• A. Diversity Workshop. The Chancellor thanked faculty members who were involved in making the event successful.
• B. Promotion and Tenure. The Chancellor congratulated the following faculty members:

  
  Promoted to Full Professor: A. Adler, D. Ige, J. Morris, J. Pellicciotti

  Promoted to Associate and tenured: C. Rusinek

  Granted tenure: C. Reed, M. Skurka, R. Wollons, C. Blake, D. Strupeck

• C. SDCI Funding. Three IUN proposals were funded:
  • 1. Ceramics foundry--G. Wilk, $49,800
  • 2. Supplemental instruction-B. Cope, $36,400
  • 3. Social Work program--G. Hull, $100,000
• D. Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration. On May 10, IUN will celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of granting degrees. Former faculty members and graduates will be participating in the celebration to be held at the Strongbow.
• E. Awards Luncheon. An awards luncheon will be held on April 30 to honor awards receipts.
• F. Budget. The State Senate has approved additional funding for education, however Bloomington advices caution. The Higher Education Commission has approved a joint proposal by Indiana State University (ISU) and Ivy Tech which permits ISU to beam classes to Ivy Tech. President Brand and IU opposed the program. It is anticipated that funding the proposal will have an impact on IU's budget.
• G. Schereville Site. Based on a study by Dr. Singer, a lease has obtained to offer classes at a site in Schereville. The following is the spirit of related questions:
   

  Fac: Is administration discussing the impact of the off campus sites upon the main campus?

  Chan: Yes. The Portage site, the social work program, and improved retention combined to keep our enrollment loss at a minimum. The majority of the students at the Portage site are also taking courses here. We are taking a risk with the off campus sites in an effort to increase enrollment. My best guess is that our enrollment would be going down without this.
  Fac: Latinos represent a large portion of the local population. Have we thought about trying to recruit in this population?

  Chan: Yes, although this has not been easy for a variety of reasons. Some things have been discussed, some things haven't worked for a variety of reasons.

  Fac: The Schereville site was selected primarily because research predicted a large Latino enrollment.

  Fac: In our role as advisors, faculty should encourage on campus students to go to on off campus site when classes here are filled.

  The Chancellor agreed and cited a few examples.

  Fac: Michigan City has a large minority population and, even though Gary is closer, many are choosing to go to Portage.

  Chan: I agree. Further, we are not going to change the Lowell site. We also teach on Purdue North Central's campus and there is a program in LaPorte. We are out there working on it and doing several things to pull people in.

  Fac: Will the Portage site be getting computers?

  Chan: We are working with a local high school for furnishing the hardware and IU would furnish the software, but it is still being negotiated. We do not want to wire a leased space for a computer lab, but we are considering wiring for laptops.

• H. Review of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The review is complete. The Chancellor will meet with VC Veeder and summerize the review with the Executive Committee.

• A. Schereville Site. The building is under construction. We will be in the same building as the Division of Motor Vehicles, so there should be heavy foot traffic, and the parking is good. There is administrative concern for examining the remote sites and their impact on the main campus. It should be pointed out that we've only been there one semester.
• B. Computers. Division chairs will be hearing about their computer requests.
• C. TERA Awards. The Vice Chancellor thanked the Teaching Committee for their hard work in reviewing applications. Approximately forty-four faculty members will be receiving the awards. The Teaching Committee has also volunteered to prepare a report based upon the experience, and make recommendations regarding the awards process.
• D. Lilly Retention Grants. IUN will receive approximately $114,000 per year over a five year period. It is possible this money will be combined with other campus funding.
• E. Budget. The administration is working intensely with the Deans and VC Black.
• F. Awards Luncheon. On April 30, an awards ceremony will honor:
  • Chancellor's Distinguished Service Award: Dr. Angeline Komenich and Dr. Mark Reshkin
  • Outstanding Teaching Awards: Dr. Charles Gallmeier, Dr. Iztok Hozo, and Adjunct Lecturer Kathryn Hedges
  • Outstanding Faculty Service: Dr. Shyam Bhatia
  • Outstanding Faculty Scholarship: Dr. P. K. Bhattacharya
  • Outstanding Faculty Creative Activity: Professor David Klamen

• A. Review of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Mary Ann Fischer, Chair of the review committee, reported that the review was completed and forwarded to the appointing officer, Chancellor Richards. The following is the substance of the subsequent discussion:

  
  Fac: Is this report public?

  Chan: Procedures do not indicate that the report be made public, but that the report should be shared. I will be sharing a summary with the Executive Committee, but this will not be a written summary.

  Coffin: We do not have a specific procedure, but this process would be similar to past practices. After the Executive Committee meets with the Chancellor, members of the Committee will be happy to talk to anyone interested.

  Fac: The role of the Executive Committee is not specified in the charge of the Review Committee, therefore it sounds like the Executive Committee should step out of the way.

  Coffin: The Review Committee's charge does not seem to indicate who or how the report should be made available.

  Fac: At the present time, it sounds like sharing the report is at the discretion of the appointing officer, which is the Chancellor.

  Fac: And the Chancellor has agreed to approach the Executive Committee

  Coffin: The members of the Executive Committee will discuss the report with interested parties.

• B. Announcements. Rick Hug announced a faculty development workshop on using Web pages in the classroom, which will be held May 2.
• C. UFC Report.
  • 1. Intellectual Property Policy has been revised and will be sent to the Board of Trustees.
  • 2. A revised recommendation, which would be an extension of the federal family medical leave policy, calls for a partial paid leave and relief of teaching duties.
  • 3. Discussion on the use of non-tenured faculty will be continued.
• D. New Chair of Faculty Organization. Don thanked the faculty for their three year vote of confidence and officially passed the gavel and Executive Committee coffee pot to Linda Rooda. On behalf of the Faculty Organization and the Executive Committee, Don was presented with a plaque recognizing his service.

• A. Student Affairs Committee--T. Foltz. The proposal for a student ombudsman comes as a committee report and is, therefore, moved and seconded. The proposal had been distributed to the Faculty prior to the meeting and the floor was open for discussion. A student body representative, Cheryl Wilkins, was present to help answer questions.

  
  Fac: how many advocates will there be?

  Foltz: two, from different divisions

  Fac: point #4 seems unclear. To whom are the faculty making recommendations?

  Foltz: to the students.

  Fac: is the student an advocate, a spokesperson to negotiate with faculty?

  Wilkins: not a spokesperson, but more like a guide to show a student where to turn.

  Fac: if the ombudsman isn't a spokesperson, then how does this proposal help solve problems?

  Wilkins: problem solving is a two-way street and will also include faculty problems with students and student versus student problems.

  Fac: the proposed nominations process makes it sound like the student should have negotiating skills, so it seems to go beyond just guiding students.

  C. Blake: based on this document, it seems that the originally intended role of the ombudsman has slipped out of the proposal.

  D. Strupeck: I called Bloomington and talked to them about their ombudsman position. They explained their process and dropped the word "ombudsman" in favor of "advocate" to simplify things grammatically.

  Fac: we need better procedures.

  B. May: who will have oversight? Are we creating another layer in dealing with problems?

  B. Cope: why not try this for a year and add that language to the proposal.

  Fac: good idea

  Fac: what limits will be placed on the advocate? What will happen to the records kept by the advocate? What is the legal status of the information gathered?

  Foltz: those issues are not addressed, although #5 says all information will be confidential, no names will be used.

  D. Coffin: we can check with Bloomington regarding the legal issues.

  Fac: we do need some process to facilitate discourse. If not this, then something else needs to be done.

  An amendment to the proposal was offered which would make the student advocate program a pilot activity for one year. The amendment was moved and seconded. Discussion on the amendment followed:

  Fac: will this program die after one year without further approval from the faculty?

  Fac: yes

  There being no further discussion on the amendment, a vote was taken and the amendment passed. Discussion on the amended proposal continued:

  Fac: whether we call it peer advising, mediation, or advocacy, we need to be clear about we are doing and the role of the student advocate.

  Fac: what happened to the ombudsman concept?

  Fac: that role as not been removed. The student will still be a go-between.

  Fac: we don't have anyone on campus who is trained in mediation.

  Fac: yes, we do. Anna Rominger.

  Fac: this proposal is different from the original, but we still need behind-the-scenes mediation. Let's try this for a year and reevaluate the situation at that time.

  Fac: this just pushes the Student Handbook a little further

  A. Rominger: mediation requires certification, a degree, etc. This proposal comes closer to dispute resolution. The word "mediation" may be a misleading term

  The question was called, moved, and seconded. The proposal was unanimously approved as a one year pilot project. See attached.

• B. Elections Committee. The election results were distributed via memorandum, therefore no further report is necessary.
• C. Joint Reports of the Computer, Teaching & AV, and Faculty Affairs Committees. All reports recommend changing each Committee's respective charges and come moved and seconded. The proposed changes were distributed to the faculty prior to the meeting. Discussion followed:

  
  Fac: Should we separate Teaching from Classroom?

  D. Coffin: we did look at that issue, but did not feel that is was necessary at this time, although it may be required in the future.

  Fac: the Committees should be commended for identifying needed changes

  N. Rosselli: the proposed change to the Computer Committee's charge seems to extend the power or influence of the Committee to individual computer networks

  B. Scott: that is not the intent of the change, although the Committee has been asked to look at additional issues.

  There was no further discussion. The question was called, moved and seconded. The Organization voted to accept the changes in committee charges. See attached.

• A. Mission Statement. At the March Faculty Organization, the Chancellor read the Mission Statement into the Minutes. A motion for Faculty to support the Statement was introduced, moved, and seconded. Discussion followed:
   

  E. Jones: parts of the Statement are inconsistent with previous campus mission statements and theUniversity's Mission Statement. We need to take a harder look at this. I move we table this discussion until the next academic year.

  The motion to table the discussion was seconded. The vote to table adoption of the Mission Statement was carried 18-9.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10pm