Minutes of the
Fourth Regular Meeting of the Twenty-Third Senate
December 8, 2003
Agenda
1. Call to order
2. Approval of the minutes of November 10, 2003
3. Acceptance of the agenda – J. Grant
4. Reports of the Speakers of the Faculties
a.
b.
5. Report of the Presiding Officer (Senate Reference No. 03-9) – R. Hess
6. Committee reports requiring action
a. Educational Policy Committee (Senate
b.
7. Question Time (Senate Reference No. 03-11)
8. New business
9. Committee reports “for information only”
a. Educational Policy Committee (Senate Reference No. 03-12) – B. Abbott
b. Curriculum Review Subcommittee (Senate Reference No. 03-13) – M. Codispoti
10. The general good and welfare of the University
11. Adjournment
Presiding Officer: R. Hess
Parliamentarian: D. Turnipseed
Sergeant-at-Arms: J. Njock Libii
Secretary: J. Petersen
Senate Members Present:
B. Abbott, P. Agness, R. Bean, L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, S. Blythe, W. Branson,
J. Brennan, G. Bullion, C. Chauhan, M. Codispoti, D. Erbach, C. Erickson, L. Fox,
R. Friedman, J. Grant, T. Grove, S. Hannah, L. Hess, P. Iadicola, A. Karim, J. Knight,
L. Kuznar, L. Lin, M. Lipman, L. Meyer, G. Mourad, A. Mustafa, E. Neal, M. Nusbaumer, D. Oberstar, A. Perez, J. Purse-Wiedenhoeft, D. Ross, H. Samavati, G. Schmelzle,
J. Tankel, J. Toole, L. Vartanian, G. Voland, M. Wartell, N. Younis
Senate Members Absent:
C. Carlson, N. Cothern, D. Goodman, P. Goodmann, S. Isiorho, Z. Liang, D. Marshall,
M. Montesino, M. Myers
Attachments:
“Amendment to Academic Regulations, Section 10.2, Requirements for Degrees” (SD 03-7)
“Results of the election of the Indiana University Faculty Board of Review” (SR 03-14)
“Presentation on the Strategies for Excellence: The IPFW Strategic Plan (Annual Report for Year 2: 2002-2003)” – M. Wartell (Attachment A)
Faculty Members Present: J. Clausen, J. Jones
Visitors Present: S. Alderman, J. Dahl, P. McLaughlin
Medical Education Representative: R. Sweazey
Acta
1. Call to order: R. Hess called the meeting to order at 12:02 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of November 10, 2003: The minutes were approved as distributed.
3. Acceptance of the agenda:
J. Grant moved to approve the agenda as distributed.
The agenda was approved as distributed.
4. Reports of the Speakers of the Faculties:
a.
M. Nusbaumer: One comment in an effort to try to dispel what appears to be a little bit of rumor and myth: After a long consultation with the current chair of the Indiana University Board of Review, it is important for me to state that some people perceive that the authority of the board has changed or diminished. There has been nothing that has shifted the jurisdiction, authority, or the practices of the Indiana University Board of Review.
b.
5. Report of the Presiding Officer (Senate Reference No. 03-9) – R. Hess:
I have two items to report to you. The first is that as you entered you were given the opinion of a university lawyer concerning the sense of the Senate resolution, as he calls it, that related to faculty members using their own books in classes. I think it is self explanatory. This issue came up some time ago, and the Senate passed a resolution which was strongly worded, I thought, in comparison to the opinion of the lawyer. The lawyer says in essence that “in those situations where a faculty member steadfastly believes that his or her textbook is the best instructional material for the class, the Senate could call on that person to rebate the royalty he or she receives from the book to the student, or as an alternative, pay the royalty into a university fund, etc.” He says that the Senate has no authority to compel such an action. I do not think it has been a problem. The people I know who have had textbooks have been very generous, and they truly use the textbooks because they thought it was the best material for the students.
My second report concerns Senate Reference No. 03-9. It is attached. It is simply a report of our activities and how they have been dispensed with.
6. Committee reports requiring action:
a. Educational Policy Committee (SD 03-7) – B. Abbott:
B. Abbott moved to approve SD 03-7 (Amendment to Academic Regulations). Seconded.
Motion to approve SD 03-7 passed on a voice vote.
b.
J. Toole and J. Petersen distributed ballots for the election of the Faculty Board of Review. The ballots were received by the Secretary. The results are attached. (See SR No. 03-14).
7. Question Time:
Q: There is currently a severe shortage of
full-time quality daycare for preschoolers in the
W. Branson: We have periodically considered reviving full-time daycare for IPFW students and staff.
In order to provide full-time care our program would have to be State licensed. To obtain this licensing would require us to meet all State operating requirements. While we comply with many of the State standards today, a couple of additional ones are cause for concern.
A requirement of a licensed full-time child care operation is the provision of food service. Since our current building does not have the kitchen facilities we would have to modify existing space or add on to the building to create a kitchen.
The staffing requirements for full-time care are higher than for part-time. This becomes an issue for full-time care particularly if we offer infant/toddler care. While our current staff-to-child ratios are sufficient to meet State standards for older children, infant/toddler care would require additional adult attendants.
Another concern is the lack of space. We are currently very close to full capacity in the current facility. More space would be needed if we added full-time care.
When all of these issues are considered together we feel that now is not the time to return to full-time daycare. We certainly recognize the desire for full-time care and its importance to IPFW students and staff and will continue to explore options that would provide this service.
E. Blakemore: Many of us used the child care on this campus when it was full-time – as the Vice Chancellor has pointed out “the return to full-time care.” It was a wonderful facility. There is a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education referring to the importance of women faculty, in particular, to have accessible full-time daycare for their children. I do not see this as a luxury, I see it as an essential part of what a university should be offering to its faculty.
M. Nusbaumer: I would like to echo Elaine Blakemore’s comments and also raise the additional factor here that in terms of faculty recruitment, such services become increasingly valuable as a recruitment tool. I would encourage a re-examination of the situation.
R. Hess: Would the re-examination include a cost analysis of all that is involved: the food service and so forth and/or a new or larger facility?
M. Nusbaumer: Yes.
J. Purse-Wiedenhoeft: My child is currently in the daycare, and I would not really want her in full-time, so that part is not as big of an issue for me. But it does feel tight and small to me already, so I think that is kind of a separate concern that maybe you should bring up another time. But as a faculty member, I think what we are being charged there is very reasonable. I would pay more money to have quality child care that was very accessible because it is very nice to come right here and take her and be right here to get her and know that if something crops up I am right here. That is a really nice thing. We did some recruiting this year. We actually did have child care and school issues that were brought up several times. It was not just school in general, it was the daycare issue as well. I think it should be looked into, such as financing, etc.
J. Toole: My daughter was in the IPFW daycare for a while, and then we needed full-time care. We were also very pleased with the service they offer, and when we wrote the question, specifically we wanted to make it clear that they do a great job -- it is just that a lot of parents need more.
As I was writing the question, I had in mind that this is expensive, at least to some degree. I do not know the cost, but clearly it will cost more money, and I know that money is tight. It just seemed like it would be an important priority that had been overlooked, and that perhaps we could look into it further.
E. Neal: You may not be aware that the daycare center is operated as a part of Student Affairs. One of the things that I would like to reinforce is that it is not only an issue of moving from part-time to full-time, but also the structure and facilities that we have. I think we are maxed out in terms of the use of facilities – currently. We do want to maintain quality - that is very important to us - the quality of the experience for the students. Although we are providing basic daycare, the staff will go beyond that in some learning experiences for the children as well. That is something that we will have to go into very cautiously and deliberately if we are going to make a wise choice in moving to full-time.
C.
Erickson: Would it be possible to start
thinking about, once we start getting a cost analysis, if we can kind of get
the ball rolling to see just how much money that would be, if it was going to
expand, and if it would be on that same site. This is not just a question for
idle consideration – I think many of us would really like to see IPFW expand in
this area. As was mentioned, it is
something about recruitment as well.
Potential faculty are considering a lot of options, and childcare is one
of those things. It is really hard to
find it in
R. Hess: Under general good and welfare, we are going to hear the Chancellor speak to their strategic planning and our goals that we have set for ourselves. I do not think that this discussion will be lost on the administration.
8. New business: There was no new business.
9. Committee reports “for information only”:
a. Educational Policy Committee (Senate Reference No. 03-12) – B. Abbott:
SR No. 03-12 (IPFW Repeat Policy) was presented for information only.
b. Curriculum Review Subcommittee (Senate Reference No. 03-13) – M. Codispoti:
SR No. 03-13 (Proposal for Modern Foreign Languages Name Change) was presented for information only.
R. Hess: It is not often that we are “present at the creation,” to borrow a term from a book written by Dean Acherson. But we are. One of the consequences of strategic planning and departmental review is the renaming of a department, and all I can say in response to Senate Reference No. 03-13 is “All hail the Department of Language and Cultural Studies!” We are impressed!
10. The general good and welfare of the University:
P. Iadicola: This is in regard to last meeting’s report from Vice Chancellor Hannah regarding compliance of the administration with SD 96-4, which is a Senate resolution asking for administrators with academic rank to teach one class per academic year.
Being the author of that resolution back in 1996, I wanted to remind the Senate as to why I feel that it was an important resolution. I think there were two issues involved in terms of the discussion on SD 96-4.
a) It was important to me that administrators who are making decisions regarding tenure and promotion and reappointment to continue having experience in the classroom to know what the experience of our faculty are, in terms of the students we teach here at IPFW, and to keep them in touch with the major activity of faculty at this university, which is teaching. I still think that is a very important reason to ask for full compliance for SD 96-4.
b) In terms of the administrative personnel with academic rank they hold, in general, the highest rank of faculty at this university. I personally thought that it would be important not to deprive the students of this university of those who are some of our more accomplished faculty in terms of classroom time and mentoring. I noticed in terms of the report that was submitted last meeting that, first of all, the report appears to be incomplete. There are several administrative personnel with academic rank who were excluded from the list. I also noticed that of the administrators listed, only three of the eleven are actually in full compliance with SD 96-4. I ask for the good and welfare of the university that the administration consider trying to fully implement this resolution and to encourage faculty who are administrators to take on the responsibility. I understand it is at times difficult to juggle the three balls of research, service, and teaching. I understand that given their particular position, they are administrators principally, but I do encourage them to try to improve their record of compliance with this resolution.
R. Hess: The Chancellor would like to report on our progress toward strategic plans and goals for the university.
M. Wartell: We report each year on the progress of the Strategic Plan to the Board of Trustees, and this is the report that we presented this year. When we gave the previous report, the Trustees wanted targets for each of our areas. So, this report is full of data and targets. The other thing I would point out is that in the first couple of charts, there are three years of data reported because we have hard data for this fall. That really falls outside of the purview of the report, but we put it in there anyway. In this report, we either report above, below, or progress. Being “above” has to do with being ahead of our goals for the two years in comparison to the five-year goal, “progress” means we are seeing progress but we are not there yet, and “below” means we are definitely falling short. You can judge that for yourselves as I show it to you.
Chancellor Wartell presented a PowerPoint presentation on the Strategies for Excellence: The IPFW Strategic Plan (Annual Report for Year 2: 2002-2003). (See Attachment A, attached.)
This is a fairly busy chart. We had promised to do the best in specific ways throughout the university with the funds that were garnered as the result of the increase in fees – a $17/hour increase in fees for freshmen two years ago. This is an accounting of where we put those funds. We are way over 100% because we have also been able to invest our enrollment change funding. If we had not been growing, we would not have been able to make those extra investments.
J. Grant: What is the defense industry partnership with the university?
M. Wartell: In
E. Blakemore: Somewhere along the line, you said something like you recall that we lost a large grant that funded 200 graduate students or something like that?
M. Wartell: We did not lose it. It just ended. It was the literacy grant. Those students were taking six hours, and when that ended we lost all of those graduate enrollment students.
C. Erickson: Is this available on the web?
M. Wartell: This will be in the minutes.
J. Brennan: How are the general and the athletic graduating rates computed?
M. Wartell: They are computed using the six-year graduation rate. It is according to an NCAA formula, actually. When you look at US News and World Report, for example, they are using that NCAA formula, six-year graduation rate. It is a cohort graduation rate that looks at the students when they start, then goes six years out and asks whether they have gotten their degree.
J. Brennan: I figured that is what the situation would be athletic-wise, but is it the same for the general graduates?
M. Wartell: Yes. In an institution like ours which has many associate-degree programs and part-time students, calculating a six-year graduation rate puts us at a significant disadvantage. You will find that our graduation rate is very similar to those of all of the other regional campuses, and for other commuter, part-time institutions. That is why things will change considerably as we increase our number of full-time students. The other issue is that we have a lot of students who do not drop out of the university but go from full-time to part-time and back to full-time, etc. Thus, it’s a little bit hard in a university like ours to compute graduation rates in a really logical and consistent fashion.
M. Nusbaumer: The Lilly Foundation has just given out lots of money to universities to retain college graduates in the state. What are the implications for us?
M. Wartell: We will get a part of it. Carl Drummond has been working with
that. Susan Hannah can probably speak
more to that.
S. Hannah: They put in a proposal, that we are part of, which has four or five different parts. Some of it we automatically get, and some of it we have to bid for. It is a combination of money tied to economic development and “brain drain.” It is aimed at developing paid internships and opportunities for students to work with local businesses, particularly start-up businesses, in the hopes of enticing them to stay here. There is also money for a business competition in there. The whole thing is aimed at, much like the First Year Experience program, to hook students into something so that they will neither leave the university nor the community. So we are very much part of that. We may have an embarrassment of riches, which would be wonderful.
M. Wartell: One of the things, we believe, is that
internships are very important to keeping students in the immediate area –
getting them tied to a business. Then,
the business gets tied to them and offers them jobs. A lot of small industries in the state of
L.
Vartanian: The prior slide that showed
the areas of investment: In which
category would something like the
M. Wartell: It could fall under new programs, faculty, or
student support. It could fall under any
of those areas. Let me talk a little bit
about the
G. Voland: Our freshmen in Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science - about a hundred of them - have been working on posters that are on display in the Engineering Technology lobby. What we asked is that the students team up into twos or threes, go around the campus, and look at situations that could be improved through the use of technology and then present the problem, their proposed solution, and their cost estimate. What I told them was to stay within $1000 as a cost estimate, so it has to be something that is very focused. The reason I did that is that I also told them that I would implement the three best solutions. I expect, since these are freshmen, that their cost estimation will be a little off, so I may have to work with other people on campus and the administration to find additional monies. Basically these are fresh eyes who will look at the university in ways different from the rest of us. I have learned over the years that students can be very creative.
Secondly, it is a way of emphasizing to them that technology is used to improve the quality of life for other people, and that that is why they are going into these fields.
Thirdly, it gives them a sense of control and influence over the campus. If you have the opportunity, we have ballots in the lobby asking the community to pick their top three choices. If you have time today (the displays will be there until tonight) walk by and take a look at some of the ideas that they have proposed. I would appreciate that.
11. The meeting adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
Jacqueline J. Petersen
Secretary of the Faculty