Indiana State University



Approved Electronically 8/19/11 FS #8

27-20-7

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE

April 21, 2011, 3:30 p.m.

HMSU Dede III

Present: S. Lamb, J. Buffington, J. Conant, B. Corcoran, N. Corey, R. Dunbar, R. Guell, L. Hall,

D. Hantzis, , T. Hawkins, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, L. Kahanov, K. Kincade,

C. Klarner, J. Kuhlman, M. Lewandowski, C. MacDonald, R. Osborn, T. Sawyer,

M. Schafer, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, S. Shure, B. Yousif, L. Tinnerman

Absent: A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, C. Crowder, R. Goldbort, P. Hightower, J. Latimer, C. Lunce,

T. McDaniel, W. Redmond, G. Stachokas

Ex officio: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard, R. English

Deans: A. Comer, B. Balch, J. Murray, B. Sims, B. Williams

Guests: M. A. Badar, C. Everly, E. Kinley, K. O’Lone, Y. Peterson, M. Shahhosseini

I. Memorial Resolution for R. Gray read by C. Hoffman

Accepted by acclamation.

II. Administrative report

President Bradley:

a) State budget update: The Senate Finance Committee has approved the budget. It is similar to the House budget. The seven universities went to the Commissioner and asked her to intervene with the governor for some restoration of across the board cuts. The Commissioner did so and was not totally rebuffed. I hope to see some improvements related to the budget at the conference committee that will be held over the next few days. If there is no change, we will be down about $4 million which was where we were at the end of the House deliberations. This includes the R&R funding so our base funding is actually down more than that. This does not impact anything for the current biennium, but people who have been around longer than I say that this is a dangerous predicament to be in. Hopefully, we will be able to get some relief in the conference committee, and the budget will finally get approved by the governor.

b) Commencement is coming up. Gary Dick, an ISU business graduate, will be our commencement speaker. He is a business communications speaker in Indianapolis and has been very good to the University. He also received a distinguished alumni award from ISU. Don Scott’s name will be place on the new building for the College of Business. He will be receiving an honorary degree. I encourage all of you to attend commencement exercises in support of our students.

c) The Alumni Association last week nominated Dave Campbell to the Board of Trustees. He will replace Ron Carpenter. His name has been submitted to the governor, and I assume the governor will act rather quickly on his nomination.

d) Construction at the Federal Building is underway. Last week we received approval from the budget committee to begin remodeling the Family and Consumer Science building, which will be turned into a welcome center.

I would also like to mention that overall we had a very successful year. I do appreciate all the support and energy the faculty has displayed in helping to achieve our goals and serving the needs of our students.

Finally, if you have not already done so, I would encourage all of you to complete the work survey and encourage your colleagues to do so as well.

Provost Maynard:

I join with the president in thanking each of you for all you have done this year. Much work has been completed and progress has been made. It would not have been possible if not for the hard work of faculty, our committees, etc.

Next Thursday evening is our faculty awards banquet. I hope each of you will make an effort to attend. It is usually an interesting and enjoyable event. Some of you and several of your colleagues will be honored at that time, and I look forward to seeing all of you there.

III. Chair report – Steve Lamb

Dear Colleagues:

First, I want to thank this year’s Faculty Senate for being the opposite of apathetic. You were engaged, and properly so, concerning the direction and health of the University.

I am so pleased that I have been associated with this group. It has been many years since we have had a Senate body that was willing to take its responsibilities so seriously. A senate body that is all of one mind is usually an unhealthy senate body. We have been the opposite of that.

I strongly hope that next year there will surface opportunities to advance the vitality of the Arts and Sciences. This domain is the backbone of the institution. As we proceed, let us be aggressive in encouraging the health of our backbone.

This meeting is the last senate meeting that Charles Hoffman will attend as a member. However, he has promised me that he will read (or at least edit) my memorial resolution. Colleagues, Charles has been dear to me. He has fought so many battles for the benefit of faculty governance. Charles was key in a distinct lawsuit, in obtaining the legal status for the Handbook as declared by the court. In a recent adverse time, his counsel was crucial in resolving that issue. He has been a lifetime advocate of faculty governance and has always been willing to be a voice for those who did not have tenure, and did not have the wherewithal or stamina to speak to issues. I will always miss his most unique personality at these meetings. Let us stand and give Charles a round of applause for his forty plus years of service. {Applause}

C. Hoffman’s response: Thank you. It’s been a good run. It’s been 44 years. I have said over the years that it is good that we have tenure because, if we didn’t, three of the five presidents under whom I have served probably would have fired me. {laughter}

S. Lamb continued:

At the last meeting I informed Senators that I would construct a charge to be sent forward to CAAC and GC to insure that new programs, including all those approved this year, undergo formal scrutiny. The following is that charge

Charge to CAAC and Graduate Council;

The Executive Committee recommends to CAAC and GC that procedures be established to enable those bodies to review the success of newly-created programs. The Executive Committee also proposes that the CAAC body and the GC body make recommendations to the Senate via the Executive Committee, as to the future of those newly created-programs on the basis of its conclusions of these reviews. It may very well be that the manuals and procedures will have to be changed in order to accomplish these goals. The Executive Committee finds these needs to be imperative.

The following is our suggested charge to CAAC and GC: (which they may certainly modify):

All proposed programs that are applying for approval through the Faculty Senate will have specific review dates assigned at approximately three and six years in the future, established from the time at which the final approval of the program is given.

At these dates, the program will be required to demonstrate to the University CAAC or GC body, the viability of the created program. That report will include:

1) The number of majors and minors currently enrolled in the program;

2) The average number of courses offered during the academic year supporting the program. In the case where a specific course is required for more than one major, fractional weights (based on percent enrollment) will have to be assigned and justified;

3) The average number of FTE faculty assigned to this program per semester, as well as the average SCH’s generated per semester associated with this program;

4) Other resources which have been acquired to support the program, including FTE faculty;

5) The value of the program to the identity of the College;

6) The opportunities for graduates of the program, and the expected salary level of first- year graduates. The sixth year report should have actual, rather than projected, results.

After reviewing the report and speaking with the champion(s) of each program, the CAAC or GC council will submit an evaluation of its findings to the Executive Committee, as to the program's viability.

Hopefully, the above will provide guidance when GC and CAAC construct their report delineating this additional duty, by Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate. It would probably be helpful for those bodies to review the guidelines constructed by the Program Review Process in its deliberations a few years ago. Our collective advice is, however, "keep it simple."

V. Sheets: Given that this is Charles Hoffman‘s last meeting, I would like to make a motion that we dedicate this meeting or at least a copy of the minutes of this meeting to Charles Hoffman.

Unanimous consent.

IV. Staff Council Report by Leslie Krockenberger

• The Staff Council hosted a spring fling in March where we raised $800 for Staff Scholarship fund.

• Recently we held Staff Council annual elections. We have eleven new and two returning representatives to the Council. We had a great turn out for the elections – for 13 vacant positions on Council, we had over 70 nominees. Elections of officers will be held at our main meeting when it convenes again. Roxanne Torrence has reached her term limit as chair of Staff Council. A new council chair will be taking over. She could not be with us today, but she wanted me to read this statement:

I am sorry that I am not able to be with you today, but I am

participating in the leadership ISU retreat. I would like to express

my gratitude to the Faculty Senate. You have always been very

supportive of Staff Council -always looking out for the best interest

of all staff. You are to be commended for the work that you do.

To Dr. Lamb – just when you thought you were safe -words cannot

express my appreciation for your support and guidance over the past

three years. Your knowledge and experience has been a great help

to me. I know I promised last year that I wouldn’t talk about the

cups or the conflicts we shared, but just think, you will not have to

write my reports for me. Thank you.

V. SGA Report – no report.

VI. Special purpose Advocate Report – A. Solesky

I believe that the issues that are coming up are being addressed and forthcoming.

Thank you.

VII. Presentation of the Faculty Scholarships to Chaleise Everly and Kyle O’Lone by J. Buffington

First of all, I’d like to thank the scholarship committee, chaired by Robyn Osborn and manned by Bassou El Mansour and M. Shahhosseini. This year, we had an all-time high of more than sixty applications, and there were many deserving applicants. It was a tough job, but the committee has selected two very deserving winners.

It is my pleasure to introduce to you the winners of this year’s Faculty Scholarships. Thanks to the generosity of last year’s donors, we were able to offer two scholarships for the first time in several years.

Chaleise Everly, as one of our professors puts it, is “one of the best students I have ever had, in terms of both ability and work ethic. She learns very quickly and applies common sense and prior experience to her study of statistics. She appears to want to learn for the sake of learning, rather than merely to earn a grade. Chaleise’s work ethic is at a level that I have rarely encountered. She is always willing to help her classmates, and seems to explain concepts patiently and skillfully. Another said of her, “She earned a spot in my permanent memory as one of the top 10 students I have had the pleasure to have taught.”

Kyle ,O'Lone has amply proven himself to be a highly motivated, totally dedicated student of aviation. He is also a true “team player” who not only works hard for himself but who helps his fellow students as well. He is an active member of the ISU “Flying Sycamores” flight team, as well as Alpha Eta Rho, the ISU aviation fraternity, and finds time to work with the “Lighthouse Mission,” all the while maintaining a 4.0 GPA.

Chaleise Everly and Kyle O’Lone addressed the Faculty Senate and thanked them for their individual scholarship awards.

VIII. Approval of Faculty Senate Minutes of March 24, 2011 as corrected (N. Hopkins/T. Sawyer

28-0-0).

IX. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion

a. N. Hopkins to President Bradley asking for the president’s comments related to his objection to the faculty evaluation model (referring to N. Hopkins' question during 15 minute discussion at March 24 Faculty Senate when the president was not present).

President Bradley: I believe that that particular statement was difficult to interpret. It would have lead to disagreements and that the issue of maintaining competitiveness with regard to CUPA salaries and adjusting our target salaries with CUPA took that into account. I am fully in agreement with the spirit that we need to keep up with what salaries are across the country, but I felt that putting particular language in would not be helpful to any of us in the long term.

R. Schneirov to President Bradley: Would you agree that it is unfair to take monies away from people who are doing at good job at ISU and the need to keep their salaries at least to cost of living, in order to award those who happen to have published a book or something.

President: I would say in the long term that we need to maintain or make progress on achieving our target salaries without talking about cost of living adjustments and who determines what a cost of living adjustment is. If we cannot maintain or are losing ground with regard to targets, then we are going to have to re-evaluate the entire process. I believe that target salaries are much better indicators of what salaries are doing. Sometimes salaries go up faster than the cost of living as measured by somebody. Sometimes over a period of time they don’t go up faster than that; we have this target salary calculation that does a good job of balancing that out over time.

R. Schneirov: If our target population in another state gets an increase below the cost of living then it’s ok for ISU?

President: To give you an example (going back years ago) with inflation: Sometimes salaries in the whole country do not keep up with the cost of living; sometimes salaries move faster than the cost of living. I don’t think we want to be put in a box when every year we have to look at that number.

R. Schneirov: It seems like the only box that we are in is the box that was created by the salary pool - that which is available. It seems to me that it has always been a policy of this Senate (going way back as far as I can remember) that we don’t reward people by taking money away from other people.

b. C. MacDonald: Are we considering increasing the number of Elluminate classrooms on campus, as there is increased demand for courses in this format at both the graduate and undergraduate levels? Scheduling rooms for these classes has become difficult, and use of our office computers is not a satisfactory option.

Ed Kinley responded that this was a possibility and that he would have someone from his office contact Prof. MacDonald, who then asked whether we were considering increasing the number of Elluminate classrooms on campus, as there is increased demand for courses in this format at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.

L. Tinnerman: International students who are allowed to take only so many distance ed courses result in us having to create special sections of hybrid courses which then places people who are truly distant ed students at a disadvantage. I would support C. MacDonald’s recommendation that we have extra Elluminate classrooms.

c. J. Buffington: I am responsible for this one page handout on undergraduate GPA’s. The Student Affairs Committee charged itself this year to examine GPA’s trends over the past few years, particularly in light of the fact that in the fall of 2009 we instituted our new plus/minus grading policy. The thought was that, perhaps because of those minuses, grades would be lower than they were before (handout – informational item only). We plan to exam the data next and will then have two years of plus/minus data.

d. R. Guell: Requested R. Lotspeich be permitted to address the Senate regarding parking issues (outside 15 minute period). Unanimous consent.

e. N. Hopkins: Faculty Awards Banquet and invitations – did not receive one, nor did others.

Provost: I will follow up with this – everyone should have received an electronic invitation to the Faculty Awards banquet.

X. CAAC items:

a) Possible reconsideration of B.S. in Civil Engineering in Technology Major: Dean B. Sims, M.A. Badar, A. M. Shahhosseini, R. Peters. Discussion followed.

B.S. In Civil Engineering Technology Approved (R.Guell/T. Sawyer 26-1-1)

b) Elimination of Family and Consumer Sciences Major: Y. Peterson, Dean B. Williams, R. Peters. -- Discussion

MOTION TO ELIMINATE Family and Consumer Sciences Major. APPROVED (Voice vote)

c) Proposed: Merger of two departments: 1) Physical Education and 2) Recreation and Sport Management.

T. Sawyer, Dean B. Williams, R. Peters.

APPROVED: Merger of Physical Education and Recreation and Sport Management to

form the Department of Kinesiology (J. Kuhlman/M. Schaffer - Voice vote).

XI. Graduate Council items:

a) Masters in Occupational Therapy

L. Kahanov presented rationale. Discussion.

APPROVED: Master's in Occupational Therapy (V. Sheets/J. Kuhlman 27-0-1)

b) Master in Social Work

P. Weber presented rationale. Discussion

C. MacDonald' statement regarding the proposed MSW Program:

My department remains concerned about the MSW with a concentration in mental health and substance abuse on a number of levels. Unfortunately, the faculty member who is most concerned could not be here today, so I am representing her concerns:

1) This proposal was submitted without appropriate consultation with other master's level clinical programs, including our Clinical Mental Health Counseling program. Only in the past month has any consultation occurred, and only after our program raised the concern.

Since this consultation has begun, the 2 programs have begun to identify several possible areas of collaboration between the programs, including courses on substance abuse, marriage and family therapy, and psychopathology. We are striving to reduce course redundancy across campus, and it appears this program was put forward without adequate consideration of this factor. However, the details have not yet been worked out. Thus, this vote seems premature.

2) Another issue will be competition for appropriate internship sites. The Clinical Mental Health Counseling program enrolls about 12-15 new students a year, and since the sites cannot bill for the services the interns provide, it is difficult to find high quality sites than can support an intern as it is. Our current placements include sites as far away as Indianapolis, Paris, and Parke County. It appears that the MSW program students would likely be competing for similar internship sites. Having 30 more students needing similar experiences in this area would be very difficult.

3) A third issue is competition for jobs for program graduates. Most agencies advertise simply for a master's level clinician, which would fit graduates of either program. I just don't know that the local area can support another 20 or so master's level clinicians of any type per year.

4) As you have heard from me before, I am also concerned about funding for faculty. The MHC master’s program needs at least one more faculty line in order to remain in compliance with our accreditation standards. The MSW program would need 3 or 4 new faculty just to get off the ground.

APPROVED: Master's in Social Work (T. Sawyer/J. Kuhlman 16-9-1)

XII. AAC Discussion items:

• Proposed purchase of the Cherry Street Parking Facility:

R. Lotspeich Statement to Faculty Senate: Financial Analysis of Proposed Purchase of the Cherry Street Parking Facility:

Although it has not been often exercised, the Administrative Affairs Committee has a responsibility listed in the Bylaws of the University faculty to advise with respect to budgetary matters. Given that this proposed purchase is substantial, we thought it prudent to examine the potential impact on ISU.

A. Brief Summary of Our Analysis

Purchase of the parking facility is an investment in real capital, so we have provided a review based on standard project analysis. This has three main components:

1. Capital cost

2. Operations and maintenance cost

3. Revenues generated from selling parking permits for the facility

The memorandum forwarded from the Administrative Affairs Committee to the Senate and the Senate Executive Committee contains the results of our analysis, which considered a variety of scenarios with respect to the three components. We present the analysis in table 1 in terms of annual net income, and in table 2 in terms of Net Present Value. The annual net income is calculated by subtracting an annualized capital cost and annual operations & maintenance from annual revenues. For calculating revenues we used the permit price at $360 per year. This proposed price has recently been lowered to $250, which would have the effect of lowering all the revenue projections we used in our analysis.

The tables allow readers to quickly see the implications of different assumptions with respect to the three elements of the analysis. The greatest sensitivity of net income is in relation to assumptions on capacity utilization of the facility.

Using the most likely estimate of project life (40 years) and of interest rate (4.38 percent) the capital charge is $256,000 annually. Assuming an annual O&M cost of $90,000 and 100 percent utilization results in an annual loss of $117,000. This is a best case scenario.

The most likely outcome is capacity utilization of around 27 percent, which would result in an annual loss of $285,000.

It is questionable whether $90,000 is enough to actually cover all Operations & Maintenance. A higher cost would reduce the negative net income further.

To summarize: as a financial project, this is a very bad investment.

B. Comments in View of the Broad Picture

The University is not in business, and so does not seek to maximize financial returns on investment projects. Indeed we expect a public university to run at a net loss financially, with that loss covered by public subventions. So we should consider whether there is some other worthwhile goal that might be achieved by purchasing the parking facility. To get insight into that potential the Committee met on Tuesday (19 April) with President Bradley and CFO Diann McKee. In that meeting we also asked about the financial particulars of this proposed purchase.

With respect to the financial analysis we had undertaken, we learned nothing in the meeting that changed our conclusions. CFO McKee asserted that $90,000 is a good estimate of the annual operating cost. She also told us that her own analysis showed that the facility would break even if parking permits were sold for $250/year. But she acknowledged that this did not take into consideration the capital cost. She argued that this capital cost should not be considered in relation to the parking facility alone, because it would be assigned to an auxiliary budget specific to all parking services at ISU. This assignment does not, however, diminish the cost.

This led to further conversation about the administration’s plans for financing the loss that the purchase would imply. President Bradley and CFO McKee asserted that their intention was to raise the price of all parking permits at ISU to a level sufficiently high so all the cost in the parking services auxiliary budget would be covered by revenue from the sale of permits. In effect, this would mean users of other parking areas would subsidize those parking in the facility. President Bradley also indicated that he intended to ensure that the parking facility would be utilized at a high rate, if necessary by a low price of a permit to park in the facility, which would increase the rate of implied subsidy.

In terms of some non-financial goal served by the purchase, McKee and Bradley said simply that it is essential to provide parking services for students and employees, and that the geographic layout of the campus required a large expansion of parking spaces in the southeast region of the campus. So the goal is simply to meet a perceived obligation to provide convenient parking to all students and employees who may want it. President Bradley made reference to the parking plan compiled by a consultant that indicated this need.

C. Implications for Other Budgetary Needs

Because the plan is to treat all parking costs and revenues in an auxiliary budget, there is no direct loss to other functions of the University. Although we can look at the implied annual loss in our financial analysis and ask how many faculty salaries it might support, that calculation is suggestive rather than real. Pursuit of this investment project with the intended accounting in an auxiliary budget will not have the effect of directly reducing funding for faculty salaries or for any other purpose.

However, it will have the effect of raising the price of parking higher than it would need to be. And this is the final conclusion of the Committee’s examination of the matter.

I would like to add an observation of my own here, which is separate from the work of the Committee. From an economist’s perspective, the price to students of attending a university should be considered in a holistic fashion. And the compensation of employees should be similarly considered as a package. If the price of a parking permit is higher, then students are effectively paying a higher price for their studies. If employees must pay a higher price for parking, then effectively their overall compensation is reduced.

The purchase of the Cherry Street Parking Facility is not necessary because there are other, less costly solutions to meeting parking needs at ISU. By insisting on an unnecessarily costly solution, the ISU administration is effectively reducing employee compensation and raising the price of attending ISU.

• ISU plans for parking

R. Guell’s statement forwarded to the Senate April 21, 2011

My departmental colleague, Rick Lotspeich, has performed an analysis that should serve as a clarion call to us to recommend against the purchase of the Cherry Street garage. As the analysis (sent to you yesterday) points out, this will waste at least $160,000 (and more likely $300,000) annually, and will cost faculty 25% more than we are currently paying for surface parking. The President has never disputed this (or my back of the envelope) analysis that this is a very expensive solution. The President's argument for the purchase is that we need parking capacity in THAT location and as a result there are no options.

There are, in fact, many options. If you would indulge me, I will lay them out:

1) Do nothing until there is actually a deficit. There will be many spaces freed up on the north side and on the immediate south side of the SCoB and former CoE, as SCoB faculty and staff move. Lot N (11th and Chestnut) is always empty. This option would not prevent faculty or students from parking in the garage as they currently have that ability right now should they wish to pay the city's price. In any event, walking won't kill us....as a matter of fact it would do us a little good.

2) Recognize that ISU is an outlier in that freshmen are allowed to park on campus at all. Neither IU, Purdue, nor BSU allow freshmen to park (at least anywhere near the center of campus). If we instituted that policy that would free hundreds of spaces. In addition, there is some literature that suggests that allowing freshmen to park decreases engagement as it encourages the academically unwise habit of making ISU a suitcase campus.

3) Require that all freshmen park in designated lots away from the crowded areas. (N, the North side of the current SCoB/old CoE, and any place they wish to pave on Foundation-purchased property on the east of campus or across 3rd street.)

4) Use the Driver's Training area as a parking lot and move that facility to a location east of the railroad tracks.

Whether the $4.8 million comes from "reserves" or (as I think more likely) is the profit that the university anticipates this year from extra enrollments and fewer T/TT faculty, there is an opportunity cost to spending it now. If it is not money that could go to academic affairs directly (an argument often asserted) but were left in investments it would generate at least 4.38% ($210K) in net interest gains to the university. (If the $4.8 million were instead used to reduce other debt the bond payments would be reduced, thereby yielding that net interest gains.) That net interest gain is money that can be spent anywhere and without restriction. If the money is not restricted, the result is essentially the same. In this case, if you only look at the flow of permanently available interest the distinction between money available for academic affairs and that which can only be spent on buildings is completely obliterated.

MOTION TO ACCEPT the following statement prepared by R. Guell :

The Faculty Senate wishes to exercise its advisory authority on budgetary

matters by urging that the President cease all discussions with the city on

the purchase of the Cherry Street parking facility and by urging the Board

of Trustees to reject a purchase agreement should one be presented to it;

and that this motion be read to the Board of Trustees by Chairperson Lamb

at the May 2011 meeting. (R. Guell/N. Hopkins 19-6-1)

S. Lamb: Thanked R. Lotspeich for his work/ presentation related to the Cherry Street Parking Facility.

Meeting adjourned: 5:25 p.m.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download