Executive Committee Minutes
Attendance: Tolhuizen, Delunas, Hoftiezer, Hass, Ledbetter, d'Ouville, Vinodgopal, Lindmark, Sandoval, Schultz, Poulard, McShane. Guests: Executive Vice Chancellor Virginia Helm, Computer Committee Chair Bert Scott.
I. Call to Order
President Jim Tolhuizen called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m..
II. Minutes of the October 5, 2001 Meeting
The president asked for a motion to approve the October 5, 2001 Executive Committee minutes. A motion to approve the minutes was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.
III. New Degree Programs-Presentation by Otto Doering at next Faculty Organization Meeting-K. Vinodgopal
Professor Vinodgopal informed the Executive Committee that we will have a guest at the October Faculty Organization meeting. Otto Doering, from Purdue-Lafayette, is the new faculty representative to the Indiana Commission on Higher Education. He will describe the process to get new undergraduate and graduate degree programs through the ICHE.
President Tolhuizen asked the Ex Comm if IUN has any new program proposals. Responses included a Masters of Environmental Science, a Masters of Arts in Spanish, and a Masters of Liberal Studies.
Senior Lecturer Rank Policy-The charge for producing criteria for this rank has been given to the Faculty Affairs Committee. We have to move quickly on this issue, so this Faculty Affairs Committee assignment should be the priority for that body at this time. There are faculty eligible for promotion to this rank and they are waiting for us to draft policy and procedures. We hope to have an interim policy finished by December 1, so that those who are eligible now can still apply this academic year.
Election-We need to hold an election for the Faculty Board of Review. Current members are Atilla Tuncay, George Bodmer, Mark Sheldon, and Pam Sandoval, and they cannot run for reelection. Nominees need to be tenured and give permission for their names to appear on the ballot. Suggestions for nominees can be sent to Professor Poulard. President Tolhuizen re-affirmed that medical school faculty do not serve on the Board, since the medical school has its own such body.
V. Visit of Executive Vice Chancellor Helm
At this point in the meeting, Executive Vice Chancellor Helm joined the Executive Committee. Dr. Helm began her remarks by discussing some of the issues that she has heard during her first four months at IUN. They included:
. She has found that a perception exists, among some faculty, that the administration has not been supporting forcefully academic excellence at IUN.
. Some faculty believe that the Shared Vision has failed to accomplish very much, when, in fact, a great deal has been accomplished.
. There seems to be some confusion over the Areas of Excellence and their composition.
. Some view that the administration bears the blame for low retention.
. The lack of resources in many units troubles a good number of us.
EVC Helm then began to address each of these issues. She hopes to change that perception of poor administration support of academic excellence, by both rhetoric and action. She feels, however, that academic excellence is a "two-way street," that is, faculty should support each other. For example, IUN hosted two important events recently: the induction of Professor Bala Arshanapalli as the first endowed chair in the School of Business, and the visit of John Mearsheimer. In both instances, faculty attendance was minimal. She asked that more faculty attend these kinds of events. Also, she recalled that at a recent Faculty Organization meeting, a faculty member suggested the formation of a faculty committee to plan a series of events relating to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, yet nothing has been done with that suggestion.
In short, EVC Helm would like to see the faculty and administration form partnerships, where faculty expertise can be tapped, and the administration can assist with organizational details and other forms of support.
On another topic, the executive vice chancellor mentioned that she would like to see every department develop some criteria for promotion and tenure, and she would like to see the faculty address that issue.
Regarding the retention problem, Dr. Helm noted that we are admitting students unprepared for university work. We are working on plans to assist them, such as the SMART and REACH programs. In addition, we can all do things to help students perform better-the new behavioral Performance Appraisals are a means to accomplish that goal.
At this point, several Executive Committee members offered comments on these and other issues. Professor Sandoval commented that IUN needs to find ways to get out the message that we have talented, productive faculty on this campus. Dr. Helm agreed and plans to do so. Professor Vinodgopal noted that the Executive Committee is very close to submitting a proposal for establishing an Academic Priorities Committee-we want to work with the administration. In addition, he would like to partner with the administration on the Administrators' Review Committee. Dr. Helm offered to work with such committees.
Professor Vinodgopal next turned to the period since the end of spring semester. He remarked that prior to the beginning of summer, he was very hopeful that some needed changes were going to be made. The faculty was involved in budget decisions and faculty appointments. At the end of summer, however, everything had changed. The new faculty positions that were announced did not reflect that which was agreed to in the spring meetings. Even more disappointing in his view was the choice for Interim Director of Admissions.
Professor Schultz stated that many of our problems came from past administrations, and many of those concerns still persist. Professor Hass noted that technology at IUN is a real concern, and EVC Helm shared that view. Professor Poulard expressed dismay over two, long-standing problems on campus: the lack of a centralized procedure for storing, organizing, and delivering and tracking maps for classroom use; and, the poor performance of the audio-visual department vis-a-vis campus functions and events. Finally, several Ex Comm members expressed frustration at the requirement to attend nine hours of Advanced Connections training, and Dr. Helm felt that some other means can be found for faculty to address the issues discussed in the Advanced Connections series.
Upon conclusion of her visit, EVC Helm offered to attend any future Executive Committee meetings when she receives such an invitation. President Tolhuizen thanked the executive vice chancellor for her time and mutually beneficial dialogue.
VI. Computer Committee
President Tolhuizen called upon Computer Committee Chair Bert Scott. Professor Scott distributed revised copies of the policies for computers and printers on campus. He and Professor Knapp gathered data on campus computers and printers and revised these documents for presentation to the Computer Committee. Assuming that body approves these revisions, the policies will go before the Faculty Organization this month.
Next, Chairman Scott informed the Ex Comm about two policies put before the Technology Council by Vice Chancellor Steward. One of these documents recommends that when IT installs a computer in a specific location, it should not be moved from that location except by IT staff. The other draft focused on use of computer classrooms for non-credit activities. Vice Chancellor Steward would like to implement a procedure whereby each use has a university sponsor. The draft also contains a fee schedule.
VII. Old Business
There was no old business.
VIII. New Business
There was no new business.
There being no further business, the Executive Committee meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m..