Minutes of the
Third Regular Meeting of the Twenty-Fourth Senate
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
November 8, 2004
12:00 P.M., Kettler G46
Agenda
1. Call to order
2. Approval of the minutes of October 18, 2004
3. Acceptance of the agenda – J. Grant
4. Reports of the Speakers of the Faculties
a. Purdue University – E. Blakemore
b. Indiana University – B. Fife
5. Report of the Presiding Officer – G. Bullion
6. Committee reports requiring action
7. New business
8. Committee reports “for information only”
Executive Committee (Senate Reference No. 04-5) – J. Grant
9. The general good and welfare of the University
10. Adjournment
Presiding Officer: G. Bullion
Parliamentarian: D. Turnipseed
Sergeant-at-Arms: G. Steffen
Secretary: J. Petersen
Senate Members Present:
B. Abbott, L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, S. Blythe, W. Branson, J. Brennan, M. Codispoti,
S. Davis, D. Erbach, C. Erickson, B. Fife, L. Fox, R. Friedman, J. Garrett, P. Goodmann,
J. Grant, T. Grove, S. Hannah, L. Hess, P. Iadicola, S. Isiorho, A. Karim, M. Lipman,
L. Meyer, G. Mourad, E. Neal, M. Nusbaumer, D. Oberstar, A. Perez, D. Ross,
G. Schmelzle, J. Tankel, S. Tannous, J. Toole, S. Troy, L. Wark, M. Wartell, N. Younis
Senate Members Absent:
R. Bean, P. Dragnev, D. Goodman, L. Kuznar, Z. Liang, L. Lin, N. McFarland,
M. Montesino, G. Moss, R. Murray, A. Mustafa, H. Samavati, G. Voland
Attachments:
“IU Mission Differentiation Project: Campus Conversation Questions” (Attachment A)
“Strategies for Excellence: The IPFW Strategic Plan (Annual Report for Year 3: 2003-2004)” (Attachment B)
Faculty Members Present: J. Clausen, S. Sarratore
Visitors Present: J. Dahl, R. Kostrubanic, P. McLaughlin, K. Woodard (Journal Gazette),
C. Yahne (Students Government)
Acta
1. Call to order: G. Bullion called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m.
2. Approval of the minutes of October 18, 2004: 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. Purdue University:
E. Blakemore:
1) At the last meeting of the Senate, I asked the chancellor who was serving on the search committee for the Affirmative Action Officer. It turned out that that committee was made up largely of vice chancellors. The faculty leaders met with the chancellor and vice chancellor, and we asked that there be faculty involvement in the interview process for the Affirmative Action Officer. Subsequently, an e-mail was sent to faculty requesting their input be given to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee looked at about 12 or 13 names of people who volunteered, so there was a lot of interest in it. Three names have been sent forward for faculty involvement in the interview process of the Affirmative Action Officer: Diane Taub, Chair of Sociology; Josué Njock Libii from Engineering; and Al Perez from Dental Education. I do want to thank the chancellor for being willing to have faculty involvement in this very important search.
2) I have also sent out an e-mail message, through Jacqui, to all the Purdue-affiliated faculty letting them know that, as Purdue Speaker, I will be addressing the Purdue Board of Trustees on the 19th of November. I am seeking input from Purdue faculty on items of interest that they would like me to present to the Purdue Board of Trustees, and I have received a very small number of replies. The replies I have received focus on issues such as particular graduate programs, the issue of the steward department for graduate programs (and I will speak about that in a moment), and also subsidized dental insurance for Purdue employees. Those are the only issues that anyone has brought up to me. So if anyone, including Indiana-affiliated faculty, has other issues, I encourage you to let me know.
3) In regard to the steward department, I talked to Steve Sarratore, and the good news on this issue is that the Purdue Graduate Council has approved language abolishing the steward department. For those of you who are not Purdue affiliated, what that basically means is that, if you are proposing a graduate program on the Purdue side on this campus, then the curriculum needs to be approved by the corresponding department at West Lafayette. The language has been approved. There are new changes that will have to take place in the graduate school before the steward department is gone, but we do seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel in that regard.
b. Indiana University:
B. Fife: By way of reminder, I invite all Indiana University-mission faculty to attend the dialogue about the future of this campus on Friday, November 12, from 1-3 p.m. in this room. The IU Mission Differentiation Project was initiated by President Herbert and has implications for this campus. So please attend if you can.
P. Iadicola: I would like some insight in terms of this mission differentiation issue. In my experience on the University Faculty Council, most issues that came before the council involved policy specific to Indiana University and the regional campuses. Consistently, there was very little impact for the IPFW campus primarily because, although they recognize this campus having an Indiana University mission, in terms of policies regarding education, generally, they were recognized as coming from Purdue University, or else a degree of autonomy was recognized relative to IU missions. Do you have information that would contradict that particular past history?
B. Fife: I do not. The only information I have, in hearing initially from the University Faculty Council that this project was going to be launched, has to do with the six questions that I forwarded to all IU-mission faculty (see Attachment A). I know nothing more about it than the six questions that you have all read. I would certainly agree with you that 95-99 percent of everything that goes on at the University Faculty Council has no direct bearing on this campus. I do think that in attending and participating in this dialogue, it would be helpful as we perhaps explore broader issues into the future regarding more autonomy for this campus. I do think that a broader discussion about issues relating to this campus in both Purdue and Indiana Universities would be prudent for us to have.
S. Hannah: The main part that is of great interest to us – to all IU faculty and this campus – is the discussion about the level and nature of degrees offered on each campus. That is very important to us as an institution. We do not need a project that comes up with some definition that would limit the range and the nature of degrees offered here. That is what they are talking about. True, the admissions policies make some of the questions less relevant than others, but what degrees we can offer and what level degrees we can offer are the kinds of things that are very much a part of this discussion. I think it is very important that IU-mission faculty be at that meeting, listen to the discussion, and share their thoughts.
P. Iadicola: Another issue that concerns Indiana University faculty is the issue of principle expectations regarding teaching and research. I understand, with this particular issue as it relates to the other Indiana University campuses in terms of faculty productivity, that there will be a change in emphasis in terms of faculty work, such that on campuses that principally are defined in terms of a research mission – I believe this is both IUPUI and Bloomington – it will be a continuation of teaching load reductions to allow and encourage research activity. The teaching expectations on those campuses that would be defined as being more teaching in terms of their mission may significantly increase to a 4-4 load. This is just what I had heard through the grapevine. I think that it is important for us to be there only if it is something that will have impact for us as Indiana University faculty in terms of both the degrees offered as well as the nature of our productivity.
B. Fife: I am not aware of any specific proposals to increase teaching loads to a 4-4 on regional campuses. I would oppose such a policy with great vigor, so I think that is another reason to be there. Perhaps we could air out that discussion on Friday. It probably is a good investment of two hours, not just for that issue, not just for degrees, but also for starting a dialogue about the future of our campus.
G. Bullion: I want to echo that same sentiment. I think the nature of the discussion that will be taking place is all the more reason why we are represented and are participating in that session on Friday: to help shape and hear discussions.
S. Hannah: I do not want anybody to think that Indiana University sets your workload policy. They do not.
5. Report of the Presiding Officer – G. Bullion:
I have one brief item to report. The Executive Committee was asked to discuss the issue of faculty members on sabbatical and their participation (or non participation) in committee actions and deliberations. I believe the intent was to ask the Executive Committee to develop a policy and proceed with some action on that; but after a period of discussion, we concluded that we could not, at this time, add anything constructive to this particular issue. We realize it is a problem, particularly if a committee gets hit with multiple members being on sabbatical at the same time. We felt that, at this stage, it was probably best to ask the committees, when they do get hit with that, to try to work a resolution within the framework of the policies that currently exist.
6. Committee reports requiring action: There were no committee reports.
7. New business: There was no new business.
8. Committee reports “for information only”:
Executive Committee (Senate Reference No. 04-5) – J. Grant:
J. Grant presented Senate Reference No. 04-5 (Items under Consideration by Senate Committees and Subcommittees) for information only.
9. The general good and welfare of the University:
J. Tankel: The Educational Policy Committee is proceeding with a plan to review and revise Senate Document SD 88-33: Goals and Objectives of the IPFW Baccalaureate Degree. You will be getting information shortly that we are going to have two open meetings on December 2 and December 6 (one in the afternoon and one in the morning). People will be invited to come to those meetings and offer their suggestions. There is a website that is being constructed which will have various kinds of information about the process and about the way in which Indiana University, Purdue University, and other campuses around the country have dealt with these changes. Please mark one of those two days on your calendar. You will get the information before Thanksgiving break. There will also be a survey which will be done with this process in mind. We want you to know this is the way we are going, and you will be contacted soon with other information about the open meetings.
M. Nusbaumer: I want to express my appreciation to Vice Chancellor Hannah and Chancellor Wartell for the recent letter in The Communicator supporting free speech on this campus.
G. Mourad: This is a follow up to Professor Iadicola’s point earlier. A new proposal was suggested by a committee of six business leaders in Indiana that Indiana University, Purdue University, and Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis should cut undergraduate enrollment and focus on research. The proposal also mentioned that by focusing more on research, IU and Purdue would generate their own finances and almost become semi-privatized. My questions are 1) How is this going to affect IPFW as far as state-support per pupil? Would that be a good point for us to go after, and 2) How is it going to affect research at IPFW as one of the criteria when we are looking at tenure and promotion? Is research going to be looked at a little differently, or are we going to still retain our same standards?
M. Wartell: The recommendations came from a legislative study commission, and they are exactly that: recommendations. It is hard to tell whether they will be accepted, rejected, or modified in any way. I do not think those recommendations will have an effect on the direction of this campus at this time. It could have an effect in the end, depending on how the community college is strengthened on enrollment.
G. Mourad: Is this going to become a public report?
M. Wartell: I think it is already public. I am sure you will be able to get copies and it will be on a website.
N. Younis: I would like to suggest that there be no organized events on campus during the Senate meetings. The reason I am mentioning this is that I am troubled that the School of Engineering Technology and Computer Science has scheduled two seminars in a row while the Senate is in session. As we speak, there is a seminar upstairs in KT 146. I do not know about the rules or procedures. Is this allowed?
G. Bullion: Would it be satisfactory to you to direct that question back to the Executive Committee for our next meeting? I think it would be a good starting place, and perhaps from within the Executive Committee there will be answers to that question.
M. Wartell: (The chancellor handed out the most current brochures of the Strategic Plan.) This brochure includes the financial information of the Strategic Plan. At a previous meeting someone had asked about the non-base-pay plan. I will report statistics on that at the December meeting. These bonuses will appear in the November paycheck. As some staff are paid bi-weekly, theirs will appear in a special paycheck on November 30. Those receiving an award will receive a letter.
S. Davis: Will there be a listing of who receives what?
M. Wartell: There will not be a published list. You will be personally notified. We do not publish a list of anything like that.
S. Davis: But salaries are contained on a list.
M. Wartell: Salaries are, but we do not publish a list.
M. Wartell: We will have the NCAA certification committee on campus for the next couple of days, so if you see them, let them know your thoughts. Also, I will be reporting on the requested athletic information at the next meeting.
10. The meeting adjourned at 12:23 p.m.
Jacqueline J. Petersen
Secretary of the Faculty