I. Call to Order
President Jim Tolhuizen called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
II. Minutes of the September 21, 2001 meeting.
A motion to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2001 Faculty Organization meeting was made and seconded. Tolhuizen pointed out that the time said meeting was called to order was in the a.m. not p.m. The minutes with this correction were approved unanimously.
III. Chancellor's Business
Chancellor Bruce Bergland began reporting a piece of noteworthy news from the Public Relations Office: Trustee Morris has been appointed to serve on a U. N. committee on food, and we will probably have a new president of the Trustees as a result.
Bergland also expressed enjoyment over the ceremony for the first endowed chair at IUN. He felt it was a very significant ceremony for which the presentations were excellent. He stated that it was the first of such presentations, but that it would not be our last.
Bergland next responded to his having been told that one of our colleagues suggested that Purdue and IUN would be merged by 2003. Bergland stated that he sincerely doubted that this would occur, reporting that he had just talked with the President about the issue. Faculty members noted that similar ideas also based on 'good authority' seem to have been repeated from the 60s to the present. Bergland assured those present that the Faculty Organization would be called together at a moment's notice if he ever hears of a serious move to do anything of this nature.
Bergland next commented upon the previous meeting's discussion of enrollment. On this topic, he responded to rumors about the defensiveness of faculty who felt they were being blamed for enrollment decline. Bergland wished to clarify the fact that enrollment is influenced by a lot of factors. He suggested that to blame one party is naive at best and ill-advised to say the least. The way to move ahead, according to Bergland, is together rather than run away from negativity or blame one party. He urged the faculty to share ideas to bring faculty and administration to work better together, realizing that we most likely have the same agendas. Bergland likewise connected his comments back to last month's discussion of academic excellence and his previous call for idea generation. He stated that neither he nor Executive Vice Chancellor Helm had been contacted in response to this call. He posited one reason for the lack of contact on this issue: maybe faculty feel that they cannot talk to him. He suggested that, if this were the case, interested faculty should give their ideas to those with whom they feel comfortable.
In addition to redressing the enrollment and academic excellence issues addressed in the September meeting, Bergland announced that the faculty would be receiving packets of items on the new issues raised by the September 11th terrorist attacks. He is sending these packets to remind us that we need to renew our commitment to academic rigor as a follow-up to his September 21st comments.
Professor Poulard stated he felt Bergland was being unfair in his remarks about academic excellence, as faculty members are concerned about academic excellence and act upon it. He stated that it is unfair to characterize lack of discussion as an indication of lack of interest.
President Tolhuizen thanked Bergland for his report, expressing appreciation for the Chancellor's admission of the complexity of enrollment and retention issues. In response, Bergland addressed the Ivy Tech referral program for those students not ready for university work and briefly talked about the committee that is working on this initiative. Professor Chary cited student attendance as one issue relating to student failure in classes.
IV. Executive Vice Chancellor's Business
Executive Vice Chancellor Helm was out of town; therefore, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor Pellicciotti spoke in her stead. Pellicciotti briefed the organization on the retention initiative of which Bergland had briefly spoken. The first part of the initiative is a referral program in which those students whom we choose not to admit are referred to the community college. This referral program is mandated by the agreement between Purdue, IU, and the Indiana Commission on Higher Education and is modeled after the program offered by IUPUI. He spoke about what these students must do while at the community college prior to being admitted as IUN students and announced that we will work on relationship building with these students linking them to our campus in preparation for when they are ready to attend IUN. For example, he stated that these students would still be involved in campus activities like student clubs. The second component of the initiative is comprised of support services for those students who are admitted but need extra help to succeed at IUN. This support program will be a broad one consisting of peer mentors, faculty involvement, academic assistance on campus, and lessons relating techniques of college success.
Pellicciotti also reported on the movement toward a teaching and learning center. The Faculty Development Committee (chaired by Professor Sutherland) and FACET graduates (led by Professor Coffin) have met to decide to discuss the nature of such a center. Sutherland briefed those present on those discussions, stating that he and Coffin had visited South Bend's center. Sutherland stated that all campuses have such a center and suggested that the key seemed to be to have a balance between technology and development. Sutherland also announced that the group was working on a position statement, which they would be glad to share with those interested. The position of director of this center will be a half-time position, and this director will be selected from candidates who are IUN faculty members. He urged that we get people to apply and look for those among us whom we wished to nominate. He also said that money from the system would be used to fund a second position that would focus on technology. The location of the yet unnamed center will be on the third floor of the library. Coffin inserted that the centers on other campuses have a faculty development and student learning focus. He noted the clear connection between such a center and student retention.
Vice Chancellor Steward updated the organization on where we stand on the policies presented at the September meeting. He announced that he has ordered new printers, is looking at a philosophy of helping faculty do their jobs, and will provide people who need printers with them.
Steward next addressed problems IUN has been having with its bulk email. A lawyer has advised him that we have not precisely followed the law, specifically the Family Education, Rights, and Privacy Act (FERPA), which has the intention of stopping our students from being harassed. Steward reported that we were not supposed to supply student addresses in our directory information. We can not tell anyone our student addresses until the students are notified and have the option of opting out. Steward is working to assure that we are legally compliant. Steward supplied the group with the 1992 "Policy: Electronic Mail Access for Mass Distributions" and a 2001 IUN pamphlet entitled "Computer Users' Privileges and Responsibilities." Discussing three classes of mail (individual mail, discussion lists, and bulletin boards), Steward referred people to the IT website where relevant information will be posted on email and bulk mail. He stated that the Technology Council will look at the categories, see what is feasible, and decide what we should do, discussing what types of messages are appropriate to each type of email while remaining legally compliant.
V. President's Business
President Tolhuizen recognized Professor Kern who read a memorial statement for Professor Rhiman Rotz. Kern moved that the faculty accept this eulogy, that it be included in the minutes, and a copy be sent to Professor Rotz's wife.
President Tolhuizen announced that November is our first election month: elections will occur for the Faculty Board of Review and the Teaching Load Review Committee. He asserted that, since the Teaching Load Review Committee never meets, the Executive Committee would try to determine whether the committee should be suspended. In fact, he reported that the Executive Committee has been seriously discussing redoing the committee structure to distribute the workload more evenly and to reflect the needs of faculty and the desired accomplishments. This group is almost ready to involve the Constitution Committee in the process.
VI. UFC Report
Professor Vinodgopal reported seven items from the UFC:
1) The Board of Trustees passed the resolution on lecturers and senior lecturers. The Faculty Affairs Committee is developing our procedures. The question, Vinodgopal suggested, involves what to do with people until the guidelines are in place. UFC would like to see a policy that can be implemented across all campuses. IU Kokomo has a preliminary proposal. The conditions for those appointments are available in the On-line Handbook.
2) The UFC website contains the policy for student email and privacy to which Steward earlier referred.
3) Reciprocity agreements were discussed at the UFC meeting. The only true agreement of this sort is between IUSE and Kentucky: In this agreement, IUSE is reimbursed for students lost to Kentucky. The situation with IUE and Ohio is a unilateral reduction by the Board of Trustees for the students attending schools in Ohio, a situation in which money is lost. The relevance is that Illinois and Ohio do not want to enter into the type of agreement that IUSE has with Kentucky. These states prefer the second type, which means revenues could be lost.
4) The UFC expressed a need for a distributed education committee to control on-line courses. The UFC views the need for faculty control of on-line curriculum and courses as important.
5) The Board of Trustees passed the Domestic Partners Resolution, but it will take time to implement this resolution. It will possibly be implemented by next year.
6) It is clear that the solutions to 18-20 are not working due to budget shortfalls and inability to convince people to delay retirement. This will need to be addressed. Hostility exists on the part of people not under the 18-20 retirement plan when faced with problems caused by it. Alternatives might involve either increasing benefits for others or raising the tuition waiver from 50% to 100% or adding a tuition waiver for attending Purdue.
7) UFC is discussing two questions relating to Allied Health's status system-wide: a) financial exigency and its consequences and b) the Commission's agreement with IU and Purdue relating to associate degrees. IUN does not have a policy for financial exigency. IUPUI has one, and it would be advisable for us to develop one. Vinodgopal encouraged Allied Health faculty to relay concerns to him.
VII. Committee Reports
Library Committee: Professor Ecktencamp presented the library "Materials Budget" as a committee resolution for approval. Professor Foltz asked where Women's Studies was within the budget. The formula for the budget, which involves credit hours produced and courses offered, was discussed. Moran asserted that special development money was traditionally used to give to Women's Studies. The "Materials Budget" was approved unanimously. The Resolution on Library Projects was presented as moved and seconded by the committee. Professor Poulard addressed cautioning students about using the Internet and stressing the need for library research for projects. Chancellor Bergland questioned the resolution wording, suggesting that it read "Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Organization encourages faculty to assign library projects to their students." Moran accepted this rewording as a friendly amendment. The resolution passed.
Faculty Affairs Committee: Professor Sheldon, the chair of this committee, could not attend this meeting; therefore, Professor Schultz, a committee member, provided the history of the two documents: "IUN's Post-Tenure Review and Enhancement Policy for Faculty and Librarians" and "IUN Dismissal Procedures for Tenured Faculty and Librarians." He reminded the organization of the Board of Trustees mandate to have a policy and the faculty's role in generating the policy itself. "IUN's Post-Tenure Review and Enhancement Policy for Faculty and Librarians" and "IUN Dismissal Procedures for Tenured Faculty and Librarians" come moved and seconded by the Faculty Affairs Committee. Discussion addressed a lack of choice in implementing a procedure. Tolhuizen made the point that the choice rests in the nature of the policy. Knapp pointed out the fairness and protectiveness of this policy.
Galloway proposed an amendment to the policy resolution that we send the policies to an all-campus mail ballot to get the input of more people. His amendment to the motion was seconded. In discussion of this amendment, it was asserted that a majority vote decides issues sent to a mail ballot. Bergland asked about interaction with the Board of Trustees in relation to a timeline. Tolhuizen asserted that they want something quickly. Bergland suggested that the Board is concerned that campuses complete them. Tolhuizen reminded those present that we had waited a year upon Brand's request to do so because of the Vision. Members discussed how long a ballot vote might take: Poulard stated that he could have a potential ballot list in one week, and Tolhuizen posited that, with a simple yes/no vote and a week to vote and count, the results could be obtained in a week. Objections to the mail ballot were based upon the policies' wide publication, knowledge of the vote being taken within this meeting, and interested parties being in attendance to vote. Others suggested that many can not attend particular meetings for legitimate reasons, arguing against such a small group voting on such an important issue. Bergland thought that Chairman Obremski would want an answer by the November Board meeting. It was noted that those absent would not hear the current debate thereby not being as informed. Clarification that the other campuses had policies in place and that they were similar to these documents was given, and doubt over problems relating to delay was expressed. It was suggested that the ballot state the committee's support for the documents. The question was called. The amendment for a mail ballot for the polices did not pass.
Returning to discussion of the policies themselves, it was suggested that the policies do not change what we have now. Others noted the importance of sending a message that we are capable of policing ourselves based upon the fact that these policies originated in and were developed by the faculty. It would be a terrible message to vote them down. It was suggested that the second line of the "IUN Dismissal Procedures for Tenured Faculty and Librarians" read "financial exigency of IUN." Others expressed the need to define "financial exigency." It was moved and seconded that the second line of this document read "financial exigency of Indiana University Northwest." The possible need for help from the system rather than being on our own in terms of financial problems was addressed. The second was withdrawn, and it was suggested that we need to have financial exigency policy itself as other campuses have ones of their own. The wording would not need to be changed if we had such a policy in place. Moving back to discussion of the policies in general, their clarity, importance, and usefulness were stressed. Final commentary related the importance of having such policies in place to protect faculty rights and to indicate that faculty are capable of identifying and solving problems themselves.
"IUN's Post-Tenure Review and Enhancement Policy for Faculty and Librarians" and "IUN Dismissal Procedures for Tenured Faculty and Librarians" passed.
VIII. Old Business
No old business was presented.
IX. New Business
No new business was presented.
There being no further business, the Faculty Organization meeting adjourned at 2:45 p. m.
Robin R. Hass