MINUTES OF THE

FACULTY CONVOCATION

 

Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne

FEBRUARY 28, 1994 - 12:00 NOON

KETTLER G46

 

 

AGENDA

 

1.    Call to order - F. Kirchhoff

 

2.    Acceptance of the agenda - A. Dirkes

 

3.    Report of the Presiding Officer - F. Kirchhoff

 

4.   

Dialogue with Walter P. Helmke and

 

Other Members of the Community Advisory Council

 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE FACULTY

 

       ·        As IPFW has grown and matured, substantial changes have occurred in our relationships with Indiana and Purdue universities.  What directions do you foresee such changes taking over the next 5-10 years, and what specific benefits do you see these changes yielding for the three institutions involved?

 

       ·       What is the status of the search for a chancellor for IPFW?

 

       ·       How is the new Management Agreement working so far?

 

       ·       What are the issues that are preoccupying members of the CAC?

 

       ·        What is the CAC's interpretations of the provisions in the Management Agreement regarding student affairs?

 

       ·        In light of the State's open-door law, how can the CAC justify its decision to hold closed meetings?

   

       Questions and statements from the floor will be accepted as time permits.

 

 

5.    New business

 

6.    Adjournment

Acta

 

 

1.    F. Kirchhoff called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.

 

2.    A. Dirkes moved to accept the agenda.  The agenda was accepted as distributed.

 

3.    Report of the Presiding Officer.  F. Kirchhoff had no report.

 

4.    F. Kirchhoff: The purpose of today's meeting is for a dialogue with Walter Helmke and two members of the Community Advisory Council (CAC).  Walter Helmke is in the middle here.  Rebecca Teagarden and William Black are two members of the CAC.  We will begin with Walter Helmke speaking and he will answer the questions that were submitted by the Faculty in advance of this meeting.  After that we will have open discussion and comment.

 

       W. Helmke: First of all, on behalf of Bill Black and Rebecca Teagarden, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Faculty Convocation this noon.  Ann Dirkes and I first started talking about getting together in early January.  We finally arrived at today's date to discuss the views and questions that you have, to discuss some thoughts that we have regarding the relationship between the CAC and the Faculty and, of course, the University at large.  Of course, the University at large is what the CAC is most interested in.  We view the University, IPFW, as a community asset: one with which the three of us and the six others on the CAC have been very active in for many years.  We like to think of it as a community treasure; a community asset that we would like to see continue to remain strong for many years to come.  After all, both IU and its original extension and Purdue and its extension have been in Fort Wayne for some 60 to 70 years.  We are very proud of that heritage of IU and Purdue, and we will get into that a little later.  Ann sent to me several questions submitted by the Faculty and Bill and Becky and I will address those.  I told Fred that we would address the questions first and then have responses, comments and questions by the Faculty and any other questions you may wish to propound to us.  I understand from Ann that the meeting is to be adjourned by 1:15. 

 

       Q: What is the status of the search for a chancellor for IPFW?

 

       W. Helmke: I will take up the Chancellor Selection Advisory Committee, which is comprised of eleven members; Becky and I are the chair and vice chair of the Chancellor Selection Advisory Committee representing the CAC.  The other nine members are members of the faculty, staff and administration of IPFW and several of them are here today.  The status is such that I can tell you that at the present time we are conducting telephone interviews with several of the candidates. . . .  Originally there were 62 candidates for the position of Chancellor, and we have now narrowed that down to seven individuals.  We are presently conducting telephone interviews with those seven candidates.  The committee is meeting this afternoon after we conclude here at 1:30 to continue those telephone interviews.  The plan then is to submit to President Beering five or six of those names, or whatever we decide to submit.   It may be four or five or three.  It hasn't been decided yet.  They will be invited to the campus for presentations to the Chancellor Selection Advisory Committee, then to meet with faculty members, with staff members and with Chancellor Lantz, and also to meet with student representatives in the student area.  Many of you have gone through this exercise before.  You know how that works.  And of course we will keep you informed as to the specific times and dates that the candidates will be coming here to the campus.  Eventually we will get down to where the Chancellor Selection Advisory Committee will nominate three people and, I hope, those three will be equally thought of in our minds as desirable chancellor candidates.  Those three names will then be submitted to President Beering, and President Beering and the Purdue Board of Trustees, in consultation with the IU President and his Board, will make the final selection.  So the final selection of Chancellor will be among three candidates that we submit.  We will not make that final decision.  President Beering, President Ehrlich and the Purdue and IU boards will make that final decision.  So that's where we stand in that regard.  We have a timetable where we hope to have the candidates in here, the final three or four or five, maybe, sometime during the month of March at varying stages.  Our self-imposed deadline is April 1 to submit three names to President Beering.  He and his board and President Ehrlich and his board will make a decision, I hope in April, and announce it, we hope, before the final Commencement on May 11. 

 

        Q: As IPFW has grown and matured, substantial changes have occurred in our relationships with Indiana and Purdue universities.  What directions do you foresee such changes taking over the next 5-10 years, and what specific benefits do you see these changes yielding for the three institutions involved?

 

       W. Helmke: I would like to ask Becky and Bill to address those questions.

 

       R. Teagarden: I am an alum of IPFW.  I have my degree from the School of Business and Management Sciences and I have a daughter who is a sophomore here.  My involvement goes back a few years and has been, I feel, very involved as a parent, a student and an alum.  A change that I have seen is an awareness of our own identity.  Speaking on behalf of the alumni, we have spent about 18 months putting together a five-year, long-range plan because, as an alum, it is very difficult to have a sense of identity.  I am an IU graduate and I get a lot of things from Bloomington that I could not care less about.  I care more about IPFW.  So some of the things that we are doing to help with our own identity crisis is that we are going to a unified board.  We will have one board instead of a Purdue board and an IU board.  That transition has taken place over the last two years because the two boards have started to meet jointly for about the last four or five years.  We knew eventually that was going to happen.  For the upcoming year we will have one president, one vice president, one secretary, and, for at least this time period, we will continue to have two treasurers because of the differences in the money and the dues and so forth.  We are actively working with campus representatives from Bloomington and West Lafayette to rectify that situation where you can eventually be a member of an IPFW alumni association.  Quite frankly, that does not exist.  We call ourselves the IPFW Alumni Association.  We are putting together a marketing plan and our own logo and our own banner on our newsletters and so forth.  But as you all know we are either members of the Indiana University or the Purdue University alumni associations.  As an alum we have a really good relationship with IU-Bloomington.  The relationship with Purdue-West Lafayette continues to get better and better as they recognize us--as they allow representatives from our campus to attend certain meetings and sessions.  We really see an improvement in that regard and they are starting to listen to more of our needs.  I talk to a lot of faculty.  I keep in touch with faculty from the School of Business.  I am very close with the athletic department.  My daughter does play on the women's volleyball team.  I am very close to what is happening there. 

 

       I genuinely care about IPFW.  I am a graduate of IPFW, not Indiana University, even though that is what my degree says.  Quite frankly, my resume says that.  I do work out in the field and I wouldn't be where I am today without that degree from IU and the School of Business; my connections here are invaluable.  What I hope to continue seeing are the changes that we can continue to seek our own identity beyond just the alumni association and other things that I see happening with athletics and so forth.  It is my strong desire that all of your efforts and the issues that you are bringing up about more fiscal and academic autonomy don't stop.  Tomorrow the CAC is having lunch with those two facilitators that are coming to town to discuss the issue that Win Moses has raised in the Legislature.  I personally called Win Moses and thanked him for doing that.  The alumni are going to be very active in helping IPFW.  But I do not advocate total autonomy and total independence.  At this point I do not advocate a Fort Wayne University or anything like that.  I am very optimistic about some of the changes that have taken place, including the Management Agreement, and how we can continue to move forward.  Many, many alumni feel the same way that I do and I am in contact with them on a weekly basis.  I really do support all of you and some of you were my teachers when I was here.  That's kind of frightening--I'm down here and you're up there.  Actually I kind of like it better this way.

 

       I don't know if I really answered this question.   I just wanted to share with you my thoughts and hope that I do a good job representing the alumni on the CAC and hope that I speak on behalf of some of you.  I would be glad to talk in more detail at any point also.  Bill, is there anything that you would like to add?

 

       W. Black: To answer a multi-page agreement with one statement I can't do.  Walter probably could.  Being an engineer from an out-of-state school, which some people don't seem to like sometimes, I was appointed by President Beering to represent Purdue, so you know the background I am coming from.  Is it working?  The Management Agreement, I think, is doing one thing I think is very essential.  Let's take the case of benefits and salaries.  To have two people working side-by-side having the same job basically and being given different benefits just doesn't make sense.  I came from a multi-corporation that had corporate headquarters and about seven companies and you don't dare have different salaries under certain conditions or everyone is up in arms.  It can't be done.  That's the reason for it and that's the job content.  So, if anything, I am pleased that the agreement is trying to do that.  It also gives you the option of saying, I don't want that; I'd rather be independent like I was before.  I like those benefits better.  You have that option under the Grandfather Clause, which I think is great.  But I am also not in agreement with having an independent college or university in this facility.  To have the two by name with one board is an accomplishment.  My father-in-law is from Purdue; he couldn't believe it.  He said, "they can't be in one building.  It just can't happen."  It has happened and it is working, but you need some common sense both with you and with the students.  I won't cover what some of those things have to be conventionally--common things that actually are different here than at these other campuses.  That is one of my concerns.  I think it is working the best it can.  It's not perfect.  It never will be perfect from your standpoint or from an individual perspective.  It can't be perfect.  Life isn't that way.

 

       Q: What is the CAC's interpretations of the provisions in the Management Agreement regarding student affairs?

 

       W. Helmke: The Management Agreement has only been in effect now since July 1 of 1993.  It is a five-year agreement.  For those of you who are familiar with the document, on page 5, paragraph c, it says "Purdue shall be responsible for all policies related to student matters.  IPFW Student Rights, Responsibilities and Standards of Conduct will be established by campus administrators in consultation with the student/faculty government organizations and with the IPFW advisory council and shall be consistent with the principles established by Purdue and Indiana universities."  First of all, I would like to thank Fred and the Fort Wayne Senate for sending us the minutes of the various meetings.  I know you have questions and concerns about the fact that the resolution of IPFW's Senate indicates a disagreement with the policy established by the Purdue University Board of Trustees in that the two words--sexual orientation--were not included in the student organization and discipline code.  The CAC did discuss that at its meeting in October, as I recall, and the Purdue University Board of Trustees had already established a policy leaving the words "sexual orientation" out of the Code.  Purdue University differs from the IU Board of Trustees because the IU Board of Trustees and its President did include the words "sexual orientation" in his code which is different, of course, from Purdue.  Under the terms of the Management Agreement, Purdue shall be responsible for all policies related to student matters.  Our CAC discussed the situation.  It is the decision of the Purdue Board to leave those two words out.  So, regardless of how our CAC felt, we had no input into that decision.  We were not asked for input.  We discussed it at our meeting in October and reported by letter to Joanne.  I think she probably then reported to the Faculty Senate.  As the IU appointee to the CAC, I agree with IU's position that the two words should have been included.  It is one of those things that, although the CAC took no vote on it--because we have no official policy-making position--that is how I feel.  Mrs. Teagarden and Mr. Black may feel differently about that, but that is how I feel personally.  It should have been included.  But it is not our decision to make.

 

   ·    Q: In light of the State's open-door law, how can the CAC justify its decision to hold closed meetings? 

 

       W. Helmke: We discussed that prior to this new Management Agreement--prior to the appointment of the nine persons on the CAC.  Chancellor Lantz, and prior chancellors, have invited a number of faculty, administration, and staff to various meetings of the CAC.  Prior to the new Management Agreement there was some twenty-five to thirty-five members of that advisory council.  Under the new Management Agreement there are nine of us: three appointed by the IU president (myself, Carolyn Gutman and John Walda); three are appointed by the Purdue president, and three are appointed by Chancellor Lantz.  We decided at the October meeting, because of a number of discussions related to the selection of the chancellor and other areas involving personnel, not to open the meetings to the public--I presume from your standpoint that means the faculty--but to operate on an invitation-only basis.  So Chancellor Lantz and I, prior to the October and December meetings and soon the March and May meetings, determine what the agenda will be.  We invite various individuals to those meetings and we don't take any votes on anything.  We receive reports.  Now, reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of any law.  That is what makes lawsuits and that's what has kept me in business now for the last 42 years.  The open-door law says "that a governing body is two or more individuals who are a public agency that is a board, a commission, an authority, a council, a committee, a body or an entity and takes official action on public business."  We do not take official action on public business.  We take no action whatever.  We are the chancellor's advisory committee and we have been such for many years.  If someone wishes to institute legal action to change that then of course that's up to that individual.  My thought is this, eight of the nine members on the council, were present last October when the decision was made to close the council meetings.  One member was absent: John Walda, an appointee of Indiana University and an IU trustee.  John and I have discussed the matter on several occasions and he differs from the rest of us.  So, if John is there at the next meeting, and he intends to be, we will discuss the matter again.  More than likely we will make a determination again as to what to do.  Of course, the new chancellor who will be selected in May or June might have a different opinion.  So, for right now the meetings are closed, but the May meeting, if we have a new chancellor selected by then, or if we have some differing opinions things may be different.  I would like to personally recommend to the council that we invite several members of the Fort Wayne Senate in to discuss the situation.  I can assure you we take no official action of any decisive nature and, obviously, you can see that because we have no input whatsoever into the student code.

 

       Q: What are the issues that are preoccupying members of the CAC? 

 

       W. Helmke: Primarily we are discussing the chancellor's selection, budgetary matters, and retention and recruitment of minority students.  Those are some of the things we have discussed over the past two meetings and will be discussed in the future. 

 

       Q: How is the new Management Agreement working so far? 

 

       W. Helmke: Bill Black addressed that.  Becky has talked about some of the changes she hopes to see, particularly as far as alumni relationships are concerned.  I would like to see at some point in the future some limited residential facilities.  The timetable is such that the campus across the way--the old McKay farm which has been purchased by four of the foundations and trusts in Fort Wayne and given to IPFW--requires a plan to be submitted for development by 1997.  So, three years from now I hope we will have a plan that will be submitted to the Purdue and IU boards, to the CAC, and to the faculty.  All of you, I hope, will have some input into that.  I personally would like to see some limited residential facilities.  I don't think this is ever going to be a residential campus, but I think that some limited residential facilities can certainly be worked out.  I've talked with some people in town that work in constructing those kinds of facilities who could build them, own them, and lease them to the university.  Which I think from a standpoint of financial accountability might be fairly practical.  That is one of the changes I certainly would like to see.  I certainly would like to see the eventual appropriation by the General Assembly and the State Budget Office of funds allowing Purdue to issue bonds to build the science building.  I think that is an urgent necessity and, although it's not going to happen this year in the short session.  I would certainly hope that all of us could have some influence with our legislators who are elected this fall to see if we can't push once again for that science building or the funding for it for next year.  With that I think we have pretty well covered some highlights of the questions that you asked.

 

       J. Lantz: With regards to the science building, Mr. Helmke may think it's over, but we don't think it's over yet.  I just signed letters to every legislator and there will be some follow-up phone calls.  It ain't over till the fat lady sings.  We're not giving up.

 

       W. Helmke: We shouldn't give up, but I think the tenor so far doesn't indicate there's going to be approval.  If it doesn't happen this year, definitely all of us are going to have to push for that next year.

 

       A. Finco:  In reference to the student code, I got the impression from your answer that the CAC is not going to give any statements of advice other than the ones they are being asked to. 

 

       W. Helmke: Yes, that's right.

 

       A. Finco: I find that rather limiting as far as the board is concerned.  You talked about closed meetings, and the reason that I hear why you have closed meetings is that you don't, according to the law, have to have open meetings.  Why would that be the determiner?

 

       W. Helmke: First of all, I said they had not been closed.  It was something we did because of some personnel information we were discussing; of course personnel decisions can always be done behind closed doors.  It seems that from the standpoint of the CAC that seems to be the bulk of what we discuss.  Let me read paragraph 14 of the Management Agreement which I think is important for all of us: . . .  "The Trustees of Indiana and Purdue, recognizing the need for IPFW to develop unique policies and practices in support of its own mission, ask the Presidents to encourage within the University systems opportunities for flexibility and autonomy and ask the Chancellor to consult regularly with the IPFW Community Advisory Council about such policies and practices."  I think this has really been a transition year with Chancellor Lantz leaving and with our thoughts directed toward getting a new chancellor.  I would like to see the CAC take a stronger pro-active role as far as IPFW is concerned.  I discussed that with both Presidents Ehrlich and Beering and they want to see that evolve, too.  If I had a guess, and I am just one out of nine, that probably with the appointment of a new chancellor in May or June that our meetings, henceforth, will be open once we get that behind us.  We're not hiding anything.

 

       A. Finco: I didn't think you were.

 

       W. Helmke: I would like to see us, as I said, take a pro-active role for flexibility and autonomy.  Becky also talked about autonomy and I'll have Bill address that point, too.  I believe in greater flexibility as far as the financial aspects of this campus are concerned.  I do not believe in complete independence where you have a University at Fort Wayne or a University of Northeast Indiana.  The CAC has discussed that and that should be discussed openly.  I think all nine of us have concluded that that is not something we advocate--an independent university like the University of Southern Indiana.  We prefer to remain with Purdue granting degrees and Indiana granting degrees, but with greater flexibility.  I think the words flexibility and autonomy are the two key words in this Management Agreement.  This is what we want to encourage in our dialogue with the university presidents, with the university boards.

 

       M. Downs: I want to urge the CAC, when it takes the matter up again in May, to consider that closed meetings make real leadership difficult.  You have to hold open meetings and receive information from a variety of people and constituencies and make formal and open recommendations regarding the very matters that you just referred to.  I was wondering if you could clear up another matter.  Early on there was a fairly widespread rumor that members of the administrative staff and others were not to approach members of the CAC individually to talk about policy matters.  Is that your understanding? 

 

       W. Helmke: I am not aware of that.  Bill or Becky?

 

       R. Teagarden: I'll talk to anybody.

 

       W. Helmke: The Chancellor has never imposed any kind of prohibition on any of her administrative staff as far as talking, Mike. 

 

       W. Black: We all get letters.

 

       M. Downs: Good.

 

       W. Helmke: You and I have talked on the phone.  Bill, do you want to address that?

 

       W. Black: There are a couple of issues I would like to address.  First of all, your real concern for closed or open meetings is not a big issue with me.  You have to operate differently if it's open or if it's closed.  For example, if it is an open meeting anybody can show up just to harass.  It has happened.  It does happen.  And you can't do anything when that does happen.  Nothing can be discussed; you can't get anything done.  Therefore, if you have open meetings then you must have executive sessions.  There are some things you can't talk about in front of other people.  Whether they are newspaper people or not.  You don't discuss the merits or demerits of any of you in this room openly in front of people.  Sometimes such matters must be discussed.  We discuss those things.  Therefore, if you have an open meeting, the only way you can get things discussed is to have a closed meeting somehow.  We would ask an attorney to tell us how to have a closed meeting.  Then we are back to having a closed portion of the meeting and people don't like that either.  Therefore, if you don't like people to talk about things, then have an open meeting.  I have mixed reactions with both, really.  Neither one by itself will work.  You need input and yet you need some confidential areas for talking.

 

       M. Downs: I don't think anybody is taking issue with that.  I serve as chair of a state commission.  We hold open meetings.  We receive information.  We take testimony from people about important matters.  We haven't had anybody come and upset the meetings.  I think, given the number of public meetings that are held in this state, the number of occasions that people disrupt meetings is very small.  I think the benefit from receiving information from different people and being open to it creates an opportunity for boards to lead.  Personnel matters can always be discussed in closed meetings.  That's what the law allows; that's what good practice dictates.  The idea of holding meetings with no published agenda so that we don't know what's being discussed--so that whatever advice is given, we don't know what the advice has been--is not the way we would like to have it work.  We would like to have meetings where this kind of testimony can be taken and sentiment can be expressed without violating the right to hold executive meetings on those matters which would be inappropriate to discuss in public.

 

       W. Black: I guess I should give some background about why I feel the way I do about private meetings.  At the utility company we have to work with various agencies in the state as well as the federal government and for three individuals you don't dare invite two of them to take a trip with you somewhere because someone will ask "What is a meeting?"  If any two ever get together, that's a meeting.  Therefore, of three people two of them can't even get in the same office to talk about something.  That's a meeting.  Therefore anyone is allowed to come to it.  It doesn't work.  Sometimes people push the extreme position to where it is unworkable.  Therefore, I have to be very careful.

 

       M. Downs: We are not advocating the extreme position. 

 

       W. Black: No, you're not.  But somebody will.  The question is how do you handle that.

 

       M. Downs: Most boards and commissions are very successful.

 

       R. Barrett: I would like to go back to something that Becky brought up and I think it has to do with our image in the community and this hidden treasure we sometimes talk about.  With a new chancellor, could we ask the CAC to really look at some key things that you can do over the next three to five years that would really add impact.  I know you talked about a couple.  Becky talked about the alumni association.  It bothers me to go to graduation.  We have the IU alumni and the Purdue alumni at the graduation ceremony and we don't hear anything about any of us.  I think if your group took that on as an issue you could actually talk to the people and say this is what it is going to take to get housing, and this is what it's going to take to get the building.  I would like to ask the CAC, starting next fall, to sit down and look at four or five or six areas that you really can change for us in this community and do a little strategic planning.  We could give some input and help marshall our forces and make some changes for us.

 

       W. Helmke: Very good point, Bob.

 

       R. Teagarden: What the alumni did at the December meeting . . . was to present our long-range overview to the CAC to let them know the four main ideas that we are working on.  One is the marketing strategy to help with our identity and all the issues surrounding that.  Another one is to be very involved with campus affairs--more of a government relations type of committee so that strategic committees, such as search and screen, always have the alumni represented.  In the past that hasn't always been the case.  The third issue was the unified board and the fourth issue was the development of the McKay farm.  We are in the process of spearheading a project.  There are two engineering classes that are working with a group of alumni to put together a plan on how best to utilize that acreage over there.  Our primary focus is to develop an alumni house so that the alumni have an identity, perhaps either by turning the farm house and/or the existing barn into an alumni house.  We have a meeting this Wednesday with Wayne Unsell and the students on where they stand with the preliminary drawings and ideas.  We brought this idea to the CAC and they supported it.  Two or three members have individually contacted me and asked how they can help.  We want to be continually updated.  I think if you go at it from that standpoint, the CAC members are extremely supportive.  We have met with both John Walda and Bob Jesse to get their approval on behalf of the IP Foundation to proceed. 

 

       R. Barrett:  I feel that your nine-member group is so vital to us.  It is a nice small group and really gets things done.  With Mr. Helmke's leadership and yours and the others to come with those strategic issues would really be a big benefit.

 

       R. Teagarden: I really see us going that way and we have only had two meetings under the new structure.

 

       W. Black: There appears to be a feeling that we are restricted on what we can talk about or make suggestions on.  I personally don't see any restrictions.  There are always ways--Machiavellian ways and non-Machiavellian ways--to get something on the agenda.  I don't know of anything that has not been put on the agenda in the two meetings that we wanted to talk about.  There are ways of doing it.  You can let us know.  There are a lot of things we want to talk about ourselves. 

 

       R. Teagarden:  I was on the CAC prior to this reorganization; we all were.  And I don't really see our meetings being a whole lot different, but then we did have administrative people that came and our agenda was already set.  Joanne always solicits from all of the CAC members any ideas on things we would like to see put on the agenda.

 

       J. Smulkstys:  I would like, first of all, to agree with Art and Bob.  I think the committee can play a very important role for us and for the community, but I got the impression from your reports that you take a somewhat narrow interpretation of the Management Agreement.  As you probably know, this past summer a faculty/ administrative task force on this campus worked on this proposal and, although there were some minor disagreements, on most important issues the administrative group and the faculty group appointed by this Senate agreed that we need much more autonomy than we have.  One of the manifestations of this autonomy in the new proposal was to be a much strengthened CAC.  In fact, originally we even called it simply the IPFW Board.  We wanted this body eventually to become our own board of trustees--although none of us had a desire to make this a separate institution--but genuinely autonomous with its own fiscal agency.  We did not get this.  The Management Agreement that came out of it watered down the proposed board, its organization and its powers.  One of the arguments advanced against the board that we initially proposed was that there might be some conflict of interest--that there are two universities here and two universities there and how could you reconcile that.  Somewhat similar arguments to the arguments that the students here and the faculty here cannot make their own decisions because their own interests are involved in that.  So many of us on this task force consisting of faculty and administration that worked last summer felt that you, the council, could speak on behalf of the community when you address the presidents of Indiana and Purdue universities and their respective boards.  This would not be self-serving faculty or students.  This would be representation of genuine community interests.  So my advice or plea is that you take a more active role.  That, for example, if Purdue University, or Indiana University says you cannot do this because this is how we do it in West Lafayette or Bloomington that you would sometimes challenge that view and present rational arguments that it should be done.  This in my opinion also argues for open meetings--not open meetings as you suggested, Mr. Black, where anybody can show up and cause trouble--but open meetings in a sense that student representatives and faculty representatives could come to your meetings and present their views and participate in discussions so that when you talk to Purdue or Indiana universities you really have the entire campus community and, I hope, the entire community behind you.

 

       W. Helmke: The point is well taken.  I appreciate that.  Along that line, as Becky mentioned, the Commission on Higher Education has retained two consultants from out of state who will be on the campus tomorrow and Wednesday to talk to Chancellor Lantz, administrators, faculty, and staff and have lunch with us tomorrow noon.  Let me just read to you the House Concurrent Resolution that was submitted last year.

 

                  Study all matters related to the increased academic and fiscal autonomy of Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, the identification of regional needs justifying expansion of graduate programs, and the development and implementation of policies and programs to promote the greater integration of IPFW with the economic and cultural communities of the northeastern region of Indiana.

 

       I think that speaks to your point sir about the fact that we are in a unique situation here different from Monroe County or Tippecanoe County.  This resolution certainly is one that is going to be discussed over the next two days now.  I am sure that some of you are on the agenda, aren't they Joanne?

 

       Lantz: We put out a preliminary agenda and then asked for any comments.  I think we have accommodated everyone who asked to be put on the agenda.

 

       W. Helmke: I looked at the agenda and it is certainly full from morning until night for both Tuesday and Wednesday.  I hope that those who are on the agenda take the opportunity.

 

       D. McCants: I have a follow-up question to your answer to the question on the agenda about the CAC's interpretations of the provisions of the Management Agreement regarding student affairs.  I think I heard you say that the CAC believes that it does not have any authority regarding student affairs policies.  That may very well indeed be an accurate reading of the Management Agreement, however, the Management Agreement does certainly give to the CAC some authority and/or responsibility in the student affairs area.  I would appreciate not knowing just what responsibility the CAC thinks it doesn't have, but I would like to know what authority or responsibility the CAC believes it does have?

 

       W. Helmke: I read the first sentence of that paragraph C on page 5.  "Purdue shall be responsible for all policies related to student matters."   And it goes on to say "IPFW student rights, responsibilities, and standards of conduct will be established by campus administrators in consultation with the student and faculty government organizations and with the IPFW Community Advisory Council and shall be consistent with the principles established by Purdue and Indiana Universities."  On the question of the student code, that was discussed with President Beering at a meeting, I believe, last May.  It was discussed at some length--particularly the divergence of opinion between the IU Board as represented by John Walda on our council, who spoke on behalf of the IU position, and Bob Jesse who was then president of the Purdue Board, who spoke on behalf of the position via the sexual orientation.  So we had our input.  It didn't change anything, because Purdue policy prevailed and because they are the one responsible for all policies related to student matters.  Now you ask what positive things can we effect in respect to this matter.  I think that what we are charged with doing is to make recommendations to the Chancellor who then, in her consultations or any future chancellor's recommenda-tions with the president of Purdue University, would evoke our feelings, our comments, our recommendations whether they're in writing or whether they're orally expressed.  I think we have a strong obligation to express our viewpoints on these matters as we did last year on the matter of the student code.  When it came down to whether or not we--the IPFW advisory council--prevailed with respect to using those two words or not using those two words, we had no right to make a decision on that point.  If you want us to take up the codgell again and throw the gauntlet down, we'll make that an issue.  Is that ----

 

       D. McCants: My question was not with reference to any specific change in the student code.  My question was give me an example of a change in the student code that might be effected by IPFW campus administrators in consultation with the student and faculty governance organizations and with the CAC.  It seems like IPFW campus administrators, after having consulted with certain parties, do have authority to make changes in the student code and I am wondering what kinds of changes the CAC believes might conceivably fall within that area of discretion.

 

       W. Helmke: We have not discussed that particular issue.  I have in my hands the IPFW Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct which is SD 89-28.  Can you refer particularly to an area where you think that . . . we have not discussed this in its entirety or any specifics.  Do you have any suggestions for particular aspects?

 

       D. McCants: I am just trying to find the meaning of this passage.

 

       W. Black: One thing I can comment on that we have discussed is that when someone says this is the way it must be at all of the campuses, we say no, we should be different.  We take very strong positions.  There are times when this campus must be different, e.g. the fees that are charged, how you park, and what the parking fees are.  There doesn't have to be consistency everywhere in my opinion.  By the way, there is no milquetoast on that group.  Everyone says what they want to say very strongly.  They may be the only one taking a particular position, but no one backs off.  What I am saying is, once we make a position known and the two universities and Purdue says "we're responsible," that's the way it is.  If I say to Dr. Beering "we don't believe in this," but he says "that's the way it's going to be."  I accept it and go with it; we'll still try to get it changed again.  That never happens.  Some of the things for students must be different for this campus and not the same as some other campus.  You need differences that are uniform in some respect.

 

       P. Iadicola: You mentioned that the board has unanimously taken a position against establishment of an autonomous university.  Has the rationale for that position been put into some kind of written form?  Is it available to faculty to facilitate a dialogue?

 

       W. Helmke: It is not in written form.  As Bill indicated, on several occasions we have discussed the aspect of complete independence versus fiscal autonomy, but it has not been written in any form.

 

       P. Iadicola:  I heard that word unanimously--

 

       W. Helmke: It was not a vote because we have no right to take a vote on anything.  The nine of us that now constitutes the CAC do not believe in complete independence which means an approachment to the General Assembly with legislation to be introduced that would advocate creation of a University of Fort Wayne or Northeast Indiana much like they did in Southern Indiana.

 

       W. Black: Can I give an engineer's reason for that.  Being an engineer I would prefer, when I am out looking for a job, to have a degree from Purdue than I would from a College of Fort Wayne.  I personally did that myself.  I didn't want to go to Carnegie Tech.  Everybody knew about Carnegie Tech.  I wanted to go somewhere else.  I thought I would have a better chance to get a job at more places if I went to Purdue.  Once you're there and have a job it's up to you from then on.  Engineers would prefer to have a degree from a well-known, good engineering school.  You've got one of the best in this state. 

 

       P. Iadicola: I guess what I am looking for is a way of facilitating a dialogue between those who may be interested in moving in that direction against those who are opposed.  It would be nice to hear what your rationales are in particular.  You cited one in particular, that you think we should maintain our connection with Purdue.  I think there may be some opposing arguments that could be presented.  If we had some dialogue with some written rationale I think that might facilitate that.

 

       W. Helmke: We can certainly put that down in writing.  Bill stated his opinion.

 

       R. Teagarden: In our survey of alumni, the overwhelming response was to keep the affiliation with a Big Ten university.  If you ask students now, "where do you go to school?," they overwhelming say "I go to IPFW."  When I was in school, you didn't here that very often.  They said, "I go to IU," and if you're forced to you add "in Fort Wayne."  I certainly see a shift.  The students I ask point blank about that issue say they still want the degree to read Indiana University or Purdue University.

 

       P. Iadicola: I have seen surveys that indicate that the majority of those students would still go here because of convenience and location.  Whether it is affiliated with IU or Purdue is a secondary issue. . . .  If the board takes a position that the affiliation is very important, then we could research that question. . . .   I am just looking for the rationale in order to facilitate a dialogue.

 

       F. Paladino:  I think when you have a student body of 11,000 students and the number of degrees that have been awarded from IPFW and the faculty here at IPFW--not the faculty at IU or the faculty at Purdue--the fact is that the majority of our students come here because this is where they wanted to go.  I think we ought to write a letter to Harvard and ask them if we can put Harvard on our degrees.  I am sure the students would like a University of Harvard here in Fort Wayne.  The name on the degree, of course, has an effect, but the fact is they're getting their degree here.  Aren't we also bait and switching to the people who look at the degrees and say, "Oh you went to Purdue."  If you're an engineer and you went to Purdue they might be expecting the education you get at West Lafayette as opposed to the much better education you get here.

 

       A. Dirkes: As a regular faculty member, not an administrator, what is it that the community really wants us to do?  We are many things to many people.  What do you want us to do?  We could emphasize creating a better image if more faculty members did more notable research.  We could concentrate on better teaching in the classroom so that students would be better prepared for the world, be better people, and would be better satisfied with their education.  We could concentrate on students who didn't do so well in high school and give them a better opportunity to succeed.  How do you see us?  What do you want us to do?

 

       W. Helmke: That's an excellent question and one we should certainly address at future CAC meetings.  After all, many of those students that you are talking about are going to stay in the community.  I am on the Foellinger Foundation Board that provided funds for many years to the FAST Program to get more minority students into college--to get them thinking about college.  You got to get them early and then retain them.  We are talking about recruitment and retention.  One of the things you talked about Ann was that whole aspect of getting them here first and keeping them here.  For them it is just as important to get that college education to get a job.  For many of them whether it comes from the IU or Purdue side might not make much difference.  The aspect of research is certainly going to be discussed in the next couple of days by the people retained by the Commission for Higher Education.  I know that some of the questions have come up:  are you doing enough teaching as opposed to research and vice versa?  I know in our chancellor's search committee meetings we have gone into the area and Becky and I have both been enlightened about this whole area with regard to teaching, research and lab projects, and things of that nature.   So there are a lot of things we need to be educated on as far as what you think.  I want that dialogue to continue and to educate us so that we can take that information back to the community and be more responsive to the community.

 

       M. Downs:  When the representatives from the consulting firm come here tomorrow and Wednesday, I hope that all of us who are on the agenda encourage them to consider care-fully what we would like to see in the way of additional autonomy and flexibility on this campus.  They are going to be visiting other places as well and I don't think that message is going to be what they get at the other places.  What they will hear at the other places will be that everything is hunky-dory and there is no reason for change.  Just leave it the way it is; it isn't broken, don't fix it.  I think we have to call to their attention--without a list of horror stories--how much better we can do what we are doing and how many more things we can do that we should be doing if we had that additional flexibility. . . .  Although you will find the faculty divided--there may be a third who say let's just forget the whole thing and go off on our own--the majority opinion here is that what we need is not to get rid of the names or the academic programs, but we need to get rid of the remote control, the absentee management that takes place in West Lafayette.  If we get rid of that, the impetus for an independent university wouldn't be as great as it has become over the last five or six years.  The choice really for the state and West Lafayette is either to give us what we need to be flexible and exercise autonomy, or put up with increasing pressure for an independent campus which  the majority of us really isn't interested in at this time.   Give us what we need or we'll have to come back and ask for a lot more.

 

       W. Helmke: That's why the definition of flexibility and autonomy under the Management Agreement--those two words--are key.  Now, how much autonomy?  That's what you're talking about.  I think we are making strides toward more fiscal autonomy.  Maybe not as much as we'd like.  The key is going to be the chancellor that is brought on board and what his or her feelings are and how he can relate. 

 

       R. Pacer: I would like to encourage you to survey the faculty from time to time.  For example, you mentioned you were in favor of limited residential facilities.  I would be willing to bet that over 90% of the faculty would be willing to back you on that.  I would be interested in knowing to what extent there is such strong sentiment for independence versus other options, not that any of this is binding.  I think it would be good for you to know what the faculty think.

 

       W. Helmke: Do you want to take a straw vote right now.  Mike, what'd you say, a third?

 

       M. Downs: I would say between a quarter and a third.

 

       W. Helmke: How many are here today.  About 80-85?  How many favor complete independence?  Fifteen.  Who favors more flexibility and autonomy as described in the Management Agreement?  There certainly are those who feel strongly about the idea of independence.  I would say the number was about 15/75.  About 20% maybe.

 

       M. Downs: The timing of the vote is important.  The next time that we have another of the disputes that we have been having in the past with West Lafayette, the number of people who favor independence will jump dramatically.

 

       F. Kirchhoff:  I think the definition of independence is also important.  I think people think of it as sort of your off on your own.  I think there are other options.  It is possible for this to be an independent institution and still have IU and Purdue programs here.  If IU-South Bend can give a Purdue engineering degree, some other institution could offer one here, too, that is affiliated with Purdue.  So there are ways of negotiating these things and defining what it is we're talking about. 

 

       W. Helmke: They certainly are.

 

       W. Black: I would suggest when you make those strong statements that you don't say independence period, because that's what it means.  To me it does and I don't agree, but I agree with more flexibility.

 

       W. Helmke: I can remember when I was in the State Senate twenty years ago and I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and Chairman Lawrence Borst of Indianapolis, who is still chairman of the same committee, always advocated a University of Indianapolis.  He wanted a separate University of Indianapolis.  He wanted IUPUI to be a separate, independent university.  He couldn't get that done.  Obviously, as time passed by a couple of years later--

 

       F. Paladino: I disagree, because in principle it is an independent university.  It does not really have very much in the way of any kind of management from IU other than the fact that there budget goes through there.

 

       W. Helmke: IU is the fiscal agent, there's no question about that.  Ninety percent of the students there, Frank, are IU side.  Ten percent is Purdue.

 

       S. Hollander: I know that the Management Agreement is relatively new and the board is relatively new, but have you seen signs of flexibility and autonomy coming from, primarily, West Lafayette or is this a long-range hope?

 

       W. Helmke: There has not been that much difference, no.  Maybe Chancellor Lantz can speak to that.  Joanne, can I put you on the spot in your last four months.  She's counting down the days.

 

       J. Lantz: It's not four months until tomorrow.  I waiver between thinking yes we're making real progress and my I can't believe how slow it is.  Some days I think we really have changed things and I see some really positive things happening.  I guess you have to ask the question, "are you better off than you were four years ago?"  I can't answer that.

 

       M. Downs: The search-and-screen committee has a chairman from the community this time and not a chairman from West Lafayette.  To my way of thinking, that's progress.

 

       W. Helmke: Fred, how much more time do we have?

 

       F. Kirchhoff: Five minutes.

 

       W. Black: What do you know about the a group in the state that is trying not to increase what's happened in the independent campus, but to shrink it to where you would not be allowed to have residency.  You can't even have degrees to speak of.  It would have to be special degrees and actually take away what responsibility you now have.  There is a force on in this state that bothers me.  They trying to change it, to reduce what we are now--not make it better.

 

       Q: Is that the Higher Education Commission?

 

       W. Black: Yes, that's sad.

   

       W. Helmke: That's why it's so important to be brought up to these consultants from out of state whom none of us know who are employed as out-of-state consultants to examine this particular question:  to study all matters related to increased academic and fiscal autonomy at IPFW.  There may be other places they're going, I wouldn't know where.  Do you know of any other place they're going?

 

       J. Lantz: Yes, they're in West Lafayette today.

 

       W. Helmke: The Indiana Commission on Higher Education has taken steps, as Bill indicated, that are an anathema to some of us.  No question about it.  I think we have to combat that.  That's why it is so important for those of you who are being interviewed tomorrow to make your views known.  We are a unique situation here.  As the Management Agreement says, we have our own mission here.  Let's emphasize the desirable aspects of that mission--where we want to go, what we want to do.  It may not be full independence as some of you wish, but I think greater flexibility, greater autonomy is something that is desired by all of us.  So it is very important that you speak up and say what you really feel and believe when you meet with those people Tuesday and Wednesday just as the nine of us will be doing tomorrow at noon.

 

5.    New business: there was no new business.

 

6.    The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

 

                                                      Barbara L. Blauvelt

                                                      Secretary of the Faculty