Indiana University Northwest Text



Indiana University Logo

January 20th,  2006

10 a.m.-noon in Hawthorn 107

I. Call to order at 10:06 am

II.  Minutes of the 18 November 2005 meeting approved

III.  President's announcements

a.       March 28, 2006 – UFC will meet here

b.      Election of First Tier Salary Committee is ongoing

c.       President Herbert and University Restructuring




·         UFC Secretary Bart Ng would be willing to come to IUN to discuss these concerns with us; he would like to compile a list of questions from the regional campuses to take to the Administration about our concerns.  Please submit any questions to Geo. Bodmer 

·         Discussion revolved around whether the current plans indicate a move to autonomous campuses like the U.Wisconsin system or instead a unified system

·         Board of Trustee’s has approved the major recommendations that the President made in the business meeting last Saturday.  Charles Bantz is now Executive Vice-President of the University  

IV.  Chancellor's report

·         Bloomington Provost is Academic Vice-president for Bloomington only

·         Charles Bantz is now Academic Vice-president for rest of system

·         IUPUI at present is the hardest hit in this restructuring as the Medical School has now become part of IUB

·         R. Wollons asked whether there was sentiment from the Regional Chancellors to move to more autonomy.  Chancellor Bergland indicated that perhaps South Bend would be interested in that, but he hadn’t felt that the other regionals did

·         Chancellor believes that at present this won’t severely impact the regional campuses since we are all on the periphery of the University already.  Additionally, he indicated that the Chancellor of IUPUI has an excellent understanding of the regional campuses

·         Enrollments are down approximately 2%, but at about what the administration had budgeted for

·         J. Bloom asked whether there was a move to have IUN be primarily a professional school, and thus downgrading Arts and Sciences?  Chancellor indicated this was absolutely not true

·         F. Caucci asked about why and how we could grow IUN?  Chancellor indicated there was no reason for the campus to grow, but instead the issue is excellence. Focus instead on areas of quality and excellence, rather than size of the institution.  He commended the General Education Committee on their work as part of this process. 

V.  Vice Chancellor Romingers' report

·         Working on Graduate Degree Guidelines to help make them appropriate for the regional campuses

·         Course Release Forms have been revised and you should be receiving them shortly, remember this year is a pilot year

·         ALC in Merrillville – the Dean’s Council will undertake an analysis of the Strategic Plan of our relationship with it; Vice-Chancellor indicated we were benefiting from the system.  We have offered several courses there successfully

·         Michael McRobbie is now interim Provost and so there will be an anticipated delay in the Intercampus Research Fund changes

·         D. Coffin – Strategic Plan for ALC?  Is this not draining resources from this campus and our mission?  Shouldn’t faculty be involved in this process? Vice-Chancellor indicated this is what we are currently doing. 

·         P. Lundberg asked if Vice-Chancellor would find out whether there will be a change in leadership at the Office of Research in Bloomington?

·         Status of Summer Faculty Fellowships?  Vice-Chancellor will check but believed that letters had been sent out in December.  They will be sent out again.

·         V. Kilibarda – Status of Founder’s Day Award Plaques – for last 8 years of winners are currently being engraved and should be available shortly 

VI.  UFC report--Professor Coffin

·         Summary attached (at end of this document)

·         Conflict of Commitment of Policy – time use – spend up to an average of up to 1 business day in non-university activities (whether paid or unpaid)

·         Draft Admissions Policy – Don indicated he believes it is an attempt to make it more difficult for students to transfer from regional campuses to Bloomington and to separate Bloomington from the regional campuses

·         General Education Discussion at UFC on distribution based or principles based general education

·         Discussion centered on the place of IUN in all of these changes including questions on the possibility of merging with PUC, merging with IVY Tech, becoming autonomous.  No answers are of course available to us currently for any of these questions

·         Hopefully at the Jan. 31 UFC meeting we will have a more focused idea of what is going on within the IU system (administratively)

VII.  Reading and discussion of the12/13/05 draft of IUN General Education Principles--Professors Fischer and Kilibarda

·         Asked faculty to read the definitions of the principles and the tentative timeline and send comments and questions to the General Education Committee by February 1, 2006.

·         Committee will take this comments and questions and revise the principles and they will then be brought to Faculty Organization for a vote via paper ballot

·         Anyone can join the General Education ONCOURSE site to see all of the documents produced

·         Mini-travel grants will be available for faculty to attend conferences related to general education through Academic Affairs

·         Grants will also be available for development of new coursework that will fit into the new General Education Principles (Summer grants) 

VIII.  Visit of the VCAA candidate

·         Vice-Chancellor candidate will attend at 11: 00; President Bodmer urged the faculty to attend the session at 1:30 pm today to meet him as well

·         Vice-Chancellor candidate Aggrey introduced himself  and explained his reasoning for continuing to seek the position here at IUN

IX.  Old Business

The Faculty Organization Executive Committee offers the following substitute motion to replace the one tabled at the 18 Nov. 2005 meeting:

Be it resolved that as it is the authority of faculty to establish promotion and tenure guidelines and the mechanisms for evaluating faculty performance, the following is recommended:

 Course Load Redistribution Policy

 1. The following process is not intended to replace or supersede provisions of
 Faculty Annual Reports, including the Teaching Load Reassignment Form
 and evaluations
 Annual salary recommendations
 Tenure reviews
 Promotion review
 Post-tenure Review
 Promotion and Tenure guidelines
 IU Academic Handbook

Nothing in this policy will be construed to prohibit a Dean, Program Director, or Department Chair from working with a faculty member to develop a program to improve faculty research performance.

 2. All faculty members holding tenure-track appointments will receive a one-course time-reassignment for research for each semester during the academic years of their probationary periods.

 3. Each faculty member will submit a Faculty Annual Report, including a Teaching Load Reassignment Form. If a faculty member with research expectations, excluding non-tenured tenure track members, receives less than adequate evaluations in the research category, according to the department and division criteria, for three successive evaluations, a review process will be instigated by the faculty member's dean.


4. The review, to take place in the Spring Semester, will be conducted by an elected campus committee composed of a minimum of three tenured faculty members, and will exclude administrators at the level of department chair and above.
 The faculty member will be notified as to the makeup of the committee and has the right to reject a faculty member in the case of perceived conflict of interest.

 The review committee may terminate the process if it finds that there is no basis for the review. If there is a demonstrated lack of adequacy in the faculty research program, the committee shall state, in writing, the specific deficiencies identified. Deliberations will be confidential, and the findings shall then be sent to the faculty member or librarian, and to the dean or library director.

 In the latter case, the faculty member will not receive the reassigned course for research for the following year, although all tenured faculty members are expected to perform adequately in the category of research.

 The committee and faculty member should agree on a clearly delineated development plan to overcome the deficiency in research. This may include mentoring, attendance at research conferences, or other academic support.

 5. Faculty who through this process of review are not offered the reassigned course for research shall have thirty days to request an appeal formally in writing to the committee who made the judgment. The appeal process shall be completed within the same semester in which the decision was made. Faculty retain all rights of appeal as specified in the IU Academic Handbook.

 6. Any faculty member who loses the reassigned course for research may regain it by returning to adequate performance in research or by developing and making satisfactory progress towards fulfilling an agreed upon development plan for research.

a.       R. Hug – asked whether 3 years was a rather long time to wait for faculty development to begin? 

b.      J. Tolhuizen – this would require faculty to return to adequate performance while teaching more courses than before

c.       J. Bloom – this would then entail teaching for at least 3 years at higher level

d.      K. Huyksen – to aid faculty, rather than be punitive, why not have a review after one year and if adequate progress is made regain release

e.       A. Rominger – main purpose is to indicate an active research agenda over time

f.       C.Gallmeier – what do we define as adequate?

g.      A. Adler- this is for tenured faculty, is it a post-tenure review system, faculty should understand what adequate is

h.      I. Hozo – stated this process is not to remove faculty from their positions, rather that is the purpose of Post-Tenure Review 

i.        D.  Coffin/C. Gallmeier –indicated they believed the Academic Handbook indicates that it is the sole right of the faculty to …..(see first part of resolution)

j.        J. Tolhuizen – point is that faculty and administration as faculty work together in developing guidelines for evaluation 

k.      R. Hass Birky – suggested that written feedback from Chancellor before passing it might be advisable

l.        Amendments to the resolution appear in Bold; All of the additions except for removing the word sole in the first paragraph were approved with a voice vote; a hand vote for removing the word sole passed, 22 for removing sole; 19 for not removing sole.

m.    Question was called and the resolution passed with a voice vote.     


X.  New Business

a.  One Book One Campus (R. Hass Birky) – Sarah Vowell’s, The Partly Cloudy Patriot -- purchase the book, or check it out and participate in the campus events

XI.  Adjournment 11:49 am


Summary of UFC Meeting November 29, 2005


Following approval of the minutes from the October 25, 2005 meeting, President Herbert announced the creation of an RCM Task Force (to complete its work by May 2006) and previewed some upcoming scholarship and gift announcements he will be making before the end of the fall semester.


Bart Ng, on behalf of the Agenda Committee, reported that they spent the majority of their meeting with President Herbert today discussing, in broad terms, general education and the meaning of an IU diploma. In addition, the Agenda Committee approved for consideration at today’s meeting a short policy statement on undergraduate admissions that would appear in the Academic Handbook and would reference the Guidelines for admission being developed. This proposal would establish, as a matter of institutional policy, the CORE 40 as a minimum standard for admission.


The Question/Comment period began with Professor Ted Miller summarizing the recent events at IU Bloomington. Professor Miller described the ad hoc meeting called by a small group of faculty, the petition signed by over 100 faculty members to call a formal meeting of the whole campus faculty, and the outcome of that Special Meeting of the Bloomington Faculty that was held on November 14, 2005. Professor Miller stressed that these actions were taken by the faculty as a whole, not by the Faculty Council. Professor Spechler articulated concerns about the recent actions in Bloomington and spoke critically about the method that was undertaken in stating the faculty concerns. Professor Wheeler encouraged President Herbert to add to the RCM Review Task Force charge some consideration of the impact of RCM on general education and the educational process in general. Professor Kravchuk, on behalf of Professor Boukai, as co-chairs of the UFC Finance and Facilities Committee thanked President Herbert for a productive and thoughtful meeting with he and Vice President Palmer which will hopefully lay the foundation for future collaboration between the faculty council and the budget/financial officers of the university administration.


The Council’s first business item was a deferred approval of a Policy on Conflicts of Commitment Involving Outside Professional Activities. This policy was discussed by the UFC several times over the last few years and we deferred action at the last meeting of the 2004-2005 academic year to allow for amendments to be circulated and considered over the summer. That consultation has occurred and the UFC took unanimous affirmative action. Professors Ng and Miller will forward this policy, along with the Policy on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research to the Board of Trustees for their consideration.  The policy may be found at


The UFC next turned to a discussion of the short policy proposal for an Undergraduate Admissions Policy drafted by Professor Miller. Several amendments were accepted on the floor including: "or equivalent", "to a campus" rather than "to a degree program", adding a reference to the guidelines, and including an effective date. Shifting focus to the Guidelines document, there was still some confusion over whether these were guidelines, minimum standards, or some variation in between. Several members of the Council urged the Committee to clarify this stance; other members argued for a higher standard minima above the CORE 40. The EPC will bring back in January a revised version for action.  The draft discussed in the UFC meeting may be found here:


Finally, the Council had an open discussion of general education which included comparisons of principle- vs. distribution- approaches to general education, questions about the financial and budgeting impacts of a general education program, a suggestion that we not lose sight of the opportunity to create a program that could be transferable between IU campuses, within IU majors, and with the Ivy Tech Community College. Ultimately, Professor Ludlum Foos and Associate Dean of the Faculties Sharon Hamilton emphasized the importance of taking a step back and asking important questions about the nature of an Indiana University education, what an IU degree means, and what role the general education should play in a students’ overall undergraduate experience. The discussion of general education will continue in the spring semester.

The Council adjourned into standing committee meetings from 3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.


Return to Faculty Org Main Page

Indiana University Northwest
3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408


Copyright Complaints bullet Privacy Statement