SOS Steering Committee Minutes

 

November 11, 2005

 

Present:  Voting Members:  Phil Fastenau (Acting President & Secretary); Carl Cowen (Dean), Steve Randall (BIOL), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI), Barry Muhoberac (CHEM), Ray Chin (MATH), Marvin Kemple (PHYS), Jane R. Williams (PSY); Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members:  Pam Crowell, Andy Gavrin, Jeff X. Watt (Assoc. Deans).  Guests:  None.

 

Absent:  Andy Barth (PRES), Kathy Licht (GEOL), Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean)

 

Fastenau called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

 

I.          Fastenau presented the agenda, which was adopted.

 

II.         Fastenau presented the minutes from October 7th for approval.  They were approved with minor revisions; there were no dissenting votes.

 

III.        Fall Faculty Assembly (FA)

 

             Fastenau reminded the Steering Committee (SC) that the Faculty Assembly (FA) is scheduled for 12:00-2:00 on Monday, 11/28; the announcement went out to the entire faculty by email yesterday.  Fastenau indicated that the agenda would include reports by the standing committees; he will contact the chairs and request that they send a designee or provide a written report.  He asked the Dean if he would be able to attend and address the faculty; faculty members have been inquiring about the budget and would appreciate hearing a report from the Dean.  In addition, the SC needs to determine which Bylaws changes would be introduced, and whether we would call for a vote within the FA or distribute a mail ballot after the meeting, which would require more work and would delay the vote until the beginning of the Spring semester.  Cowen asked whether we could expect a quorum.  The Bylaws require a quorum of 25% of the faculty, which would be approximately 30.  Attendance has been approximately 40 in recent meetings (38 last Fall; 41 last Spring).  Muhoberac recommended that we personally contact members of our departments to encourage attendance.  Also, we could schedule the Bylaws changes for a given time, so that faculty know to show up at a particular time to vote; Gavrin suggested placing voting items during the 12:00 hour, when class schedules are believed to be lighter. 

 

             The SC has discussed several potential Bylaws changes.  The SC decided to pursue three of these in the Fall FA:

 

                        Structure of Offices of the Faculty and Succession Policy

                        Revision of the Technology Committee section

                        Addition of an Assessment Committee section

 

             The issue of incorporating non-voting faculty in administrative reviews was being spearheaded by Barth prior to his trip to Antarctica.  In his absence, this issue was tabled for a future FA, which would delay their input in the administrative review process one more year.  Williams asked if department chairs could solicit that input even without changes in the Bylaws.  Fastenau read from the Bylaws, which specify that the administrative reviews are limited to the voting faculty; therefore, any input from non-voting faculty would need to be done separately, which could reduce anonymity.

 

             The following action steps were identified:

                        Gavrin will send language for Committee changes to Chin and to SC.

                        Chin will finalize the Bylaws revision and send a draft to the SC.

                        The SC will review/edit the draft and return it by email.

                        Fastenau will send out the proposed revisions to the faculty 1 week before the FA.

                        Fastenau will contact chairs of standing SOS committees for reports at FA.

                        Dean Cowen will prepare to present and entertain questions on the SOS budget.

 

IV.        Administrative Reviews

 

             Fastenau reviewed the Bylaws and reported that Nguyen is the only member of the Dean’s staff who is eligible for review this year (all others in current position less than 2 years).  Dean Cowen spoke on Nguyen’s behalf, stating her concern that her position is less connected to the faculty and that the questions on the current chair’s review form seem less meaningful for her position.  Williams said that we started with Chair forms but we planned to tailor this to the Dean’s staff after getting the job descriptions.  Fastenau distributed the job descriptions, which were provided to him last week by Pam Crowell and Rosemarie Temple. 

 

             Williams distributed copies of the revised Chair form, which had been distributed to the SC by email.  There was a motion to accept this form, which was seconded.  There were no dissenting votes.

 

             We now need to work on the Dean’s staff versions and a feedback report format.  Williams will draft a form for Nguyen taking her job description into consideration.  She will also develop a standard format for feedback. 

 

             Web-based surveys were discussed.  Many faculty members have expressed concern about the anonymity of electronic voting, but paper ballots also have signed envelopes.  Gavrin proposed using Oncourse to administer the surveys; Williams reported that there are other software packages (e.g., “Survey Monkey”), as well.  These programs can send out email messages and individualized, randomly generated passwords.  Randall proposed that we put this on the FA agenda for discussion.

 

             Fastenau reported that the SC previously decided to obtain an organizational chart for the Dean’s Office to incorporate into the Dean’s staff review forms; he requested this but has not received it yet.  Dean Cowen confirmed that an organizational chart exists and could easily be printed.  Fastenau will request it again from Rosemarie Temple.

 

V.         Chin presented a summary of considerations for restructuring the Secretary and President roles, as discussed in the previous meeting.  The changes would convert all terms to 1 year (Sec., Pres., Past-Pres.); each year, one person would be elected as Sec. and then would progress through the 3 positions over 3 years.  Chin proposed assigning some of the current Sec. and Pres. duties to the Past-Pres., to help reduce the demands on those two positions.  Those changes met with agreement from the SC.

 

             Voting status of the three offices was discussed.  Balance of power is an issue; if all 3 officers vote and if all 3 come from same department, then one department would have 4 votes (including the department representative).  It was decided that only the Pres. would have voting privileges.

 

             It was decided that we would ask Barth to stay on as Past-Pres.  Fastenau proposed that a new Sec. and Pres. be elected in Spring under the new Bylaws.  Finally, the proposed guidelines for succession were approved as drafted.

 

VI.        Leave Without Pay Policy

 

             Dean Cowen distributed his proposed Leave Without Pay Policy for feedback.  This policy had been distributed by email following the September SC meeting, and reps were asked to obtain input from their departments.  After a minor amendment, the policy was endorsed unanimously by a formal vote of the SC.

 

VII.      Course Buyout Policy

 

             Dean Cowen reported that SOS departments and external agencies vary on Course Buyout Policies.  NSF rarely pays faculty salary during the academic year, whereas NIH does allow buyout during the academic year.  Also, sometimes investigators who bring in money feel entitled to a portion of the overhead (indirect costs).  Dean Cowen would like the SC to develop a policy for the SOS to delineate the course buyout and distribution of indirects, however he expects to keep some of the overhead in the Dean’s Office (e.g., to pay for resources in the SOS that directly support research and grants, such as Debbie Allard’s position).

 

             Dean Cowen asked for input on how best to proceed.  Crowell asked if we could poll the departments for their current policies.  Representatives from Math, Physics, Chemistry, and Computer Science reported that their departments have no formal policy.  Psychology allows investigators to buy out up to 2 courses per year (of 4 courses required for faculty who are active in research); a portion of the overhead is returned to the investigator.  Biology requires only 2 courses per year for core researchers, so buyouts are not necessary. 

 

             Another issue is how much a buyout costs.  Dean Cowen reported described different valuation approaches.  One approach is to charge the amount required to hire someone to teach in that person’s stead; another is to charge a proportionate amount of the investigator’s salary.  The latter seems unreasonable because teaching replacements are hired at the same rate, irrespective of the investigator’s salary.  On the other hand, if a buyout price is set too low (e.g., $3000) then faculty might want to pay out of pocket to buy out of a course (without external funding).   It might be that the SC decides to leave it up to the departments, for chairs to negotiate this with each faculty member. 

 

             Crowell said that most federal grants to the SOS are from NSF, so course buyouts are not going to affect many faculty members.  However, according to Dean Cowen, there are some special NSF programs that do buy out time, and other contracts and journal editorships also have buyouts.  Every department has been affected by buyouts. 

 

             Another consideration is whether there should be any limit on the frequency of buyouts.  For example, may a person with a 5-year NIH grant buy out every year?

 

             Chin proposed that a subcommittee of the SC formulate a draft of a policy.  Randall, Fastenau, and Muhoberac volunteered to put together some thoughts on this for the next meeting (12/9).

 

VIII.     Dean's Office Announcements

 

             Dean Cowen wanted to report back on the recent Forensic Science candidate, who was being considered for a tenure-track position in the SOS without a departmental home (her background was in law).  Dean Cowen reported that she will not get a tenure-track offer or full-time status at IUPUI.  Instead, she will remain at PWL in Agriculture, and we will buy some of her time here.  The Unit Committee opposed an offer with tenure because there was not a formal search (which would not be unprecedented; Dykstra was hired without a search).  Dean Cowen distributed a proposed protocol for conducting a formal search.  In addition, he expressed a preference for creating a protocol for a non-search appointment process; he asked the Unit Committee to draft a protocol, but the Unit Committee recommended that the SC handle this. 

 

             The SC was very involved in the revision P&T Guidelines last Spring.  Three departments have written policies or guidelines for their faculty.  Dean Cowen distributed those and asked for faculty input on these separate department policies.  Tuceryan said that these policies need to be passed along to the Unit Committee.  Fastenau agreed to put this on agenda for the next meeting.

 

Fastenau asked the SC if the December meeting could start at 10:30 because a colleague is visiting campus and presenting a colloquium that morning.  There was no objection from the SC.  The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, November 12, 2005.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on ____________ .