April 18, 1997
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fac: or we could move to an elected form of council and try it for a year
L. Rooda: The Agenda Committee will conduct a survey in an attempt to determine why Faculty Organization attendance is low. Please let the Committee know your opinions.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:10pm Submitted by: Ellen Bosman, Secretary