Indiana University Northwest Text


April 23, 2010
Indiana University Logo





Time:  1:00-3:00

Location:  HH 107


1.       Call to Order

 Dr. Gallmeier called the meeting to order at 1:03 pm.


2.       Approval of minutes of the March 26, 2010 meeting

Minor corrections to previous minutes will be made by Dr. Gallmeier. 


3.       President’s Report

The Faculty Organization elections are now complete.  The results are as follows: Dr. Gallmeier re-elected as president of faculty organization.  Melanie Samardzija will serve as vice-president.  Dr. McShane will serve as secretary.  Ellen Szarleta was elected to a second term as UFC Representative. Don Coffin and Subir Bandyopadhay were elected for two year terms as At Large Members of the Executive Committee and Iztok Hozo and Bala Arshanapalli as at-large members of Campus P & T.

Dr. Zoran Kilibarda (outgoing Vice-President) and Dr. Karl Nelson (outgoing Secretary) were thanked for their Faculty Organization service.  Two colleagues were thanked for service on Campus P&T (Charlotte Reed, Dorothy Ige) and Bill Dorin and Jim Tolhuizen were thanked by the President for their many years of service on the Faculty Organization Executive Committee. 

Dr. Gallmeier announced that a number of faculty members had received awards:

Dr. Jerry Pierce won the Founder’s Day Teaching Award.  Helen Harmon received the Founder’s Day Associate Faculty Teaching Award.  David Klamen won the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Award for Distinguished Scholarship/Creative Activity.  Jon  Becker received the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Award for Distinguished Service.  In addition, this year’s Board of Trustees Teaching Award winners were announced: Bob Mucci, Sociology and Anthropology; Kris Huysken, Geosciences; Tanice Foltz, Sociology and Anthropology; Jon Becker, Mathematics; Gianluca Di Muzio, Philosophy; Christopher Young, History; Surekha Rao, Business; Rochelle Brock, Education; and Bill Allegrezza, English.



Chancellor Bergland is not able to join us this afternoon because of previous commitments in Indianapolis.  I am disappointed he is not able to be here today because I wanted to say a few words on his behalf since this is the last time I will have the honor of inviting him to give a report to this body.  His absence this afternoon is actually my fault since I had to reschedule our meeting this month so I could be in Bloomington for the Founder’s Day celebration last Friday.

With your permission I wish to make a few comments anyway.  I am not going to stand up here and claim that during Bruce’s long tenure as Chancellor we always agreed with one another because it simply is not true.    There were many occasions when we did not see eye to eye.  However, I can unequivocally state that our disagreements were never personal and I am confident if he was here with us today he would say the same.  I can also declare that even when we did disagree I never doubted his sincerity, dedication, or commitment to what he believed was the best course of action for Indiana University Northwest.  I can further testify that when our ideas did conflict we would work very hard to arrive at a consensus and were more often than not quite successful in doing so.  When were not able to   reach consensus we simply agreed to disagree and then moved on to other matters. 

 On those occasions when I concluded I was misguided or completely wrong in my previous arguments I did not hesitate to tell him so and I am pleased to say that when Bruce experienced similar regrets he behaved in a similar manner and was never reluctant to tell me so as well.  I believe you really can’t ask for much more than that.      

Finally, during my first term as President of the faculty I have thoroughly enjoyed working closely with Bruce.  We faced some difficult times and together we found common ground and were able to move beyond these difficulties, put our differences behind us, and do what we agreed to be in the best interests of the faculty and students at Indiana University Northwest. 

 In my first two years as President of the Faculty Organization Chancellor Bergland has always been accessible, candid, open, and transparent.  He has kept me fully informed, has kept me in the loop, has listened to me, and has sought me out for guidance and counsel.  He has provided me with a seat at the table on every committee that directly involves the concerns and interests of the faculty and he has done so with grace, a generosity of spirit, a marvelous sense of humor, and the highest degree of professionalism. 

No one in the history of IU Northwest has served as Chancellor longer than Bruce Bergland.  You cannot serve as Chancellor for eleven years without creating a significant legacy.  All of you must arrive at your own conclusions on just what that legacy entails.  I however want to go on record and state that when Chancellor Bergland reviews his legacy he should feel he has much to be proud of.  So on behalf of myself, the Executive Committee, and the Faculty Organization I want to express my gratitude to Chancellor Bergland for his many years of service and leadership at IU Northwest and to thank him for a job well done.                           

4.       Chancellor’s Report

Chancellor Bergland was in Indianapolis due to a previous scheduled conflict.  This resulted from rescheduling the Faculty organization meeting.  Dr. Gallmeier made some final comments summarizing his professional work with Dr. Bergland.  Overall, he found Dr. Bergland to be a professional chancellor who listened to Dr. Gallmeier’s ideas and encouraged faculty involvement in multiple committees.  (See above for a complete copy of these comments.)


5.       Vice Chancellors’ Reports

Dr. Malik could not attend. 


6.       University Honors and Awards – Kelly Kish and Terri Crouch, Office of the President

These representatives came from IUB to present on all of the awards available through the IU system.  They had a number of awards dossiers available for people to use as a model for future applications, as well as a listing of all current awards.

They indicated that teaching awards portfolios should emphasize reflection and change in teaching over time.  Since many people do not win with a first time application, please consider revising application dossiers and reapplying for awards if (when) you do not win.  The teaching awards have the highest number of applications and the university has multiple awards in this area.  The teaching awards application process has now gone completely on-line.   

You can self-nominate for awards, but most people are nominated by chairs or past winners.  Try to find past winners to act as mentors for the application process and to write letters of support.

You can search the Honors and Awards home page to gain information on how to apply for any of the awards.

All awards have a deadline of October 15th for completing the application dossier. 


7.       Calendar Committee – Bob Mucci, Chair

Dr. Mucci presented the proposed calendar for 2012 – 2013.  IUN has no “wiggle room” in the calendar due to the length of summer sessions and maintaining one week off at both the beginning of the summer and the end of the summer.  The proposed calendar passed by unanimous voice vote.

Dr. O’Dell indicated that there is currently discussion of moving all IU campuses to a common academic calendar.  This would ease problems of students traveling home for the summer and taking courses over summer breaks from their normal campuses.

The calendar committee has also been asked to discuss variable scheduling of classes during the summer.  This would allow faculty to schedule classes as they are deemed appropriate by individual faculty (e.g., for longer than a single summer session).  This might lead to the creation of mid-summer courses.  Currently many courses appear as non-standard on the schedule. 

(Bolded information represents questions asked my Faculty Organization members.) 

This is an interesting idea, do we have the space in the classrooms?  We suspect that we have the space because of the reduced number of students during summer school sessions.  Running courses at 3:00 could also minimize scheduling conflicts, because relatively few classes happen at that time. 

Which fiscal year would the enrollment fall in for courses spanning more than one summer session?  This has yet to be formally decided because the course would split across two academic years. 

What are the implications for follow-up courses?  What if someone wants to take two Spanish courses, for example, in a row?  We don’t know the implications/complications.

What benefit does this provide, given that we already have some classes that do not follow the normal summer schedule?  It helps formalize scheduling options. 

How would we ensure that students don’t create conflicting schedules?  This is already built into the on-line enrollment system.

The faculty voted on the proposal.  The proposal will be forwarded, based on unanimous voice vote, to members of the administration.


8.       Faculty Affairs Committee – Alan Barr, Chair

Dr. Barr presented on the results of the Faculty Affairs Committee deliberations relative to the format of P&T dossiers.  The proposal is that one folder will include all the information examined off-campus and follow a standardized table of contents.  This will standardize the order of included materials so everyone involved can easily find the desired materials.  A supplementary folder will include all supporting documentation.  Each unit will need to identify the evidence needed to support the tenure process and this will determine the contents of the supporting folder.

The assumption is that off-campus individuals will examine the decisions made on-campus, rather than reviewing all of the supporting evidence.  By the time the dossier arrives at the vice chancellor for academic affairs, the decision should be clear and based on previous, credible reviews of the basic evidence. 

Such an approach will require that all earlier levels of review have made appropriate, substantial, credible recommendations.  This will also require more careful statement of unit P&T guidelines/criteria. 

Due to a bracketed section that suggested the removal of peer review letters for teaching and service, abut not for research, a number of people raised concerns.  If we use this for teaching awards, why not include this as supporting P&T information?  The consensus opinion appeared to be that if teaching reviews are problematic, then we need to find ways to improve teaching reviews rather than discounting the letters entirely.

A second concern regarded an apparent push to include pedagogical articles as a component of teaching excellence.  The pedagogical article suggestion/requirement is questionable.  This means that poor teachers, who can conduct research or write about teaching, could receive tenure based on excellence in teaching. 

A third concern raised was that the list of contents suggested a change from a VCAA recommendation letter to a VCAA review letter.  This appears to represent a change in the overall tenure process. 

Why does the chancellor not appear in this list of contents?  It appears that the chancellors do not write tenure letters for the IUN P&T files. 

The final proposal had two amendments to restate VCAA review to VCAA letter and drop the comments about teaching and service letters.

As modified, the table of contents passed by unanimous voice vote.


9.       Recommended Changes to the Faculty Organization Constitution – K. Vinodgopal, Constitution Committee

The committee again presented recommendations to change the constitution.  The proposed changes ran into a number of concerns on the part of attending faculty since it would remove people working in a 50% administrative capacity, or more, from certain positions including the Faculty Organization Executive Committee.

What is 50% administrative capacity?  This is not yet clearly defined.  Depending on how it is defined, it could mean that department chairs could no longer serve as Presidents of the Faculty Organization

What is an administrator?    If we identify administrators as Deans and above, this would avoid many problems associated with the amendment. 

Regarding the Executive Committee language, this also means that people cannot vote for anyone desired when they choose representatives for the executive committee. 

Several members found the process for constitutional modification discomforting.  The fact that this would go to all members of the community for a vote, despite how the Faculty Organization members present at the meeting voted, means that amendments brought by the constitutional committee in opposition to a negative vote by members present at the meeting would still go forward.  The response to this was that the mail ballot protects the right of faculty to vote on any and all changes to the constitution. 

However, it was also noted that if the amendment is just sent forward to the faculty as a whole, that could give the appearance that Faculty Organization members present during the discussion of the proposed amendment gave it support.  The response was that a record of the discussion and vote today, perhaps with an excerpt of the minutes, should accompany the changes when sent.

Finally, it was suggested that the proposal be sent back to committee in order to clarify the definition of 50% administrative duties.  This motion carried by unanimous voice vote.


10.   Student Affairs Committee – Vernon Smith, Chair

Dr. Smith’s committee was asked to establish a student code of ethics and procedures for a student appeal process.  A 20-page document has been prepared and it will be forwarded to all faculty members.  Please look it over carefully and suggest any changes deemed appropriate.  It is hoped that the Faculty Organization can vote on this proposal in the first Fall 2010 meeting.


11.   Academic Forgiveness Policy – AVCAA Cynthia O’Dell

Dr. O’Dell presented on the Academic Forgiveness (Bankruptcy) Policy.  The basic idea is that people who left school after poor performance, but have continued GPA problems due to past experiences, should be able to forgive grades from up to 2 semesters.  The policy assumes that someone has stopped attending for a while, but has returned to complete their degree.  This would impact admission to specific programs, rather than overall GPA recorded at graduation.  During these terms, the students must drop all courses from the identified term(s) and students could not drop grades as a result of academic dishonesty.  The policy is not designed to circumvent the policies of specific schools and divisions.

One implication of this is that if students took required classes for graduation, and the grades were high enough to count, then they would have to retake those classes.

The members voted to approve this unanimously by voice vote. 


12.   Computer Committee - Bill Odefey, Chair

In the fall, the campus will migrate to Windows 7 and Office 2010.  The dedicated labs (e.g., foreign language) will move if individual departments make such a request.  If you ask to include a program in the build, please double-check that your programs work after the new build is in place. 

Please take training in Windows 7, or do your own exploration, in order to familiarize yourself with the changes from Vista.  This will avoid confusion early in the Fall semester. 

There is no current plan to change faculty computers over to the new operating system, unless individual faculty make direct requests to IT.


13.   IT Tech Tips – Jackie Coven

 None, due to a lack of time during the meeting.


14.   Old Business 



15.   New Business

Dr. DeLunas introduce Gail Zeka, the new nurse practitioner for the on-campus health and wellness center.  The clinic will have expanded hours for students, faculty, and staff. 


Dr. Gallmeier dismissed the meeting at 3 pm.

















Return to Faculty Org Main Page

Indiana University Northwest
3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408


Copyright Complaints bullet Privacy Statement