Executive Committee Minutes
February 6, 2009
Members Present:, Chuck Gallmeier (Presiding), George Bodmer, Don Coffin, Iztok Hozo, Jim Tolhuizen, Linda Delunas, Frank Caucci, Cynthia O’Dell, Paul Blohm, Bill Dorin, Ranjan Kini, Arena Stevens, Ellen Szarleta
Location: LCC 140A
Call to Order: 12:02 p.m.
I. Approval of the minutes of December 5, 2008
Minutes of the December 5th meeting approved unanimously.
II. Spring Elections – Discussion of Elections Committee
The Faculty Board of Review is soliciting nominations for membership. Prof. Tolhuizen notes that the call for nominations did not specify whether those currently on the board could continue to serve. A discussion follows regarding the need to conduct elections in a timely manner. Pres. Gallmeier notes that spring elections will need to be held for the Vice President, Secretary, and UFC positions of the faculty organization as well as for positions on the Executive Committee. Pres. Gallmeier noted that he will speak with Prof. Poulard regarding upcoming election procedures.
III. President’s Report of Meeting with McRobbie – Chancellor Bergland joins the discussion at 12:15 p.m.
Pres. Gallmeier thanks all who sent comments to him prior to the meeting with Pres. McRobbie. Pres. Gallmeier distributes the Times article written by Prof. Vinodgopal and reports that the possible merger of IUN, PUC and other campuses was discussed at the meeting with Pres. McRobbie. President McRobbie and Chancellor Bergland indicated that they were receptive to the idea of the merger.
The structure and leadership on the IUN campus was also discussed, specifically the reporting responsibilities of the Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs (VCFA). The VCFA is a direct report to the Chancellor. It was also determined that the VCAA should make final decisions regarding academic matters. The VCFA plays a supportive role to the VCAA in matters of the budget.
Pres. Gallmeier reported that he made a case for promoting the urban identity of the IUN campus. He argued that this strategy was very successful for the IUPUI campus and could be successful for IUN. Pres. McRobbie agreed. Pres. Gallmeier also stated a need for the new Chancellor to support this idea and Pres. McRobbie agreed.
On the issue of faculty governance, Pres. McRobbie suggested there was a need to examine the structure of the faculty organization and to consider the move to a faculty senate. Pres. Gallmeier acknowledged that faculty does have some culpability for the current state of the campus and that low attendance at faculty organization meetings is a concern. He states that low faculty attendance is one reason we may want to examine the faculty organization structure. A discussion of previous efforts to organize a faculty structure ensued. Prof. Tolhuizen suggests the issue be sent to the constitutional committee. The committee agreed that the constitutional committee should examine the issue and define alternative organizational forms.
The search for a new Chancellor will likely begin in June. Pres. Gallmeier suggested that an IUN representative serve as a co-chair of the committee but Pres. McRobbie was not receptive to this idea. Pres. Gallmeier also suggested an earlier start for the search, but this was not accepted. There was a discussion regarding the desired profile of a new Chancellor. It was suggested that the individual possess skills in teaching, research, and service as well as fundraising. They should have an interest in and experience with an urban campus. A possible model for a successful candidate would be Ken Gross Louis. Prof. Delunas suggests that the individual should also have a familiarity with the operation of professional schools, and with the area’s need for a hospital.
The committee members followed the report with questions. Prof. Caucci asks the Chancellor what process is being considered with regard to the merger. The Chancellor states that Pres. McRobbie spoke with the President of Ivy Tech as well the presidents of other institutions. The idea is believed to be timely and to have merit, and the presidents of other institutions were receptive. It has been suggested that IU form a task force to examine the issue. Prof. Coffin suggests that the merger issue is one of the most important issues we will face in the next 10 years and that issues of accreditation must also be considered if a merger were to occur. He also asks if there is consideration for the idea of an independent institution. The Chancellor indicates that this would be his preference. The committee also discussed the time frame for a merger, and the possible organizational forms, e.g., which campus would assume fiscal responsibility for the merged institution. Prof. Caucci asks the Chancellor what Pres. McRobbie’s interest would be in merging the campuses. The Chancellor states that Pres. McRobbie is currently grappling with this issue as there are many competing interests.
The Chancellor summarized the report by stating that Pres. McRobbie believed the meeting was an excellent first step. Pres. McRobbie is supportive of the campus and we should be encouraged by his interest. Chancellor Bergland commended the faculty for their initiative in this matter.
4. Resolution – Task Force on Administrative Structure and Processes – Professor Don Coffin – ACTION ITEM See attachment. 1:00 p.m.
Prof. Coffin suggests we review the resolution and points out the need to be proactive and focus on institutional issues and not personalities. A discussion of the resolution ensues, specifically regarding point 3. Prof. Coffin suggests that point 3 addresses the issue of personal communication skills and is distinct from point 2, but suggests he could modify the resolution by eliminating point 3. Prof. Coffin sees the resolution as a way to inform the search for a Chancellor. Pres. Gallmeier proposes a friendly amendment. Point 3 now reads: “That it identify a list of desirable leadership skills and qualities.” The resolution is amended. Prof. O’Dell moves to approve the resolution as amended. Prof. Dorin seconds the motion. The resolution is approved unanimously (as amended).
5. Guidelines and Procedures for Promotion to Senior Lecturer – Professor Lou Ann
Karabel – 1:15 p.m.
Prof. Karabel reports that there are some concerns regarding the guidelines that apply for promotion and tenure of lecturers. The concerns were outlined in a document presented to the faculty executive committee, titled “Presentation to the Executive Committee Subject: Promotion to Senior Lecturer”. (See attached) The committee discusses the concerns and their importance also to the promotion and tenure process that is undergoing revision on a system-wide basis. It is agreed that the committee on Faculty Affairs should review the issues presented. Prof. Coffin moves to add Prof. Karabel to the Faculty Affairs Committee temporarily for the purposes of providing input on the issue of promotion and tenure for lecturers. Prof. Karabel accepts the nomination to the committee. Prof. Delunas points out that should lecturers be appointed to the P&T committee on a temporary basis, the committee should also consider appointing a clinical faculty member to P&T when a clinical candidate is under review.
6. UFC Joint P&T Committee – Recommendations on P&T Procedures; McRobbie Memo – Notification of P&T Recommendations – See attachments – 1:30 p.m.
Pres. Gallmeier notes that the UFC joint recommendation is not finalized until the last meeting of the UFC. Pres. Gallmeier notes that the memorandum was only recently distributed. Prof. Gallmeier states that when questioned regarding the applicability of the memo the response was that the procedure outlined would only be used in problem cases, e.g., too many split votes. Discussion follows regarding two issues, “what is a problem case” and what are “too many split votes?” Prof. Coffin notes that he is opposed to a process that does not give clear definitions. Different variations on “problem cases” are discussed. Pres. Gallmeier points to a recent case where all committees approved the candidate, and Pres. McRobbie denied tenure.
Another concern emerged regarding the fact that Chancellors will not longer be writing letters of recommendation. The Chancellor of the campus will, however, be responsible for notifying the candidate that tenure was denied.
Prof. O’Dell points out that per the document only a summary of the dossier will be sent to Bloomington. She also states that it is unclear who prepares the summary and if the candidate will have a say in determining the materials to be sent. A discussion on this issue ensued and Prof. Coffin states that if a summary document is to be sent to Bloomington then the requirements for the document should be outlined explicitly. Prof. O’Dell states there are other issues of concern, including the fact that procedures for promotion to Full Professor are limited by the availability of Full Professors on a campus. If Full Professors are required for the committee then there may not be a sufficient number of Full Professors on the IUN campus to serve on such a committee.
Pres. Gallmeier states that the P&T document will also be discussed at the faculty organization meeting on February 20th, 2009.
7. Old Business
Pres. Gallmeier asks that we look at the academic excellence document and notes that it will be discussed at the next executive committee meeting.
8. New Business
Pres. Gallmeier moves to adjourn and Prof. O’Dell seconds. Motion approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
Return to Faculty Org Main Page