Members Present: R. Allen (Chair), D. Crowell (Biology), G. Filippelli (Geology), K. Johnson (Secretary), D. Rao (Physics), R. Chin (Computer Science), D. Malik (Chemistry), D. Stocum (Dean's Office), K. Wilson (Dean's Office), J. Kuczkowski (Dean's Office), K. Nguyen (Dean's Office)
1. Acceptance of minutes from 9/13/02 meeting. No changes; minutes approved.
2. SOS Faculty Assembly Website
R. Allen initiated a discussion concerning whether there should be a link to the Faculty Assembly Website on the SOS Home Page. Consensus was established that this should be a public website and information concerning the bylaws, minutes, etc. should be freely accessible to faculty, students, staff, and our constituents. R. Allen will contact Mark Federwisch in order to create a link to the Faculty Assembly website from the SOS Home page. G. Filippelli suggested adding a link for "Faculty and Staff" to the SOS website and including the link there (along with Grantweb and other information that typically is of use to faculty).
Discussion ensued concerning revisions to the IUPUI, School, and departmental websites. J. Kuczkowski pointed out that students may potentially be misled during course selection because of outdated information.
3. "The top 5 concerns of the faculty in the SOS"
R. Allen attended a meeting yesterday of the Executive Committee of the IUPUI Faculty Council, where she was asked to provide a list of the top 5 concerns of the faculty. She presented 7 such concerns for discussion:
1. Increasing salary disparity between IUPUI and Bloomington faculty.
2. Increasing reliance on F&A to cover basic operating expenses within the school
3. Facilities problems (research space, animal space) and implications for recruitment and expansion
4. Lack of input on Chancellor's search
5. Fringe benefit problems (changes in HMOs, lack of faculty input in decisions)
6. Journal expenses and library budget cuts
7. General perceived lack of support for "nonprofessional" schools on campus
R. Allen asked whether items should be deleted/added to the list. Committee members agreed that no items should be deleted.
J. Kuczkowski suggested adding the issue of direct connections between graduate programs and the Purdue Graduate School. R. Allen pointed out that IUPUI Ph.D. candidates in Biology still must have their committees chaired by Purdue faculty, and these individuals may not even be in the candidate's primary field. Other committee members indicated that this policy was not upheld within their departments (although there typically needs to be a committee member from Purdue). K. Wilson will track down the written policy and disseminate it to the Steering Committee.
D. Stocum added that there is no recognition of the higher cost of science programs within the university (Science and Liberal Arts are treated equally, yet Science's costs are far greater).
D. Stocum also pointed out the lack of parity of funding across the campuses within the IU System. (IUPUI is the lowest-funded campus, internally, despite being the highest-funded campus, externally.)
J. Kuczkowski suggested adding additional items regarding problems with space: teaching/classroom space and office/administrative space.
D. Stocum suggested that the Chancellor's search be deferred until the new President has been selected.
R. Allen indicated that she will provide this list to the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee. Dring Crowell suggested that this list be provided to candidates for the Chancellor's position. The Committee agreed with this suggestion.
4. Discussion of proposed bylaws changes concerning lecturers
Feedback from discussions with departmental faculty members regarding lecturer policy was requested. R. Allen suggested revising the definition of faculty in the SOS Bylaws to include lecturers, but also drawing a clear distinction between voting faculty and nonvoting faculty. J. Kuczkowski pointed out that each School Committee would need to be evaluated regarding the voting/nonvoting distinction.
K. Wilson suggested making an outright distinction between Senior Lecturers and Lecturers, and perhaps giving voting rights to Senior Lecturers (except on issues related to research, promotion, tenure, recruitment, determination of direction of the school, etc.). D. Stocum recommended keeping the policy flexible to accommodate the diversity of roles the lecturers play. D. Rao suggested not specifying any voting rights at the School level at all, but letting departments decide internally on which issues (e.g., gateway courses) lecturers will vote. J. Kuczkowski pointed out that departments might choose to select Lecturers to serve on particular committees (e.g., Educational Policies) and vote (as a departmental proxy) on issues that arise.
We discussed roles on specific committees:
1. Steering Committee tenured/tenure-track faculty only? D. Malik suggested that Lecturers select a representative to this committee, which was followed by a discussion concerning the logistical difficulties of this approach. How would lecturers choose such a representative? Would this result in one or two departments having a greater say in deliberations of the Steering Committee? D. Stocum argued that Lecturers should not serve on this committee, since the Steering Committee is composed of individuals who represent departments. R. Chin argued that Departments should be free to choose whether to nominate tenure-track faculty or lecturers to individual committees. D. Rao argued that all committees should consist of tenured/tenure-track faculty only.
2. Nominations and Awards much debate ensued concerning whether it would be important to have lecturers represented on this committee. J. Kuczkowski argued that this committee could invite representatives of the lecturers to participate when necessary and did not need to have lecturers represented on the committee itself.
3. We proceeded to discuss/debate several other committees (Library, Technology, Teaching and Learning), with no clear resolutions.
The majority opinion appeared to be that all committees should consist of tenured or tenure-track faculty only. Consequently, R. Allen suggested that this point of view would require changing the definition of Faculty to include Lecturers and Senior Lecturers, but within the Committee Membership section of the SOS Bylaws, it should be stipulated that only tenured/tenure-track faculty be eligible to serve on School of Science committees. R. Allen will prepare possible revisions to the bylaws for consideration at the next meeting.
5. Proposed bylaws changes concerning administrative reviews
There was no time for discussion of this topic. R. Allen proposed, as points for committee members to consider prior to the next meeting, the following suggestions:
- placing new administrators on 2-year review cycles for at least two (rather than a single) review cycle in order to revisit points that were raised
- synchronizing the internal and external reviews of Deans to avoid redundancy (i.e., the internal review would be a major component of the 5-year administrative review)
D. Malik and D. Stocum suggested 3-year review cycles for new Deans, followed by a follow-up review after 2 years (followed by 5-year cycles), simply because it takes at least one year to become acclimated to the position.
R. Allen clarified that new Departmental Chairs could still be reviewed after 2 years, followed by a decision by the Steering Committee concerning whether subsequent reviews should be on a 2 vs. 5 year cycle.
Respectfully submitted
KJ, 10/18/02