Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
April 22, 2008
Present: Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Timothy Libretti, Emmanuel Nyadroh, Frank Perino, James Olson, Kristen Over, Marina Polyashuk, Terrence Puryear, Allen Shub, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Barry Birnbaum, Ana Gil-Garcia, Dennis Grammenos, Shahrzad Mahootian, Dario Villa
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Guests: Tim Scherman – IBHE-FAC, Henry Owen, III – SURSMAC
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
1. Report from the IBHE-FAC Meeting
Professor Tim Scherman of the English Department, the University’s representative on the IBHE-FAC, reported on the Faculty Advisory Council’s presentation to the IBHE at the April 1st meeting. The report had two main components:
A) The council reiterated its focus in its previous position paper that instead of focusing simply on heightening security to deal with episodes like the Virginia Tech incident that preventive measures, including providing adequate counseling and mental health services to students, need primary attention. The council pointed out that the reductions in funding to state universities hinder universities’ abilities to support students in this regard and to avoid another Virginia Tech tragedy.
B) The council presented a re-definition of economic efficiency in higher education, pointing out the deficiencies in thinking and shortsightedness informing the traditional business model. Basically, the presentation underscored that education is not simply a private benefit to individuals but, as studies show, an educated populace bears fruit for communities in economic terms, cultural terms, social terms, etc.
Scherman also reported that legislators expressed support for the capital bill in the budget that would bring NEIU a new education building. Of course, he mentioned, the persistent countervailing reality of the state’s structural deficit still promised to make that support moot. The Provost added here that he did note a change in attitude in the legislature toward higher education which was no longer hostile but sympa-thetic to the underfunded condition of higher education. Still, he agreed with Scherman that the structural deficit overrode any optimism.
2. Report from SURSMAC
Henry Owen, III reported on the state of our pension system, the State University Retirement System. The pension system is underfunded to the tune of some 40 billion dollars. While pensions are currently contractually guaranteed and upheld by the state constitution, Owen reported that the threat to the system lay in the possibility of a constitutional convention that could alter the constitution and reconfigure the state’s obligation to pensions.
The biggest hope to fund pensions, he reported, is a proposed bill SB2288, which would set up a trust fund for higher education.
Owen also discussed some of the funding and investments of pensions.
3. President’s Report
The Provost reported that Nancy Masterson resigned as Chair of the Board of Trustees and was replaced by Walter Dudycz, who was elected.
He also reported that Lobby Day was effective in terms of NEIU receiving a friendly hearing, but pointed out that the budgetary problems don’t offer hope for the friendship bearing material fruit.
He reported additionally that Pappas Consulting had started work in a major way, undertaking focus groups with students, faculty, and University officers.
He announced the call for research communities.
4. Filling the IBHE-FAC Representative Position
It was decided to fill this position by election. A call for nominations would be issued. If only one nomination is received, that person will be appointed.
5. Debriefing on Academic Freedom Speaker Event
There was some frustration at the format, such as the long introduction by the speaker and the many interruptions which prevented the speaker from working through her agenda. There as a general sense that it is beneficial to be refreshed on these issues and that in the future we might have a more directed format or agenda.
6. ROTC Courses
The agenda item was forwarded to us from FCAA, who had been asked to approve the ROTC courses. This Council felt the presence of ROTC on campus needed a larger discussion. It was pointed out to us that ROTC, according to particular implementations of the Solomon Act, has the right to come to campus or schools; if they are denied that right, schools are subject to lose federal funding (Pell Grants, etc). Also, it was pointed out that some of our students (about three) are already taking these courses, and they need to take them at DePaul (and pay tuition there).
There was some sentiment expressing worry over the homophobic attitudes of the military as well as the over the military’s alleged dishonesty in recruiting students. The question was raised as to the appropriateness of these attitudes and ethics on our campus. The issue was also raised as to whether they are coming on campus to educate or recruit, as one voice argued that the Solomon Act applies to the right to recruit, not the right to teach classes. The Provost pointed out that major universities had already fought this legal battle and lost.
Issues were raised about what it means to be a diverse community and to recognize diversity. Several voices said that honoring diversity means we honor students’ rights to choose the military and to allow this option to them on our campus.
There was some suggestion that now might be the time to craft a larger policy to deal with these situations and to articulate how our University values dictate how we handle these situations and also set guidelines for the behavior of other presences on our campus.
7. Adjournment
Nyadroh (Perino 2nd) moved for adjournment at 3:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25,
2008
Present: Loretta
Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Dennis Grammenos, Shahrzad Mahootian, James Olson, Kristen Over, Marina Polyashuk,Terrence Puryear, Allen Shub
Absent: Barry Birnbaum, Ana Gil-Garcia, Timothy Libretti, Emmanuel Nyadroh, Frank Perino, Dario Villa, Shencheng Xu
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
1. Approval of the Minutes
There were no minutes for approval.
2. Report from the Chair
3. Report from the President’s Office
Provost Frank reported that Dean
Varkey Titus of the
4. Continuation of Academic Freedom Discussion
A lengthy discussion of academic freedom continued and included possible topics for the guest speaker who will present her speech on April 8th.
5. Preparation for AAUP Speaker
Carol Simpson Stern will speak on
Tuesday, April 8th, at 1:40 P.M. in room 101 of the
· What is academic freedom?
· What are the controversies, if any?
· How does it apply to students?
· What is happening in state vs. public education now?
6. New Business
Faculty Senate Elections: Denise Wilson announced that the self-nomination material will be distributed to the Elections Committee and should be distributed to the faculty by March 27th. Chair Shub will substitute for Sue Mungre who is on sabbatical.
7. Adjournment
Capeheart (Over 2nd) moved for adjournment at 2:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise Wilson
Faculty Senate Office
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
February 26,
2008
Present: Barry Birnbaum, Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Ana Gil-Garcia, Timothy Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Allen Shub
Absent: Dennis Grammenos, Emmanuel Nyadroh, Marina Polyashuk, Terrence Puryear, Dario Villa, Shencheng Xu
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
1. Report from the Chair
Chair Shub shared the letter that
had been sent to President Hahs regarding the
Senate’s decision not to participate in her evaluation. He reported that
she respected the decision but was nonetheless disappointed.
Shub sought Senate input on
sending a letter to the Senate at
2. Status of the Academic Freedom Issue
Libretti spoke on behalf of the Academic Freedom Committee, raising some issues for the Senate to consider and asking for the Senate’s direction as the Committee pursues its work. Some of the comments reference a policy statement from the Canadian Association of University Teachers the Committee circulated.
Libretti explained that the Committee began its work with basic questions that tended to focus on academic freedom in the context of teaching, such as the following: What is academic freedom? What is its relationship to academic responsibility and employee obligations? How do we define and protect academic freedom for instructors who never receive tenure? Given that tenure is the institution designed to ensure and protect academic freedom, should the Uuniversity have a policy or stance on the importance of tenure and a commitment to minimizing the use of instructors and maintaining a certain percentage of tenure and tenure-track faculty?
As the Committee started looking for models of defining and discussing academic freedom, Libretti explained, it began to see that academic freedom really involves an entire culture at the University and extends well beyond what we do in our classrooms. The Committee was also reminded that we need to ensure the academic freedom of students as well. Even a cursory look at the document Libretti distributed highlights that academic freedom must infuse the whole system of University governance and that a University culture characterized by academic freedom is one that empowers the self-determination of faculty and units in the governance process, and recognizes faculty expertise.
In its meeting, the Committee gradually shifted towards raising questions that revisited some old issues that the Senate might rather avoid but which the Committee believes might merit some revisiting, including chair elections, changing of grades, shared governance, the Rick Hallett situation, and the evaluation of administrators (given that academic freedom entails the right to criticize the institution).
The Committee began to feel that many issues at the University might be addressed through a healthy discussion of what academic freedom is and how we cultivate a culture of academic freedom at the University. For example, the perception of growing top-down governance, a divide between administration and faculty, might be addressed by thinking about how we define academic freedom and how we imagine a university culture characterized by academic freedom at all levels. An environment of shared governance--and more properly one of academic freedom--might remedy some of that lack of understanding on both sides.
While we are a collective bargaining institution where faculty has representation, this does not need to mean that union is the sole or primary means of resolving conflict. Collective bargaining is one piece of our larger academic environment, one defining piece of our relationships here. The Committee thinks that we can consciously craft and work toward a culture that relieves antagonisms and that taking the time now to really reflect on the cornerstone concept of university life--academic freedom--can direct us on a healthy trajectory toward a better culture at NEIU.
Over worried that the mantra of academic freedom might be used as an excuse not to do anything and stressed the importance of tying freedoms to responsibilities as outlined in our employee obligations and in the contract.
Capeheart suggested we bring a speaker to campus from the AAUP as a way of perhaps initiating a campus-wide discussion.
Gil-Garcia suggested we take baby steps in motivating this discussion, perhaps starting at the department level.
It was also suggested that the development of academic freedom ought to be a prominent element of strategic planning.
Libretti suggested that a concerted attempt to foster academic freedom ought to entail a scrutiny of processes in place already, no matter how messy that might become. Olson reflected that such a process might lead to a rediscovery of our core values. Filus added that the process needs administrative support if there is going to be a genuine re-assessment of structures.
Provost Frank pointed out the complication that often academic freedom might entail conflicting rights of students, faculty, and administrators.
3. Adjournment
Perino moved to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
February 5,
2008
Present: Barry Birnbaum, Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Ana Gil-Garcia, Timothy Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian, Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Marina Polyashuk, Terrence Puryear, Allen Shub, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Dennis Grammenos, Dario Villa
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Guests: Patrick Miller and Susan Rosa
1. Approval of Minutes of January 22, 2008
The minutes from the previous meeting were not yet available.
2. Report from the Chair
Shub announced that the President’s State of the University Address would be February 21st and that the next Town Hall was scheduled for May 2nd.
3. Requested Involvement of Faculty Senate in Evaluation of President Hahs
Susan Rosa expressed concern about the previous year’s evaluations of deans and was troubled the process would set a precedent. She indicated that all documents that were supposed to be in the Library were not present, that only the Dean’s response is in the Library, not the faculty reps report or the report of the three-member subcom-mittee. She urged that the Senate not move forward in administrative evaluations without clarity, asserting that it’s not enough for the Senate to provide a rationality to faculty for how last year’s evaluations were handled; it must decide if they were handled properly.
A number of Senators shared the
sense that the pilot needs to be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness. It
was suggested that faculty be surveyed as to their perceptions of the
usefulness, purpose, and effectiveness of the process.
Over pointed out that the promise of confidentiality was what ensured administrative participation in the process and increased the possibility that they would be taken seriously by those who were evaluated. Puryear elaborated that the strength of the evaluation is in the recommendation for change from the sub-committee.
Patrick Miller suggested that simply putting the appropriate documents in the Library, as according to the stipulated protocol, might go a long way toward resolving these issues and concerns over secrecy.
Provost Frank at this point offered the information that the evaluation of the President is the board’s project, and that the faculty and administration are asked to participate. He offered his sense that the evaluations are taken seriously by administrators.
Libretti at this point chimed in that when the steering committee had met last fall, Shub presented compelling reasons as to why the results should not be made public. He pointed out that most faculty senates conducted evaluations the same way in hopes that the administration would participate and take the faculty feedback seriously. This information was provided, in fact, by the evaluation service. The confidentiality, for one, assured greater willingness on behalf of administrators to participate. Libretti said that while he was aware of faculty concerns that the data was not made public, he had not really heard a rationale for why it should be. As he reflected on the matter, he suggested that one reason for making data available to the faculty would be that there is great value in faculty having a sense of shared consciousness and that this development of shared consciousness is curtailed if faculty can’t see how their brothers and sisters feel about the campus and its administration. He stated that the administration had a right to do its own evaluations for its own reasons and that perhaps the Senate might contemplate doing its own evaluation for its own purposes. Some Senators reiterated the value of a shared consciousness among faculty and suggested that somehow the Senate might facilitate that.
A motion was forwarded that the Senate participate in the process with public clarification of the process and with the recommendation that the subcommittee provide substantial reports of the results of the evaluation.
In discussing the motion, Filus urged that that the Senate must hold the trust of the faculty, expressing her view that the Senate is losing this trust. Capeheart asserted that it is too soon to recreate what we did in the past. Polyashuk wondered why the Senate needed to bless this process. Over reminded the Senate that the President chose this process because it was the process the Senate used in the past.
Gil-Garcia suggested it was healthy that the President wants to be evaluated and opined that any such evaluation might have more meaning if it were accompanied by a school climate and culture survey.
The motion did not carry. The vote was 7-7-1.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
January 22,
2008
Present: Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Ana Gil-Garcia, Timothy Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian, Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Marina Polyashuk, Terrence Puryear, Allen Shub
Absent: Barry Birnbaum, Dennis Grammenos, Dario
Villa, Shencheng Xu
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Guest: Edward Odisho
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
1. Approval of the Minutes
The minutes from the November 27, 2007 meeting were approved as were the minutes, with revisions, of the January 8, 2008 meeting.
2. The Bernard J. Brommel Distinguished Research Professor Award
Edward Odisho brought the issue of an alleged change in eligibility requirements before the Senate charging that the change, particularly as it only applied to him this year, constituted a discriminatory practice. The alleged change Odisho referenced was the addition in this year’s call for nominations of the stipulation that to qualify one must be a member of the faculty for the year of the appointment, meaning that the candidate who is selected this year in Spring 2008 is appointed for the 2008-2009 academic year and must be a faculty member for that year. As Odisho three years ago signed an irrevocable letter of intent to retire in December 2008, by this stipulation, which had not appeared in writing in the two previous calls for nominations, Odisho would not be eligible for nomination.
Odisho testified that he had dealt with discrimination at Northeastern in earlier years and is committed to challenging this monster wherever it raises his head. He expressed his strong belief that his exclusion from consideration for this award qualified as such an occasion.
While there was discussion as to whether the Brommel Award had been understood as an appointment or as simply an award, Provost Frank maintained that from its inception the award was developed as an appointment, carrying the stipulation that the recipient must be present on campus the following year. He acknowledged that this stipulation had not appeared in writing on the call for nominations in the previous two years.
In hopes of resolving the issue Capeheart (Libretti 2nd) moved that the Senate recommend a one-year transition in the Brommel Award process so that eligibility requirements, particularly regarding the language of appointment, can be clarified. All submitted nominations should be granted consideration while the language of eligibility is clarified. The motion passed.
3. University Process for Evaluation of President Hahs
Initial discussion focused on explaining the nuts and bolts of the process itself, though discussion quickly shifted to the question of whether or not and in what capacity the Senate ought to participate in the evaluation without review and discussion of the efficacy of the process itself given reports of concerns from faculty regarding the handling of the evaluations of the deans the previous year.
Capeheart expressed shock at hearing the President announce at the Town Hall meeting that the Senate had agreed to participate in her evaluation, stressing that the Senate had not discussed the matter and needed to discuss it before endorsing or agreeing to participate in the process. While she expressed her willingness to submit to the majority, she urged the Senate to get clear on the process and its role in it as a governing body on campus and not just to be used to rubber stamp the President’s agenda but to take part in shaping the process to serve the faculty it represents.
Over reminded the Senate that, in fact, the Senate was unanimous in its decision to conduct the evaluations of the deans as it did and stated that the concerns of faculty were the result of miscommunication about or misunderstanding of the process outside the Senate. Capeheart responded that the Senate made decisions after the fact of the evaluations having been administered.
Libretti suggested that the issue of how the evaluations are conducted may involve an issue of academic freedom. Given that academic freedom grants faculty the right to criticize the institution, it might follow that faculty have the right to see the results of the evaluation.
Chair Shub opined that since the President requested this evaluation, it’s not our role to say how it is done.
Over indicated that the issue of administrative evaluations was not discussed in detail in the steering committee, although it seemed some agreement had been reached regarding the efficacy of not revealing the raw data. She expressed nervousness about jumping back into the discussion. Nonetheless, she offered that the clear splinter in the Senate may very well reflect a splinter in the faculty we represent.
4. Adjournment
Nyadroh (Mahootian 2nd) moved for adjournment at 3:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
January 8,
2008
Present: Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Ana Gil-Garcia, Timothy Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian, Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Terrence Puryear, Allen Shub, Dario Villa, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Barry Birnbaum,
Dennis Grammenos, Marina Polyashuk
On Sabbatical: Sue Mungre, Steve Riess
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
1. Approval of the Minutes of November 13, 2007
Over (Perino 2nd) moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2007.
2. Report from the Chair
Chair Shub reported that President Hahs wants to be evaluated and wants the Faculty Senate to take part. Other groups, he reported, will evaluate her as well.
3. Brommel Award Committee
The Senate will invite the following people to serve on the Brommel Award Committee and will verify their willingness:
Effie Kritikos, Special Education
Christopher Schroeder, English
Sudha Srinivas, Physics
Brett
Stockdill, Sociology
4. Town Hall Meeting
Chair Shub reminded the Senate that President Hahs will hold the first town hall meeting on Friday, January 11th, in Alumni Hall.
5. State of the University Address
The State of the University Address will be given on February 21, 2008 when President Hahs can give an update on planning.
6. Status of Bylaws Committee
It was decided the Bylaws committee would collect bylaws from as many departments as possible and recommend a set of common elements to be in all bylaws. Chair Shub said he would contact deans to see what bylaws they might have on file. Gil-Garcia volunteered to serve on the committee. Over volunteered to work on establishing a template that would outline common elements for bylaws.
7. Status of the Academic Freedom Committee (Academic Integrity Committee)
The Committee discussed their work plan.
8. Adjournment
Perino (Mahootian 2nd) moved for adjournment at 2:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
November 27,
2007
Present: Barry Birnbaum,
Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Timothy
Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian,
Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Marina
Polyashuk, Allen Shub, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Ana Gil-Garcia, Dennis Grammenos, Sue Mungre, Frank Perino, Steve Riess,
Dario Villa
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
1. Approval of the Minutes of November 13, 2007
The approval of the November 13th minutes was deferred pending review by President Hahs.
2. Report from the Chair
Chair Shub renewed his call for senators to volunteer as marshals for the December commencement and also alerted the Senate of the need to nominate faculty to serve on the Brommel Award Committee.
3. President’s Report
No representative of the President’s office attended the meeting.
4. State of the University Address
Chair Shub reported that President Hahs says we should have a state of the university address because the faculty constitution requires it. The Senate then discussed various possibilities for the formats of both the state of the university address and town hall meetings.
5. Adjournment
Birnbaum (Over 2nd) moved to adjourn at 2:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
October 9, 2007
Present: Barry Birnbaum, Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Dennis Grammenos, Tim Libretti, Sue Mungre, Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Marina Polyashuk, Steve Riess, Allen Shub, Dario Villa, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Shahrzad Mahootian
Ex-Officio: President Sharon Hahs, Provost Lawrence Frank
Guests: Teddy Bofman, Linguistics; Audie Brewton, Economics; Richard Hallett,
Linguistics; Jeanine Ntihirageza, ELP/Linguistics; Marit Vamarasi, Linguistics
Chair Shub called the meeting to order at
1. Approval of Minutes of September 11, 2007
The minutes of the September 11th meeting were approved as corrected.
2. Report from the Chair
The Chair reported that marshals are still needed for commencement and also reminded all to complete the ethics training and to spend an appropriate might of time completing it. He reported additionally that the new search and screen manual being developed is nearing completion. Finally, he announced Steve Riess’s Brommel Award Lecture on October 16.
3. Report from the President’s Office
The Provost gave the President’s Report and told us two pieces of felicitous news. First, the University received a Title V grant for the project of improving retention through literacy, which will revamp the instruction of writing at the University. The grant is in the amount of 2.8 million dollars over five years. Second, the Provost announced the refunding of the McNair program.
4. Department Bylaws – Audie Brewton
Audie Brewton brought to the Faculty Senate his concerns over a violation of bylaws in the Economics unit. His particular concern centered on his exclusion from the departmental search and screen committee despite an article in the bylaws which reads, “The Departmental Personnel Committee shall consist of the committee of the whole with the Department Chairperson serving as a chairperson of the committee.” Citing Article 7, Section C:1 of the Faculty Constitution which asserts each depart-ment’s responsibility to develop bylaws, Brewton argued that unit bylaws are part of the Faculty Constitution and thus are endowed with the same governing authority. He pointed out that he had brought this issue to Santos Rivera who told him the unit bylaws did not need to be upheld, that a search and screen committee could be composed of a segment of the unit.
Chair Shub stressed that the key issue raised by Brewton’s complaint was exactly what status department bylaws had at the University. Filus questioned the legitimacy of the Economics unit’s bylaws given the Article VII.A contradicted University policy by assigning the departmental chairperson to be the chair of the departmental search and screen committee. Provost Frank here indicated that such inconsistencies were tolerated in bylaws precisely because bylaws had typically been considered to have no authority outside departments but merely functioned to govern departmental operations.
Riess refocused the discussion on the issue at hand, which was whether a person could be excluded from the search and screen committee in the unit of Economics.
Over wondered what authority the Senate actually had in this matter other than to recommend a department or unit follows its bylaws.
Libretti underlined the seriousness of this issue given the widespread disregard at all levels of the University for procedures and policies as spelled out in governing documents such as the Faculty Constitution and the contract.
Capeheart (Birnbaum 2nd) moved that the Economics unit will allow the whole of the unit to be included in the search and screen committee. The motion was approved.
Capeheart (Birnbaum 2nd) moved that the Senate Bylaws Committee rate the bylaws for consistency with other University documents. The motion was approved.
While Filus stated that typically the Senate invites the other sides to be heard on issues, it was pointed out that in any case the unit should still have to abide by its bylaws.
Nyadroh suggested that the bylaws be revised to be consistent with principles of University governance before the Senate recommends the unit abide by them. Riess and others argued this would allow the unit to revise them such that Brewton could be excluded from the search and screen committee.
5. Academic Integrity – Richard Hallett
Richard Hallett of Linguistics appeared before the Senate to raise an issue of academic integrity at the University. The issue stemmed from his chairperson’s denial of his request to teach Linguistics 322: Sociolinguistics, and her subsequent assignment of that course to an instructor while assigning a 100-level course to Hallett instead. Hallett, a tenured professor with research specialization in socio-linguistics (he has a book under contract in this field), brought this issue to the Senate to seek the reasoning behind the preference given to an instructor, whose Ph.D. was twenty years-old and who showed no evidence of current research in the field, in the case. He believed this failure to recognize tenure and rank in this regard seriously compromised the academic integrity of the University.
Marit Vamarasi, Chair of Linguistics, while pointing to a stack of papers before her, claimed Hallett had rejected Form Ds that included the assignment of Linguistics 322.
Provost Frank added that while in his view tenured and tenure-track faculty are the heart of the University, chairs are often in difficult position of negotiating many considerations in making out schedules. He suggested that the collective bargaining agreement also presented constraints in this regard as it somehow granted instructors the same rights to courses as tenured and tenure-track faculty.
Capeheart pointed out that the collective bargaining agreement made clear distinc-tions between the roles of teaching professionals (tenured and tenure-track faculty) and instructors at the University. The agreement states that instructors are to be assigned courses that otherwise can’t be filled by tenured and tenure-track faculty. She also stressed that the practice about which Hallett complained was an issue beyond Linguistics and also a broader issue for the profession.
Over expressed grave concern regarding the practice of giving preference to an instructor over a tenured faculty member with specific research expertise to teach a course; she wondered why the University wouldn’t want the most qualified people, who had been chosen through a national search, to teach its students.
Libretti seconded Over’s position, stressing that teaching professionals are expected to do research, whereas instructors are not, such that it was counter-intuitive to assign upper-level courses to instructors. Such practice constitutes such a defiance of common sense that it seemed bizarre, he said, to have to even articulate the many reasons why this practice was indicative of a world turned upside down. Of particular concern to him was the chair’s apparent rationale in the particular case under consideration which, according to Hallett, was that she needed to give the instructor a class. This rationale raised the question of why she didn’t give the instructor the 100-level course offering. Capeheart (Over 2nd) moved that the issue of academic integrity be referred to the Academic Freedom Committee for discussion and brought back to the Senate. The motion was approved unanimously.
6. Update on Justice Studies Issue – Loretta Capeheart
Capeheart presented an update on the Justice Studies issue. She was offered the position of associate chair by the Provost, but could not accept it as it was offered due to the faculty contract. In a discussion with UPI representatives, she was told that it would not be appropriate to be coordinator. A lively discussion followed.
7. Adjournment
Birbaum
(Nyadroh 2nd) moved for adjournment at
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
Present: Loretta Capeheart, Susan Colon, Lidia Filus, Timothy Libretti, Shahrzad Mahootian, Sue Mungre, Emmanuel Nyadroh, James Olson, Kristen Over, Frank Perino, Marina Polyashuk, Steve Riess, Allen Shub, Dario Villa, Shencheng Xu
Absent: Barry Birnbaum, Dennis Grammenos
Ex-Officio: Provost Lawrence Frank
Guests: Audie Brewton, Dragan Milovanovic
Outgoing Chair Shub called the meeting to order at
1. Release of Minutes of Executive Session of
Riess (Villa 2nd) moved for
approval of the release of the Executive Session minutes. Unanimous.
2. Approval of Minutes of
Over (Olson 2nd) moved for
approval of the minutes of
3. Report from the Chair
Chair Shub reported on some of the major
accomplishments of the Faculty Senate this past year (2006-07):
The amended Faculty Constitution adds three
non-tenure track faculty members to the Faculty Senate, one each from the
The amended Faculty Constitution reaffirms
that only tenured/tenure track faculty have a vote in department matters and in
chair elections, though all faculty have voice.
This year (2007-08) Shub hopes the Senate will:
Shub announced that because of term limits
(Article VIII.B of the Faculty Constitution), he was
off Senate after 2006-07. However, Article VIII.C of the Faculty Constitution
allows an individual to stay on a council, despite term limits, if a vacancy
exists. With two Faculty Senate vacancies from the
4. Report from the President’s Office
Provost Lawrence Frank distributed a handout
showing the enrollment planning structure and its intended accomplishments. The
planning structure is composed of five groups: the Enrollment Management
Council, the Undergraduate Admis-sions/Recruitment
Team, the Undergraduate Retention Team, the Graduate Recruitment and Retention
Team, and the Student Enrollment Services Advisory.
Group. Each group has a
charge in this process. The Provost our enrollment is below 12,000 students;
more apply but fewer come to the University. Polyashuk commented that graduate
advisors should be part of the Graduate Recruitment and Retention Team.
The Provost told us that President Hahs plans to attend some Faculty Senate meetings when she
can.
Questions were asked regarding
The Provost told us there is difficulty in
booking classrooms. The new
There will be two Sunday courses this year in
addition to the Saturday classes.
5. Election of Faculty Senate Officers
Chair Shub called for nominations for officers:
6. Formation of Faculty Senate Committees
Chair Shub called for nominations for two Senators to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is composed of the Faculty Senate Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary plus two additional Senators.
Chair Shub called for volunteers to Faculty Senate Committees. The responses were:
Libretti, Mahootian, Villa
Capeheart, Libretti, Mahootian, Perino, Polyashuk, Riess
Xu
7. Report on Justice Studies Issue
Provost Frank presented his
perspective on continuing developments in Justice Studies, beginning with a
brief history. Frank recapitulated in brief the events following the
resignation of Shelley Bannister as chair of Justice Studies last summer. From
his perspective, the failure of the department in completing both a major
pro-gram review mandated by the Illinois Board of Higher Education and an
outcome and assessment plan mandated also by the state indicated a department
in disarray. He reviewed how he met with the group after an election resulted
in a vote of
After learning at the previous Senate meeting that his appointment violated the Faculty Constitution in that a chair must be a tenured/tenure-track faculty member, Frank took this information under consideration and changed his mind. He then decided to appoint Wamucii Njogu, currently associate provost, to chair the program and Hansen would be assigned to assist the program in completing the very important program review and developing an assessment plan, while Capeheart was still considered for the coordinatorship.
Dragan Milovanovic then spoke, validating much of what Frank had said. He validated that much robust discussion in the highest academic spirit had taken place among the various parties. His main point of contention and disappointment was that there was not in evidence from his perspective the spirit of collaboration called for by the constitution. In his view, the Justice Studies program had been willing to compromise and was very willing to welcome Hansen into the department to assist with the reviews, but the department will as expressed in the vote needed to be respected.
Tim Libretti then commented that
he had many concerns about the series of decisions regarding this issue. He
stated that while he understands that program votes are recommendations and
that the administration finally appoints a chair, the real question both administration
and faculty need to collectively ask is what kind of culture do
we want at this University. He suggested that if we want a University
that operates with a sense of shared governance and mutual respect, then recommenda-tions such as a vote of
Libretti concluded expressing concern about what seemed to be the targeting of Capeheart for special persecution at this University, given that her treatment at the University had been a topic of discussion last spring in the Senate when a University vice-president had publicly announced that a student had brought a serious charge against her and yet never produced the charge.
Before adjourning and while still discussing the business of Loretta Capeheart’s chairship/coordinatorship, Mahootian asked the Provost of he had offered the coordinatorship to Capeheart and if the offer was still open. He said that he had done so and would be open to discussing it with her. It was decided at that moment that Capeheart would call him to set up a meeting.
8. Adjournment
Nyadroh (Over 2nd) moved for adjournment at 3:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Tim Libretti
Secretary