November 19, 2004
I. Professor Bodmer called the meeting to order at 12:05 pm.
II. The Minutes of the October 15th meeting were approved
III. President’s Announcements
1.) Bodmer announced that the issue of faculty background checks has been sent to the Faculty Affairs committee for consideration. He reminded the F.O. that a salary committee needs to be elected as well as a Faculty Board of Review.
IV. Chancellor’s Report
1.) Chancellor Bergland complimented the faculty on their hard work in presenting the first annual Arts and Sciences Faculty/Student Conference.
2.) He announced that a report from C.Nelms on “Mission Differentiation” is expected by December, 2004, and that decisions on allocations for new positions would not be made until after December.
3.) Professor Scooter Pegrim asked the Chancellor what was being done to remedy the computer program problems in the IUN Financial Aid Office.
4.) Vice-Chancellor Vasquez responded that the administration is addressing the problem by offering short-term loans. Bergland added that IUN staff members are working hard to remedy problems with “PeopleSoft”
5.) Professor Hug asked the Chancellor how the amount of funds for hiring would be determined.
6.) Bergland responded that he wouldn’t know until the end of December, 2004.
7.) Bodmer remarked that both the IUN administration and the faculty should remember what true “faculty governance” means: in making decisions with regard to salaries, hiring practices, and other pressing matters that directly affect the faculty.
8.) Bergland agreed yet reminded the F.O. of the inherent tension between faculties and administrations. He remarked that, on the other hand, the president of IUB needs to “carefully define” IU’s mission statements the role faculties play in making decisions about hiring and new faculty salaries.
V. UFC Report
1.) Professor Tolhuizen reported that the student affairs committee is revising the student code of rights and responsibilities.
2.) He displayed on a screen circular u6.2005 at the IUB Website and briefly summarized IU’s new policy of “routine background checks” for IU academic employees.
VI. Vice-Chancellor for Academic Search
1.) Professor Gallmeier reported that the search committee will meet December 1st to rate its current 40 applications for the position, and that a “video conference” will be scheduled for January, 2005.
VII. Human Subjects Administrator
1.) Professor Fischer introduced IUN’s new “Human Subjects” Administrator, Elizabeth Schultz. (Human Resources, her office is in Tamarack Hall and her extension is 5646.)
VIII. Tribute to Fedor Cicak
1.) Professor Poulard delivered a tribute to retired IUN Professor of Political Science, Fedor Cicak. His remarks are attached as a motion approved to include them here.
IX. Process for Fall Final Grades
1.) Registrar Peter Kesheimer displayed on screen a new program for faculty office computers to log-in for grade rosters and other student information. Grades can be loaded and posted. Registrar staff members are available to help.
X. Old Business
1.) Professor Gallmeier announced that the “Profile of Academic Excellence – Draft One” has been circulated to the faculty to date, and will be submitted to the E.C. on December 3rd.
XI. New Business: E.C. submission of Professor Barr’s Resolutions
1.) Bodmer introduced Barr’s resolutions as passed by E.C.
2.) Barr presented his resolutions to the F.O. He reminded the faculty that these resolutions reinforce the value of “faculty governance” and recognize that a 3-course teaching load implies research. He asked the F.O. to send a clear message to the administration that faculty accountability is, of course, expected, yet research is also expected.
3.) Professor Hug asked if the EC strongly endorsed these resolutions.
4.) Bodmer responded that it did.
5.) Professor Tolhuizen reminded the F.O. that according to IU’s “Mission Differentiation,” local campuses are expected to make decisions on teaching loads.
6.) Vasquez objected and said that the Indiana Education Commission determined faculty course load [at 4], and then local campuses would determine their own teaching loads according to their needs.
7.) Professor Hug asked if a “post-tenure review” has ever occured at IUN
8.) Coffin responded that only deans could answer that.
9.) Gallmeier asked where such a policy originated, and why are we not using procedures for such matters already in place.
10.) Bergland announced that we will be evaluating research output in order to determine whether course-loads are to increase. He stated that clear procedures will be written in order to determine such increases.
11.) Tolhueizen insisted under such a course-load policy, Professor Barr’s resolutions are then essential.
12.) Bergland answered that he could accept Barr’s resolutions.
13.) Professor Caucci asked the Chancellor why such policies are being implemented, and if they originated from IUB. He further asked if such policies exist at IUB.
14.) Bergland responded that IUN will have its own procedures, to be written later.
On Resolution No. 1
1.) The F.O. voted to approve – unanimously.
On Resolution No. 2
1.) Hug objected to No. 2 because its language repudiated the activities of IUN’s “Centers”
2.) Professor Russell disagreed, pointing out that Barr’s resolutions are descriptions of “procedures” to evaluate faculty performance and not “definitions” of research.
3.) Bergland added that the F.O. should remember that IUN is “building an identity around excellence” is areas that can be recognized and publicized in Northwest Indiana.
4.) Professor Lundberg argued that IUN’s “Centers” are important as ways to support both “regional vitality” and traditional research as defined by Barr. As Director of IUN”s Center for Cultural Discovery and Learning, she stated that such “Centers” simply invite people to submit proposals for both cultural activities and research.
She further objected to the language of Res. 2, arguing that its words “skew” and “narrowing and diminishing” misinterpret the original intent of IUN’s “Centers.”
5.) Barr responded that his resolutions in no way intended to diminish the value of IUN’s “Centers”. He stated that his resolutions were meant to reinforce faculty freedom to “research in any area,” and he further pointed out that research, at the heart of our university, must be protected as a “hedge against provincial thinking.”
6.) Professor Needleman reminded the F.O. that having “Centers” gives the faculty even more opportunities for research monies.
7.) Coffin moved to amend Res. 2 with “comprehensive” in place of “liberal arts,” and “direct” in place of “skew.”
1.) Coffin moved to table discussion on No. 3. Defeated.
2.) F.O. passed Res. 3, 30-9.
Meeting adjourned, 12;00 pm
1.) Poulard’s tribute to Fedor Cicak
2.) Barr’s Resolutions
Return to Faculty Org Main Page