INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
Executive Committee
April 28, 2015, 3:30pm, HMSU 227
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, C. Olsen, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: C. Blevens, C. Fischer, L. Maule, T. Steiger
1. Administrative Reports
a. D. Bradley:
i. K. Butwin has been made our permanent General Counsel. Everyone says she has done well by the Executive Committee these past months. She is a great find and will be helpful.
ii. There is also a change in title for J. Beacon and D. McKee, as well as a change of name for her division to Administration and Finance.
iii. I have not heard anything regarding the budget at this time.
b. J. Maynard: No Report.
2. Chair Report: R. Guell
a. R. Guell:
i. We need a search committee for a new Administrative Assistant for the Faculty Senate. The Senate term officially ends August 9, but it essentially ends with the Board of Trustees meeting on June 11. I will ask that T. Hawkins, C. MacDonald, and a third person join to find a new assistant.
ii. In terms of things that need pushed to next year’s agenda, we have the All-University Committee on the list but worked out way through so many things and didn’t change the Handbook language for section 270. T. Exline has been patiently waiting.
iii. There is some concern that was expressed to me and to C. Barton about the way certain medications are being handled. Specifically, there are two programs that are new to us this year starting to impact employees. Whether it’s part of fraud prevention, the step program, or compounding—which affects few people—there are some changes. We are no longer doing expensive compounding. Both A. Anderson and C. Olsen reported that the step program affects them. Basically it is a program whereby if you have a malady for which there is a generic, low-end drug and there is a branded, high-end expensive drug, your doctor is not going to be able to leap to the new one quickly; they will start you on the cheap ones or your doctor needs to turn in a certification form stating you have a condition that requires the high-end option. The letter is very badly stated. It’s not that it’s not covered; it is just that the procedure just hasn’t been followed. All this has been transmitted to C. Barton. Part of the education of faculty needs to occur in the fall because more and more will get these letters. For whatever reason Indiana requires public institutions to use the same prescription drug provider. C. Barton told them this letter was inaccurate and their response was, “We won’t change it.” We need to tell people what that letter really means.
iv. FAC met and discussed the Whistleblower procedures; they had many concerns. Either a small group of folks need to work with K. Butwin in May to fix these, in FAC’s view, or it needs to get pushed to fall. I will propose to the Senate that when we need small groups of people I think this is a reasonably good pattern. The outgoing and incoming officers will form a committee to see this through. They want to have the procedure up and running over the summer. I will work with C. MacDonald, J. Conant, T. Hawkins, and S. Lamb.
v. Thank you all for a very, very effective Executive Committee this year. You have met 23 times. I’m not sure if that’s correct; it seems like more. We have done a lot of work.
3. Approval of April 21, 2015 Minutes: A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 9-0-0
4. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. K. Yousif: I wanted to clarify if we are still meeting on May 7.
i. R. Guell: It’s just a short Executive Session for a couple of things.
b. S. Lamb: I would just like to express our appreciation for support from Administration in our new hires. There had to be some bargaining with some folks, and Administration really helped us.
5. University 299 Proposal
a. R. Guell: Almost never at this level do we look at whether to approve a course. In the passage of the CAPS manual, many courses were essentially college, and college only, determined. Twenty years ago UNIV 101 was controversial and went to the Senate. UNIV 201 three years ago was controversial for its use of courses out of the Center for Public Engagement. That one was lost at the Senate level, and the reason I brought this was because the Senate has wanted jurisdiction over UNIV courses. This has a different purpose; we will let T. Steiger and C. Fischer explain. It’s coming through University College. I will ask after we deal with this on a procedural matter whether we will recognize the ability to create courses under the UNIV moniker. Motion to approve: C. Olsen, A. Anderson. Vote: 8-0-0
i. T. Steiger: At its heart, it’s a compliance matter. We have at ISU now, going on ten years, a research experience for undergraduates in the summer. It’s nothing unusual; similar programs run all over the United States. Essentially they are paying students a stipend to do an internship in a lab or under close mentorship from a faculty member. The Arts have five students doing a creative experience. At ISU, the history of paying those students started by paying them out of wages, which meant they were essentially treated as employees. The university responded to the Affordable Care Act last summer by saying that no student could work more than 27 hours. This is more like a 40 plus-hour per week experience. We had a meeting last year and we had things vetted and determined that what we are doing is not employment—that is does not meet the definition of an employment relationship. They are internships, so we moved to give them a scholarship. They were paid every two weeks and it looked like an employee relationship. I was called out at the beginning of this year. We looked and said we need to pay them like a scholarship up front--$3000-3500 tax free at the beginning of the summer—and it would look legitimate if they were enrolled in a course. Many times internships have a course with them. If it is credit-bearing, there are increased costs to the university. If we charge students it reduces the attraction.. Non-graded, non-credit courses became okay. We first wondered about UNIV 101 but didn’t have a non-credit option. We ended up with 299. We had to; the Center for Student Research and Creativity could not be a home for it, we didn’t want to have to carve out one in each college, and we wanted it to have a pass/fail option.
1. C. Fischer: We added a few changes—to make it repeatable and add the proviso that UCC Exec would look at any new syllabi. The one on the proposal was a little thin. It needed some control.
2. R. Guell: This has sort of an unusual birth and unusual review process. So unusual that it was not approved by CAAC until just a few minutes ago at today’s meeting. The credits available were changed from 0-6 to 0-3 at that meeting.
3. C. Fischer: UCC did that.
4. C. MacDonald: It’s not clear—it’s different in a couple of places.
5. C. Fischer: Part of the problem was that it wasn’t in Curriculog.
6. R. Guell: UNIV can’t be a prefix in Curriculog.
7. C. Fischer: UC can’t be the originating department.
8. J. Maynard: The student pays tuition. They get up to three hours credit.
9. R. Guell: If they enroll in zero credit hours there is no money going in either direction.
10. L. Maule: This summer, there will only be zero credit options. For now, this summer, there would be zero hours available.
11. S. Lamb: I thought T. Steiger said historically they had been zero credits.
12. T. Steiger: There have never been any credits assigned with them. That has never been the goal. Faculty are relieved from the burden of having to grade. Students are relieved from the impact on their GPA.
13. K. Yousif: Can you explain, if they take it for credit, would they pay tuition? It’s primarily for zero credits, but why do we need the option?
14. C. Fischer: S. Powers explained today that there are a small handful of students who will want to do this and get full-time status.
15. K. Yousif: Established as credit-free exceptions?
16. D. Bradley: The rationale is just so that it will pass the test for scholarship.
17. C. Fischer: Not formal internship, not formal employment.
18. K. Yousif: Any reason why the logic about 200-level and not 300-level? Some research you presented in the syllabus was more upper-division.
19. T. Steiger: Most are lower-division students. The number doesn’t matter. We just need this for compliance reasons.
20. L. Maule: This is a good question. The one directive is originally they proposed it as UNIV 199 and we didn’t want that because we are considering courses at the 100 level for freshmen. No one would be opposed to moving it up. It just couldn’t be 100-level for that reason.
21. T. Steiger: Most students participating this summer will be rising sophomores.
22. K. Yousif: This is open to all disciplines? How would you get this on the schedule?
23. L. Maule: Although we’re doing it to help students, all administrative aspects will come from University College.
24. K. Yousif: A student who wants to do this will go through UC?
25. T. Steiger: I’m trying to reduce the amount of work for faculty. We can do this at UC and have a one-stop shop. They will be batch-enrolled through UC.
26. L. Maule: The point is astute because this is a shell. I appreciate that you understand that it’s not just for specific areas. We will have to talk protocol to make this as easy as possible. We can put specifics in all the titles.
27. T. Steiger: It puts experience on the academic transcript.
28. E. Hampton: Are instructors assigned to these sections?
29. T. Steiger: Every student has a mentor. They essentially will be instructors.
30. E. Hampton: Are they compensated?
31. T. Steiger: No.
32. C. Olsen: Almost everyone takes this for zero credits? Even if they take it for credit, would it have to go through faculty?
33. V. Sheets: Count as elective credit?
34. T. Steiger: E. Glendening will probably have four students this summer.
35. V. Sheets: For every section there will be a faculty mentor?
36. L. Maule: The credit will go to the faculty member assigned to it.
37. R. Guell: Is it a practical matter if a student is enrolled in a zero-credit course during the summer that they are compelled to pay for the Rec Center and other associated fees?
38. J. Maynard: They have the option but are not compelled.
39. D. Bradley: It’s tied to credit hours.
40. L. Maule: They’re not a full-time student.
41. D. Bradley: Part-time students are volunteering to do so now.
42. J. Maynard: We will have to check.
43. L. Maule: Full-time students had to pay $50 during the summer.
b. Discussion re: treating University College as equal to other colleges
i. R. Guell: The University College’s ability to be treated as a college equal to the others that offer courses, and the presumption that their courses have gone through the council, are the same in terms of legitimacy. I would at this point like to make a motion that they be treated that way from here on. My point is that we created an apparatus to call the UC a college and give it the equality and standing and recognition of other colleges. We never question the Scott College of Business or Arts & Sciences about the creation of a course. It doesn’t even make it to CAAC. Should we ask CAAC to revise procedures to make it the default position? Motion: R. Guell, C. Olsen. Vote: 8-0-1
1. S. Lamb: Explain the materials flow – do they go through CAAC?
2. R. Guell: Not actually, if I offer a new course. It goes to the curricular body, gets published in Academic Notes, and CAAC can get paperwork. It not only doesn’t go to Senate, it doesn’t go to CAAC.
3. S. Lamb: It confuses me that the other colleges have identifiable disciplines, majors, etc., and faculty are championing the creation of those courses or not, and they have a faculty body with disciplinary knowledge ruling on those issues.
4. L. Maule: We do have a governing body—the University College Council. These faculty are selected because they represent Foundational Studies. They have disciplinary knowledge and knowledge of teaching and best practices. Course proposals would come out of a curricular subcommittee and go to University College Council.
5. R. Guell: It is my position that this is the last mechanism by which we treat University College as the redheaded stepchild that needs supervision. It is not warranted at this point, and we should get rid of that.
6. L. Maule: Because we just had this discussion, I want to be very frank so you’re aware. There is concern, if not be CAAC, by at least the college, about what is happening in UC, and it’s not connected to UNIV 299, though it happened today. We got sidetracked and questioned about the 102 we are planning to put forward for probationary students—from the College of Technology that we are required to whom we advise to take this class, and they are not certain we have the authority to do that, though we decide a student’s academic standing. There was a lot of discussion about that and none about UNIV 299. It was critical that 299 get passed and I separated it and I said that we would. If they approve 299 they were giving tacit approval to what you are talking about now. I said we would bring 102 and 103 to them and do this again. We had to solve the problem for 299 students. It is completely separate. I will tell you, as the dean, I absolutely believe we have the purview and the jurisdiction; that we have met the requirements and addressed the concerns. We have faculty oversight, and good faculty oversight.