Indiana University Northwest Text

Executive Committee Minutes

Indiana University Logo

May 2003

Executive Committee Meeting

May 2, 2003

Attendance:  Vinodgopal (President), Sandoval (Vice-President), Bodmer (Secretary), Coffin, Hass Birky, Lindmark, OíDell, Poulard, Rusinek, Schultz, Bergland, Vasquez

1.      Call to Order

President Vinodgopal called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.

2.      The position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

 

  1. Chancellor Bergland:  Having listened to concerns and discussion, yet feeling strongly that there needs to be someone I can turn to for fiscal affairs, I propose:

1.       All academic units--Continuing Studies, the Library, and CET--report to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.  This will free this person of some administrative concerns.

2.       All other units in the futureóAdmissions, Career and Placement, Financial Aid, the Registraróreport to an Executive Vice Chancellor for Fiscal and Admininstrative Affairs, a COO.

  1. Vinodgopal:  What would be the order of rank?
  2. Bergland:  The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs reports to the chancellor.
  3. Vinodgopal:  Why is Admissions moved out of Academic Affairs?  Bergland:  It has administrative functions.
  4. Rusinek:  What is the time table for this?  Bergland:  Presently, we have five candidates for the Director of Equity and Diversity, to be brought to campus.
  5. The search for the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

1.       Bergland: Once youíve provided advice and counsel, a search committee will be formed, which should be as small as possible, with faculty in the majority.  There should be 13 members total: 8 faculty (2 from Arts and Sciences, 1 from each other division), 1 student, 1 staff member, 1 administrative (at the director level or above), 1 cabinet member, and 1 chair (from the adminstration).   For faculty members, 16 names should be submitted, representing a diversity of points of view, from which 8 will be chosen.

2.       We might think about the use of a search firm (another regional campus paid $ 27,000 for such a search) which would increase the pool and provide background and reference checking.

  1. Vasquez:  We should do an internal search for an Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic            Affairs who would work on retention and enrollment management.  A new budget line will be created for this.  The institutional research position is on hold.
  2. Coffin:  There is a problem with the ďExecutiveĒ title.  There will be a problem of hiring for the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs position if there is another Executive Vice chancellor over him or her.  Might ďExecutiveĒ also be added to this position also?
  3. Vinodgopal should write a memo outlining the history and desirability of hiring someone with top authority for this position.
  4. Selecting member of this search committee: these members should probably not also be on the Chancellorís review committee; divisions need to be contacted.
  5. The matter of the headhunter; another regional campus had problems with this method; faculty are not necessarily fond of this method; these need to be checked with.

3.  Chancellorís Review Committee

 

a.       A problem has come up with having an outside member serve as chair of this committee.

b.       This gives the sense that the chosen faculty members are not capable of an objective evaluation.

c.       This discussion is on-going.

 

4.Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

 

Submitted,

George Bodmer

Secretary, Faculty Organization

May 15, 2003

 

Attendance:  Vinodgopal (President), Sandoval (Vice President), Bodmer (Secretary), Bhatia, Coffin, Delunas, Hass Birky, Hoftiezer, Lindmark, McDonald, Poulard, Rusinek, Schultz, Tolhuizen, Bepko

 

1.      Call to Order

 

President Vinodgopal called the meeting to order 3 p.m.

 

2.      Discussion of the chairman of the committee to review the chancellor

 

a.       Indiana University Interim President Bepko:  It is policy for a majority of the committee to be made up of faculty members from the chancellorís campus.

1.       Ten names will be nominated, of which probably 5 or 6 will be chosen, with 4 or 5 other positions, depending who is chair, perhaps alumni, community, staff and students, maybe 2 staff members.

2.       The chair will be appointed; the UFC has just recommended this policy but some problems have arisen and this will not become effective until Fall 2004;  the trustees will consider it in late June.

3.       But taking aspects from the new policy, a consultant will be identified and/or appointed, and advisor/liason from the Presidentís office.

4.       An outside administrative or executive-level chair of the committee will be appointed.  At IUPUI when a dean or vice chancellor is reviewed, an administrative chair is always picked.  This offers neutrality, with someone who knows a little more about the administration of the institution and knows how to tap into administrative resources.  This is done in a way which is comfortable to the institution.

5.       He is considering a retired chancellor.

  1. Vinodgopal:  We have not used an outside chair in the past, and an outside chair would not have the same credibility on campus.
  2. Coffin:  What is there about the present process that appears to need to be fixed, and what is the justification for changing the process?  Bepko:  It makes sense to be neutral and provide someone who knows about administration.
  3. Coffin:  With regard to neutrality, what suggests that faculty members are unable to be objective?  Bepko:  You wouldnít all be here if there wasnít some undercurrent of tension; thatís the neutrality that an outsider would provide.
  4. Tolhuizen:  The suggested name has a history with this campus.  Bepko:  I donít see why that would impair the perception of the process.
  5.   Hass Birky: Would you allow a faculty member as co-chair?  Bepko:  I havenít ruled out that possibility.  The process should be thorough, accurate, and have the confidence of all the people.  We have an issue here and we have to get on with our work.  This is a campus which has had difficulties of this sort and it shows on your faces.  It is debilitating to have situations where administration and faculty are negotiating who will co-chair a review committee.  I donít know what co-chairs might do.  This campus is perceived as having a problem, and you havenít done anything to disabuse me.
  6. Vinodgopal:  The suggested name is probably not the best solution, and we will have to work with you to come up with names which will be acceptable to both sides.
  7. Bhatia:  What would be the criteria for this chair?  Bepko:  It doesnít matter where he lives, but he or she should have executive and administrative experience, and not be immersed in the campus.  The goal is to have the committee constituted with a chair which will provide the comfort and confidence that the job is going to be done well.
  8. Hass Birky:  It is disturbing to hear that we are perceived as a campus with difficulties; we have a deep commitment to improving the university and keep working in that direction.  Bepko:  This needs to be communicated to the trustees.  What can we do to help?
  9. Vinodgopal:  Tuition reciprocity  needs to be looked into.
  10. Sandoval:  We need a strong and independent Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
  11. Hass Birky:  The faculty is dedicated and provides the continuity which we have.
  12. Bodmer: Again, Iím distressed that it is suggested that the faculty cannot be objective enough to conduct our own review.  Bepko:  It is not your review.

 

3.      Adjournment

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

 

Submitted,

George Bodmer

Secretary, Faculty organization


 
 
 


 


    Indiana University Northwest
    3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408
    219-980-6500
    888-YOUR IUN
    (1-888-968-7486)

    Comments:  http://www.iun.edu/~facorg/meeting03/ex04-03.htm
    Copyright Complaints bullet Privacy Statement