Indiana University Northwest Text

FACULTY ORGANIZATION

MEETING MINUTES

Indiana University Logo

October 21, 2005

       I.  The meeting was called to order at 1:05 PM

II.                September Minutes were approved as read.

III.             President's announcements

A.    AAUP Meeting will follow the faculty Organization meeting in HH107.

B.     Professor Bloom raised the issue of transferability under admissions standards revised for mission differentiation. Professor Coffin said that transferability would not be affected.

C.     Professor Hass-Birky announced a meeting to discuss Intercampus research funds, with Sanita Soni from Bloomington on October 28 at 10:30 in HH107. An email has been sent to the faculty.

       IV. Chancellor's report

A. The Chancellor announced his search for a Faculty Assistant. Interested parties, especially those with an interest in administration, should inquire. The position would be half-time, with a 2-year appointment, and might deal with matters such as AQUIP. Professor Bodmer asked if there were rank requirements; such matters will be discussed at a meeting.

 

B. Professor Barr asked about the status of the search for a Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Chancellor said that he could reply more definitively in two seeks, and he desires to find a permanent replacement. He’s thinking of employing a search firm that will provide the campus with a list of 10-12 candidates from which to choose.

 

       V.  Vice Chancellors' reports

           

A.    Vice-Chancellor Rominger

 

1.      Announced that Professor Bodmer has begun to meet with the Deans’ Council as they work on ongoing projects such as course-load reduction and the Academic Priorities Committee.

2.      Described her meeting with the General Education Assessment Committee. A charge was requested, and will be delivered to the committee the week of October 24, 2005.

3.      There will be no new degrees allowed until the process of Mission Differentiation is complete. Graduate degrees will be allowed in February, 2006, and undergraduate degrees in October.

4.      Professor Barr asked about the rationale for filling position  requests based on the incompletion of the General Education committee’s work, wondering it were expected that the new general education guidelines might not include Math, English, and History.  The Vice-Chancellor replied that they wanted to wait for a review of goals, to review Professor Hass-Birky’s research into current practices, and reviews of student learning outcomes in order to “connect the dots.”  Chancellor Bergland  added that until the direction for general education was set, we need to maintain “maximum flexibility” in hiring, and used the possibility of hiring people with experience with “learning communities” as an example. Professor Barr noted that as each position goes unreplaced from year to year, the budget line that funded those positions disappears, and responded to the Chancellor’s question whether he felt that the APC committee’s recommendations were ignored again this year by noting the ongoing deficiencies in French, History, and English as examples that they had.  The Chancellor replied that he funded the positions in the order they were presented to him.  Professor Tolhuizen, speaking as a member of the Budget Committee, echoed Professor Barr on the priority given to positions for which there is currently in the line, and the difficulty in melding staff and faculty priorities, and argued that there was a “disconnect” in the process, To which Professor Barr added that he felt that the APC recommendations were not reflected in the approved positions.

 

VI.             UFC report--Professor Coffin

 

1.      Asked whether anyone had been contacted about the Intercampus research fund. No one has, and he noted that it was odd that their suspension occurred without consultation. He urged all who are affected to attend the October 28 meeting, and solicited email input.

2.      Described the news admissions policy, which are to be designed to suit individual campuses within parameters. The new policy needs to respond to the new core 40 requirements, although he doesn’t know what the changes in those will be.

3.      Announced that general education proposed guidelines are coming in the Spring. Professor Fisher, speaking for the General Education Committee at IUN, described it as an “open process,” expressed the need for an expanded membership,  and announced  the creation of an Oncourse site for faculty to follow developments and post responses. Professor Delunas showed us how to log-in, and agreed to send an email describing the steps.

 

    Professor Lord introduced new SPEA faculty members, Sam Flint, and Kevin Walsh. Rominger introduced the new person in CETL.

 

    VI.  Outcome 2--See attachment

 

    VII.  Course Load Redistribution Policy

    1.      Professor Hozo presented the following proposal.

Be it resolved that as it is the sole authority of faculty to establish promotion and tenure guidelines and the mechanisms for evaluating faculty performance, the Faculty Affairs Committee of IUN, charged with creating policy for evaluating the one course release policy for active faculty research, recommends the following:

1. All procedures and processes that appear in the Post Tenure Review

Policy, which have been accepted and approved (including the appeal process) by the Faculty Organization, apply to this process.

 

2. Standards of review and evaluation stated in the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines may not be superseded by this process.

 

3. Department and discipline-specific guidelines regarding expectations for

research should be clearly articulated in a statement available to faculty.

 

4. Responsibility for identifying faculty who are unable to meet

expectations for a course load reduction for research, and for developing a

remediation plan, falls to the Chair, Dean, and/or Director of the faculty

member's academic unit.

 

5. In the case that a faculty member does not meet the requirements for a

course load reduction for research, as determined by the unit head per #4,

s/he enters into a remediation process, as prescribed by Post-Tenure Review guidelines. An unsuccessful remediation process, or voluntary choice, ultimately results in a course load increase. After two years of full load teaching, the faculty member may again receive a reassignment upon

presenting a research plan and with the agreement of the chair/dean of the

academic unit to which s/he belongs. This process may be repeated a maximum of three times during an academic career at IUN before the course load reassignment becomes permanent.

 

6. As teaching on the IUN campus is highly valued and central to our

mission, course load redistribution should be respected as a choice and an

opportunity for faculty who prefer to emphasize teaching over research.

 

A wide-ranging discussion of the course-load release review process centered on the relationship between the procedure proposed by the Faculty Affairs committee and the Post-Tenure review policy already adopted, and whether a new policy and process were required.  Professor Hozo presented the FAC proposal, arguing that the procedures for dealing with problems with performance were already in place. Professor Delunas asked whether the use of post-tenure review procedures to review course load release for research time was consistent with the purpose of post tenure review. Vice Chancelllor Rominger presented the Deans suggestions to separate the faculty development from the  review of course load release, a view shared by several others who noted that the Post-Tenure Review policy could ultimately more result in dismissal, and so should not be triggered by the review of course-load release. Professor Tolhuizen noted that the procedures for Post-Tenure Review are separate from the procedures for dismissing a  tenured faculty member, and that the former were designed as faculty development. The faculty discussed how these procedures would work with the pilot program for review of course-load release for research proposed by the Chancellor, and whether these new procedures were required, or whether Deans and chairs could enforce current procedures more effectively.  Many argued for the need for clearly stated policies on research expectations within the departments, and for clear procedures for reviewing faculty members’ fulfillment of those expectations.

            Don Coffin moved to table the discussion; Linda Delunas seconded, and the motion passed.

 

 

    VIII.  Writing Across the Curriculum Committee Report--Professor Nelson

1.      Presented a report to Professor Bodmer on areas of need in writing at IUN.

2.      Asked for further information for the Writing Center on departments’ writing guidelines.

3.      Notified faculty of upcoming workshops in ways to improve student writing, how to include writing in course, and how to include research in writing.

 

      IX.  Old Business--Outcomes 1 and 6--Professors Klamen and

    Lundberg--http://www.iun.edu/~spcnw/Outcome1/

1. Picked up where last meeting left off, and presented the Outcomes 1 and 6 document with revisions undertaken in response to last month’s discussion.

2. Professor Tolhuizen moved that its acceptance be put to a mail ballot sent to the faculty; motion seconded by Professor Bloom, and carried.

      X.  New business

 

    XI.             Adjournment. Meeting adjourned at 2:53.

 

Submitted by Doug Swartz

 

Return to Faculty Org Main Page


Indiana University Northwest
3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408
888-YOUR IUN

219-980-6500
(1-888-968-7486)

Comments:
Copyright Complaints bullet Privacy Statement