January 16, 1998
Fac: How are we publicizing the Schererville site?
VC: I believe an open house is being planned, as well as contacting the local media. We expect heavy foot traffic due to the location next to the licensing bureau.
Fac: Will AV equipment be available at the site?
VC: Yes. Linda Whitehead should be contacted.
Fac: Including a vita with the annual report and distributing vita information may facilitate peer collaboration.
Fac: Yes, the VC's office should compile a bibliography of legitimate faculty research publications and make the list widely available.
VC: That's a good idea.
Fac: A similar list should include service activities and new course development.
Fac: The DE report raises disturbing issues, particularly the language regarding learning centers. The definition of learning centers has been defined by the State and does not include granting degrees.
Chair: Yes, this is the crux of the concern.
Fac: We need to recognize that Pres. Brand seems to be pushing the University in this direction. For example, there is some discussion about the Continuing Studies/Labor Studies program becoming a global packager of programs to be distributed over the World Wide Web and designing programs for corporations. This could led to closing the Continuing Studies/Labor Studies program. There seems to be a profit emphasis taking over.
VC: The report does allow campuses to define their niche.
Fac: This report doesn't appear to address teaching and research as part of the University's future role. Are these threatened?
VC: I don't think the President is saying that teaching and research have no future role. He wants us to look at the future and determine our role as a campus. We do have a voice and we must respond.
VC Moran: As a member of the committee which prepared the report, I'd be happy to provide background information.
Chair: Are we interpreting the report's role for regional campuses correctly?
VC Moran: We need to focus on the changes that are occurring within the field of education. Clearly there are some recommendations which seem threatening to regional campuses, and this document has even less recommendations than the original. Commuter campuses are increasingly threatened by corporations entering education, technology, and other outside influences, wether we like it or not. This is an opportunity for us access our position and respond, but still maintain ourselves as a university.
Chair: Will the committee which drafted this document continue to meet?
VC Moran: No. Chair: We need to identify our niche, which may be direct, face-to-face teaching, and publicize it. Fac: We all need a full copy of that report. Rooda: Might be on the Web. VC Moran will check into this and get back to us. In the interim, we will investigate obtaining and distributing more copies.
Chair: Regarding the IUPUI document, did the committee have any suggestions?
Caucci: No, our discussion was more of a reaction, and the Committee believes the annual reporting process is sufficient. More public discussion would have to take place.
Fac: What is the origin of this document?
Nardi: There is some confusion on the issue, but post tenure review has been discussed at Bloomington and Indianapolis.
Fac: It looks like an IUPUI Faculty Affairs Committee document. Is there a motion on the floor of UFC?
Ciminillo: No, no motion has been made. It is likely the document will be recognized, but that is probably as far as the situation will go for the moment.
Fac: Has the document been endorsed by any campus?
Ciminillo: Can not say for sure.
Chair: Maybe we need a motion from this body.
Nardi: I move we oppose the IUPUI document on post tenure review because the campus review process is sufficient.
Fac: I think if we're going to support this motion, we need to have some strong, concrete reasons for opposition in the motion.
Chair: The motion states that the current process is adequate.
Fac: Yes, but we need something stronger. For example, wording in the faculty handbook has been used to circumvent the current process.
Fac: Let's not forget the purpose of tenure. Productivity is another issue, which doesn't have to be addressed by removing tenure.
Fac: I move we table the motion until we come up with something more concrete.
Fac: There is no UFC proposal at this point, so we do not have to respond immediately.
Nardi: I withdraw my motion until the Executive Committee in consultation with the Faculty Affairs Committee drafts a response.
Fac: Has teaching competency been addressed? Our rationale for opposing should include statements regarding teaching and service.
Fac: There is a trend to get rid of tenure track positions by filling them with adjuncts, associates, clinical rates, etc., so post tenure review may not be an issue in the future, especially with distance education.
A discussion regarding IUN's different types of ranks and how those positions are utilized ensued.
Chair: The issues went to committee and there is no formal report at this time.
Fac: How was this committee appointed and comprised?
VC Moran: Brand appointed the committee. There were faculty on the committee and seemed to be a mix heavy with DE experience. There were only two regional representatives and the second representative resigned. I did try to keep the other regionals informed
Fac: We need a central point to distribute the documents.
VC Moran: They should be on the Web. I'll check into that and let you know. I'll put them on reserve in the library.
Fac: It is essential that we demonstrate the importance of direct teaching.
VC Moran: There has been a switch in terminology from distance education to distributed education. This is a positive development because it is taking into account the personal element.
Fac: How will the self study committee be comprised and appointed?
Rooda: It is too soon to say.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm Submitted by: Ellen Bosman, Secretary