Indiana University Northwest Text

FACULTY ORGANIZATION

MINUTES

Indiana University Logo

 JANUARY  2003


 

17 January 2003

 

I.                     Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by the President Vinodgopal 10:02 a.m.

 

II.                 Minutes

The minutes of the 15 November 2002 Faculty organization meeting were moved and seconded.

III.               Chancellor's Remarks

A.     Enrollment--As of 6 p.m. yesterday, head count was up 11.9 %, credit hours up 11 %, perhaps due in part to everyone's good work, to the economy; there has not been time to analyze the phone survey.  The chancellor compliments the work of Pudar-Hozo who is working on a statistical analysis of the effect of the economy upon enrollment.

B.     Fundraising efforts are going well; development funds are being raised.

C.     Prof. Cohen raised the question about student housing.  Bergland:  The University, under Brand, was interested in watching Ft. Wayne, to see if it succeeds, then South Bend might proceed.  The door would then be open to those interested.

D.     Prof. Russell is unhappy with the PeopleSoft pay stub (tiny) and the amounts taken out, for retirement, for instance.  The project team is looking at this issue.

E.The interim president of the university has demonstrated that he has done things

to develop regional campuses.  All should inform the committee what we want in a new president.

 

IV.              Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs' Remarks

A.     Again, enrollment looks good, and Academic Affairs will provide refreshments for next meetings.

B.     AQIP update--You will soon be receiving a technology survey.  All should fill this out, including adjuncts and classes, which need not do it during classtime, and there will be prizes for turning it in, perhaps $ 25 in three categories.

C.     A retention plan, 1st year Experience, is moving along.  There was a plan to go for Title III money, but since it is late, this will be a planning proposal.

D.    The new professional forms, to be turned in with the Faculty Annual Reports, are available on the web.

E.     Despite any rumors ONCourse is not going away.

F.      Chairs are thanked for the work in getting the adjunct contracts into the new system.

G.      For program prioritization, the deans and the Academic Planning Committee should get their work done by May.

H.     In terms of budget, the governor's recommendation  is a "flat-lined reduction,"

with a $ 455,000 cut to the base, no enrollment change funding, and no       technology funding.

V.   President's Announcements

The president introduces a new faculty member Kevin Kennedy, replacing Angel Gochee in biology

 

V.                 Election Committee 

Prof. Poulard annouces that George Bodmer was elected secretary of Faculty Organization for the spring semester, and Professors Tolhuizen, Hoyert, Hug, Dorin, and Cohen were elected to the Faculty Board of Review.

 

VI.              Old Business--Coffin Resolution

1.      That the Faculty of Indiana University Northwest do endorse and support the shared vision Statement and the process by which it has been developed.

2.      That the Faculty of Indiana University Northwest do endorse and support the Areas of Excellence and the process by which they were developed.

A.     The chancellor and vice-chancellors offer to leave the room during this discussion and do so briefly.

B.     Coffin:  We need to have a discussion on the vision, to be on record if we support it or not.  The faculty should have been given the opportunity to vote on it.

C.     Barr: It's hard to see the results of the process.

D.     Cohen:  The main issue is resource allocation, new hires;  what is the connection between the accredidation process and the vision?

E.      Delunas:  Accredidation is one way of measuring academic excellence (Rominger agrees).

F.      Rusinek:  Are we speaking of the vision or a mission statement?

G.     Russell:  The "Stewards of Place" initiative  would tend to undervalue the work of certain faculty members.

H.     Delunas:  The vision process was inclusive, done with the encouragement of faculty and staff, and it would be demoralizing to vote against it.

I.        Schultz:  It was an ad hocracy steering the vision; decisions were made that we haven't had input into.  Faculty governance hasn't had a proper voice in this process, and faculty members of the steering committee were appointed rather than elected.

J.       Hug:   People were free to speak in the process and at the time knew what these so-called platitudes of the vision meant.

K.    Barr:  His experience was closer to Schultz' than Hug's.  How do we get on record that we oppose the consequences to the vision as it is implemented?

L.        Rominger:   Supports the program priorities and criteria derived from the vision for new positions, thinks they connect well with sustainable vitality and the community; students need to know what we stand for.

M.     Schultz :  Rominger and Hug have been picked for the ad hoc committee; we are being denied representation. 

N.      Gallmeier:  Students haven't read the plaque on the wall, sustainable vitality is vague, input was not taken in the process.

O.      Bergland:

1.      The chancellor agrees with Russell about what the faculty should be, but the institution needs to be engaged, on the department level, if possible or necessary.  A conversation will soon begin.

2.      Contrary to an impression that he avoids faculty input, the chancellor will be meeting with the Executive Committee of Faculty Organization to discuss these matters.

P.      Coffin:  An earlier draft of the resolution gives priority to academics; such

initiatives as "Stewards of Place" denote an expansion of the service aspect vs. the research aspect of our activities; our priority hould be an interest in learning.

Q.    Barr:  People are uneasy, sensing the administration is skeptical of faculty

governance; academic content is not recognized; what justifies us is that we are doing what traditional universities do.

R.     Delunas:  Why is it perceived that areas of excellence preclude academic

excellence?

S.      Gallmeier:  The suggestion that we are not already involved in the community

is troubling.

T.      Bergland:  We need to improve the engagement with the community.

U.     Coffin:  He studies the region but he is not engaged in it; we need to address the larger world.

V.     Tolhuizen:  The chancellor seems to be backing off this engagement notion, with regard to the hiring of candidates.

 

W.     Wollons:  The separation of academic excellence and community engagement is not a good thing.

X.     Barr:  Professor Sledd has a pertinent article in the MLA publication Profession; we should survey the engaged activities already performed by the faculty.

Y.     Cohen:  Coffin should be thanked for provoking these discussions; our lifeblood is our students, but we are part of a larger university and not "Glen Park College."

Z.      Barr moves and Schultz seconds an amendment that "consequences" be added to the resolution.  Poulard calls the question.  The amendment does not carry.

AA.           Coffin calls for the question in the general resolution.

BB.Running out of time, the president asks if there is objection to extending the meeting:  two deans and the vice-chancellor object.

VII.  Adjournment

            The meeting lapsed at noon.

 

Submitted,

George Bodmer

Secretary

Faculty Organization



Indiana University Northwest

3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408
219-980-6500
888-YOUR IUN
(1-888-968-7486)

Comments:  http://www.iun.edu/~facorg/meeting03/fomjan03.htm Copyright Complaints bullet Privacy Statement