ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES

(Approved)

September 27, 2000

Volume XXXII, No. 3

Call to Order

Chairperson Curt White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Senator Crothers called the roll and declared a quorum.

Approval of Minutes of September 13, 2000:

Motion XXXII–20: By Senator Noyes, second by Senator Razaki, to approve the minutes of September 13, 2000. Motion approved unanimously.

Chairperson's Remarks:

Senator White: Stated that he had attended the IBHE big picture budget meeting. He thanked President Boschini for including the chairperson of the Senate in this meeting. The State of the University Address will be held tomorrow on September 28, 2000 at 4:00. There was a change in the agenda for this evening's meeting. There will be no election of a student representative to the Executive Committee at this meeting. He added that the Senate still does not have a parliamentarian. The Senate will limit itself to the parliamentary procedure pages.

Vice Chairperson Remarks:

Senator Brown: During the Senate's executive session for ASPT, the students will caucus to elect a representative for the Executive Committee.

Student Government Association President’s Remarks:

Senator Biondolillo: The student and racial profiling meeting is going on at this time. Both Chiefs of Police of Bloomington and Normal were invited to answer questions in light of the hate crime assaults that have occurred this semester.

Senator Biondolillo asked that everyone come out to support the Homecoming events.

Administrators' Remarks:

· President Vic Boschini: Several interesting things came out of the big picture budget meeting with the IBHE. We discussed the Illinois Commitment; the IBHE was of the opinion that the commitments represented those that taxpayers were in favor of. There was a difference of opinion about this. There will be a new version of the Commitment that will include more about the importance of liberal arts in curriculum. Prior to the next Board of Trustees meeting, we will be working with the Campus Communications Committee to talk about the Distinctiveness and Excellence Report. That will occur at 8:00 a.m. on the morning of the next Board meeting. Tonight we are having an Ole Cinafest sponsored by the Latin American employees. The first installment is tonight.

Provost Al Goldfarb: Invited everyone to the Quad for Homecoming events on Wednesday, October 4, 2000.

· Vice President of Student Affairs: Excused Absence

· Vice President of Finance and Planning:

Senator Bragg: Asked everyone to thank their departments for their efforts to keep our utility consumption down. It is very important this year, because this year sets a benchmark for our eight-year utility contract. We consumed about $200,000 extra in utility payments this year than last. We need to continue to practice conservation.

Phil Adams, President's Liaison to the Legislature: The focus of the House and Senate when they are again is session is the reapportionment of legislative districts. The number one issue that faces higher education is how the budget is going to be constructed relative to salary and pay raises. We have been operating under the 3 + 1 + 1 plan for several years. The 1% that the University has had to come up with has been a challenge. The original concept for the 3 + 1 + 1 was to raise salaries to a certain level. The IBHE has realized that salaries are increasing, but that 3 + 1 + 1 may not be moving at a rate that they had anticipated. The major debate is should that plan be changed to a 4 + 2 + 2 or 4 + 1 + 1. The latter seems to be the plan of consensus.

I would like to come back after the election and discuss how the people that were elected relate to higher education and give you a better feel of how the higher ed budget is actually handled in the House and Senate. It will probably be into February or March before we know what substantive issues we will have to deal with in terms of legislature.

Senator Mushrush: Asked what the length of the 3 + 1 + 1 program was.

Mr. Adams: The original plan was for five years. We are currently in the second year.

Senator Mushrush: What is the survivability of the program if we enter a period of recession.

Mr. Adams: If the State's economy gets to that point, programs like this will not be a priority.

Senator Strickland: Is there is an awareness within the IBHE about where the 1% is coming from at different universities?

Mr. Adams: There is an awareness, but there may not be an understanding of what that means in the everyday operation of the university; the original plan was sold on the basis of self-help.

Committee Reports

· Academic Affairs Committee:

Senator Meckstroth: The Academic Affairs Committee is working with Student Affairs to gather information about student involvement in curriculum and other college committees. The committee also began discussing the Constitution Exam.

· Administrative Affairs Committee:

Senator Kurtz: The Administrative Affairs Committee added two recommendations to the Unit's Designation as a School Proposal, an information item at this evening's meeting. The committee has also begun a preliminary discussion on the annual period of commentary on the President.

· Budget Committee:

Senator Strickland: The Budget Committee continues its review of the Academic Impact Fund. The committee is engaged in a dialogue with the Chair's Council regarding recommendations about the fund. Members will talk to the Dean's Council as well.

· Faculty Affairs Committee:

Senator El-Zanati: The committee finalized the survey on the department chairs' use of non-tenure track faculty.

· Rules Committee:

Senator Reid: The committee discussed the University Service Awards, which will be discussed as an information item this evening. The committee also discussed the general process for bringing the governance proposal before the Senate.

· Student Affairs Committee:

Senator Kowalski: The Student Affairs Committee has asked that the Vice President of Student Affairs provide a list of university-sanctioned events relative to the Equitable Treatment of Students policy. Student Affairs will work with the Academic Affairs Committee regarding the inclusion of students on curriculum committees. Committee members are still actively discussing the Student Health Concerns Committee.

.

Action Items:

External Committee Elections:

Motion XXXII-21: by Senator Reid, second by Senator Razaki, to elect the nominees for several external committees of the Senate. The motion carried unanimously. The following individuals were elected to external committees.

FACULTY ELECTIONS:

COUNCIL ON GENERAL EDUCATION

Jerry Jinks, C&I - COE

(Terms to be determined by Rules Committee)

STUDENT ELECTION:

COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

Linda Vogel, EAF - COE 2000-2001

REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

Lynn Kennel, Mennonite College of Nursing

2000-2002

Information Items:

08.27.00.01 Appropriate Use of Technology, Advertising and Sales Policies for Technology Only

Senator White: The discussion on the advertising policy this evening is in regard to technology only. The issue of advertising in general will be brought before the Senate at a later time. The policy is now before the Senate as an information item only. We can make recommendations, but this will not be an action item.

Senator Reid: In section 7.0, D of the Appropriate Use Policy, it states that the user accepts full responsibility for all violations of the computer system assigned to the specific user. Is a faculty member responsible if an unauthorized person uses their computer?

Dave Williams, Associate VP of Technology: Your responsibility is to have a screen saver that would prevent people getting to your computer when it is not under your control.

Senator Reid: Would the Windows password suffice?

Dave Williams: Yes, anything that would prevent someone to log in without a password.

Senator Patry: In section 6.1 Privacy, it says the system administrator in the course of routine maintenance might see the contents of electronic messages. What routine maintenance would have that happen?

Dave Williams: It is very unlikely and may happen in the case of back up or if an email caused the system to crash and the system administrator was trying to find out what caused the problem.

Senator White: Is your office working on the Advertising Policy in general?

Senator Goldfarb: We are working with the President's office to do this.

04.17.00.01 Governance Document (Rules Committee)

Senator Reid: The present governance structure involves the Academic Senate (with a membership that includes faculty, students and administrators), the Student Governance Association, the Civil Service Council and the Administrative Professional Council. The Academic Senate considers all academic and faculty issues, as well as many student issues, and passes on its recommendations to the President and Provost. The proposed governance structure would have four Senates, one for each constituency - a Faculty Senate, Student Senate, Civil Service Senate and AP Senate. Each Senate would have areas in which it had primary responsibility. The Senate would make the final recommendations on those issues and those recommendations would go directly to the President. The Faculty Senate would make the final recommendation on academic and faculty issues.

There would also be a body called the University Council with members from all four Senates and some administrators; the majority of members would be faculty. The University Council would have no role in issues that are the primary responsibility of a Senate. The University Council would have two functions. It would be a coordinating body. When an issue comes up that is not the primary responsibility of any Senate, the Council would set up a multi-Senate committee to deal with that issue, made up from each of the Senates that has a stake in the issue as determined by the Council. This situation is expected to be quite rare. The second function would be a planning one. The Council would make recommendations on overall budget planning, personnel planning, institutional planning, facilities planning, intercollegiate activities and external relations for the entire University.

The present system gives a greater value to dialogue between faculty and students on academic issues, where as the new system would give less of a value to this dialogue by giving the Faculty Senate the final recommendation on academic issues and reducing the students to an advisory role. The proposed governance plan gives a greater value to provision of an empirical structure for each of the four constituencies and provides the faculty for the first time with their own Senate. The governance plan gives a value to shared governance in the overall planning of the University, where as under the present system, the Senate and councils have very little role. There was a disagreement on the governance committee about how much of the planning function would be carried out. I personally felt that the Council would play a major role in the University planning; others felt that it would primarily be a coordinating body.

Roger Tarr, Chairperson of the Governance Task Force: The question of governance has been before the University since 1995. The recommendation in 1995 by the Committee to Assess the President was that a new shared governance system be implemented and that the new governance structure include a majority of faculty-staff representation. There was also a recommendation that the current Academic Senate be abolished and replaced with a faculty Senate. President Strand then composed a Select Committee on Governance. The committee spent a year, meeting twice a week, developing a document on the principles of governance.

President Strand appointed another committee called the Task Force on Governance, which was to recommend if we should go forward with the present Academic Senate or whether we should reconstitute the Academic Senate in some way. Then we had another committee appointed by President Boschini who wanted us to once again look at governance. Again, the committee voted that we try to implement some sort of system that would replace the Academic Senate. We were casting no dispersions on the current or past Academic Senates; we are simply looking for a better system.

Senator Razaki: I was very impressed by the philosophical principles provided regarding the principles of shared governance. Would you speak about what those principles are?

Prof. Tarr: Shared governance can only work if there is trust among all constituents of the University. There must be open and full communication at all levels of governance. Everyone must be willing to participate in shared governance. We are looking for open and full participation from the campus - the voices of the students, faculty, APs and civil servants.

Senator Chang: We are going on the assumption that the present system is severely flawed and requires drastic change. I would like to hear what the problems are.

Senator Reid: The Senate's Ad Hoc Committee felt that this was a wonderful system. Our feeling was that we should at least look into the possibility of a better system. There were some criticisms.

Senator Goldfarb: I don't think that the premise was that the system was severely flawed. The premise was that people were excluded from the decision making process and that faculty did not have their own governance structure. There are some groups that have no representation at all, such as non-tenure track faculty.

Senator Reid: The voice for the AP and Civil Service Councils would only be on the level of the University Council and that would only be in either terms of coordinating the other bodies or planning on an issue.

Senator Goldfarb: There would also be a little bit more clarity about what happens with AP and Civil Service. There would be a clearer sense that they would speak to specific administrators.

Senator Walker: How do the current Civil Service and AP Councils function with regard to making recommendations to administration?

Senator Goldfarb: There is no clear structure. It would depend on the nature of the councils' relationship with administration. That is a concern that has been expressed by both councils.

Senator Walker: Did the Task Force look at addressing that as opposed to changing the Academic Senate?

Senator Goldfarb: The document suggests that the AP and Civil Service Senates need to have very specific tasks assigned to them. It also suggests that there may a place for them to take part in institutional decisions.

Senator Goodwin: Students may be quick to dismiss the proposal because they do not feel that they are well represented on the University Council. He asked Senator Reid to describe the significance of representation on the University Council.

Senator Reid: Students would have approximately a quarter of the representation of the membership. I think that would be sufficient to express all of their concerns.

Senator Crothers: As I understand it, the document is essentially not acceptable to students in its current form. If that is true, what is next?

Senator Reid: If the Senate does not pass the document, then the Rules Committee would immediately began looking into alternatives of adapting the present structure to take into account the overall concerns.

Senator Thomas: Asked Senator Razaki if he would point out the major liabilities associated with the document.

Senator Razaki: I fully support the principles that the Task Force has come up with. It is with the practical application that there are problems. First of all, we are going to be restructuring the entire governance structure on campus. I don't think that this is something that is easy to accomplish. We are embarking on a huge capital campaign. We are engaged in the Distinctiveness and Excellence discussion.

Then there are some personal likes and dislikes. I like the current structure of 27 faculty members, 19 students and 4 administrators. I think that at some point that we should have interaction with AP and civil servants, but I don't see the necessity of changing the current body of the Senate.

On the University Council, faculty would have the majority vote. That is opposed by every other group, especially the students, so I see a lot of difficulty in having this proposal accepted. I do have a lot of sympathy for the concerns that Senator Goldfarb has stated -- that he needs a forum in which he can address the faculty and just the faculty.

Another issue is the representation of all constituents. We should do our best to have all voices heard, but not by disbanding the Academic Senate and creating a more complex governance structure.

Prof. Tarr: The vote on the proposal was 14 yes, 3 no and 1 abstention.

Senator Peterson: Was there equal representation on the committees that considered the governance issue?

Senator Noyes: For the last committee, there were eight faculty, seven administrators, two students and one civil service.

Prof. Tarr: There were, I believe, two civil service staff.

Senator Wells: Was the inclusion of non-tenured faculty considered?

Prof. Tarr: We felt that non-tenured people should have some representation.

Senator Landau: Are we talking about pre-tenure faculty or non-tenured faculty?

Senator White: Non-tenured faculty. I assume that we will move this to an action item at the next meeting.

09.21.00.01 Service Awards Committee (Rules Committee)

Senator Reid: There are two University Service Awards that have been created relatively recently, the Outstanding University Service Award and the Outstanding Service Initiative Award. The Outstanding University Service Award is for up to three faculty whose service accomplishments are unusually significant and meritorious among their colleagues. The Outstanding Service Initiative Award is awarded to up to seven new faculty who early in their academic careers have shown considerable promise in service. The selection committee that we are proposing would report to the Provost. The committee would have one representative from each college nominated by the dean, one undergraduate representative and one graduate representative, both nominated by the Vice-Chair of the Senate, and one representative from the Provost's Office.

Senator Walker: Will there be a person from the Provost's office to oversee the service awards?

Senator Goldfarb: It would probably make sense to have the person appointed to the committee from the Provost's Office oversee the activities of the committee.

Motion XXXII-22: by Senator Reid, second by Senator Noyes, to move the item to action.

The motion was approved unanimously.

Motion XXXII-23: by Senator Reid, second by Senator Noyes, to pass the proposed structure of the University Service Awards Committee.

Senate El-Zanati: How does the monetary award for the Outstanding University Service Award and the Outstanding Teacher Award compare?

Senator Goldfarb: They are the same.

Senator Kurtz: I think that September 15 is a fine deadline for the submission of recommendations for the awards, but we can't do that this year. I would like to leave it up to the Provost's office to set up a deadline this year.

Senator Goldfarb: I will set an appropriate deadline.

The motion passed unanimously.

05.23.00.02 Unit's Designation as a School; Recommendations from Administrative Affairs: Item 09.15.00.01

Senator White: The guidelines for a unit's designation as a school were developed by the Provost Advisory Committee. This is a policy matter that will come before the Senate as an information item only.

Senator Kurtz: The Administrator Affairs Committee made a few minor recommendations to the proposal. Since there is a parameter contained in the document which states that the University will recognize subdivisions of existing colleges as schools when it does not create significant additional costs through the creation of a school, our committee felt that a department's written proposed request for the change include a statement on the budgetary impact of the proposal. Also we suggested that the Budget Committee, in addition to Administrative Affairs, look at any proposal that would come forward.

Senator Goldfarb: I totally agree with the recommendations.

Executive Session: ASPT

Motion XXXII-24: by Senator Noyes, second by Senator Chang, to move into Executive Session. The motion passed unanimously. The students will caucus during Executive Session. The Senate concluded its Executive Session.

Motion XXXII-25: To adjourn. The motion was approved by standing vote.

Academic Senate

Hovey 208, Box 1830

438-8735

E-mail Address: acsenate@ilstu.edu

Web Address: http://www.academicsenate.ilstu.edu