The Council of
Illinois University Senates
Minutes of Meeting
of September 19, 2003
University of
Illinois at Springfield
(Approved)
Present: Ken Andersen, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign; Rob Benford, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale; Phil Beverly, Chicago State University; Adam Chacksfield, Western Illinois University; Lane Crothers, Illinois State University; Nancy Ford, University of Illinois-Springfield; Pat Langley, University of Illinois-Springfield; Barb Lawrence, Eastern Illinois University; Suzanne Willis, Northern Illinois University
Visitors: Hope Cook; Rick Schoell, Executive Director of the University of Illinois Office of Governmental Relations UIUC; Ed Wojcicki, Associate Chancellor for Constituent Relations UIS
Pat Langley, Chair of the Campus Senate at University of Illinois at Springfield called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. and then introductions were made.
Beverly moved the approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 21, 2003, Willis seconded. Minutes were unanimously approved.
Schoell reported on the budget. The cuts were not as severe as what was projected in fall 2003, however everyone had to go through restructuring due to these cuts. Even with the reduction in jobs, classes, etc. UI was able to preserve core mission. Referring to items at UIS, he thought the long-term future of the campus looks promising. It does not appear that there will be much of a capital budget for next year so he suggests that universities should prioritize their capital list, be sure that priority accurately reflects the institutions’ interest and they should have a 5-year plan in place.
Repair and restoration needs to continue to be first on the capital commitment from the universities. The IBHE will always have money in their budget every year for repair and restoration and they will always provide money for repair and restoration before any new facilities. It was noted that there are differences in campuses after several persons mentioned that they receive very little money from the IBHE. Some of their structures are in extreme need of repair and since the cost of repair is more costly than that of rebuilding, nothing is done. The concern of more students and not enough classrooms was discussed. Each university needs to make their own case to get money for new buildings and the sense is the legislature would be in concurrence. This could be an impending problem issue that should be addressed. If the community colleges along with the universities start taking action on this together, they would be a powerful lobby.
There were close to 400 bills this year in legislation (compared to 60 in past years) that could have had an effect on higher education. The scope includes everything from how we teach to how the budget is put together and what financial information has to be provided to the board of higher education or the governor. There was an effort to take back the income fund from the individual institutions and put it under the authority of governor, but that legislation was defeated. There was a bill to cap tuition that was defeated but it did produce a truth in tuition policy. Congress is now asking for full disclosure of information just like our state legislature that could be tied to a cap on federal aid, student aid, and federal funding.
Hopefully there will be some economic recovery next year and Illinois traditionally lags any national recovery by 18 months. Funding challenges will continue and hopefully by time the legislature recesses in May 2004, a budget will be in place that is at least the same as this year’s and maybe a little more. With the talk of a 5% rescission, the IBHE recommended holding back funds in their personal budget and recommended others do the same. The possibility of a rescission depends on what the legislature does in their veto session in November. The opinion is that state agencies will try to get their money restored while some members want to see an increase in revenue, which would mean a big tax increase and if you increase spending without increasing revenue then the state will have to face a rescission. If there were going to be a rescission it would probably be known by December because the legislature would have completed its work with the governor’s budget for 04. Unemployment is a problem (some downstate industries will never recover) and this could be impacted by the budget. Besides the state deficit, the federal deficit is growing that might tighten the spending at the federal level for higher education such as student aid funding, research funding, and special grants.
Domestic Partner Health Benefits issue was discussed because Western Illinois University was planning to follow University of Illinois in that direction. UI supported it and it was brought to the board in the spring. The majority of legislatures are supportive or somewhat indifferent to the policy and there is a small minority who are very angry about it. Western was going to include heterosexuals in their policy and it was mentioned that would make the policy harder to get passed.
There was discussion about state money that private institutions get and how the public needs to be educated on the differences between public and private institutions.
This group could be used as an advocacy group to get information out to all institutions. The lobbyist meet on a monthly basis and Schoell could send a report to Langley who could send the information to members of CIUS. What we can communicate to the legislature is that higher education cannot afford another cut and a mid-year rescission would be devastating. The IBHE has challenges and UI is working closely with them on the budget.
The perception at UIS is that the governor is hostile toward higher education and the cuts have disproportionately affected lower paid employees thus eliminating more positions to show a decrease. Schoells’ belief is that the governor is not against higher education, and that he does not like it when students are affected, but he is not knowledgeable enough about it. One issue of the governor’s campaign was to control college costs. He did, however, allow tuition increases.
The group discussed that besides lobbying efforts, universities should use the media to get the message out that higher education cannot afford another cut.
Langley reconvened the meeting saying it would start with announcements and adoption of the agenda and then the members should talk about what they believe are the most important issues, that it is not necessary to follow the agenda except for the updates from Crothers on IMAP and Andersen on IBHE.
No announcements
A. Updates:
IMAP:
Crothers (ISU) reported IBHE people were on their campus and their list of what they believe priorities for next year should be are: 1) accountability, 2) increase faculty/staff salaries (survey is due to be out at the October 7th board meeting), 3) addressing deferred maintenance needs, 4) enhancing support for need based student aid predominately IMAP, 5) restoring support for community college special population grants such as adult education needs. It was made clear that if there were more cuts, MAP has to be protected no matter what. Some of the issues they believe will drive the budget next year are: 1) health insurance (group health) costs, 2) medicaid, 3) K through 12, 4) retirement costs, and 5) negotiations with AFSCME. IMAP was gone rather quickly, tuition fees went up 10%, they want to increase the maximum IMAP award by $200.00, and also want to expand IMAP eligibility to 4 ½ years. Langley stated if IMAP were taken away it would hurt students.
IBHE:
Andersen (UIUC) reported the major issue for the IBHE is the budget and they are planning for a rescission. There will most likely be no new money for higher education for next year but it is not known if that is before or after the funding of the pension system. Last year the pension system was not funded through the IBHE budget but this year it will be. If there is no new money for that portion, it will have to come out of the higher education budget which would cause substantial cuts in other areas.
There is continued pressure on affirmative action. This year’s focus was on faculty--not much attention to women or Latino as minorities but a lot of focus on black faculty. Chairman Kaplan is constantly pushing the issue of disability issue, saying 10% of student population is disabled and reports we give him show 1% of student population are receiving support through the disability line. He does not realize that at our institution you have to self identify and lots of students do not make it known they are disabled. Other concerns he has are with the transition from high school to college and accommodations for faculty and staff who are handicapped.
The FAC has been arguing that there needs to be a 7th commitment that should be that one of the goals of higher education is to improve the quality of life for Illinois citizens. At the October meeting, a plan will be proposed to review the Illinois Commitment and it is important that faculty be heard and included.
In funding state pensions Illinois used to be 49th in the nation; now we are 50th. Three years ago Illinois was ranked number one in the nation for quality of education and then fell to third place a year ago. On per capita spending for higher education Illinois was 49th out of 50. Many state governors are taking the same view as the governor of Michigan that according to the public opinion poll they do not need to be the best education in the world as long as they are average.
Andersen writes a summary for his senate of what he observes at the IBHE meetings and what the issues are. He will send Crothers’ secretary a copy of that report so it can be made available to members. He mentioned it is very difficult to establish a relationship with any of the members of the IBHE board because they do not attend the reception the night before the meeting--they arrive at the time the meetings starts so it is very difficult to explain to them how important an issue is.
An issue that came up at the September 12th meeting was legislation introduced by Bill Block to offer baccalaureate degree at Danville Area Community College of Nursing degree that will probably be financed by a third party. Will we then be having community colleges granting baccalaureate degrees and if so, will tax payers be willing to increase property taxes to permit this type of growth in community colleges? This could be a big issue in the future.
Langley stated that as chair of UI Senates Conference, she attend the UI-IBHE “Big Picture” meeting in November. She suggested that campus senate chairs of other institutions ask to attend these meetings between the IBHE and their own university.
Beverly wanted an update from other institutions. Crothers stated when this was first proposed at his institution, there was more resistance than he thought there would be. Faculty however, seemed to like the idea of having a faculty member on someone else’s board. It was explained and has been shown that it builds a better relationship between the campus community and the board. At his institution there is a committee defined in the constitution comprised of faculty, students, academic professionals, and staff called “Campus Communication Committee” that has the right to make presentations at board meetings. Every trustee spends at least one day a year in an academic unit and it helps them understand what the institution does and at the same time helps in building a relationship with the board.
Langley (UIS) stated that four faculty members attend the board meetings as observers only. There is one faculty from each of the three campuses and one from the University Senates Conference (USC). She went on to explain that when USC asked for a voice at the table, the Board decided to assign three trustees to each campus to meet once a semester. At our campus this happened only once but she senses these informal discussions have been helpful.
Willis (NIU) reported that at the time they have no desire to pursue this issue of having a faculty member on the board because it would not go anywhere and would make people unhappy. She has a good relationship with both the president and the board, attends all board meetings, and at the beginning of the meeting she can speak. She also has a close relationship with the president and provost and they meet every month to discuss issues.
Lawrence (EIU) reported that the chair and vice chair of the faculty senate meet regularly with the president and provost but have very little contact with the trustees. There is no sense at the present time of faculty being able to attend the board meetings. Currently they are searching for a new president and the chair of that search committee, who is the head of the board of trustees, is not advising the two faculty members who are on the committee when the meetings are. Also their constituency is not choosing the faculty members on the committee. In the past faculty members were the chairs of such searches and now it is a trustee.
Benford (SIU-C) reported that there is supposed to be shared governance with the faculty and their operating papers state that the faculty senate elects their own representatives to search committees or committees created by the chancellor but this has not been the case. The chancellor or provost will approach them and ask for a list of faculty from which to select who will be the faculty representatives. Their reasoning for this is they need to insure diversity. The senate is looking into shared governance at other institutions and hoping to find out how they worked through these types of issues.
Beverly (CSU) reported that recently there was a provost search and that the faculty was unaware of the search, and the committee had 13 people with only one faculty member. At the end they had three candidates, all of whom turned down the job, and at the end of December they will be without a provost.
Ford (UIS) explained that there is a campus senate bill that forms the foundation for search. It requires negotiations between the provost and campus senate steering committee as to the composition of each particular committee including the numbers of faculty, students, ap’s, staff and administration. Then each constituency group selects their own representatives.
Beverly (CSU) asked if anyone else was having problems with email privacy. In May, when the president was asked for his resignation, the senate wanted to make sure that they communicated to the campus community what took place. The senate wanted everyone to see the resolution that was passed and the statement the senate had put together so he went through the normal channels of going to public affairs and was censored. Since then he has had difficulty with emailing almost anything.
Langley said he should contact AAUP. The senate could pass a resolution about the use of email and the free exchange of ideas in terms of academic freedom and this way it will be in the jurisdiction of the senate. On our campus the computer technicians cannot go into our email unless there is a virus.
Discussion continued about email privacy and also office privacy. Langley said she heard but has not verified it that there are universities refusing to comply with the Patriot Act. The senates need to watch for federal legislation that could have real civil liberties consequences.
The question came up as to how often the CIUS meets, when is the next meeting, and if they have a website. http://www.ilstu.edu/orgs/cius
Langley will email the group with the resolutions on benefits for domestic partners.
Andersen said it took years to pass bill and he believes during that time the president was informally discussing it with the board of trustees so when it was submitted he had a good indication that it would be passed. U of I has good testimony on how it puts the institution at a disadvantage in terms of recruitment when this benefit is not offered. There are several sites on the web that list companies which offer this benefit. Showing that all the major Illinois corporations offer this benefit to employees would be a good argument for other institutions to pass this policy.
Benford asked if there was an interpretation of the “Truth in Tuition” law since his institution is not interpreting it the same way as NIU. For this year at NIU there is going to be differential tuition between upper division students and lower division students. In the future, when a freshman enters college the tuition will remain the same for all four years.
The group will meet back at UIS in the spring when the legislature is in session. This will be a two-day meeting with using one of those days to lobby and inviting a budget person from the IBHE to speak with us. It was suggested that all institutions come up with a brief summary of arguments to give legislatures to read and letting them know you will be following up with them in a couple of days. It is also important to thank people who gave us things instead of just contacting them when we want something. The group will meet at the end of February or first of March and it was determined that the best day to lobby was on Mondays.
Adjourned at 3:36 pm.