September 13, 2002
10 AM, SL 306C
Members Present: R. Allen (Chair), R. Chin (Computer Science), S. Wassal (Physics, for D. Rao), J. Luke/B. Ng (Mathematics), K. Licht (Geology), P. Fastenau (Psychology), D. Malik (Chemistry), D. Crowell (Biology), D. Stocum, J. Kuczkowski, K. Wilson, K. Nguyen (Dean's Office), K. Johnson (Secretary)
1. Discussion of meeting times for fall (10:00 conflicts with some regularly offered seminars). R. Allen requested that all members submit their standing "Friday conflicts" to her as soon as possible so that a better meeting time can be identified.
2. D. Stocum provided a report on the SOS Budget. D. Stocum emphasized that the steering committee needs to understand these documents well, since members serve as representatives to their faculty and the committee serves as the budgetary advisory group for the school. He proceeded to review school Income and Fixed Expenditures. Explanations of 18/20 were provided, as well as the breakdown of assessment fees. Allocatable dollars: $4,011, 377. A substantial proportion of the SOS budget (55%) is drawn from F/A and salary savings, which is a concern.
Allocated to departments: $3,759,164 (Flexible Fund: 252,713 + 200K excess income that could be used for income shortfall, matches, renovations, space expansion, essential hires, and other useful initiatives).
Dean's Office Budget reviewed: Broken down into funds that are spent on the office itself, versus those that are allocated to issues that benefit departments (e.g., scholarships, awards, deionized water, etc.)
Departmental Allocations: D. Stocum presented a handout delineating what funds were distributed to each department.
1. Total lab fees given back to each department.
2. Take total number of credit hours generated by department, divided by total credit hours in school; funds allocated in proportion to credit hours generated.
3. 70% of F/A returned to departments (Dean's Office retains 10%)
4. Proportion of salary savings returned from cash reserves (based on a subjective decision that considers the perceived needs for each department)
Carry overs and ancillary funds (e.g., RIF, new startup funds) added in. These moneys vary considerably across departments (e.g., CIS received more RIF funds in order to support the development of the new Ph.D. program). D. Stocum commented specifically that Biology and Psychology have been "relatively starved" across the past 2-3 years, despite their success. This year, both departments received substantially higher proportions of funding.
3. R. Allen presented Issues to be addressed by the Steering Committee this year (i.e., Lecturer participation, timing of administrative reviews, poor attendance at faculty assembly meetings)
Policy on Lecturers:
D. Stocum advocated the formulation of a school-wide policy on Lecturers, and suggested that we avoid the formulation of individual department-specific policies. There needs to be a clear stipulation of policy issues within the SOS Bylaws. Possible consequences of Lecturers playing a role in curricular decisions were discussed (e.g., participation in Teaching/Learning and Educational Policies committee). R. Allen drew a distinction between legislative authority (e.g., voting privileges) and communication issues (information dissemination purposes), and suggested that each of these issues could be discussed separately.
Representatives were asked to solicit feedback from departmental faculty and lecturers related to these policy issues:
1. Should the membership of the Faculty Assembly be broadened to include Lecturers?
2. Should bylaws be changed in regard to voting rights of Lecturers or Senior Lecturers?
3. Should Lecturers participate on committees? On which ones? In what capacity?
4. Should Lecturers participate in the Administrative Review process?
Timing of Administrative Reviews:
Should bylaws be changed to every 5 years? Every 2 years for new administrators? Again, R. Allen requested that representatives solicit feedback on this issue from their departments.
Faculty Assembly Meetings:
The committee lamented the fact that attendance generally is very poor, and we discussed whether the Bylaws should be modified such that meetings each semester are not required (the Steering Committee could continue to schedule meetings on an as-needed basis, as currently stipulated in the Bylaws). D. Stocum proposed having a SOS social hour each semester, rather than (or in conjunction with) a formal business meeting. This idea was enthusiastically endorsed, and planned tentatively for spring 03.
4. Bart Ng addressed the committee regarding the Chancellor's Search. Members of the search committee will send representative(s) to meet with SOS faculty so that we can ask questions and be involved in the decision making process. The review process begins in October and is highly secretive - candidates will not meet with members of the search committee on the IUPUI campus. Bart will describe the process and solicit comments at the Fall Faculty Assembly, to be held on Monday, September 30.
5. J. Kuczkowski presented the Proposal for new Core Curriculum Committee and informed us that SOS has been asked for 4 representatives. Joe suggested that the decision concerning who these 4 representatives will be should be left to members of the Educational Policy committee. The Steering Committee endorsed this suggestion and concurred with this recommendation.
Respectfully submitted
KJ, 9/13/02