skip to main content Indiana State University University Faculty Senate Committee # 5 Approved December 4, 2006 November 21, 2006 Minutes Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2006-07 Present: Bill Clyburn, Julie Fine, Rocco Gennaro, Betsy Hine, Susan Hoffman, Harriet Hudson, Larry Kunes, Maury Miller, Rich Schneirov Absent: Brian Ceh, Bob English, Arthur Halpern I. Approval of Minutes of Nov. 2. Approved as distributed (6-0-2) II. Reports Chairperson: Our recommendation on the online schedule was sent back from the Executive Committee with a request to reconsider and re-vote. In the meantime, Bob Guell decided to do a survey of advisors and they have indicated that more of them use both online and print than use online or print only; therefore he is going to withdraw the proposal and re-visit it in a year or so. Liaison: Academic Affairs: NR Executive Committee:NR III. Open discussion: Susan Hoffman asked about the handbook language regarding grievances and part time/ special purpose faculty and the legality of being excluded in the recent one-time pay distribution. Rich Schneirov reminded us of the list that Bob English had given us earlier of the non-tenure track faculty. There were only 2 people from that list on multi-year contracts and those are only 2 year-contracts. It was proposed that we write a short memo regarding the fact that approved handbook language has been ignored on several occasions this year, the 1-time money distribution being one example. In fact, several who actually are full time are designated as part time and so those continued to be ignored in that distribution. Rich drafted the following memo to the Executive Committee to look into the concerns of FAC on this issue. “FAC expresses its deep concern at the apparent disregard by the Provost’s office of the new Handbook policy that calls for emphasizing hiring special purpose faculty as opposed to part-time temporary faculty. In the past year the number of special purpose faculty has actually decreased from 73 to 55. FAC recommends that the Executive Committee ask the Provost’s office why the new policy, which the Provost himself approved, is not being followed, why the number of special purpose faculty has declined, and why there are only 2 multi-year contract positions in the University.” It was moved and 2nd to approve the memo as read (Hine/Miller). Motion was approved (7-0-1). IV. Old Business: Response to Executive Committee response to elimination of printed Class Bulletin . See the chair’s report above. V. New Business: Next semester’s meeting times: The chair asked that schedules be sent to her soon so that she can set up meetings for next semester before everyone leaves for winter break. Proposal: Discussion on Rewarding Faculty Excellence document. First issue is the sweeping changes in how the awards would be given, i.e., through a college committee and then those receiving college awards would be reviewed by a single committee of external reviewers who would choose one University-award recipient. We were told that this one University recipient would give ISU faculty a chance to have their achievements recognized at the national level. Discussion: how could an external committee be able to evaluate things like advising? Could we recommend external people from our discipline to be considered for the external panel? There was concern about a formerly peer-recognized award being turned over to someone who really doesn’t know ISU or its faculty. There is more value in faculty recognizing faculty; it doesn’t seem that this proposal benefits anyone more than is already happening. There is concern about the money and beaurocracy connected with this change. The change takes the awards out of the faculty hands. How will this improved the prestige of ISU? The opinion was probably not at all. Accrediting agencies give recognition to campus programs as well as to the presentations at conferences and national/international publications. The purpose and benefit of the change is unclear except in some PR aspect. Could more University PR be given to national organizations of the particular discipline? For instance, if a faculty is recognized by the state, regional or national association of that discipline, could more PR be given about that? There is nothing in the document that would allow recognition of a library faculty member. At least 2 of the awards could include the consideration of a librarian. Looking at the minutes of this committee in 2005/06, it would appear that none of the questions raised then were addressed in this document. It appears that community engagement supersedes service or at least that term of community engagement is not currently defined to include the various kinds of service that faculty are engaged in. Does community engagement take the place of professional service, on campus and off campus at the professional level of each discipline? It seems unnecessary to get rid of the heritage of the historical names of the current awards. This discussion will continue in the next meeting which is Dec. 7 at 3:30 TC 314 when we will draft an official response to this proposal. Meeting adjourned at 4:50. Respectfully submitted, Betsy Hine, Secretary Last modified: September 11, 2008 Copyright © 2007 by Indiana State University.