2. Responsible Corporation. The text on "Responsible Corporation" continues in its first sentence what the condition has been here in the past, that Purdue University is the "Responsible Corporation." In the second section of 2, a "hold harmless" agreement has been added to this Management Agreement which absolves Indiana University of liability on this campus and, of course, reduces its risks here, and correspondingly its interests.

3. Assignment of Academic Missions. In the assignment of academic missions there are no significant changes.

3.C. Mission Responsibility and Authority. The campus has been granted new but limited powers over specific graduate programs, e.g. Nursing and Business. This corresponds at least with the sense of what the faculty wanted when it made its recommendation last fall. We had hoped to gain more than this in regard to graduate programs; we, for the moment, will have to be dissatisfied with the somewhat limited gain in that area.

5. Faculty. "Purdue will appoint and employ all new full-time and part-time faculty members, including those who function in Indiana University mission areas." You may recall that in President Beering's first draft, a fragment of which was distributed just recently, all of us--and I speak here of Indiana University faculty--would have become Purdue employees. Some of us would have continued, if we wished, to receive IU fringe benefits. This has been moderated somewhat and the only Indiana University faculty who will be Purdue employees are those who will be hired after this date and those who freely choose to do so in order to avail themselves of the advantages of Purdue fringe benefits. This, of course, is a subtle and a profound change. Increasing numbers of faculty will come here in IU missions whose primary attachment so far as employment, pay, and benefits are concerned will be to Purdue University. This contradicts a resolution which was accepted by the [faculty] Senate just recently which stipulated that before an action of this sort be taken, the Faculty be consulted and its advice on the matter be received. We may have recommended something very much like this after careful study of the fringe-benefits programs, but such a study was not made and this has been done without the benefit of Faculty consultation and advice. Notice again, this section has been softened from what President Beering proposed earlier.

6.A. Admission. President Beering had proposed that all Indiana students be admitted by Purdue University and be designated IPFW students, but their records and all other information would be kept according to the procedures of Purdue University. This has been softened so that students continue to be admitted as either Indiana students or Purdue students in accordance with the degree program elected by the student and using the standards of Indiana and Purdue. That continues the practice as it exists right now.

6.B. Fees. "Purdue shall establish, charge, and collect all tuition, fees, and other charges from students and others using the facilities of IPFW." In the document which is currently in force, Indiana University was to be consulted before anything of this sort is done. That consultation has been removed. The fees will be established by Purdue University without that consultation. As a side note, we proposed that the fees be established by a method that would result in both the IPFW administration and faculty reaching an agreement with Purdue University as to how those fees would be charged. Our document created, of course, more influence for the local campus in this important matter. This document removes it and also removes Indiana University from consideration.

6.C. Student Organizations and Discipline. "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 and faculty government organizations and with the IPFW Community Advisory Council and shall be consistent with the principles established by Purdue and Indiana Universities." This provides us with an opportunity to go back and revise our Code, from which we withdrew our endorsement some time ago, so as to place back into the Code a provision which would protect students and some employees on the basis of sexual orientation. "Consistent with the principles established by Purdue and Indiana Universities" actually introduces into the document the possibility for some local flexibility by developing a student code which is not exactly like the code of either of the two parent universities. So long as it doesn't contradict principles, I think we can argue that our original Code is valid on our campus and it will be, if I and others have anything to do with it, a first order of business for the [faculty] Senate in the fall.

7. Administrative, Clerical and Service Personnel. This is an entirely new addition and it makes clear that Purdue University is solely responsible for all such administrative, clerical and service personnel on this campus.

8. Vacation and Other Benefits to Indiana Personnel. This section is also new and has been added because there may be Indiana University faculty who opt for Purdue fringe benefits. This provision will extend protection to them in regard to benefits that are based on length of service in regard to such things as salary, wages and fringe benefits.

11. IPFW Community Advisory Council. I believe that this is the most significant change over past documents and it roughly parallels the recommendation which the faculty made last fall. It reduces the size of the Community Advisory Council from more than 25 members to nine, which means that it will be able to hold meetings more efficiently and deal with business on a more regular basis. It divides the appointive powers of members up among the president of Purdue University, the president of Indiana University and the chancellor of IPFW. It provides the Council with a measure of autonomy which it does not now have. Currently there is no elected chair or officers of the Council. This section provides for the Council to elect officers and to establish its own bylaws and its own manner of doing business. It makes specific the variety of campus matters upon which it has consultative powers. I particularly like what it says in connection with budget requests. This is a significant change which makes it possible for us to develop support for this campus and our initiatives in the community--something which was effectively prohibited by the nature of the earlier Management Agreements. This body can meet regularly, it is going to be consulted about a number of important matters on the campus and it tilts the political landscape slightly in the direction of this campus and the area we serve.

13. Patents and Copyrights. The important change here is that all subsequent patents and copyrights related to the activities of IPFW personnel, whether they are of the Purdue or Indiana University persuasions, shall hence forward be the property of Purdue University. In the earlier Management Agreement such for IU faculty became the property of Indiana University and such for Purdue University faculty members became the property of Purdue University.

14. University Coordination. There is an improvement, atmospheric rather than concrete, in this document. Starting with the sentence: "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." Again, although these are but words, the intention is written into the document that this place will continue to make progress through flexibility towards autonomy. These promises have been written in words before and so long as they are in words that is all they are. What happens here and what we do here will propel both universities in the direction of granting us more autonomy in the future.

15. Binding Effect. We had wanted to enlarge the list of those who sign off on this agreement to include our own chancellor. That hasn't happened.

There are other matters, I am sure, that will emerge when we are allowed time enough to look more carefully at the agreement. I have discussed it just briefly with several administrators shortly before this meeting began and they have pointed out other inconsistencies and contradictions and changes which I don't, at this point, understand well enough to discuss with you. The amount of time that we have had to look at this document is incredibly short given the importance of its effect on our professions, our careers, on the status and condition of our work and employment, and on the students who attend school here.

I need now to talk briefly about the resolution and then I will answer questions or you can say what you wish to say. The resolution begins by calling attention to the faults which we have all observed in the process by which this agreement has been developed. We have not been meaningfully involved since the beginning in the development of this final document. Our recommendations have not been discussed with us to any degree which would make possible meaningful influence or consultation about the text. We did not ask to be allowed to make the final decision as to what this should be. We did not ask for the kind of binding negotiations that would have given us a role that we have never played before in the development of this document. We asked last August when the administration and the faculty reached agreement on what it is that we wanted to see. We wanted to discuss what we felt were the problems here with the people who were going to negotiate the agreement. But the president of Purdue University and the president of Indiana University both declined to do so. We asked at several points thereafter if we could discuss what we had proposed. There was no positive response. We did not receive a positive response about the process until members of the House Ways and Means Committee extracted a promise from Vice President Ford that a visit would be paid and the matter would be discussed. You were perhaps present at one of those meetings and were witnesses to the kind of discussion which took place. I submit that while it was a splendid gesture and, perhaps, even a brave one for President Beering at that time in the proceedings, it did not constitute, by anybody's definition, meaningful participation by this faculty in the development of the document. I spoke with the chancellor this morning. I wanted to be sure that I did not misrepresent her own sense of what took place in regard to these negotiations and I asked her a direct question. I said "Do you feel that at any point you were directly involved and played an influential role in the development of this Management Agreement?" And she said that that was not her evaluation of the process. What this means is that the students and the faculty and the chief administrator on this campus were not directly or meaningfully involved in the negotiations. There were friends who let us know from time to time what was under discussion--who released information which ultimately turned out to be correct. But we have been, for the most part, shadow-boxing so far as this agreement is concerned and the people who are responsible for negotiating it. A good deal of talent and attention and study have been wasted. And to the degree that this document continues to have contradictions or inconsistencies or raises important questions without answering them--the fault is not ours. These matters that could have been discussed and clarified if the consultation had been broader and had included people who not only have direct knowledge, but a legitimate interest in what goes on here.

On Friday, I would like to be able to say to the Board of Trustees that the faculty on this campus are less than satisfied with this agreement and that the problems left unaddressed by this agreement will continue to be the focal point of discussion, and of not just discussion, but action on the part of this faculty. I would like to be able to say, although the resolution doesn't say it, that the firm determination that we must make progress toward fiscal autonomy will continue to be manifested in activities that involve the legislative delegation from this area, and other members of the community including those members who are appointed to the Community Advisory Council. This is not so much an agreement that settles matters about the future of this place; it is an agreement which provides us with opportunities for movement and the stimulus to continue the process which we began over a year ago. I will interpret, when I speak to the Indiana University Board of Trustees, majority support for the resolution before you as a mandate to say those things to them on Friday.

A. Finco moved to divide the resolution into three parts: one of commendation (item 1), one of condemnation (items 2 and 3), and one of reaffirmation (4). Seconded.

The motion to divide passed on a voice vote.

The motion to approve FCD 92-1 (Commendation) passed on a voice vote.

The motion to approve FCD 92-2 (Condemnation) passed unanimously.

The motion to approve FCD 92-3 (Reaffirmation) passed unanimously.

J. Smulkstys moved to approve FCD 92-4 (Recommendation to the Boards of Trustees). Second.

J. Haw moved to amend FCD 92-4 by deleting the words "except for new payroll and fringe-benefit arrangements." Seconded.

Motion to amend passed on a show of hands.

S. Hollander moved to amend FCD 92-4 by deleting the second paragraph. Seconded.

Motion failed on a show of hands.

The motion to approve FCD 92-4, as amended, passed on a voice vote.