistant Deans positions. And tho se of us who were working this summer and assured them that it was going to be an easy task did not anticipate the level of interest in those positions and the number of applications that would come from outside of IUPUI. Interviews for the Associate Dean position will be conducted in the near future. The University College faculty are meeting on a monthly basis. We're in the process of establishing a committee structure to deal with a number of issues. The structure is in the process of evolving as we so rt through the integration and overlap with existing committees. It is the intent of the University College faculty to avoid duplication of effort. At this time, the UC faculty are being appointed to the following committees: Resources and Planning (that' s going to be our budgetary affairs type committee), Faculty Roles and Responsibilities, Advising committee, and First Year Studies committee. The advising committee, which had been previously appointed by Dean Plater and is chaired by Joe Kuskowski, will continue with the addition of UC faculty. The existing committee will focus not only on the advising within the University College, but also within IUPUI so that we make sure that we remain an integrated and in-touch component, and so that we can smoothl y move students through the advising process. The UC faculty are in the process of requesting that the existing first year studies committee which currently reports to CUL be transferred to UC, so that we can use the expertise of those individuals, and ag ain avoid duplication of effort. The Student Placement and Assessment Committee appointed by Dean Plater in September will collaborate with UC but will maintain a campus-wide focus. Clarification of the relationship with the committee on service learning and University College appointed by Dean Plater in August is in the process of being addressed. A member of the UC Executive Committee has been appointed as the liaison with the committees on Assessment and Placement, Advising, and Service Learning. Befor e you have a brief opportunity to ask for clarification of any of the information I've presented, I want to extend to each of you an invitation to visit the new location of the University College. The second and third floor of the former Library building have been extensively remodeled into a very inviting space for our students. You're welcome to drop by any time to see the office spaces on the floor and the student and classroom spaces on the second floor. Once the carpeting is replaced on the lower flo ors, University College will be having an open house and each of you will be invited. Are there any informational items that I can clarify for you on what's happening with University College?
Schneider: Let me exercise my power of the gavel by thanking Becky for that very concise and informative report. I want to add one thing to it, mainly that the Executive Committee has received a request about possible representation of Universit y College and/or its dean on Faculty Council and we referred it to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee to look at it. Second thing I want to ask is if the Chair of Academic Affairs, Beverly Ross, has anything she would like to add to the report?
Ross: No, not really. Becky's going to report or a representative will report to our first meeting. We have not met yet. We meet on the 17th.
Schneider: Okay. Any questions? Martin [Spechler].
Spechler: I would like to ask if this proposed Associate Dean position and Assistant Dean position is something new for the campus, or is it essentially a reassignment of a position with new personnel?
Porter: My understanding is that these are not new funds. That the positions were funded from vacancies that had not been filled when they occurred within UEC. So, the titles are new, the responsibilities are going to be different than in the pa st, but it did not require new funding.
Baldwin: As a person who used to haunt the old Library, I commend what's been done with it. It's sorely too bad nothing was done to it back then years ago. I see why, but I'm curious about what work is going to be happening on the connector with the Business/SPEA building? It looks like something's happening, but I can't tell.
Plater: That is proceeding. It was to have opened this month, but due to construction delays (not our delays, it was the company), it won't be finished until November. But it should be done in time for the really bad weather. It will be a glass connector. Those of you who've seen the construction know what it will look like, but it will join the hallway on the west side of the glass hallway in Business/SPEA and come directly into the third floor of University College. You may recall when it was the Library, that the buildings didn't quite match up and there was an awkward set of stairs and it was not handicap accessible. And that has been addressed by making that entryway very attractive now as a set of connected ramps. And it's quite a handsome space. It really will be enjoyed by everyone when it is connected to the rest of the second floor level of Business/SPEA.
Baldwin: I just hope the administration keeps in mind that it would be nice to link University College, Lecture Hall and Cavanaugh too.
R. Keck: I have a comment. I'd like to congratulate the people who wrote the two grants, or the two quotes that were funded by the two grants that the University College started with. That's a great start and I hope that that continues. I do hav e however, a question, and that is on the four committees that you mentioned. I didn't hear the responsibility of Assessment. Now I may not have been listening carefully enough. Which committee of those four committees would be working on assessment?
Porter: Dean Plater had appointed in September a committee called Student Placement and Assessment Committee. And we're going to start collaborating with that crew, and then figure out whether or not that would be adequate to look at assessment within University College, or whether or not we are going to need to have a subcommittee or different group to look at University College per se. When we think about assessment particularly in student persistence it's the bigger picture, it's the campus p icture with University College only as the start. So, we're going to start with the big picture, see what measures are going to be in place, and then look at how we need to address those specifically within University College. For the founding faculty (se veral of you in the room are on the founding faculty), this is indeed a somewhat awesome responsibility, and it might have been easier if we were starting from scratch. We're looking at taking in an existing structure. We've clearly heard that we don't wa nt this just to be business as usual. We don't want it to be UEC just with a new name, and so we're being rather deliberate in trying to be very careful about what is the culture. What's the new culture? How are we going to proceed? On the other hand, the founding faculty also have all the responsibilities within their home academic unit. So, we're working, all of us wish we were making progress faster, but on the other hand, we've accomplished quite a bit. Once a mission statement is out, I don't think w e'll be finished with it, but we're ready to disseminate. That's taken a significant time, because we think it's important that we be able to keep that as a view of where we are going. We also have another full day faculty retreat in January We're looking for that to be another opportunity of getting a lot accomplished.
Schneider: Other questions? Comments?
R. Keck: Another question. I've noted that there has been some, what I would call some mutual training, among the administrators and among some of the people who are responsible for this. Are we going to have also faculty involved in the first y ear experience that are not on University College faculty? Will they be also instructed on new and better ways?
Porter: Well the first year studies committee will continue to have members not only within University College, but members from the other schools who are also offering first year courses. I think that that is the intent, although off the top of my head I can't tell you there's a specific plan. The idea of faculty development developing the advisors preparing people to do their jobs, giving them the tools that are needed I think are all important aspects that are valued among the faculty and the staff. So, I think we're looking in that direction.
Schneider: Anything else? Well, again thank you, Becky. The best I can do is give you back your gavel and contention.
Porter: Why, thank you.
Agenda Item IX: Proposed Policy for Faculty Review and Enhancement: Continued Discussion.
Porter: Alright, our next item is to offer an opportunity to continue our discussion on the proposed policy for faculty review and enhancement. Sara Hook is here as chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee and I think we'll ask her to come down since she tends to be the focus of the questions.
Hook: I was saying to someone a couple of weeks ago, I'm going to need to change my initials from SAH for Sara Ann Hook to PTR for post tenure reviews. That's what I'm becoming known for. I want to date you a little bit on what's happened with t he document. The document now circulating has not undergone any kind of changes, although I continue to gather comments from our meeting last month as well as other comments from various sources. About two weeks ago I met with the various presidents of th e school faculty councils to give them some background on the document and I've already heard now from two schools on campus, their responses to the document. The document will be coming up for discussion at University Faculty Council next week. At that t ime, it will be primarily a brief introduction to the document and again a solicitation of comments and concerns. Then our UFC Faculty Affairs Committee will take that information and develop a cover letter or a list of guiding principles to accompany the document and that will then go to the different campuses for discussion. I've also been invited to have lunch with the AAUP chapter down in Bloomington in two or three weeks. So, I'm hoping also that that will initiate some good discussion and some good ideas. I'm still very much in the information gathering standpoint. Many of the concerns, the same concerns, seem to keep coming up again and again. One of these is of course the responsibility that schools will have as with most policies. The devil is in the detail and schools really are going to have to put some policies and procedures in place, particularly relating to such things as how do we define unproductive, chronically unproductive, minimum standards, that sort of thing? Another issue that's bec ome quite important is the idea of looking at the early retirement system and how that might be changed to make retirement more attractive and more dignified for those faculty who choose that route. Does anyone have any questions, and any further comments ? I'm becoming the conduit for information. So, if anyone does have any comments or questions or concerns I ask that you route these through me. I'm coming up with quite a list. And I imagine as we go through this process, we'll want to look at some of th ese again, concerns that keep coming up, and see how we might best handle them, either in the document or through other procedures.
Peterson: One of the comments that I've heard from the University and Faculty Council and some of the other campuses is that as this document goes forward in its present form it doesn't really meet all of their needs. Are we going to produce a d ocument sooner or later that is a University Faculty Council document or how or what's our plan on that for approval?
Schneider: We're not going to, University Faculty Council may. What we hope is that what we have here will fit within whatever University Faculty Council chooses to decide upon. Inevitably, I'm sure the university-wide policy will be broader and establish, be much broader than ours, and the trick will then be for each campus to have the flexibility to meet certain minimum standards, and then have a policy appropriate for their campus.
Hook: And I will say that as you look at our document in it's present form, it really kind of splits into two distinctive pieces. The first is of course the guiding principles, the rights and responsibilities and the over arching theme of how fa culty review and enhancement might work. And this I think could easily be tailored to fit the overall University. However, the second half of the document is where we get very, very specific as to procedures. Those are things I think are going to need to be looked at, not only campus by campus, but maybe even school by school. But at least it's functioning as a discussion document and I think what we want is to at least get the discussion going and also not for IUPUI to pass a policy and then for the Univ ersity-wide group to say: No that's totally wrong we'll have something else. So, I think we're just slightly ahead of the overall UFC discussion, and again I would urge anyone with comments or questions to let me know.
Plater: I would just like to comment that this is a matter of which this Council should take some pride in exercising real leadership within Indiana University. And I think we have an opportunity to influence a policy rather than having it impos ed upon us. And this body should be particularly proud that it is leading the way for all of Indiana University. We've had the new president of the American Association of Higher Education here, I think it was just last week, and she talked about post ten ure review and gave a kind of a national overview. She made very favorable comments about our document and helped place our work into a national context. I don't remember the statistic that she cited, but I think it was something over 60% of the four-year institutions in this country already have some form of post tenure review. And it's appropriate that IUPUI take leadership within the state with Indiana being one of the first, if not the first, public university to come up with a meaningful policy. So, I'd like to commend the Council and the committee for it's great work.
Spechler: Those of you who are not members of the AAUP probably won't know that the American Association of University Professors recently published a lengthy survey of post tenure review, together with a number of recommendations. Sara knows ab out this, as do other members of the committee. I'd like to say briefly that our document as it stands is roughly consistent with the recommendations of AAUP. AAUP has cautiously endorsed the idea of post tenure review with certain provisions for fair pro cedure. There are one or two exceptions that as a member of the committees involved I'll try to work on. I think that the most important issue that we have to face is in principle, what is the standard that would justifiably force a faculty member to rede fine his or her worth, or in extreme situations, terminate their relation with the University. That's something we have to be very careful about. And I'm not sure that we want to delegate that completely to the school level. That's something that I think we should really think about. We may want to have some raw principles of what would invoke certain negative consequences and to enunciate those principles at the University or the campus level, rather than to delegate to the schools which have very differ ent, and sometimes not too satisfactory, decision making procedures.
Hook: Martin's point is well taken and there was some language in one of those articles I particularly liked and it was related to burden of proof. And it said something along the lines of prior to tenure, the burden of proof is on the faculty m ember to say I'm worthy of tenure at this institution. But to me the important thing was, once tenure is granted the burden of proof is on the institution to show why that individual should no longer have tenure, and I think as long as we can have that as the underlying theme of the policy, that that proof does not (after tenure) still rest with the faculty member to continue to prove why they should have tenure, but rather the burden then shifts, they must now be proven negative on the part of the instit ution. I thought that was extremely important and I thank you for sharing that document with me. Does anyone else have any questions? Yes.
Burr: I don't have a question, but I'd like to read for us one thing that was brought up last time. I don't know if the Committee is going to rework this again before we see it or what happened. Bill was absolutely right, Peg Miller was very pos itive about this document, but she did raise one issue which was raised at the last meeting and that's this phrase, it says: However, the definition above of satisfactory performance must include the concept of lack of effort. She raised a very pertinent question and her question was "Would we accept that in our students?" And I dare say that the vast majority of us would not accept that in our students, and I hope that that phrase can be closely examined before we see this document for a vote.
Hook: Your point is very well taken. And I think a lot of the reason for that phrase was that a lot of times, particularly with grants being so very, very competitive, for a lot of journal submissions being very competitive, that we don't want t o penalize someone just because, for a couple of years maybe, they don't have as many things getting accepted or funded. But rather, we also want to make sure that we look at the effort, and certainly if there's no effort and no results, that's clearly a case of non-production. However, if there's not results but we can see a good solid, true effort, then that's a different question that needs to be looked at perhaps more carefully.
Spechler: Well, I take issue with this. I think it's an important issue that's been raised by our friend here, but it's really inappropriate. The parallel between students and tenured faculty is not in place. Faculty members have already had a g reat effort and sacrifice to themselves -- proved that they are capable of doing work at Indiana University. We've already proved that. We've very rigorous standards and procedures. Students have not proved that. They have not proved that they are worthy to be a graduate of Indiana University, much less a faculty member at Indiana University. So, I do not accept at all the parallel between what we see as appropriate for students and what we see as appropriate for reestablishing faculty members at an advan ced stage in their career.
Porter: Any other issues that members would like to bring forward? Are we still working toward a faculty forum for a discussion?
Hook: Yes, thank you for reminding me. I'm currently working on putting together a faculty forum on this document and I would hope I will have that scheduled within the next four to six weeks. I'm planning on having that over the noon hour. So, you might be watching for that and encouraging your faculty to attend.
Porter: Thank you.
Peterson: Peterson. We were going to, we talked last time I believe, about mailing out something, distribution of this to the faculty in general. I'm not sure if that's been done since I get all these things routinely. Are faculty receiving a ma il-out of some sort, or have they received a mail-out of some sort?
Hook: I don't believe the faculty overall have, but that's one thing that I'm working with Marshall Collins on -- publicity for the forum as well as distribution of materials.
Porter: And it has been provided to each of the school faculty presidents for distribution. Thank you.
Agenda Item X: Question/Answer Period.
Porter: We have our traditional ten minutes for question and answer period, if there are any questions? Yes.
Baldwin: Jim Baldwin. My question relates back to the NCAA thing. I think somebody asked it before, but I don't know how the winds are blowing now. What do you think the attitude of the Board of Trustees is on this? I mean off the record, becaus e I think of it as symptomatic of the attitude of people like that, as far as the campus in general.
Bepko: Well, I think that we should be optimistic and I don't think it would pay any dividends, especially in public to go through person by person and analyze the members of the Board of Trustees. But I think if I were to describe the chemistry of the board in general, I think they view this as a very important and a major step. Now, I don't think that people inside the university view it as being that major a step, but they do. And I think they're reflecting the public's attitude about the imp ortance of intercollegiate athletics. So, they're viewing it as a very major step and they're interested in being very careful in making sure that the case is very solid for going ahead. We anticipate that in the final analysis, even if they have some res ervations, they will be convinced that this is the right thing to do. It's necessary for this campus to achieve its potential. It's necessary to build pride among our students, particularly undergraduate students who I think are not as proud as they ought to be of themselves and for that reason sometimes sacrifice part of their educational future. We want them to stop doing that. We want them to be proud, look to the future, defer gratification, and get the very best education that is available. That's he re. So, we think, I think, that's what will happen, but we can't be sure and we are probably not well advised to say any more.
Schneider: Let me add one thing. I have been asked, and I anticipate I will be asked at the meeting at the end of the month, what the faculty at IUPUI think about it. And as a result I'm very pleased that we had the opportunity here to discuss i t and to vote on it. So, that will be, I think, meaningful to them.
Bepko: I'd also like to mention that, if I could Dorothy [Webb], just one second, one of the issues has been whether we could raise money to support the program from outside the university. And the early returns are very good. We are not yet a D ivision I school. So, I think we haven't had the opportunity to show how well we can really do. We'll only be able to show that after we are Division I and able to go to people and explain that the investment in us is an investment in the Division I progr am. But already as a Division II institution, we've done pretty well. We're ahead of our projections, and we have one anonymous million dollar pledge to be paid over a period of years, a guaranteed pledge for intercollegiate athletics. It is however, cond itioned on our going to Division I.
[Unidentified]: The Board of Trustees will know this?
Bepko: Yes. You think we ought to tell them? I guess we will.
D. Webb: This is a still a procedural matter, I don't know how many of you members of the Council are new this year. It would be very useful for those things that have been going on in the previous year, which documents have been generated, if w e could be provided those so that we could kind of come up to speed before asked to vote on this.
Bepko: Is that a question for me?
Porter: We will certainly try to do that. Any other questions?
Peterson: I did have a question regarding the changes that are going to be occurring in Research and Sponsored Programs in the graduate school. I've seen in the past that the Board of Trustees and Commission for Higher Education are very resista nt to developing new graduate programs on campus. Do you feel like this is going to really enhance new graduate programs, or do you think this will be a form by which new graduate programs may be more easily developed on this campus?
Bepko: Bill [Plater] should comment also on this, but I see it as a way of facilitating the development of graduate programs. And I think it will be helpful in a couple of ways. One, it will put more focus on the development of programs within t he framework that we have worked in for a number of years. That is, we've published papers on graduate education and we've said what we think the future will be, and within that framework I think we'll be much better able to create the programs and move t hem forward. And I think that in the process we're going to also discover and develop proposals for graduate programs that are not within the framework that we've worked within. And I think we'll have a better opportunity of moving outside the framework t o create new graduate programs as well. But I would not look for an avalanche or some rescission of the framework that we've worked in. I think that framework will be part of the understandings on which we'll base this work.
Porter: Yes, Mary.
Fisher: Mary Fisher of Nursing. At Monday's Budgetary Affairs Patrick Rooney was giving us an update on the equity study that's going to be done. And one of the comments he made was that the way the equity study's going to be geared is to look a t the inequities that reside within schools, but not necessarily across schools. And those of us in primarily female professions are very disturbed about that. He doesn't feel there's been a long-standing lack of looking at issues across schools or betwee n schools. And so I thought I could comment on that and how can this problem be resolved?
Bepko: Well, I think that we have tackled the most obvious issue. That is the inequities that may exist within the units, and I think that's probably all we have the ability to do now. I think the question you're raising, Mary, is much more comp licated and I don't know whether we can study it within our institution. It is related to the world outside the institution. And I'm just not sure. I don't have a good answer to the question. I think all we can say is that we're going forward with what we think is the most important thing to do now and have not chosen to go ahead and try to establish what fairness would be between academic disciplines. The least well-funded academic disciplines are funded at a much lower level; that is, salaries are lower than those for the highest paid faculty. And I'm not sure we can solve it by looking only inwardly. We'd have to do something that would be revolutionary and involve the markets that each of our disciplines relate to. We will, I think though, be addressi ng that not in the sense of internal equity, or gender discrimination and race discrimination, but I think the university is poised and ready to look at the position that we occupy in terms of salaries vis-à-vis our peer institutions. When we get i nto that I think we can say that faculty in our School of Nursing here are not paid as well as the Schools of Nursing that are its peers. I think that would be a better way of addressing the issue that you've identified.
Fisher: Can you see that on the horizon?
Jones: Betty Jones. This is a question or a comment about driving to campus each morning along 10th street and coming by the Cancer wall, the area there by Wishard. There's a cutout there where people could stop and that has become a parking lot now. Some people have some free parking in that spot every day. Every morning it has four or five people parking there. That's one issue and the other is: there is a gentleman who I assume is a homeless gentleman who seems to make that his home each even ing, because he's waking up as I come to campus and driving by along the wayside. And I'm wondering if there's, I'm concerned about that gentleman, and one who uses that place to sleep. I don't know. It bothers me, that as a campus of, how we can respond to his needs, or I don't know, just general thoughts about that. It's free parking and free sleeping I guess.
Bepko: I think that's on city property -- Health and Hospital Corporation property -- but we'll look into it. We shouldn't have. This is a place of caring and a place of healing, and we shouldn't have people who have no homes. I don't mean we sh ould throw them out. I mean we should try to find a way of solving the person's problem.
Ross: I can speak to the homeless person, because I had concern, the same concern that you did. And I tried to find out a way to try to get someone involved with that person. The idea is someone needs to work with him and try to get him into the system. I did call the Homeless Initiative project. And the gentleman's not there today, because someone else apparently called before I did. And there were three police cars out there yesterday morning, and with their lights going, and he was forced out . And I saw him going across the street with his bundles. I called the Homeless Initiative project again today and they know he is there, or has been there. And they looked for him and he was gone. They will continue to look for him and try to find a way to get him in the system.
R. Keck: I have a question on campus sponsored housing. And I understand that timing is terribly important, but I was wondering if there's anything that the Faculty Council can do if it's their desire to continue to speak to the issue of campus housing. And I want to put that into the form of a question. Is there anything else that we can do to continue to keep this on the agenda?
Bepko: Well, I don't know whether we've ever taken the time to develop a position of the Faculty Council with respect to housing, but it would not hurt for us to have a resolution of the Faculty Council urging that we continue our efforts to dev elop housing.
Porter: Yes, in the back.
Galanti: Paul Galanti, School of Law. Is it just my impression, or is the parking this year worse than ever? And someone asked me at the Law School the other day saying "What will happen if and when the Law School, when the new Law School starts getting built and a good chunk of parking disappears? My answer was well we'll find out. Is there anything, is parking worse this year than in the past?
Bepko: We think so. there's no scientific study, but we have done some sampling and we've found this year for the first time that we've had hours, usually those peak hours like 10:00 in the morning or 5:45 at night, when every parking place was full. And we have not had that before. Mark?
Grove: One part that relates to that Chancellor, of course, is that as the average credit hour rate of enrollment has gone up, students are taking more classes, they're here longer. So, there may not be any more students here, but they're here l onger making a struggle for those high peak hours at 10:00 and 5:45.
Bepko: That's the reason for the problem. In fact, we had 55,000 more credit hours this fall generated than we did -- 5500, not 55,000, wishful thinking -- 5500 more credit hours this year than last year. That represents quite a number of people here more than there would've been last year. Even though, the head count went up only about 50 or so.
Galanti: Any chance of my getting my free parking space back by the tennis courts.
Bepko: You can get a free parking place, if you join the National Institute for Fitness of Sport and pay the fee to them, but no, that's in the same area. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as free parking.
Schneider: When's the next garage going up?
Bepko: The second question that Paul [Galanti] asked has to do with what happens when the new Law School building construction starts next summer. Won't that make parking even worse? It may. We're going to have to do some work to try to create m ore surface parking on the north side of Michigan. There is some area there that's available and not yet developed into surface parking. One hope is that we would have a garage finished by that time, but I don't think that's going to happen. It's already so late that it would be difficult to finish it in time. And there is a substantial disagreement about where the garage should go. The aesthetic people want the garage to go on the north side of Michigan and the safety people want it to be on the south si de of Michigan. The reason being that students who'll park in that garage will have to, if it's on the north side of Michigan, walk across Michigan and I think Michigan Street is becoming very dangerous. And it worries us a lot that students in greater nu mbers will be walking across that boulevard at the same time traffic is greater, and people drive altogether too fast on Michigan. So, I think that there's still some debate about how parking is going to be built. And that's what's holding it up right now .
Porter: We'll take two more questions. Martin [Spechler].
Spechler: Have you noticed that the clocks on campus are not coordinated? I personally think that this is an attempt on IUPUI to establish a new type of daylight savings time, or possibly a fifth time zone for the state of Indiana. Now, this, if it were just a minute difference, would have no affect, but actually because the clocks in the Business and Social Work wing are roughly five minutes, at least five minutes faster, than the clocks in Cavanaugh Hall. That means if you are going from a cla ss as a teacher or a student from Cavanaugh Hall to the Business building, instead of having fifteen minutes you have nine or ten minutes. And that often means if you're a teacher answering a few questions after class that you're barely on time and on occ asion even late for class. Of course go the other way, it's fine. So, I wondered if we had considered establishing an international date line in the middle of campus, or some accommodation, or failing that, how about getting the clocks to say the same tim e all over campus?
Bepko: That's a good point.
[Unidentified]: There's the same thing in Cavanaugh. From the first floor to the second floor needs to be changed in Cavanaugh.
Barlow: They really are a mess. There's no doubt about it.
Bepko: Who's the dean over there, John?
Barlow: A while ago I called the time setting people, they say no, they're correct. We recognize it's a problem.
Bepko: Do we have time setting people? Do we have a department of clocks?
Barlow: No one else will set them.
[Unidentified]: What's their number?
Porter: Maybe we should invest in a watch for them.
Bepko: I think it's a good point. We ought to make sure those clocks are all synchronized. I remember when I was at public schools in Chicago they were all set and were all centrally controlled, so that people could rely on them all throughout t he building complex. I don't know how much that would cost us to do, but we ought to have them reasonably synchronized.
Peterson: I have a couple of comments about the parking and people movement across campus. The first is as our campus becomes more attractive to students and the fact they spend more time here, I think we're going to even have more of a parking problem. We want a campus where people feel that this is a home. And this is a place where they center a lot of their activities as our undergraduate center is developed further. And as other activities on campus including the Division I might come here, we're going to have more people here. So, we're going to have to make serious attempts to deal with this parking issue and I think it has to be done sooner rather than later. The other issue, related to north and south of Michigan, is we need to have at l east some blinking lights for crosswalks. It's almost impossible and I would prefer to have the punch so that you could get a green light to walk across Michigan Street. It's not always convenient coming from the garage to go to a corner to cross. And the re are crosswalks there, but there's not a blinking light at those crosswalks. There's no stop sign at those crosswalks. All it says is crosswalk and I don't think anyone in this state recognizes that when a pedestrian's in a crosswalk, they have the righ t-of-way. It's just not recognizable, but most of us who are driving [tape not clear]. You didn't know that?
[Unidentified]: Especially when the car's trying to get that tough parking spot.
Peterson: So, I think we need to do something about the traffic going across Michigan road either by putting in some lights or stops or some kind of lights there so that when you punch the button you'll eventually get a light to cross over the s treet safely.
Agenda Item XI: Unfinished Business
Agenda Item XII: New Business
Agenda Item XIII: Adjournment.
Porter: Well, we will. We'll bring this to a close. Are there any items of unfinished business? Are there any items of new business? Hearing no business items, we will stand adjourned. Thank you very much.
Attachment: Agenda for Faculty Council Meeting, October 9, 1997
[Minutes prepared by David Frisby, Coordinator, UN 403, 274-2215
(Fax 274-2970)email@example.com : http://www.hoosiers.iupui.edu/faccoun/faccou.htm ]
Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
Faculty Council Meeting
October 9, 1997
School of Dentistry, Room S115
3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
A G E N D A
I. Call to Order
II. Memorial Resolutions: Joseph Sterling Ingraham, Professor Emeritus of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine (IUPUI Circular 98-07) 1; Alice Gorman Lynn, School of Nursing (IUPUI Circular 98-08) 2; Bernard B. Morrel, School o f Science (IUPUI Circular 98-09) 3; Charles W. Slemenda, Professor of Medicine (IUPUI Circular No. 98-10) 4; Virgil K. Stoelting, Professor Emeritus of Anesthesia, School of Medicine (IUPUI Circular No. 98-11) 5.
III. Recognition of Bernice Chumley, Faculty Council Secretary
IV. Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko
V. Presidentís Report: William Schneider
VI. Athletic Affairs Committee Resolution Regarding Move to NCAA Division I (IUPUI Circular 98-12) 6 (ACTION ITEM)
VII. Report on Research and Graduate programs: Doris Merritt (Circular 98-13) 7 (INFORMATION ITEM)
VIII. University College Report (INFORMATION ITEM)
IX. Proposed Policy for Faculty Review and Enhancement: Cont. Discussion - Sara Hook (IUPUI Circular 98-04) 8 (INFORMATION ITEM)
X. Question / Answer Period
XI. Unfinished Business
XII. New Business
Memorial Resolutions for:
1 Joseph Sterling Ingraham, School of Medicine (IUPUI Circular 98-07)
2 Alice Gorman Lynn, School of Nursing (IUPUI Circular 98-08)
3 Bernard B. Morrel, School of Science (IUPUI Circular 98-09)
4 Charles W. Slemenda, School of Medicine (IUPUI Circular No. 98-10)
5 Virgil K. Stoelting, Professor Emeritus of Anesthesia, School of Medicine (IUPUI Circular No. 98-11)
6 Athletic Affairs Committee Resolution Regarding Move to NCAA Division I (IUPUI Circular No. 98-12)
7 IUPUI Graduate Affairs (IUPUI Circular 98-13)
8Faculty Review and Enhancement (IUPUI Circular 98-04)