FC971106 MINUTES:
APPROVED FC98050.

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

Faculty Council Minutes

November 6, 1997

School of Dentistry, Room 115

3:30 - 5:30 p.m.

 

Attendance Record.

I. Voting Members (104):

Absent---: Allen, Stephen (Elected: Medicine 6/99);

Present--: Atkinson, Simon (Elected: Medicine 6/99);

Absent---: Baldwin, James (Elected: At Large 6/99);

Absent---: Banta, Trudy (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Chancellor's Admin. designee);

Absent---: Barlow, John (Ex Officio: Dean of Liberal Arts);

Absent---: Barnes, A. James (Ex Officio: Dean of Public & Environmental Affairs);

Present--: Belcher, Anne (Elected: Nursing 6/99);

Present--: Bepko, Gerald (Ex Officio: Officer: Chancellor of IUPUI.);

Present--: Besch, Henry (Elected: Medicine 6/99);

Absent---: Bippen, Paul (Ex Officio: Dean of IUPU Columbus);

Absent---: Bjork, Ulf Jonas (Elected: Journalism 6/99);

Present--: Blomquist, William (Elected: Liberal Arts 6/98);

Absent---: Broadie, Thomas (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);

Present--: Brothers, Linda (Elected: At Large 6/99);

Absent---: Brown, Trevor (Ex Officio: Dean of Journalism);

Absent---: 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);

Absent---: DeSchepper, Edward (Elected: Dentistry 6/98);

Notice---: 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);

Present--: 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)];

Present--: Froehlich, Janice (Elected: Medicine 6/98);

Absent---: Galanti, Paul (Elected: Law 6/98. Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);

Present--: Gardner, Carol (Elected: Liberal Arts 6/99)--

Present--: Gilman, Linda (Elected: Nursing 6/99);

Alternate: Goldblatt, Lawrence (Ex Officio: Dean of Dentistry);

------[via Chris Miller (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);

Absent---: 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);

Alternate: Hoyt, Dolores (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/98);

------[via Jonathan D. Makepeace (University Libraries)]

Absent---: 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);

Absent---: Keck, Juanita (Elected: At Large 6/99. Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/99);

Absent---: Keck, Robert (Elected: At Large 6/98);

Absent---: Keffer, M. Jan (Ex Officio: UFC Representative 6/99);

Alternate: Kellum, P. Nicholas (Ex Officio: Dean of Physical Education);

------[via Sue Barrett (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);

Alternate: McBride, Angela (Ex Officio: Dean of Nursing);

------[via Shirley Ross (Nursing)]

Absent---: Modibo, Najja (Elected: Continuing Studies 6/98);

Present--: 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);

Absent---: 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);

Absent---: 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);

Present--: 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)];

Alternate: Yokomoto, Charles (Ex Officio: Executive Committee 6/98);

------[via David Bostwick (Engineering & Technology)]

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--: Frisby, David (Faculty Council Coordinator);

Present--: Grove, Mark (Registrar);

Present--: Kulsrud, Bill (Business);

Present--: Martin, Robert (Vice-Chancellor for Administration & Finance);

Present--: Palmer, Judith (Indiana University Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer);

Present--: Rooney, Patrick M. (IUPUI Administration Special Assistant);

Present--: VanVoorhis, Rebecca (Social Work).

 

Agenda Item I: Call to Order

[The meeting was called to order by Rebecca Porter.]

Porter: I would like to introduce the newest member of the front table. This is David Frisby, the new Faculty Council Office Coordinator who will be here at all of our meetings and we hope giving us an opportunity to enhance some of the services that the Faculty Council Office provides. Let's welcome David. [Applause]

Agenda Item II: Administrative Report

Porter: We will move on to the Administrative Report from Chancellor Bepko.

Bepko: We will have a report as part of the question and answer session responding to questions about safety and traffic light issues raised by Carl Rothe and some questions that we assume will always be asked about our progress on child care. T he reason that we will do this as part of the question and answer period, if you don't mind, is that Bob Martin, who is involved in a project that he can't break away from right now, will be here a little after 4:00 p.m. By the time we get to questions an d answers, he will be here to talk about those two things. What we do have today is a report on the faculty that Bill Plater is going to give.

Plater: We have a summary of the faculty that has been prepared in accord with the wishes of this body. I'm sorry that I forgot to bring the copies with me. They will be mailed to you. This is a report that this body asked be prepared as part of our early discussions regarding the formation and changes in the clinical rank. What it does is display the campus summary of faculty by professorial rank, by tenure status, by status in terms of gender and minority status, and includes faculty who hold appointment beyond the tenure and tenure related ranks--those of scientist, instructor, lecturer and so on--and gives us a fairly complete snapshot of the total faculty. We have as a summary representation of the full report, 1,327 faculty on our campus w ho hold tenure or are eligible for tenure, and an additional 487 faculty who are full-time but hold rank as scientists, clinical professorial rank or another rank such as lecturer. This means that roughly 73% of all the full-time faculty on campus are ten ured or eligible for tenure. This report will be sent to you in the mail. A full and complete breakdown by school has been distributed to each of the campus deans and a copy will be sent to the Faculty Council Executive Committee. I would note, because we are going to later on the agenda discuss N, that we are recording the same information in different ways, because this body includes as faculty eligible for participation in faculty governance, scientist ranks which are not tenured or tenure related rank s. You will see some discrepancy in the numbers but they all add up; itís just a matter of where we place faculty in terms of the use of the term. Whether itís for the purposes of determining participation in faculty governance or the more technical terms we use, the report I will distribute is limited to those faculty who have tenure or are currently earning credit towards tenure.

Spechler: Bill [Plater], if you were to add to the full-time faculty the part-time faculty on a full-time equivalent basis, even approximate, how would that 73% change, if you could guess?

Plater: I'm really hesitant to say, Martin [Spechler]. We have in any year about 800 individuals who may be appointed part-time but most of those are appointed for teaching one course or a summer course or little more. It is just very difficult to judge by the numbers. We are continuing to look at the relationship of part-time faculty to full-time faculty and are trying to prepare systematic data collection. I should indicate that this report, of course, is a snapshot. It is one moment in time. A week later the numbers may change by five or ten or even fifteen faculty. It is far more difficult to pin down associate faculty because of the ways in which those appointments are processed. Some of them come in very late and the faculty member may be teaching but we just don't have the information and so on. We are trying to create a mechanism to have some systematic and regular way of capturing that data. Perhaps by the end of this year we will be able to give you a better report on numbers. If you w ill allow me to beg off, I would prefer not to put a percentage to it because I think that would stick in people's mind and I could be off by 100%.

Warfel: Could you comment specifically on how weíre doing with increasing the number of unrepresented minority groups in our faculty?

Plater: In particular, for the minorities of African-American and Hispanic minorities, we are increasing. I think very slightly, but if you were to look at a several year trend, it's fairly flat. There has been some increase in Asian faculty and a larger number of those faculties. The rate of increase is smaller but the absolute numbers are greater. I think the overall trend is positive but we are working with such a small number that the percentage increase fluctuation can vary a lot from year to year.

One of the additional reports that has been requested is the same information being displayed in historical terms and we are working on that report as well. It's not available yet. That will give us some indication by the categories of, in particular, minority and women ranks that we will be interested in.

Bepko: Bill [Plater], isn't it true that if you count all minority faculty, we have a pretty high percentage--16 or 17 percent? The predominant minority that is not under-represented is Asian. And the African-American faculty component, which is the one we spend the most time working on, is not growing nearly fast enough.

Plater: That is correct. Among the tenured faculty, the minority faculty constitute 11%. On the untenured but tenure eligible faculty it is almost 20% and there's a similar number among all other faculty ranks--about 20% are minorities.

Bepko: We do have set-aside money for minority faculty recruitment. Almost all of that goes to under-represented minorities and it has been recycled quite a number of times. It usually involves our paying the first three years of a new appointme nt from a central pool. We have created some positions with permanent funding as well, for minority faculty. However, it is a problem because what we do on the front end to recruit is eroded by what happens at the other end when we lose people who are rec ruited away. Our success in maintaining the faculty and resisting recruitment efforts from other institutions is pretty good, over all. We report our balance of faculty trade every year and we usually recruit more people away from other universities than are recruited away from us. But I think our record is not as good among minority faculty.

Spechler: I can't resist asking because, as Jerry [Bepko] knows, this has come up in the U.S. Supreme Court this week--what are the under represented minorities as far as IUPUI is concerned, and what is the standard for being under-represented?< /P>

Bepko: I'm not sure.

Plater: In our particular situation, the communities that we think of and the population of Indiana that is under-represented, is predominantly African-American. There is a growing Hispanic population here which in terms of numbers of students a nd numbers of faculty is a population that is still under-represented. There is a very small Native American population in Indiana and I think we are talking in the range of 1% or 2% so it is very hard to have a comparison there.

Spechler: The standard of under-representation for students and faculty is the percentage in the State of Indiana?

Plater: And particularly, our service region: the nine counties that we serve.

Bepko: If there are no other questions, there are a couple of other things that I would like to mention.

First is the Trustees meeting that took place last Thursday at New Albany. Four items came up that might be of interest. The first you will be hearing a good deal more about in the next year or so. The Trustees adopted a plan to evaluate and address pr oblems with respect to faculty compensation in three areas.

First, a university-wide compensation equity study, modeled on the IUPUI study now in place will be conducted this year. Kathy Warfel, who has provided general oversight for the development of our own IUPUI compensation equity study as the head of the Office for Women, will be providing overall leadership for this university study at a policy level. Each campus will do its own equity study, but Kathy will be involved as the President's person overseeing the policy that the Trustees have developed. The next couple of years will be spent in that equity review as we are doing it on this campus--again modeled after what we are doing here--and correcting any equity problems that are unearthed in the study.

The second part of the compensation analysis will be a study of peer institutions with the idea of bringing the Bloomington campus to the 60th percentile of the Big Ten and all other campuses to the 60th percentile of their relevant peer group. You'll be hearing more about peer groups. We have, actually on our own, decided that we should have one peer group that serves for all purposes. The specific question that has been raised on a couple of occasions is whether you can have one peer group for retent ion issues and another peer group for salary issues. The answer is no. We think we should have one peer group for all purposes. We have a list of peer institutions now. It's the urban campuses. We will be talking about that more as the study goes forward, but there will be the same kind of three or four year effort to bring salaries up to that 60th percentile.

And finally, a third compensation issue that will be analyzed are retirement benefits, specifically how to pay for the existing 18-20 benefits that are now locked into place. This is not a suggestion that there will be any examination of existing 18-20 relationships. Everyone who is entitled to 18-20 benefits will remain entitled to 18-20 benefits. No 18-20 benefits will be diminished and certainly not taken away. But there is a problem, as many of you know, in funding this unfunded retirement benefit. Over the next eighteen or twenty years, the cost of funding this benefit will increase at a very rapid rate until somewhere between 2011 and 2015 it will reach its peak at a very substantial number and then will drop off because all of the people who are eligible for 18-20 either will be retired or will have gone off in some other way which will make them ineligible for 18-20 benefits. [Laughter].

The irony of all this is that we're putting money into the 18-20 program at an increasing rate, and we have also started the new early retirement program so that if you look at the cost of our retirement benefits, this is going to ramp up dramatically until about 2011 to 2015, and then fall off precipitously. Now that will create a windfall for those who are on the faculty in the year 2020 or so when we don't have to provide the base funding for this unfunded 18-20 benefit any longer. The university wi ll be awash in money. We have a little trouble getting passionate about helping people in 2020 when we have this very large increased cost now. In other words, we could strangle our academic programs paying for these retirement benefits only to have this windfall in 2018. The result is that the committee will go to work on figuring out how to either shave this hunk and distribute the costs over a longer period of time, or look at benefits for new appointees that would be reduced in order to help avoid hav ing the cost of this program become prohibitive. The numbers will be presented at the appropriate time. That's the third committee on compensation that will be appointed. You will hear more about that I am sure. Again, I repeat what I said in the beginnin g, there is no jeopardy to any 18-20 benefits that are now accruing to any member of the university family.

We now have administrative review reports for Mark Rosentraub, Scott Evenbeck and Bill Plater (whose report is excellent I am pleased to say). We are still waiting for Lillian Charleston's review committee to be finished. We will have at least the thre e reviews that are finished and, I hope, the fourth review summarized for you at the December meeting.

Also from the Trustees meeting, there was discussion about University College and the Trustees approved naming the old Library Building as University College, so henceforth the building will have that name officially in the university.

And finally, as you may have read in the papers, the Trustees approved by a vote of seven yes and one no (there was one Trustee not present; there were no abstentions) IUPUI's move from NCAA Division II to NCAA Division IAAA. So as of July 1, 1998, IUP UI will be an NCAA Division I program. Monday and Tuesday of this week, in anticipation of a favorable vote by the Trustees, we were visited by the representatives of the Mid-Continent Conference and they conducted their review of the campus and the athle tic program and have enthusiastically recommended that we be made a member of this Mid-Continent Conference. I think as weíre meeting right now the conference Presidents are voting to accept that recommendation and weíll join the Mid-Continent Conference in the NCAA Division I starting in the 1998-99 academic year. I want to thank all of you for the wonderful way in which you represented the campus both in your conversations with people and in voting overwhelmingly to recommend the move to Division I. Tru stee Jim Morris, at the meeting, in a moment that I think can fairly be described as emotional, said that he thought this was one of the important points of history at Indiana University, that this was a time when the people of IUPUI came together on some thing of major importance to the university community here and conducted themselves in a dignified and proud fashion. They convinced the Trustees that this was the very right step for this campus to take. I think that if you were there you would have shar ed in the pride that we felt, being there and hearing Jim Morris talk about the university and the campus in that way.

Finally, we will have an event or two coming up in connection with the MIR space station. As you know, David Wolf is one of our alumni. He has an M.D. from the Indiana University School of Medicine. He is also a graduate of Purdue University, and we ha ve been asked to arrange here a family video conference that will probably take place on Thanksgiving weekend. The discussions are now whether to beam the videoconference from IUPUI to Huntsville or from IUPUI to Moscow to be beamed up to MIR. We'll have the whole family--his father Harry Wolf is an M.D. who graduated from the Medical School--here on campus to have this live videoconference with space station MIR.

In addition, they have asked for there to be an item of IUPUI memorabilia that will be taken by NASA and sent up with the shuttle that goes to MIR to pick up David Wolf in January. It will be on the MIR space station and will come back down. We'll have an IUPUI pennant sent up apropos of moving the athletic program to Division I. [Laughter] We will have it blasted back from outer space to hang up somewhere on campus sometime in January.

Porter: Carl [Rothe] suggested that you should have sent one of our starship T-shirts. [Laughter]

Bepko: We had to be a little careful of what we sent up. [Laughter] We want to get just enough publicity. [Laughter]

Agenda Item III: Presidentís Report

Porter: We'll move on to President Schneider's report.

Schneider: I have a couple of fairly routine matters to report to you. There has been a resignation from the Executive Committee. Bill Orme has found his time taken over by all sorts of other commitments and so we are in the process of selecting a replacement and we'll have that for you by the next meeting.

The committee preference sheets should arrive in your mail for committee service. This year the Executive Committee has decided to do two stages. The main reason is that there is a vote for a number of committees in January and then there are some vote s in March and April. At the same time, the faculty don't know about plans for the following year until somewhat later in the spring semester and so we often have to replace people because of sabbaticals or research leaves. Therefore, this preference shee t will be the first chance for you to express your interest in service on the following kinds of committees: the faculty boards of review, the new mediation committee, the President of the faculty, the promotion and tenure committee, and the Vice-Presiden t of the faculty. So please pay attention to that when it comes and try to get it in by the date that we asked you to turn it in which is the end of next week. The second preference sheet will go out later next spring, primarily to determine interest in s erving on standing committees.

One of the reasons that David Frisby was hired was for a certain expertise that he has. I should mention that in addition to having two bachelor's degrees and two master's degrees from IUPUI, prior to working here he worked in the Library and actually served on both the Staff Council and was a representative on the Faculty Council. So he knows whereof he speaks. Part of his expertise, is in electronic distribution and archiving of materials. One of the things that we will be trying out on you is electr onic distribution of information like minutes as well as posting items to the Web. We aren't going to do it abruptly. We'll try to ease you into it. Raise your hand if you could receive minutes by e-mail, please. If you could, yes. O.K. Thanks. Maybe we w ill get it done by the end of the year so be watching.

I was at the Trustees meeting that was reported on by the Chancellor. It really was memorable and I wish all of you could have seen it regardless of your views on athletics. It was, certainly for me, a very important moment as far as IUPUI is concerned . The Chancellor orchestrated quite an effective presentation of the campus, both from the faculty, students, athletic staff, as well as the community, state legislators, and board of advisors. All of us can be proud of that.

The next Trustees meeting, incidently, is in Indianapolis December 5--that's a Friday. Those meetings are open to the public and although I don't think there will be anything to compete with the last one, it might be interesting for you to drop in.

The next University Faculty Council meeting is next week--next Tuesday--in Indianapolis. That's November 11 at 1:30 p.m. Among the things that will be coming up, in case you want to attend, is a consideration of the copyright policy that we will actual ly be talking about later on this afternoon and possibly approving. UFC will have it on its agenda to approve and send to the Trustees. We also will hear a fairly extensive report on non-tenure track faculty. This is an issue that we started talking about last year. It has been under some study and what we're going to probably decide next Tuesday is just what we can do effectively this year, or at least by the end of this academic year. That will definitely be coming to this Council at the beginning of ne xt semester. The post-tenure review matter is out to the regional campuses and of course it's out to the schools and into the departments of this campus. This was reported on and discussed at our first two meetings. Along those lines, Sara Hook has asked to announce a meeting that is coming up for the general faculty. Sara.

Hook: There will be a faculty forum on faculty review and enhancement policies. That will be November 21 from noon to 1:30 p.m. in the University Library Auditorium. In addition, for some background material and supplemental policies and other i nformation on post-tenure review, go to the IUPUI Faculty Council Web Site and then find the Faculty Review and Enhancement document link. I will be updating it routinely, and in addition if you do know of other sites that might be good for me to add, ple ase let me know. I'm watching for new material that might be helpful to our faculty. Also, I am meeting with various faculty groups at the different schools, so if your school is going to discuss the policy and if you would like me to be present offering any comments or background information, I would be happy to do so.

Schneider: Finally, if you have the time and want to stick around after the faculty forum on faculty review and enhancement on Friday, November 21, from 12:00 to 1:30 p.m., in that same Auditorium there will be a workshop on school-level budgeta ry affairs committees from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. We are trying to make sure that representatives from each of the schools are there but it is open to any faculty who want to know more about it. So, make it an afternoon. [Laughter] That's it.

Porter: Thank you very much. We will now progress on to our biannual discussion of N. You have before you a grid and Bart is going to help explain this fascinating number to us. You will note that we have added now a podium with a mike [micropho ne]. We are asking, if you are going to speak for a prolonged period of time, in order to help with the transcription, please come up here and speak, so that the mike can pick it up. Also, as a reminder, it would certainly help David if you will identify yourself verbally when you make comments.

Ng: I don't know why I got stuck with this job but I suppose it has something to do with numbers. I'm pleased to report that such a number exists but is not unique. [Laughter] I think Henry Besch always reminded me, my predecessor two removed, w as the real passionate person on this subject. In any case, you should have a copy of this in front of you. I think the number N is just simply that you take N to be equal to say 53. That's the number we are using now. That means that in your school for e very 53 faculty members or fraction thereof, you will get one unit representative. So it is very simple. On the sheet that is in front of you, what I have put down is the present situation, that is 1996 and 1997. The number of unit representatives for eac h school is based on the number of faculty members in the various schools. And then on the right hand side of that sheet, in the table, the total number of faculty is really the tally based on this academic year: 1997 and 1998. Then I worked out for vario us values of N, ranges of values of N, the number of representatives to which each school is entitled. You will see that if we pick N to be a number anywhere between 53 and 56, then we are basically preserving the status quo. That is exactly what we have at this point despite the fact that there are a few additional faculty members sprinkled among various schools. If you look at the so called road--the road is the IUPUI total--if you see that the change from one bracket to another is more than one, that m eans that by choosing, by changing the range, you affect more than one school. Basically that is what it is. So, other than that, I think that it should be fairly self explanatory. I will be happy to answer any questions that you have on N.

Porter: If you could, you would like to make a motion on behalf of the Executive Committee?

Ng: Yes.

Porter: You were going to make a motion on behalf of the Executive Committee that N remain at 53.

Ng: Yes, I will move that and especially I like prime numbers. This is a very nice prime number. You can choose between 53 and 56 but 53 is a wonderful number.

Porter: Thank you very much. And now that we have that motion on the floor we will open it for discussion. Martin [Spechler].

Spechler: When you come up with a total number of faculty of 1,451, on the basis of which you allocate representation, who counts this faculty?

Ng: This information was given to us from Shirley Nusbaum's office.

Porter: The number comes from the Faculty Records Office. It is verified by the Faculty Council Office in conjunction with discussions with each of the schools. It includes those individuals that by our Constitution are included in the count. Th ose who are research rank are included. There are some individuals that are recognized in the School of Medicine as being geographic full-time that are counted, but it is a process which is Faculty Records in conjunction with the Faculty Council Office.

E. Fineberg: I assume that clinical faculty are included?

Porter: No.

E. Fineberg: In my opinion, that conflicts with the views that we had when we passed the clinical ranks legislation a year or so ago. There was an explicit recommendation that clinical ranks be included in faculty bodies. They have at least as m uch right to be here as any other ranks that you mentioned. Not that I know much about those ranks but it seems to be wrong and contradictory to our intent of the legislation to exclude them.

Porter: However, we have not yet changed our Constitution and Bylaws sections to represent that view.

E. Fineberg: Well, I would suggest that the Executive Committee look into this, because we have had this legislation already for a year and a half, and its clear intent was to include clinical ranks in our faculty assemblies, wasnít it?

Warfel: Well, they are included in the School of Medicine elections but my understanding is that at least in the past they have not been included at IUPUI.

Porter: Correct. Thatís correct.

Warfel: I would like to say to Martin [Spechler], that my memory of the discussion was a little different from his memory of it. And while there was a strong urging for further consideration of the matter, it certainly was not a decided matter a t the time. In fact, there was considerable resistance to having them participate in the Faculty Council on a one-to-one basis. My original question had to do with the number of units that are listed in the table. One thing that I had in the back of my mi nd was that we had 20 academic units. Also, I had in the back of my mind that at one point there was a discussion about whether or not Columbus should be represented on the Council as a unit, and I canít remember where the status of that is.

Rothe: It is my impression that with Columbus the faculty have membership elsewhere as well as in Columbus. They have membership, for example, in the schools here in Indianapolis. That has been under discussion though. You are quite right.

Rooney: The faculty in Columbus have voted every year for the last couple of years to ask to be represented by direct representation, and not through the schools. They just felt that that representation is ineffectual at best.

Schneider: Is this one of the questions the Constitution and Bylaws committee is looking at?

Rothe: It was about a year ago. We did once, about a year ago. Weíll do it again.

Schneider: Okay. We will straighten it out.

Yurtseven: As far as Engineering and Technologyís N representatives, there is 3 rather than 2 from last year, if my addition is correct. Is it possible to make a change so that the additional number is reflected on the sheet?

Porter: We will be delighted to verify the count. We don't want to loose any faculty members. Any other comments or questions? I take it then that you are ready to vote. All of those in favor of setting N at 53 say "aye". Opposed "no". Thank you . [The motion passed.]

Agenda Item IV: Copyright and Fair Use Proposal

Porter: We are now going to move to the next agenda item which is the discussion of the copyright and fair use proposal. We have asked Kenneth Crews to lead this discussion for us. You will note that a circular was attached to the agenda. We hav e some wording changes for consideration that are going to be distributed to you.

Crews: Thank you very much. My name is Kenny Crews and it is certainly a pleasure to be here with you. I am a faculty member both in the School of Law and the School of Library and Information Science. I wondered, as I saw the sheet, how much of that "one" I am under the faculty column for Library and Information Science. I'm split between the two schools. I am also Director of the Copyright Management Center which addresses many of these issues, particularly issues of fair use as they relate to our teaching, research, and learning here at the university. So it certainly is my privilege to come before you as your guest, as a colleague, to present this policy--this proposed policy, I should make clear--on the question of fair use at the universit y. You will also have a single page coming around that is a proposal of a very important amendment to the proposed policy. I think that like the rest of it, I would like to believe, it is really strongly in favor of supporting you in your pursuit of teach ing and research here at the university. This is really an extraordinary proposal for fair use policy. It is quite unlike what is available at other universities around the country. A typical university policy on the question of fair use, if the universit y has one at all, generally falls into one of two categories. It is either a policy that says you will comply with the law, end of story, or, it is a policy that attempts to articulate in some detail what fair use means under at least one or two specific, perhaps commonly occurring situations.

There are serious problems with both of those approaches--either one of those approaches. One is to say you will comply with the law and it is certainly not very helpful and doesn't give you any kind of commitment by the university of support along the way which this policy really provides--extraordinary support, support unlike what is present in the policy at any other university. Second, the attempt to articulate details is highly problematic. Faculty members over the last couple of decades have perh aps been the loudest in calling for details. Will somebody please answer my question? Is this, is this not fair use? And, I can really report after studying these issues for many years and in many contexts, that that effort to demand answers from other so urces has backfired thoroughly on us. I can offer up one report, for example, that I have here. This is a report newly issued just within the last month or so from the Conference on Fair Use, an attempt to bring people together of different points of view s--publishers, authors, librarians, educators--to negotiate what does fair use mean under certain specific circumstances. A small portion of this report is a set of proposed guidelines that attempts to detail "here's what fair use means". The bulk of this report, at least ninety percent of it, is a set of responses from interested diverse parties around the country saying yes we like or no we don't like these proposals for what is fair use. Indiana University joins most of the other research universities and professional societies around the country in strongly opposing this kind of approach and the specific outcome of this negotiation because, in fact, what we have learned from the past and from what we can learn right here and now, is that this effort t o quantify, to detail, to prescribe, what fair use means, has been one that has done nothing more than lock us in, inhibit our use of resources, hinder our educational efforts, and really undermine the fair use that Congress gave us. So, the proposed poli cy before you is at once radical in the sense that it's a sharp move away from that kind of ad hoc effort to lock us in--making clear that we won't be pulled into that--and it is also a very conservative policy in that is sends us right back to what fair use really is. And that is, an evaluation, a balancing of four factors that Congress gave us in the fair use statute, that we were meant to experiment with and apply to our particular circumstances. The law also gives us considerable support for the reaso ned, good-faith judgements that we make based on those four factors. So with that introduction, I'll pause and offer it back to you, opening it for questions.

Porter: We are bringing this before you for discussion. If, based on our discussion, the body chooses, we would entertain a motion to endorse the policy so that that information could be taken forward to inform the UFC discussion next Tuesday.

Schneider: Do you want to explain the change you just handed out?

Crews: Yes, I certainly will and I hope that you also have one other change that I believe has gone to this group. The Bloomington Faculty Council, just by circumstance of calendaring, did get to review this first, and the Bloomington Faculty Co uncil approved the policy quite overwhelming with two words inserted. On that point three: "avoid adopting or supporting policies or agreements that would restrict Fair-Use rights". It is "avoid whenever possible adopting..." Again, we don't want to lock ourselves in too rigidly as well.

And then, the other single sheet that I'm distributing today is a point four added to this list of numbered paragraphs. It is an outgrowth of the presentation of this proposal to the University Faculty Council and presents some very strong well-reasone d articulated demands or requests that we include a statement of indemnification in this policy. I'm happy to support that addition. It is one that we are providing here referenced to the existing, and I must say by comparison again to other universities, extraordinarily generous indemnification policy that we have at this university that we are all beneficiaries of (in reference to that policy). This is a big step. Many of the senior administrators of the university did not want that reference in here. N ot that it would not be true without the reference, but referring cross-references to other policies is just simply unorthodox. It creates a ripple effect. If you change one then you have to go in and change the other. And so, it also means that as this g oes before the Board of Trustees--assuming you allow us to take it to that level--that it will also raise the question of indemnification with the Board of Trustees, which we may or may not want to do, but there it is. It is their policy and so we will ce rtainly raise it indirectly at least. It is an important point and we are glad to add it.

Porter: Questions or comments.

Schneider: Just one final point about this change. If you notice the organization of materials, there is the three-point policy with the Bloomington amendment, and then there are nine supporting principles. This additional fourth point grew out of principle number nine which says: "If a member of the IU community acts in good faith, etc... the IU indemnification policy will also likely offer protection..." and this amendment strengthens that considerably. It says it will, and by the way, Kenny, you should change that principle number 9 as well.

Crews: That will be something that we will have to re-articulate. Now we need to make clear that no policy such as a fair use policy can change the standard of the indemnification policy and so we have to be very careful about that. The indemnif ication policy, again I'm taking a risk at paraphrasing--paraphrasing is always risky--but it essentially says that if you reasonably believe that you were acting within the scope of your duties and reasonably believe that what you were doing was within t he law, the university is really here to indemnify you against losses that you incur on the job. So, we've always had a duty to ourselves and to others to reasonably believe that we are acting within the law, and the law is what Congress and others give t o us. We try to have some effect on that but in the end we have to listen to what is handed to us.

E. Fineberg: I am a little bit curious as to why you chose not to include the four points that are made in the law. From these guidelines, since you do refer to them, they are in fact part of the guidelines and a person who is trying to use thes e policies would like to have those principles, if you will, in the law--included so they don't have to refer elsewhere. I don't see any sense in doing it the way you have.

Crews: I think that is a very important point. We really tried, and it is a deliberate effort, to not put this substance--not even the basic substance--of fair use into the policy. For example, there is a bill in Congress right now that may effe ct a few changes in the fair use law. Suppose that bill were to come to pass, then we would have a policy that really didn't articulate what fair use is with precision. We would then be compelled to go back and go through the process again to update and r evise our policy to reflect new law. There is always that hazard of articulating the substance. I agree entirely that reading the policy itself is not going to begin to answer your particular question. We, in fact, deliberately make no pretense that it wi ll. Instead we say that the university will, through these various offices, including mine, be available and make available to you a wide variety of materials starting with articulations of those points, and I have a stack of diverse materials that weíve prepared, and we have access to other sources to make available.

E. Fineberg: Then I suggest to you that those particular points be attached to this document as a rider, if you will, and you can change the wording in such a way to say that it would basically be the law, or modifications thereof (current versi ons, if you will). I think it should be attached because otherwise it is not a document that can be easily used.

Crews: I'm perfectly happy to include attachments in a variety of ways. I just want to be careful not to articulate something in the policy that requires your approval, that requires the Board of Trustees approval, that would require our going b ack and getting that approval again every time Congress changes something.

E. Fineberg: I think thatís easier done in the context of the wording as it is and basically just changing it to "the current law or modifications thereof, attached below."

Crews: Again, I'm foreseeing different kinds of problems with the attachments. Imagine if we put this into a handbook that is good for two years. In the middle of those two years we have the Congressional change. Now the handbook is. . .

E. Fineberg: Then a supplement might need to come out all the time. I see.

Crews: These are all good ideas.

Spechler: Well, I agree that this policy is a very conservative and careful document, and I appreciate the reasons for that, but suppose that a junior colleague who was without experience in this area comes to deal with other senior members and says, "Is it okay to Xerox three chapters out of this book and distribute it to students?" That is the sort of thing that happens every semester. Now I would like to know what is going to happen, what kind of concrete advice we can give. Do I understand t hat the purpose of this policy is to keep everything oral and not printed? [Laughter]

Crews: No, not at all. In fact, we are constantly documenting all sorts of things.

Spechler: So what kind of help are you going to give me, or, indirectly, this junior colleague, in this situation?

Crews: We have these questions all of the time. I had one strikingly similar to it yesterday afternoon. It may result in a phone conversation, a memo, a set of very short materials that aren't going to overwhelm you that say here's the stuff tha t can help you answer that question, and work you through it. And, if that is not satisfactory with you either in terms of the content or the process, I and my colleagues are readily available to help you through this in whatever way is comfortable to you . So you would come to me and the way that we would approach it is by going right back to those four factors. And it is interesting that I use the word conservative, and I did use the word conservative, in the sense that it's conservative of going back to what Congress said the law really is, and not what some guideline developers pretended to know regarding what the law really is. I have very scathing things to say about those. But it is not conservative in its adherence to those guidelines. We are inter ested in making sure that you really understand that fair use exists to help you in furtherance of your teaching and research. We are very interested in helping you exercise fair use for that purpose. And so, therefore, we go back to some questions. Those four factors can be summarized very nicely: what is the purpose of your use? Your non-profit educational purpose tends to be favored toward fair use. What is the nature of the material? Non-fiction kinds of material, which is typically the case of photoc opying, tend to weigh in favor of fair use. What's the amount? Those three chapters, are they a whole lot of that textbook or are they a tiny part of an enormous book? We are going to weigh that in the balance. The effect on the market. That is the fourth factor. How does what you are doing have inroads on the possible sales of that book, for example. And that is exactly the exercise, in a nutshell, that Congress asks us to go through. That is exactly the exercise that actually best serves your educationa l needs relative to anything else that's ever been offered up.

Spechler: I would say that our secondary objective (Iíve agreed with what youíve said so far) is to avoid a brush with the law. And surely between the vague intent of Congress and guidelines which may have been jigged up by publishers, there mus t be some legal precedence in this area.

Crews: Let me give you a good example. Let me rephrase your question. What is "the law" on whether it is fair use for me to photocopy these three chapters. If we could rephrase your question into "is there law that says yes or no to that", the a nswer is clear. "No there is not." Almost any fair use situation that you can think of, there is no law to answer whether that is or is not fair use.

Spechler: No controlling authority, huh?

Crews: Exactly. Exactly. The controlling authority that we have, is the statute from Congress. There are a few remotely relevant cases involving non-universities. Like Kinko's has been sued for photocopying. But under the fair use analysis, that 's not us. And so we are really compelled, necessarily, to go back to those four factors.

Rothe: Ed [Fineberg], particularly before, earlier on, I fully agreed with you and also Martin [Spechler]. But it seems to me, that as I look at this more, and look at the details, I begin to see the wisdom of making this language general. And t he important thing is these documents that go along with it, these nine principles and some other things, and then this particular part that they have included on our part for IUPUI about the material available on the Web. This gives us the clues. This gi ves us the stuff we can give to our colleagues. This gives us the stuff we can look at. Those go on for pages and pages and examples go on for pages and pages. and pages. And so I was convinced that this is the way, the right way to go, because we have th ese materials that will be with the documentation with our minutes.

Bepko: Since the law was enacted by Congress, has there been any case in which a higher education institution has been found to be in violation of the copyright laws and not at the same time engaging in fair use?

Crews: No. One of the common questions that comes up in different fora that I conduct, and I conduct them all over the country from Dartmouth to Stanford to Seattle to Florida. I conduct these sessions and all over this campus and all over this State and let me ask you something. I am prepared to come to your departments and talk about some of these issues. I'm more than happy to do it. It is a central function that I can provide. In all of those fora, one of the common questions that comes up o r remarks that comes up, is that "but universities are being sued more and more". And I pause there and I say "name one". And it generally brings the conversation to a dead halt.

Bepko: Well, weíre being sued, but for other things. [Laughter]

Crews: Exactly. Not this one. Not this one. Thank you. I can name one. New York University in 1982 was sued over the issue of photocopies for classroom use and there was no court decision. The parties settled it out. I can name another one. UCLA was sued in 1989 over a much more flagrant issue of multiple copies of software. Thirty students in the class, just crank out thirty copies of the software on disk and hand it out. It was sued and I'll spare you the long legalistic story, but UCLA went i n on a constitutional ground and said we are a state institution (sounds like us), and under the Constitution of the United States, you can't sue a state institution in federal court for monetary damages. The copyright law says you have to go to federal c ourt. And the federal court said you, UCLA, you are right. Case dismissed. [laughter] And the software companies said we're not going to tolerate that. Let's appeal. They went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a horrible decision, they said. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at the law and said, youíre right. Case dismissed. They appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, "we don't even want to hear this case". Certiorari denied. And so we had that and a couple of other cases that have done the same. The reality is that we are at a point also in the law where we're not even sure they can reach us. Now I don't say that to try to throw the floodgates open; I say that this is a really refreshing time for us to be able to say to outside groups that are trying to get us to buy into something that gives away our rights that we can take a deep breath and wonder if weíre doing the right thing. Even reasonable people will differ. This policy is a chance to accept those diff erences and to accept the uncertainty that goes with fair use. This is an incredible gesture supported by the central administration of the university to say, "we trust you." This is an important issue that we trust you to learn something about and t o make that right, balanced, reasoned decision. And, extraordinarily, we are ready to back you up in writing. So I offer it back to you.

Porter: With the other items on the agenda, it would be helpful if we could think about moving forward. Does this body wish to make a statement about how we feel about this policy on fair use of copyrighted works?

E. Fineberg: That we endorse it?

Porter: That we endorse this policy.

Fore: Which one? The Bloomington amendment?

Porter: What we would be endorsing is what you see with items 1, 2, and 3 and our addition of 4. That is my understanding.

Crews: Be sure to add the two words that were added to item 3.

Porter: With the addition of the "whenever possible" in item number 3.

I heard a motion [Ed Fineberg]. Do we have a second?

[Seconded by Mary Fisher]

[The vote was taken by Dr. Porter and the motion passed unanimously.]

Agenda Item VI: Report on Research and Graduate Education at IUPUI

Porter: We are going to move on to the Report on Research and Graduate Education at IUPUI and ask T.K. Li to come to the podium. As you recall, last month we were talking about the graduate education portion of this, so our intent was to focus m ore of this discussion on the research aspect. There was a circular previously distributed. I will turn this discussion over to you. Do you have some opening remarks that you want to make based on the report?

Li: I'm presuming that the report was distributed and read and Professor Schneider informed me that the graduate affairs aspect has been taken care of. So today what I want to do is just respond to any questions that people may have concerning t he recommendations that the committee made for research and scholarly activities in faculty development. And I also have some analysis of some more recent data on research support that this campus now has. For example, currently, as of the last academic y ear we have 128.2 million dollars. And so that has gone up since the report was based on the latest data from 1994-95. I will be happy to discuss with you the trends in external grant and contract support that the university as a whole is receiving in the last several years versus IUPUI and how it breaks down by schools. I have some data here.

Spechler: I'd like to support, instead of asking questions, and just say that I think the recommendations are very good. It will strengthen our representation in the Graduate Council of the University Graduate School to have our representatives there, also, members of the Graduate Education Committee on this campus. In the years that I served on the Graduate Council we sometimes didnít know some of the things that were occurring on this very diverse campus and to our membership it would be very helpful in our work, helpful to the Graduate Education Committee, to know what is going on in the Graduate Council and vice versa. So I think it is a very good step.

E. Fineberg: One of the trends that we would like to encourage, and I donít know if itís evident in the data that youíve accumulated, is the increasing interaction between the campus Medical School and outside commercial ventures. And I wonder w hether that has in fact increased in the recent past.

Li: This is certainly a desirable goal. I have to say that any increase between whatever we do versus commercial concerns is reflected in the growth of the research grants and contracts, because part of our external funding is from commercial so urces. Developing interdisciplinary programs is a little more complex and it is something that we have been trying to work toward and I think the recommendation that is contained in that report is aimed at trying to further that goal. What one needs to re member is that this campus, in terms of research dollars, is fairly heavily dominated by the Medical School and that trend has not changed. Even though total dollars have gone up in the last six years or so--five to six years--all the growth in dollars ha s been in the Medical School. Now I think what's happening, and that's not reflected in this report because I don't think the analysis of either committee went that far, is that, I think in terms of developing research and interdisciplinary research, we m ay have plateaued out a little bit and you may ask why. One reason I think is really faculty development. We have reached a certain limitation and we are not going to grow at the rate that we did from 1984 to 1994 unless we put more emphasis on faculty de velopment. The basic development of infrastructure is occurring very well, I think, because of the RIF dollars that Chancellor Bepko and our former President so wisely created. I think what we are seeing is the benefits of that. But I think now the limiti ng stuff may be just the faculty and to be able to give faculty release time to do the kinds of things that would promote interdisciplinary research.

Bepko: I think the success of the medical research on this campus is directly responsible for something that may be a part of this forthcoming Trustees meeting here in Indianapolis in early December. We think that the policy seminar may be devot ed to the subject of medical research, the objective of creating conditions which will permit our health schools in particular to be solidly ranked in the top tier, for medicine to be among the top ten public medical schools in the country. It hasn't been scheduled yet, but we are optimistic that the Trustees will want to hear about this while they are here in December. It is all based on watching what has happened here over the last dozen years or so and moving the Indiana University School of Medicine t o front rank in terms of attracting research support and of academic medicine in general.

Porter: You might mention what is being distributed.

Li: What is being distributed is actually data from the FMS database. What I have listed here are the external grants and contract dollars for IU, all eight campuses, which has grown from 1991, 1992 to 1996, 1997 from 166.6 million to 205 millio n dollars. The amount brought in by IU Bloomington hasn't changed too much so they have flattened out pretty much as the situation with most universities around the country. IUPUI has grown from 87.9 to 128.2. Now if you were to factor out the School of M edicine, which is the fourth column, yielding the fifth one, IUPUI, depending on what you take as base, has grown a little bit or it has flattened out a little bit. I think we just need to look at the trend over longer periods of time. It jumps up and dow n a little bit because of the funding for the Center on Philanthropy from the Lilly Endowment. That's why the fluctuation from 24 to 16 and then up to 31 and down to 23.

Schneider: I was a member of the committee so Iím going to ask a question that I partly know the answer to but I think it might be useful for the Council to hear what you have to say about it. Actually two points.

First is the recent appointment of the committee to hire an officer to take charge of Research and Sponsored Programs. A new Associate Vice-President and Vice-Chancellor for Research on campus. What do you think the effect of that will be? The second q uestion is about the recommendations for changing the committee structure that came out of the task force.

Li: The committee was silent.

[A request came forth for the question to be repeated.]

The question was what was my response to, I guess now it is formal that we will be searching for an Associate Vice-President (I'm sorry that the qualifiers confuse me). The Associate Vice-President for Research and Graduate Education who I think will r eport directly to the Chancellor. Now, the committee was silent on this point because we really didn't understand what a person in that position might be able to do unless there is commitment of additional resources from the President. I hope that will co me with the appointment and that it won't be just reshuffling of current resources. I think that if that occurs, I think that is very very salutatory. Now with regard to the issue of providing faculty input, I think that is really a very important point. And, I think that what this does is it gives ownership in terms of planning for the scholarly activities of this school to the faculty. We do certain things. We sit on promotion committees and so forth. We don't take as much control of faculty development . I think that is really a very important aspect because having the resources to do research and scholarly work is necessary but not sufficient. The other part that is needed is faculty. The growth that you see in the School of Medicine, I have to say bec ause I have had a hand in it, is not only developing the infrastructure which was decaying in the Medical School, and that's what the RIF dollars provided, but the very conscious effort to recruit faculty who will do research and then giving them the rele ase time. You can not develop your own faculty and ask them to do research and do scholarly work without giving them the release time. So this is then a commitment by the faculty, by the university for this purpose.

Bepko: I think space also played an important role in this. We have the good fortune of being able to construct some facilities, the Medical Research and Library Building was probably the most strategic, but I think the two cancer buildings are also going to be important. The other thing that I was going to say is that I think there is hope that there would be resources to go along with this office. In fact, the reason why the Trustees may take up the subject of medical research and Top Ten stat us for health schools and some of these issues when they meet here in December, is with the idea in mind that there would be a special initiative at the 1999 General Assembly for health science research. We would argue to the state that it is crucial to h aving high quality health education for the state of Indiana to have an investment at this time in the quality and in research, which is also indispensable to the future of the health industry in Indiana. They have the same type of investment made now. It will both promote the finishing of the Van Nuys Med Science Building Project and add base funds for medical research.

Li: What I believe is the most important contribution of the committee or the task force is the issue of faculty development. I think that is really the critical factor now at the current time versus let's say maybe ten years ago when we really had neither. We now have better space than before but I think an example of this is one of the efforts we have undertaken to develop a center on aging. This is completely multidisciplinary across different schools and we have had a very good response from all schools across the campus. And that is very good. But, and here is the problem, if you go to any one school you will find that there is not a plentiful availability of people who can do this kind of work. So we do have to recruit faculty in order to do this interdisciplinary work.

Chernoff: Being from the School of Science, I always feel a twinge when I see the School of Medicine factored out in the campus, and then "the school" referred to as having plateaued in its ability to attract more research money. I would like to call attention to just three specific things. One is that I think everyone would acknowledge that there is always going to be some areas that aren't research grant big bucks areas. I personally don't know a lot about, in fact I canít imagine, let's say t hat youíre teaching in romance languages that you have the opportunity to bring in grants with huge amounts of indirect costs. I haven't come across these kinds of things. There are, so I would expect to see that sort of flack pertaining to teaching grant s, travel grants, individual scholarly development grants. But if you look at some schools like the School of Science, there have been substantial increases and a substantial amount of increases in Science, and there the development is still increasing. A nd thereís a third area that I always think about, which is in Engineering, which has tremendous potential to develop as a research entity. And so while I agree (my own research is biomedical) that biomedical research is very important, I really encourage people not to just present to the Trustees that this is the one area where we're going to bring in big bucks for the university so only develop that faculty, only give us space. The rest of the university while a school that is very much smaller, there a re areas, I think, of great potential.

Li: Well, I think if you read the recommendations from the task force it says exactly that.

Chernoff: But I think there is a tremendous emphasis that "Yes, but the Medical. . ."

Li: That was not the consensus of the committee. And that is why we had in there a structure where one was the Research Advisory Committee and the other was the Academic Development Committee. And we recognize the fact that scholarly activities are not related to dollars. However, the university likes to see indirect costs and that is going to be generated out of hard science research because that is what gives you the indirect cost. But that isn't the only scholarly activity that we acknowledge . We recognize that the other faculty in the other schools, Liberal Arts, will do just as important work and they need much less resources and that is why we have that second committee which together form what we call the strategic academic planning commi ttees to that development committee.

Bepko: The approach of the university administration does not do what you think it does. I think that we have been thinking about how to broaden this. In fact, the creation of the office itself is a broadening of the focus for research on the ca mpus. I think when you hear people talk about medical research, they are playing to something that will be more likely to attract new state resources. It is broader than just the School of Medicine.

Porter: We have time for one more comment. Is there another comment? Thank you very much. We appreciate you providing some additional information.

Agenda Item VII: Commission on Women: Action Agenda and Pay Equity Study

Porter: Our next agenda item is some information sharing from the Commission on Women. The Director of the Office for Women is Kathy Warfel and the other name that you see listed, Paul Carlin, co-chair of the Pay Equity Working Group, is here to help explain the relationship to the Pay Equity Study.

Warfel: Thank you Becky. As you know, in January of last year the IUPUI Commission on Women was formed. The mission of this group is to improve the work place and learning environment for all faculty, staff and students here at the IUPUI campus. A mission reflected in the motto "IUPUI: A Good Place for Everyone". Of course the group does have a particular focus in improving the campus climate for women and for minorities as well. During the spring semester last year, the Commission went through an organizational and research phase. It now has over 200 volunteer members working in eight working groups. Having spent time talking about what needs to be done, researching how things have been done elsewhere, the working groups and Commission as a who le have come up with what you have before us. It is an action agenda for this academic year for the campus and it is a working document which will undergo some evolution as the year goes on. This document takes us as a Commission and as a campus from all of the things that we might have done or tried to do to a list of things that we believe were feasible so that we can focus the energy of the Commission and the campus on accomplishing some tangible progress this year. As this agenda was being formulated, we met with campus administration and sought and received their endorsement. And at this point we would like to share the agenda broadly on the campus and though much of this work is being done by specific working groups and other offices, certainly ever y part of the campus can be aware of issues and can make progress on these issues and other areas. You can see in the document the general categories in which work is being done. The one that we came to speak to you about today in particular is the area o f pay equity. We have already heard that the university-wide President has made pay equity--gender and minority equity--a very high priority for the university. We jumped the gun a bit by starting our own faculty pay equity study in July of this summer an d the second attachment from our groups gives you more information about that pay equity study. Paul Carlin who is here as our chief investigator of that study will be available to talk about it as well.

I would like to point out some general things about the pay equity study. It is looking at the payable full-time faculty and full-time librarians except for those in the School of Medicine whose pay is complex. That is, it comes partly from the univers ity and partly from patient care income. That group is not being included in this round of studies although certainly we will be getting to them.

The objectives of the study are to see if there is any significant evidence of systematic discrimination, but also to establish departmental salary benchmark models against which individual salaries can be compared. Not for the purpose of saying that t here is clearly a problem in an individual case, but for the purpose of identifying individual cases that warrant further investigation. You have this to read through so I won't say anything more about it. I will invite Paul Carlin up to say anything by w ay of general comments that he would like and then if you have questions we can talk about them.

Carlin: Thanks, Kathy. I'm Paul Carlin from the Department of Economics and as Kathy said co-chair of the pay support equity group. As she indicated on the last two sheets of the handout that you have, it describes the pay equity study that we a re undertaking. Kathy mentioned the objectives of the study. This first step is basically a statistical analysis of salaries across the campus for faculty members. We are undertaking this with the advice of a technical advisory group that we put together. At least one member of whom is out in the audience, but it includes Paul Bayless from Affirmative Action, Vic Borden and Kathy Burton from Institutional Research, Naomi Feinberg from the Department of Medicine, Linda Griffin from the School of Medicine a nd Siu Hui from Biostatistics and Chris Keeley from Human Resources, Patrick Rooney from the Chancellor's Office, and I believe there have been some recent suggestions for additions to that and if any of you have any suggestions of people who have some ex pertise that could help to inform our study, that would be great.

For the most part, I want to leave time for you to ask questions. The basic methodology, or question we are just trying to ask and answer, to the extent that we can, given the statistical approach: Is there a significant evidence of gender inequity in salaries at IUPUI? And, what we are trying to do is to say, I think all of us know from looking at salaries, that the salaries of women faculty--if you look strictly at the averages--are lower at IUPUI, as they are in virtually every institution of higher education. Then the question is, there are a number of reasons why that might be so and we will try to control statistically for as many of those as we can and see if that does indeed provide a sufficient explanation for the salary differences.

Porter: I'd like to acknowledge that we have with us Judy Palmer, the IU Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer, and also to note, because when I checked with Chancellor Bepko to determine that I had the correct title, that she is a graduat e of our Law School on campus. Always we are proud of our IUPUI graduates. Are there questions that you would like to ask either on the Commission on Women Action Agenda or in relationship to the gender equity study?

Fore: Iím just curious, on salary are you going to be pulling that information off of the Human Resources database or will you be soliciting that from department chairs and that sort of source?

Carlin: Actually the total data is a mix of those two. The basic data on salaries and many of the characteristics that we would be looking at such as rank, years at IUPUI, years since you have attained a Ph.D., things like that. Basically the Of fice of Institutional Research and Affirmative Action have combined to help us gather that data and verify and clean it and make sure that it is accurate. There is some supplemental data: one of the issues in asking about faculty salaries is "does the ind ividual possess the terminal degree?" That is the kind of information we are seeking at the department level. So there are some things we are getting from the department and some things we are getting from the institutional data base.

Froehlich: How far back will we be looking?

Carlin: The basic part of the study is strictly a snapshot. We are looking at the salaries for the 1996-97 year. There is a supporting part of the study where we will be taking a longer historical look at issues such as turnover and promotion ra tes to see if those are equitable as well. But the main part of the study is strictly a snapshot of what were conditions in 1996-1997.

Froehlich: Havenít you done a study like this, several years ago?

Carlin: About ten years ago, it must have been.

Froehlich: Is there information still available, or do you intend to use that information in the current study, to see if thereís been any progress in the last ten years?

Carlin: Yes, thank you for that question. It is true that a study was done about ten years ago I would guess. We will include some comparisons using exactly the same methodology that was used then but we believe that there have been some advance s in the methodology, and so the study this time that we will in some sense finally issue is our best scientific judgement about what the situation is. Maybe not directly comparable but at one of the stages along the way we will look at a direct compariso n of those two studies.

Froehlich: Was use made of that earlier study?

Carlin: Was use made? I think maybe I should defer that question. [Laughter]

Bepko: A number of years ago, about ten, there were ethnological issues raised about the study, but the results of it were turned over to the academic units with the admonition that any inequity was to be investigated on the basis of individual comparisons and resolved. I think the School of Medicine, as a matter of fact, did a further study of data. In fact Siu Hui, who is on your technical committee, was I think the one who put together the further study, and there were cases identified where there was gender inequity and they were corrected. Now I don't know how complete that was. I don't know how much it satisfied people, but there was some follow-up activity. There were a number of salaries that were changed as a result of that. I don't kno w if I can tell you as much detail about other schools, but that was the pattern that was followed. It was left to the schools to investigate and address the apparent inequities that surfaced in the study.

Froehlich: How powerful will this study be, and how do you intend to use the results of it, given that this has become a topic of interest statewide. Do you think this is a useful time to take this on? Do you expect any more changes to occur tha n what we saw in the study 8 years ago?

Bepko: Probably in the year 2000 we will have eliminated any gender inequity.

Froehlich: [referring to the tape recorder] Is that on, did you get that? [Laughter]

Carlin: I think part of the intent of this is in fact that we can sort out the issues of inequity and be confident that we have addressed and have a system in place to address any inequities so that in some sense we can go forward in a united wa y and not have to worry about issues of festering feeling of inequity that we can indeed, hopefully put that to rest and then move forward on a broader front on issues of salary and compensation.

Froehlich: Fine.

Spechler: I have a question but I do want to say that I think it is very impressive that IUPUI is able to muster such a high powered committee to deal with this issue. I can't think of someone better qualified than you Paul [Carlin] to carry thi s out and you are going to have the cooperation of some very good people. I think we can have a lot of confidence in the results of this. What I see looks like the state of the art in doing this kind of work.

My question has to do with ten versus twelve month salaries. Some members of the faculty on occasion get an administrative supplement of essentially twenty percent, an extra two monthsí salary for carrying out various administrative duties. And thatís roughly accepted. Now in your salary study are you going to include those salary supplements? This is important for a gender and pay equity study because it could be said, and I think it has been said, that access to these supplements might itself be subj ect to some bias. So how do you propose to deal with the question of base ten-month salary versus full twelve month salary for some members?

Carlin: As far as I know at this point, what I would say is, that we are controlling for ten month versus twelve months in the data. That is we will include as in some sense as a righthand-side variable the number of months for the appointment w hether it is a ten-month or a twelve-month appointment. We will also control for whether there is any current administrative duty.

On the issue of whether there is equal access to those kind of things, except to the extent that that is covered in our historical review of promotion rates and things like that, I'm not sure that that would be directly addressed. But the basic questio n of ten month versus twelve month will certainly be addressed and the question of whether there is an administrative supplement--that will be addressed.

Schneider: Let me ask a follow-up to Jan Froehlichís question, being a little more specific. Where are you now in the study and what is your timetable? And, finally, perhaps Judy Palmer may want to come and answer this, where will the money come from to address the inequities that are found?

Carlin: O.K. I'll defer that third question. But the first questions, and I'll let Jerry [Bepko] talk to that. If he is going to solve the 18-20, then he can solve anything. That's clear. [Laughter]

In terms of the timetable, we're essentially in the midst of the study in terms of having acquired some of the basic data. Now it has taken longer than I thought to in some sense clean the data and verify it, but we are doing some of the preliminary st eps. We do hope to have a preliminary report ready by January with a final report due out by the end of February. At this point, I think that goal is still obtainable, so that is what we are hoping for. We do still need to obtain some of this supplementar y information. We are working at this point in some sense in some early statistical runs with information on terminal degrees which we are not fully confident of and we need to get that information from the chairs on what the terminal degree is. But that is where we are at this point.

And then the second question had to do with the funding, right? Or was there a second question?

Schneider: Is the February deadline deliberate so as to be of use for the salary recommendations that are coming up next year?

Carlin: I think we had that roughly in mind but I'm not sure about the fine tuning but I think that is roughly what we had in mind in setting that.

Schneider: The next question was funds to take care of problems.

Bepko: Eventually I feel that will be funded out of our own resources. One could argue that we should go to the state and say we have systematically discriminated against some people and we would like for you to help us bail ourselves out of thi s. [Laughter] I don't think that would be a very powerful argument to get new funding. We could ask the Bloomington campus to provide the funding, but I don't think that's a very likely possibility. So, it will come out of our own funding. I don't think i t's time yet for us to address exactly how that would be done, but I think it will probably be done by the units that are responsible for setting salaries. In other words, if you are in the School of Law and the School of Law is found to have three cases of salary inequity, the funding to address those inequities would have to come right out of the Law School budget.

Carlin: Just as an example, and it's partially also a response to the earlier question about what happened with the earlier study. John Barlow and the School of Liberal Arts, shortly after that, set up a system where one of the categories for sa lary that is investigated every year is equity adjustment and that of course does come out of the school budget.

Porter: Vice-President Palmer, do you have anything that you would like to add?

Palmer: No, I thank the Chancellor for answering that question. Even though Iím a graduate I donít have a printing press here. Maybe just another comment for those of you who may not be aware of the action taken by the Trustees. Not only was the issue of the compensation equity brought up to the Trustees and certainly it was reported that IUPUI was at the forefront of beginning this process, the President is now asking all the other campuses to join in and look at their own situations and follow a similar set of steps that have been outlined in general terms first, but then at specific cases as it is determined that there are inequities that appear to be showing up in the initial review.

The second part of the President's presentation, though, to the Trustees involved competitiveness. That will be an issue that will be considered as well during the coming months and while the peer groups for IUPUI and for the regional campuses are stil l in the process of being established, Bloomington did have a peer grouping of the Big Ten institutions, or the AAU. We presented information on both, but a conclusion was reached that they would attempt to get in the case of Bloomington, and similar goal s would be set for other campuses when those peer groups are established, but Bloomington will attempt to reach the 60th percentile or fourth place in the Big Ten in terms of faculty compensation. That is to address the competitiveness issue. A nd of course there are issues related to inequity that will have an impact on the overall salaries that are used to make comparisons. We are going back to the Trustees with that report later this year but it will be in place then for all of the campuses a nd I think that is a very important step that we were able to take with the Trustees in the meeting last week.

Finally, as has been referenced very quickly, all of you know that we have an 18-20 issue with regard to funding. Let me be very explicit. There are no changes being proposed in 18-20, and I will say that over and over again. But there are no changes b eing proposed. There will be a committee that will be established to look at how we are going to fund it because we have a gap between resources available as we do modeling and resources needed to meet the out-payoffs that will be required under 18-20 thr ough the conclusion of that program which we estimate now to probably have the last person leaving that program about the year 2031. The real peak year is 2011. That sounds like it is a long time away but in terms of when we start seeing this gap hit us, it is right now. We need to address that so the President is asking and putting together a committee to look at this and take recommendations back to the Trustees later this academic year.

Warfel: Before we leave the topic of the pay equity study, I would like to stress, and I think that one of the most important benefits of this study, aside from making things right for individuals who have been in a bad situation, one of the most i mportant things that will come out of this study is that it will focus our attention on how important it is to be up front about how salary decisions are made. In particular, what has been meritorious in terms of salary. We passed a salary policy at the u niversity in 1989. Schools have adopted salary policies in line with the university policy. The important aspect of those policies has to do with each unit or each department setting out its mission in writing what their local salary decision-making proce ss is going to be. This was all to evolve with the participation of the faculty at the local level or with their elected representatives. I know that some of our departments have simply not followed that policy and this will be a good time for this all to come to our attention. I think we have to be very fair in our salary procedures so I hope that one of the benefits of this whole process will be that each department is very up front about how their salary decisions are made.

Agenda Item VIII Question/Answer Period

Porter: We are now going to use our concluding five minutes to give the Chancellor an opportunity to answer the two questions that were submitted in writing, if there are no objections.

Bepko: Bob Martin is here now to answer those questions; one on safety and one on child care.

Martin: The first issue had to do with pedestrians moving across University Boulevard at North Street which would be just north of the hotel conference center as it t-bones into the outpatient clinic area of University Hospital. That is one of t hree sites that we have been working with the City on, for more traffic signals. I know personally that I have been working on it for over ten years. We have gotten approval from the City for two of those sites. One of them is that site at North and Unive rsity Boulevard. It has been engineered. We have gotten a variance from Clarion because we have to go onto a little bit of University property. There will be a traffic signal. It is our expectation that the City will be installing that light in the Novemb er/December period. The second light will be at Vermont and University Boulevard which is back by the Dental School. That is another one of our highly congested areas because of all of the pedestrian traffic from the parking lots across University Bouleva rd to Cavanaugh Hall. That has been engineered as well. I think the timetable on that is early spring. So, although I reported this in the past, I feel more confident that we're actually going to get it done this time because I do know that the engineerin g has been done and the light has been ordered. [Applause]

On the child care center, I think a calendar of events was presented to you in a meeting in the last couple of months but let me give you a quick status of where we are. We have completed what we call the economic analysis on the operation of the child care center. The reason that we did that was to give us the capability of determining from an operational standpoint--what we can financially afford to do. That has been completed. That is now being translated into a program statement which is really jus t describing now what type of child care center do we need, and this is also preparatory to architectural design. That will be completed within the next week. We will not go through an architectural selection process as we typically would on most construc tion projects because they are much larger. This being a smaller project, we will simply select one. Our next step after the program statement is done will be to select that architect so that we can begin the preliminary design. My original timetable was to be in that process by November.

Porter: Any questions? We have an opportunity for a thirty second question to the Chancellor.

Spechler: Has the Chancellor noticed just how many more informational notices are being taped to our elevators, walls, and restrooms this year than in the past, and does he think that this is making the campus uglier than any date before?

Bepko: I'd be happy to answer but the thirty seconds are up. [Laughter]

Agenda Item IX Unfinished Business

Agenda Item X New Business

Agenda Item XI Adjournment

Porter: I certainly don't hear any items of Unfinished Business or New Business. Do I?

Therefore, we stand adjourned (5:30 p.m.). Thank you.

Attachment: Agenda for November 6, 1997 Faculty Council Meeting.

[Minutes prepared by Faculty Council Coordinator, David Frisby, UN 403, 274-2215

(Fax 274-2970), fcouncil@iupui.edu : http://www.hoosiers.iupui.edu/faccoun/faccou.htm ]

 

___________________________________________________

[Attachment for FC971106 Minutes]

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

Faculty Council Meeting

School of Dentistry, Room 115

November 6, 1997

3:30 - 5:30 p.m.

AGENDA

I Call to Order

II Administrative Report: Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko

III President's Report: William Schneider

IV Vote on N - ACTION ITEM

V Copyright and Fair Use Proposal: Kenneth Crews

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION IUPUI Circular 98-131

VI Report on Research and Graduate Education at IUPUI: T.K. Li

DISCUSSION ITEM IUPUI Circular 98-14

[Previously distributed. If copies are needed, contact the Council Office at 274-2215.]

VII Commission on Women: Action Agenda and Pay Equity Study:

Kathleen Warfel, Paul Carlin DISCUSSION ITEM IUPUI Circular 98-152

VIII Question / Answer Period

IX Unfinished Business

X New Business

XI Adjournment

Attachments:

1Copyright and Fair Use Proposal (IUPUI Circular 98-13)

2Commission on Women: Action Agenda and Pay Equity Study (IUPUI Circular 98-15)