|
Minutes of the First Regular Meeting of
the Twenty-Second Senate Indiana University-Purdue
University Fort Wayne September 9, 2002 12:00 P.M., Kettler G46 Agenda |
|
1. |
Call
to order |
|
|
|
2. |
Approval
of the minutes of April 8, 2002 |
|
|
|
3. |
Acceptance
of the agenda – J. Grant |
|
|
|
4. |
Reports
of the Speakers of the Faculties |
|
|
|
|
a. |
Purdue
University – P. Hamburger |
|
|
5. |
Report
of the Presiding Officer (SR No. 02-1) – R. Sedlmeyer |
|
|
|
6. |
Special
business of the day – Memorial Resolutions |
|
|
|
|
a. |
Franklin
A. Bryan (Senate Reference No. 02-2) |
|
|
7. |
Committee
reports requiring action |
|
|
|
8. |
Question
Time (Senate Reference No. 02-4) |
|
|
|
9. |
New
business |
|
|
|
10. |
Committee
reports "for information only" |
|
|
|
|
a. |
Curriculum Review
Subcommittee (Senate Reference No. 02-5) – D. Oberstar |
|
|
11. |
The general good and welfare of the University |
|
|
|
12. |
Adjournment |
|
|
Presiding
Officer: R. Sedlmeyer
Parliamentarian:
D. Turnipseed
Sergeant-at-Arms:
D. Marshall
Secretary: B.
Blauvelt
Senate Members Present:
B. Abbott, P. Agness, R. Barrett, L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, W.
Branson, J. Brennan, H. Broberg, G. Bullion, C. Chauhan, S. Choi,
M. Codispoti, C. Erickson, L. Fox, J. Grant, T. Grove,
P. Hamburger, S. Hannah, S. Hartman, L. Hite, J. Hrehov, P.
Iadicola, S. Isiorho, M. Kimble, J. Knight, L. Lin, M. Lipman,
D. Marshall, A. Mustafa, M. Nusbaumer, D. Oberstar, A. Perez, D.
Ross, H. Samavati, G. Schmelzle, K. Squadrito, J. Tankel,
G. W. Ulmschneider, W. Unsell, L. Vartanian, N. Younis,
M. Wartell
Senate
Members Absent:
M. Bookout, C. Carlson, R.
Friedman, A. Karim, L. Kuznar, B. Parke, E. Neal,
J. Purse-Wiedenhoeft
Representative from Medical
Education: R. Sweazey
Faculty Members
Present: J. Clausen, R. Darabi, P.
Gray, S. Sarratore, J. Wellington
Visitors Present: J. Dahl, M. Gruss, P.
McLaughlin, A. Weissner
Acta
1.
Call to order: R. Sedlmeyer called the
meeting to order at 12:01 p.m.
2.
Approval of the minutes of April 8, 2002: 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:
P. Hamburger: I have in my
hand a copy of the "Results of the Faculty Survey Conducted by the Higher
Education Research Institute for Indiana University-Purdue University
Fort Wayne." I believe that
the Vice Chancellor's office has a copy and, if you are interested, they will
give you one. I hope the Faculty
Affairs Committee and the administration will do an independent analysis of
this report. I will point out some of
the data that surprised me. I am not
going in the order of importance, but by the way it is presented here. The first set of questions is related to
IPFW and compares IPFW with other public colleges and universities. The first surprise was rank: at IPFW there
are 16.9% full professors and nationwide there is 33.8%. Of course, because of this, we are higher in
every other category. We have a higher
percentage of lecturers and instructors compared to others. We have 12.2% versus 10.6%. It is not significant, but we should think
about that.
Most of the questions in
this are not really significantly different from the other institutions. One of them that surprised me was:
"During the past two years have you worked with undergraduates on a
research project?" IPFW had 54.4%
and nationwide 60.4%. I think this
should be improved.
To report something good,
the question is "Do you agree strongly or somewhat that there is a lot of
campus racial conflict here?" We
report only 3.6% versus 7.4%. I think
that is very good. The next is probably
not so good. The question asks, in the
opinion of this faculty, whether students are strongly committed to community
service. We believe that only 11% are;
nationwide it is 21%.
The biggest dissatisfaction
of the faculty is with salary and fringe benefits. This is a little bit misleading.
I doubt that fringe benefits are the problem. I believe the salaries are the problem. The dissatisfaction is basically 39.5% versus 45.6%. So, that is something the administration
should do something about.
Another dissatisfaction,
which is different from the nation, is the quality of students. Only 33.7%
believe that we have good quality students versus 38.1% nationwide.
The second set of questions
is about IPFW. The question was how
faculty relate to teaching versus research.
Particularly, how it is different with regard to gender. For me this is really striking. How many in teaching: overall 26% (males
19.7 – females 34.9). Leaning towards
teaching: 39.9% overall (males 36.9 and females 44.2%); leaning towards
research: 29.8% overall (36.9 males and 19.8 females); heavily in research: 4.3
overall (6.6 for males; 1.2 for females).
On the other hand, when it comes to recognition for teaching: males are
recognized 47.1% and females only 30.6%.
Females are more interested, but still the recognition is 47% as opposed
to 30%. I don't know if we can do
anything about that.
The overall job satisfaction
is 77.2%. It could be better. It is very interesting. There is one category that is interesting
beyond that. Only a minority of the
faculty were satisfied or very satisfied with the following: user support for
labs; human resources process for providing candidates for clerical, service
and technical positions; employee assistance programs; process for obtaining
IPFW summer grants; and financial support for research at IPFW. The ranges were between 20-43%. This is way below half of the faculty. We should look into it. I really feel that the Faculty Affairs
Committee and the administration should analyze this report and come back and
report their findings.
I am going to give a similar
report to the Board of Trustees this Friday.
Finally, for nostalgia, I
don't have the humor nor the charisma nor the language skills [of Mike Downs],
but I do want to mention that we still have the temporary parking lot by the
river.
Thank you very much.
b. Indiana University:
M. Nusbaumer: This is my first meeting as Speaker of
the Indiana University Faculty. I would
like to thank all of my supporters. My
ability to do this job is, in part, dependent upon hearing the concerns and
interests of faculty. If you wish to
contact me, please call the main office in sociology and leave a message.
I have not seen a copy of the report that Senator
Hamburger is talking about. I had
serious methodological concerns about the survey. I did not return this survey because there was no guarantee of
anonymity. I would have thought that
this would have been a problem for any human subjects committee. I'll hold my response until I see the
report.
5. Report of the Presiding Officer (Senate Reference No. 02-1) – R.
Sedlmeyer:
R. Sedlmeyer made reference to SR No. 02-1 which lists the
Senate documents brought before the Senate last year.
R. Sedlmeyer gave a PowerPoint presentation which
was inspired by his attendance at the Faculty Convocation. He made reference to the new IPFW
billboards. For example:
One University/Two Great Names. He suggested that they add 300+ faculty who are: creative,
caring, collaborating, contributing, committed faculty with a footnote making
reference, also, to the efforts of the large number of administrators and staff
members.
Strategic Plan. He
said the strategic plan sets out a bold vision for this university which will
be known for its academic excellence, value and accessibility; for its
exceptional learning environment for diverse learners; for faculty, student,
and staff accomplishments; and for contributions to the region.
175 Degrees of Excellence. He encourage everyone in every class to make excellence a
habit. He suggested that everyone
approach everything they do with a desire to excel.
A Sign of Intelligent Life. "We need to inflame their intellect," Sedlmeyer
said. "We like to recruit and
retain our students. There is no reason
why each of us can't inflame their intellect and challenge them intellectually
to become the best that they can be. To
unsettle their minds to widen their horizons, inflame their intellect, and
teach them to think straight."
Get Set for Life. He
continued: "They're only with us for four years, or maybe a little longer
if they're part-time. They don't come
here just to get a degree. They come
here to get a life. We are part of that
and we set the foundation for that. We
help guide and direct them on that future path. The more solid the foundation we give them, the more likely they
will be set for life. I think there is
another message in here and that is us being a major contributor to the
region. That is getting involved in the
life of the community through Continuing Studies and the other programs that we
sponsor, e.g., the K-12 program and the programs for the adults in our
community."
R. Sedlmeyer: Lastly, I want to talk a little about
my vision for this Senate. I took a
subset of values from the Strategic Plan.
I would like us to exhibit those values as we go forward with our part
in shared governance. We have an
important job to do with respect to shared governance. We share a responsibility to develop policy
and set policy with our administration.
We have a very important role to play—especially with those policies
that affect the academic life of this campus.
We need to take that responsibility seriously, but also remember that we
don't always have the last say. We are
in this together with those who are sitting here on my right. It behooves us to work collaboratively to
see that vision for excellence come about.
We're all pretty smart people. I
am probably one of the least intellectually-endowed people in this room, but
when we get together in our committees, let us take our responsibility to share
our intellect in addressing whatever issues come before us.
We must exhibit personal integrity. I believe it is important. When we say yes, we mean yes; when we say
no, we mean no. We should not say
anything different in the Senate than what we said in committee or vice
versa. Do not say one thing in
committee and then go somewhere and say something else. To me honesty and integrity are probably the
most important values you can bring to this body.
We need to have free and open inquiry. We should always feel free to share whatever
our position is on an issue and to share that with as much vigor as we feel
necessary. We should allow all sides
that free and open inquiry. The same
should be true in committee. Those who
are responsible for chairing committees should ensure that that openness is
there. At all times we should treat
each other with respect. We all have
gifts and talents that we bring to this body.
Let's treat each other kind.
We have a lot of people in this body and on the
faculty that do a lot of good things. I
think we should try, as much as possible, especially under good and welfare, to
recognize all the good that is being done at this university and we should
honor that.
. . . . I get a lot of guidance from my religious
background and I hope, therefore, to bring humility to this office. I know I am no better; I'm no smarter; I'm
no more talented than anyone else. If
we all come here with a little bit of humility, it will ensure the Senate
exhibits all those other values. I
would appreciate your cooperation as we go forward seeking excellence for our
university.
One other thing: if you haven't visited the Senate
website (http://www.ipfw.edu/senate), it is fabulous. You get the minutes, members, the Constitution, everything that
goes on in this body. I highly
recommend you visit that site.
6. Special
business of the day – Memorial Resolutions:
a. Franklin A. Bryan (SR No. 02-2)
b. Gerald G. Szymanski (SR No. 02-3)
Memorial resolutions were read for Drs. Bryan and
Szymanski. P. Hamburger asked that a
moment of silence be observed for them and for the victims of September 11,
2001.
7. Committee
reports requiring action:
There were
no committee reports requiring action.
8. Question time (Senate Reference No. 02-4):
In
a letter to the faculty dated June 21, 2002, you described the process you used
for 2002-2003 salary increments. Given
that this represents a significant change in past practice, would you provide
the following information:
1. What percent of total faculty
increment money was withheld for special equity awards?
2. What percent of total faculty
increment money was withheld for merit awards?
3. What was the total number of
faculty receiving special equity awards?
4. What was the total number of
faculty receiving merit awards?
5. Does the administration plan
to continue the current process and general allocation structure?
S. Hannah: Let me state at the beginning that my comments here refer
only to the faculty salary increment process.
While a similar procedure was followed for staff and clerical/technical
employees, I am speaking here only about the process for faculty positions,
including chairs, below the level of dean.
I did meet with Senator Nusbaumer to clarify his questions. My responses are as follows.
Questions 1 and 2 refer to the increment
decision-making process above the department/school level. Chancellor Wartell’s memo of April 16th
and my letter of June 21st
explained that we made a concerted attempt this year at the university
level to deal with equity/market issues in addition to merit. Purdue University-West Lafayette and Indiana
University-Bloomington made similar efforts.
Thus the Chancellor committed a “significant” salary allocation above
the 2% allocated to departments to address equity/special merit for faculty and
staff. This was not a “withholding of
funds” as referenced in the question, but instead was a pool of additional
funds designated for this purpose.
Senator Nusbaumer asked me what was the
source of these funds. Since we put the
state allocation monies (which were flat), the equity monies, and anticipated
new enrollment income all in one pot, it is hard to say exactly what income
source funded which expense. Logically,
however, the increases in salaries had to come from the increases in income.
The allocation process for the
equity/special merit monies went as follows.
Deans received 2% of their faculty base, which was allocated following
department/school merit policies and procedures. In addition, deans submitted
prioritized lists of faculty for special equity and/or merit to my office for
consideration. Criteria for special
equity awards included the percent difference from CUPA for the appropriate
discipline and rank, years in rank, and level of performance based on
department/school merit definitions.
Criteria for special merit awards were annual accomplishments, again
using department/school definitions, looking roughly at the top 15%.
I met with each dean to review their
lists, and together we compiled recommendations which were approved by the
Chancellor. We set no quotas by
school. The final award amounts were
determined by fund availability and designed to address a significant number of
individuals.
Questions 3 and 4 concerned the outcome of
the process. The total awarded for
special faculty merit/equity was $237,750.
A total of 114 individual faculty, or 34.2% of the total 333 full-time
for 2001-02 faculty below the level of dean, received an award. The distribution of funds was 56.4% for
equity and 43.6% for merit. Forty (40)
faculty received an equity award; 61, a special merit award, and 13 received
both equity and special merit. We did
not set targets for either the number of faculty or the distribution of awards
between equity and special merit. Our
only goal was to respond to the recommendations made by the deans following the
announced criteria with rewards that would be significant. I am not sure that
the resulting proportions have any particular meaning. In general the HR literature suggests a 30%
merit target; Jack Welch would make it 15%.
Comparatively, our distribution seems reasonable.
Question 6. The final question is whether
we “plan to continue the current process and general allocation
structure.” The answer is “it
depends.” The first contingency is the
progress we made on our equity/market problem with this year’s effort. Do we still have faculty with significant
equity issues? Our salary studies
should answer that question later this year.
The second contingency is the action of the legislature on our biennial
budget request. For that one, your
guess is as good as mine at this time.
I believe, however, that I speak for the Chancellor that if it is
appropriate and if we can afford it, we will.
I hope these responses help clarify this year’s process. If you have other questions, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
M. Nusbaumer: Compared to the 2% given to the
departments, do you have some comparison versus what total was spent for the
equity and the merits?
S. Hannah:
I can't answer that. We can get
that number for you.
M. Nusbaumer: I am simply looking at some
comparison between the amount of money given for special consideration versus
the standard consideration.
M. Younis: Where can we get the school
criteria?
S. Hannah: Look at your department merit. Most departments use their promotion and
tenure guidelines when they do their merit allocations. Sometimes departments have committees; some
leave it up to the chair. The
procedures vary dramatically across the campus.
N. Younis: My question was not about the
department. My question was about the
school level.
S. Hannah: In some cases, like in Education,
they only have school criteria. In most
cases this is done by departmental promotion and tenure documents. Sociology has point systems.
P. Iadicola: Am I to assume that essentially
the nominees for both the equity and the merit pool came principally from
departments or the lowest administrative level?
S. Hannah: They came from the dean. I require that each dean who sends me a name
to be able to support that with documentation based on what went on in the
department. Usually that's the
case. I'm not going to say that
occasionally a dean hasn't asked a department why a name is missing.
P. Iadicola: I guess what I am asking is, what
proportion of those who entered into the pool for consideration came from
outside a department dean?
S. Hannah: A tiny handful. There are occasions, and I can think of one
right now, where a faculty member has made an outstanding contribution, but it
has been for a university contribution.
It wasn't something that would have been recognized in the department or
in the school. It was something that
was recognized at the university level, so that name came from me.
If you have specific questions, please call me.
9. New business:
J. Grant moved to approve the following resolution:
Whereas, Barbara Blauvelt has served as the Secretary of
the Senate and Secretary of the Faculty at Indiana University-Purdue University
Fort Wayne since its current organization in Fall 1980; and
Whereas, Barbara Blauvelt has been an
inestimable resource to the campus by providing the IPFW community with a
written record of the Senate’s proceedings by keeping faculty informed about
the procedures established for the Senate under its Constitution and Bylaws, by
professionally and cheerfully assisting the IPFW community in locating needed
documents and making them available in a timely manner to the Senate and the
faculty, and for so much more; and
Whereas, she has even delayed her retirement to be of service once
again today;
Therefore be it resolved, That the members
of the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne Senate express their
heartfelt gratitude for the work Barbara Blauvelt has done for this campus and
the manner in which it has been provided, and that we wish her good luck in all
her new endeavors.
Second.
Motion passed on a voice vote.
10. Committee
reports "for information only":
a. Curriculum Review
Subcommittee (SR No. 02-5) – D. Oberstar:
D. Oberstar presented SR No. 02-5 (Proposal for
Undergraduate Certificate in Teaching English as a Second Language) for
information only.
b. Educational Policy
Committee (SR No. 02-6) – D. Oberstar:
D. Oberstar presented SR No. 02-6 (Task Force on General
Education Assessment) for information only.
J. Clausen was given speaking privileges with regard to this
item and made the following report:
J. Clausen: As you see, the document is dated January 30, 2002. During the spring semester, the document was
discussed at meetings of both Educational Policy Committee (EPC) and the
General Education Subcommittee (GES) and, with the approval of those committees,
the VCAA appointed a task force last spring:
•
Bill
Bruening (A&S Advisor, GES member)
•
Yvonne
Zubovic (A&S faculty, Assessment Council Member)
•
Steve
Sarratore (GE, Assessment Council, and past EPC member)
•
Jeanette
Clausen (GE, Assessment Council, and past EPC member)
In June 2002, VCAA Hannah and the task
force members attended an assessment workshop organized by the American
Association of Higher Education and the Higher Learning Commission. During the workshop, the task force
developed a comprehensive plan for improvement of assessment at IPFW and a
specific plan of action for General Education (GE) assessment, with a timeline
for reporting to the North Central Association in June 2004.
Problems with the old GE assessment
measures, which consisted of surveys of students enrolled in GE courses and
surveys of faculty teaching Area VI courses, include:
• the measures were indirect rather than
direct; i.e., we asked students their opinions as to what they had learned,
rather than assessing student learning via portfolios, tests, or other direct
means.
• the measures were course-based rather than
program-based; i.e., the surveys were administered to students enrolled in
courses approved for GE, creating the impression that individual courses were
being assessed (even though results were never tracked by course, only
aggregate data were examined)
The TF has begun working on our plan to
develop a program-based assessment plan for IPFW General Education. Over the summer the task force:
• completed a draft of GE learning
objectives based on the GE goals stated in SD 99-25;
• collected sample learning objectives from
syllabi for selected courses in each GE area;
• assigned responsibility for separate areas
to individual task force members.
At
the beginning of the semester, each TF member began recruiting members for GE
area subcommittees. That process is
nearly complete. The next steps are to
work with the area committees to refine the draft learning objectives as needed
(based on CURRENT syllabi for approved courses) and to develop assessment
measures based on program goals. During
AY 2002-03, Areas I-III will develop assessment plans to be tested during
2003-04, and during AY 2003-04, Areas IV-VI will develop plans to be tested
during 2004-05. The TF will report on a
regular basis to GES, EPC, and the Assessment Council.
c. Executive Committee
(SR No. 02-7) – P. Hamburger:
P. Hamburger presented SR No. 02-7 (Committee report
regarding selection of Senate secretary) for information only.
d. Executive Committee
(SR No. 02-8) – J. Grant:
J. Grant presented SR No. 02-8 (Committee report regarding
Senate secretarial search, job description, and Senate office space) for
information only.
11. The general good and welfare of the University:
P. Hamburger: After the Faculty Convocation I got questions from several people
concerned about the number of new people who were hired as Continuing
Lecturers. Some raised a concern about
whether Continuing Lecturers are replacing tenure-track faculty. Others raised a concern about instructors
who are teaching graduate-level courses.
There are some Continuing Lecturers with PhDs that should be tenure
track. I didn't have any time to look
into the details of this. I am just
letting you know that it is a concern of some faculty. Additionally, one of the main concerns is
that, while IPFW conducts searches for every single job including clerical and
support jobs, Continuing Lecturer positions are filled with no search. . .
. There is no application process. There is no committee. It is basically an arbitrary choice by
department chairs. I will try to form
a question for question time for the next meeting.
S. Hannah: The only
thing I want to say is that I will answer all those questions in great
detail. I don't want you to leave this
room, however, with incorrect information.
In terms of understanding what a Continuing Lecturer is, it is to
replace part-timers. It is a
quality-control effort on behalf of the university. The whole point was conversion of part-timers to a more
continuing relationship. I will put
together something more systematic in terms of numbers: where they are, who
they are. Also, understand that in
every case they are recommended by the department and evaluated by the
department. It is a quality effort.
P. Hamburger: I understand that. However, will this replace positions that should be tenure-track
positions? I support the Continuing
Lecturers as long as it replaces part-time faculty. Are there others who are teaching high-level courses,
particularly graduate-level courses?
How does this affect the whole faculty?
I don't really have any idea about numbers. It is still a main concern and the university and the Faculty
Affairs Committee should look into it.
Are they replacing only part-time faculty, or will it also replace other
faculty who could be tenure track faculty?
These are major issues. . . .
M. Nusbaumer: I would like to draw to your attention that this
is the 20th anniversary of the temporary parking lot and to
the Senate's often-expressed concern regarding the lack of aesthetic value that
this lot adds to this campus.
R. Barrett: I would ask Senator Branson if he would pass along
my thanks to Dave Danielson and his crew for once again helping to make this
campus look fantastic for the start of a new semester. . . .
M. Wartell: Please note that we start this year on a really
positive note. The chairs in this room
no longer pinch you when you sit down.
This room has been totally redone thanks to Senator Branson and Mr.
Danielson and his crew. It does look
nice.
You know about enrollments.
We could not be doing a whole lot better. Some of the pressure has been taken off us with respect to space
because some enrollment growth has ended up being in Continuing Studies: we're
doing much more business in distance education now. While at one point there were only 100 parking spaces left on the
campus during one day, we are not quite overflowing yet. However, it certainly takes a long time to
get off campus at noon. Finding a
parking space I'm sure is difficult for some of your students, but they would
have less difficulty if they liked to walk.
In keeping with the positive nature of giving folks kudos, . . I
do want to point out that Lowell Beineke has just been named editor of a very
prestigious mathematical education journal.
That's really great.
Our women's volleyball team won the Purdue invitational
tournament. They came away with our
first division one tournament win, which was really very exciting.
In general the year has gotten off to a really good start. I wish you the best during this year. We may be challenged in the legislature once
again, although our increases in enrollment should set us in really good steed to
handle it. Faculty positions next year
will grow if we receive enrollment change funds, and the VCAA has already begun
authorizing searches.
Walt and I are continuing to work on ensuring that we have
residence halls by fall of 2004. We
think that we have a way to do it, nothing is a guarantee. Thanks and keep up the good work.
S. Hannah: I would like to remind you of other good things. Jim Farlow, outstanding researcher, will
speak on September 19 at 3:00 in Walb.
His talk will be about sinkholes.
P. Iadicola: There are several events that this campus is
sponsoring or cosponsoring in regard to the remembrance of 9-11. I just want to point out one that is
sponsored by the Peace Studies Program and the Sociology program and that is
the moment of silence around the Peace Pole to memorialize all those who died
on 9-11, as well as since that day. I
am told that the bell tower will ring during the moments of the crash of the
airliners. It starts at 8:30 a.m. at
the Peace Pole which is just left of the gazebo on campus. It will end at 10:03 when the last bell is
sounded.
R. Sedlmeyer asked everyone to introduce themselves.
12. The meeting adjourned at 1:13 p.m.
Barbara L. Blauvelt
Secretary of the Faculty