Executive Committee Minutes
November 7, 2008
Library Conference Center L 140A
Members Present:, Chuck Gallmeier (Presiding), George Bodmer, Don Coffin, Iztok Hozo, Jim Tolhuizen, Linda Delunas, Arlene Adler, Sam Flint, Cynthia O’Dell, Paul Blohm, Bill Dorin, Ranjan Kini, Arena Stevens, Ellen Szarleta
Call to Order: 12:05 p.m.
I. Approval of the minutes of October 10, 2008
Minutes of the October 10th meeting approved unanimously.
II. President’s Announcements
A. Meeting with Dr. William Plater and VCAA Aggrey:
Pres. Gallmeier met with VCAA Aggrey and Dr. William Plater. Issues relating to Vice Chanceller Aggrey’s transition to the faculty, and the need to find a replacement VCAA were discussed. Vice Chancellor Aggrey will remain in his current position until the end of December and a search for the new Interim Vice Chancellor for academic affairs will begin. A pool of candidates recruited via advertisement and recommendation will be identified by November 24th, 2008. The goal is to have the Interim Vice Chancellor in place no later than January 1st, 2009. The term of the interim will be approximately one to two years, although this is still being discussed. Dr. Plater will facilitate the transition.
The committee discussed the issue of Dr. Plater’s advisory term. In addition, Prof. Coffin and Prof. Flint identified important issues associated with the search, including the need for attracting high quality candidates given the limited nature of the appointment.
B. Interim VCAA Search Committee
A search committee has been formed and is currently working on developing the position announcement and determining the length of the appointment.
C. Vice Provost Sarita Soni Visit – December 10 – Executive Committee Members
The visit of the Vice Provost has been postponed. The new tentative date for the visit is January 28, 2008.
D. IU Northwest Council – Faculty Representatives
Members are needed for the IU Northwest Council. This council will meet for 3 hours, twice a month. A discussion followed regarding the costs and benefits of the council, including its large size, and the effectiveness of the reorganization. The President suggests that we discuss these issues with the Chancellor who will be present in the committee meeting at 12:30 p.m.
III. Chancellor Bergland – 12:35
Chancellor Bergland was present to report on the IUN Council and other issues. The committee asked questions related to a number of issues including:
1. Providing a rationale for the change in organizational structure and identifying why this change would be an improvement over the current structure. (Prof. Coffin)
Chancellor’s response: In the past the cabinet had expressed concerns about 1) the absence of opportunities to provide input, and 2) the absence of good communication from the top – down. Therefore, it was thought that a larger group might be appropriate. It would increase the opportunities to provide input and enhance communication. The body would address all the issues that would have been addressed in the cabinet. This is timely because in terms of strategic planning, an opportunity exists to move to the next step – to consider what needs to be accomplished and to recommend plans for implementation.
2. The demanding nature of the commitment could be equated to teaching another course (Prof. Coffin)
Chancellor’s response: He would entertain a proposal for compensation, including course releases. He believes this is an important initiative and that we should look for ways to facilitate faculty participation.
3. The unwieldy size of the organization could require the establishment of sub-groups. (Prof. Flint)
Chancellor’s response: This is already being done around the issue of enrollment. In the future, these groups would most likely take the form of an ad hoc task force, with the exception of the budget issue. A permanent advisory committee should be formed to address budget issues.
4. Who chairs the committee (Prof. Tollhuizen) and isn’t it really transitional in nature? (Prof. Blohm)
Chancellor’s Response: He chairs the committee and yes it is transitional in the sense that a new chancellor may change the structure. Prof. DeLunas then suggests that the cabinet alone would not be sufficient to make long-run decisions and these decisions must be made even if a new chancellor changes the structure of the organization at a later date. The Chancellor indicates agreement with Prof. Delunas. Long-run issues, such as enrollment must be addressed now. Pres. Gallmeier indicates that he will work to get faculty executive committee representation.
5. Did a special meeting of the Chancellor and the Dean’s Council take place in which the chancellor expressed his lack of confidence in VCAA Aggrey, which undermined the VCAA’s authority? This is an important issue because, as a representative on the search committee the President does not feel he can represent the new candidates if the authority to run the academic unit does not lie with the VCAA. (Pres. Gallmeier)
Chancellor’s response and discussion: It’s important to place the events in context, and it would be difficult to identify a time when the Chancellor did not give VCAA Aggrey the authority to act. A discussion then ensured between the Chancellor and the committee regarding the process used with respect to the degree proposals. Prof. Coffin suggest we move on from this issue and look to the future. The faculty organization’s motion to discuss a no-confidence vote at the next faculty meeting was then discussed. The chancellor indicates that he would be present but that he would not be there to defend himself – rather to move the institution forward. After additional discussion the Chancellor indicates the new VCAA will have autonomy but that if a Chancellor disagrees with an action taken he has the responsibility to step in and act because ultimately the Chancellor is the individual responsible for the campus. When asked about structural impediments leading to declining respect for the VCAA the chancellor indicates that a budget officer for academic affairs might have been useful, as placing all the budgetary power in one position may have created too powerful of a position.
This section of the meeting ends and the Chancellor leaves.
IV. Administrative Structure Task Force – Don Coffin
(Note: This discussion took place at the end of the meeting.) Prof. Coffin suggests we look at the structure from the view of the VCAA’s and the Deans. Suggests that if there are interpersonal issues then we need to ask how we might modify the structure to avoid such conflicts. He suggests that Dr. Plater’s role will be fulfilled upon finding a new VCAA, but that the interim might like to have someone to consult as they transition into the position. The task force believes it will have the work done by the end of the spring semester.
V. No-Confidence Motion/Resolution – Faculty Organization, November 21st
(The no-confidence motion was discussed after item III.) Prof. Bodmer asks if there is a written no-confidence motion, and suggests that if it exists it should be voted on at the next faculty organization meeting. Discussion regarding the implications of such a vote followed. The secretary reports that a written motion for no confidence does not exist, but rather a motion to have a discussion regarding a no-confidence vote was passed at the October faculty organization meeting. It was decided that motion to discuss a no-confidence vote take place at the next faculty organization meeting in November. On a related note, Prof. Blohm notes the value of the blog.
VI. Old Business
VIII. New Business
IX. Adjournment at 2:05 p.m.
Return to Faculty Org Main Page