Council of Illinois University Senates Meeting

Monday, October 22, 2007

9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Illinois State University

Normal, IL

(Approved)

Present: Yan Searcy, Chicago State University, Ann Brownson, Eastern Illinois University, Dan Holland, Illinois State University, Allen Shub, Northeastern Illinois University, Paul Stoddard, Northern Illinois University, Elliot Kaufman, University of Illinois-Chicago, Nicholas Burbules, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, Steven Rock, Western Illinois University

Absent: Paul Blobaum, Governors State University, Ramanarayanan Viswanathan, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, Kay Covington, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, Pat Langley, University of Illinois-Springfield

Meeting Attendance

The group discussed ways in which to improve attendance at the Council of Illinois University Senate meetings. Suggestions included finding a day within the week in which Senate leaders would routinely be free to attend, such as on days on which no member’s respective Senate met and when teaching schedules did not conflict with meeting dates. The Council also discussed setting the date for the next meeting at the current meeting.

Parliamentary Procedures – When Should They Be Used?

The presiding officers of all Senates have a working knowledge of appropriate procedures, but found it practical to have another person, a Parliamentarian, as a knowledgeable source to turn to. Parliamentary procedures are used not only to help Senate meetings run smoothly, but also so that the actions taken by the Senate could not be challenged later as having been inappropriate. The size of the Senate also dictated the need to use parliamentary procedures, based on the either the number of members of the Senate or the number of members that regularly attended.

Senate Structure, Senate Committee Structure and Administrative Committees

The Council members discussed the various structures of their respective Senates. Some Senates were umbrella groups, with much of the work being done in the other major committees. The smaller Senates with parallel committees found this type of structure problematic in that members of the Executive Committee needed to also attend all of the other committee meetings and the heads of the other committees needed to attend Senate meetings. In general, Senates were advisory in nature on many issues, but, specifically, approved academic issues, with final approval by the President/Chancellor/ Provost. Professor Searcy asked if there was a centralized clearinghouse at any of the universities where one could ascertain at any given time what committees had been created, were active and who the chairpersons of those committees were. Most members answered in the affirmative and spoke about the standing committees affiliated with their Senates. Some further stated that the elections for those committees were conducted by the Senate.

The chairpersons of the various committees were brought together in a variety of ways, including annual meetings, which all committee leaders were required to attend. On some campuses, committee chairs were invited to attend Senate Executive Committee meetings. Senates were similar in that the Executive Committees set the agendas for the standing committees and required that the committees, recommendations come before the Senate for final recommendation or approval, while others were not sure of what work committees were doing or who chaired those committees.

The Council discussed ad hoc committee formation and the Senates’ knowledge of the existence of those ad hoc committees formed by the administration. The Council was in agreement that, in the interest of true shared governance, administrators should be sensitive to faculty constituents by including faculty members as representatives on such ad hoc groups or, at least, by sharing information about the activities of those committees with the Senate. The Council also agreed that establishing, as standard practice, a consistent means of communication between the Senate and the administration, whether by Senate representatives meeting with administrators on a regular basis or by structuring Senates so that administrators were actually members of the Senate, could dramatically increase transparency. Council members recommended creating, if one did not already exist, a central process for determining what the various committees were doing, whether they were administrative ad hoc committees or Senate-affiliated committee. The Council further recommended, and found it equally as important to ensure faculty input, that Senates should decide which issues to take on, as opposed to waiting to be asked by an administration to take on specific issues.

Executive Sessions

The Council discussed when Executive Sessions were appropriate. Executive Sessions are called by Senates most often to discuss personnel issues in confidence, relying upon the Illinois Open Meetings Act for the authority to do so. The Council discussed whether they were appropriate for the purpose of discussing honorary degree candidates, the performance of certain employees and other personnel issues. On most Senates that had voting student members, student members were included in Executive Sessions on matters brought before the full Senate.

Student Membership on Senates

Some Senate leaders felt that having students on the Senate was not reciprocal in that students had their own Senates and governing bodies, which did not include faculty representation. ‘What can be gained by having a large numbers of students on a Senate that could not be gained by having representation from the student governing bodies as ex-officio Senate members?’ Some Senate leaders stated that they were certainly interested in student opinions and input, but felt that they did not necessarily need to give students the right to vote. Others felt that student membership was invaluable and that it was important to include every constituent on campus in order to have better shared governance. They felt that it was important that students had a voice in the decision making processes concerning policies that affected them. Others felt that since the student governing bodies were consulted, students were getting a “second bite at the apple” in the Senate. It was noted that on some campuses there was no body strictly for faculty governance. Professor Holland described the ISU Faculty Caucus, which is a subcommittee of the full Senate and which has become a very effective and important body in which only the faculty voice is heard.

IBHE-FAC and Committees Addressing Faculty Concerns
The IBHE Faculty Advisory Council is a group independent of the Senates, but for which the Senate conducts the election of the representatives. On some campuses, many complaints and concerns from individual faculty members were vetted in the IBHE-FAC. However, one Senate leader noted that there was not a lot of cross-talk between the IBHE-FAC representatives and the Senate because the faculty concerns usually involved confidential, personnel issues. Senator Holland stated that the committee that heard grievances at ISU is currently hearing fewer complaints because of the establishment of a faculty ombudsman, a position created by the Senate. The Director of Human Resources currently holds that position. Some colleges, in addition, had their own ombudsman/ombudsperson, who was a member of the faculty. Duties of an ombudsman varied by campus, from advisory to advocate, providing services to both faculty and staff or to faculty only.

Evaluation of Administrators

The Council weighed the various pros and cons of the methods of administrator evaluations. Some campuses limited input on administrator evaluations to certain constituencies; some used interview methods and others used surveys. The Chairperson of the ISU Administrative Affairs Committee, an “internal” (subcommittee) of the Senate, is currently trying to find a better way to evaluate ISU’s President, an evaluation which, as stipulated by ISU’s governing documents, must occur annually. Usually a mass e-mail is sent out to everyone on campus asking for comments; however, only about 60 responses are received from a campus that numbers approximately 23,000. This year, the Administrative Affairs Committee is considering sending out the mass e-mails, but rather than simply requesting comments, the e-mail will contain a link to an online survey in an attempt to increase the number of participants in the presidential evaluation process.

In past years, administrative evaluations at Northeastern Illinois University were done with an on-campus survey distributed to tenure and tenure-track faculty. However, the previous surveys seemed to generate very negative comments. This past year, as a pilot, NEIU used a survey created by the IDEA Center at Kansas State University for dean evaluations. Faculty e-mail addresses were provided to the IDEA Center, which then provided an online survey. The IDEA Center also sent out reminders to faculty who had not yet participated in the survey. NEIU found this method, which resulted in a 50% to 60% response rate, very effective and a much better-accepted process. Professor Shub stated that the surveys created by the IDEA Center could be viewed online. The cost was approximately $200 per administrator, with an additional cost of $1.50 per e-mail address. He added that they were trying to change the culture by only providing the information from the surveys to the president, provost and deans, themselves, as well as a select committee of the Senate, while in the past, the information was available for anyone to see. Deans could share with faculty ‘what they had learned.’ Some universities provided the raw data accumulated in the evaluation process, while others provided summary reports, to the person being evaluated, the individual/body requesting the evaluation and to those participating in the evaluation.

IBHE Master Plan

Funding has not been appropriated for the proposed IBHE Master Plan. Some faculty members had expressed concerns about the IBHE creating a hierarchy about how campuses were to function. It was unclear into what areas this hierarchy might extend. However, since the IBHE has been marginalized with the current administrator, most felt that the IBHE had very little influence and the Council agreed that it was unlikely that an IBHE-state-level policy would have any real jurisdiction over any university.

Ethics Training

The Council discussed the mandatory annual ethics test for public university employees. Faculty members on various campuses repeatedly questioned why the test was not specifically tailored for universities, so the Inspector General’s Office adjusted the test last year, some felt only to a small degree. One Council member asked if there was a movement afoot on other campuses on tailoring the test more specific to university personnel. The response from a Council member was that in agitating the State to make the test more university-specific suggested to the State that university personnel took the mandatory exercise more seriously than we do. Further, doing so might also make it more likely that someone would be in violation of an item on the test and, thus, increase the level of scrutiny. Another Council member noted that it had actually been modified to be more of a session of training modules than a test. Members noted the irony of the State’s insistence last year that it was training rather than a test; however, employees who completed the training too quickly were deemed by the State as having failed, which could only be the case if it were a test rather than training.

Council of Illinois University Senates Minutes of April 18, 2005 for Approval or Review (No minutes available from the preceding meetings of 3/28/06 and 4/30/07)

The CIUS Minutes of April 18, 2005 were unable to be approved by a quorum as few members in attendance at the current meeting were members of the Council in the spring of 2005.

Functions of Faculty Senates - Are They the Central Voice of Faculty?
The Senate as the central voice of faculty differed depending on whether the faculty were unionized or not, as well as on the individuals filling the leadership roles at any given time. The unions’ major concerns were usually dollars and workloads; Senates usually concentrated on the university’s academic aspects.

On some campuses, though the Senates were a unique forum for educating the campus community on many issues, they did not fulfill the role as the voice of the faculty. Additionally, influence on the administration, specifically from a faculty point of view, occurred through a few select committees, committee chairs or the Chair/President of the Senate. Most Council members agreed that the most important component for ensuring a faculty voice was the development of relationships between the faculty and the administrations that lead to open communication, which could dramatically influence outcomes. (Professor Holland described the Faculty Caucus, a subcommittee of the Senate, as a unique body for the faculty voice in the previous Student Memberships on Senates section.)

Board of Trustees and Faculty Communication

The Council discussed various ways in which the faculty communicated with a university’s Board of Trustees. The issue of having a faculty member serve on the Board has been discussed by the Council since its creation in 2001 with no real definitive resolution. Members of the Board are appointed by the Governor; however, vice presidents sometimes serve on the Board as a fiat. Therefore, the Council questioned why faculty members could not participate in Board discussions under the same fiat. On some campuses, faculty made their concerns known to their Boards through various committees at each Board meeting, while others submitted reports on an annual basis. Council members stressed that taking issues to the Board through a faculty member, rather than by way of the university president/chancellor, was not an attempt to bypass that office but rather to become allies with the president/chancellor. The Council felt it was necessary to present issues from a faculty perspective by a faculty member, rather than by the highest university administrator, even when they agreed.

Research Productivity

The Council discussed the problem of being pressured to increase research productivity while at the same time the funding for faculty travel to professional conferences, at least in part due to the state budget, was either flat or declining. One campus has set up a task force to find out how funding for travel is dispersed among colleges and departments. Another Senate leader spoke of the frustrations brought about by the limited resources permitted for the cost of conference registrations. Several Council members spoke of the incentives of providing professional accounts of discretionary funds for all faculty members for research and other professional activities. The discussion concerning research productivity is ongoing at many universities.

Adjournment