Minutes of the 2001-2002 Meeting
April 23, 2002

---

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Bruce DeVantier, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Michael Batterman (for Anna Brzyski), Howard Carter (for Susan E. Tulis), Bruce A. DeVantier, James E. Duggan, Kimberly A. Espy, Karen Having (for Linda M. Grace), Robert H. Helfert, Paul H. Henry, Conrad Hinckley (ex officio), H. Randy Hughes, Laura K. Kidd, Liz Klaver (for Mary E. Lamb), Manohar R. Kulkarni, Lenore Langsdorf, Nancy Mundschenk, Geoffrey S. Nathan, Kyle Perkins (ex officio), Donna M. Post, Karen K. Prichard, Richard A. Rivers, Janet L. Rogers, Michael F. Shanahan, Pamela A. Smoot, Robert L. Spellman, Lori Vermeulen, John S. Washburn, Walter V. Wendler (ex officio), David J. White, Frederick Williams, Alan Woolf.

Members absent without proxy: Richard Coulson, Lisabeth A. Dilalla, Stephen M. Milner, Jane L. Swanson.

Visitors and Guests: Alexa Aguilar (Daily Egyptian), James S. Allen (History).

MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting on April 9, 2002, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. B. DeVantier expressed appreciation to the administration, the Executive Council, and the Faculty Senate standing committee chairs for all their work and support during the past year. He also reviewed his final report (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

2. G. Nathan noted he has been on the Senate on and off for the last 12 years, and this is his last Senate meeting. He has been a faculty member at SIU since 1980 and will be leaving in the next month. He expressed his opinions on both the good and bad times the University has endured. He also expressed his concerns about the future of SIU and the distrust between faculty and administration, stating, "Unless the faculty and administration can get together and present a united front on what is needed to keep this place going, I fear for its continued existence even five years from now. Attributing evil motives to colleagues, perpetuating self-evidently false statistics about bloated administration and reflexively assuming administrators are lying to us despite the complete absence of any plausible motive will only drag this place further into the abyss which many of us can see on the horizon, and I fear for our/your future."

3. Chancellor Wendler reported the first candidates for provost are scheduled to be on campus within the next two weeks. The airport interviews are complete; the search committee is down to a short list and is checking references. The search committee for vice chancellor for research is also down to a short list and is checking references. The search for the School of Medicine dean is on a slightly slower course, with airport interviews scheduled for the first week in May.

Chancellor Wendler reported he has scheduled open forums for later in the day and also on April 25 to discuss the proposed tuition increases. D. White asked if there would be a more detailed breakdown of the figures. He questioned how much of the money from each line item would be used for start-up costs and administrative positions to sponsor those line items and how much would go back to programs and students. Chancellor Wendler responded he did not believe there would be any special start-up costs or any additional personnel needed. He believed it was fair to say that all line items would be handled by existing personnel. N. Mundschenk asked whether any of these monies would be used for faculty lines, and if not, how those cuts would be made up. Chancellor Wendler responded that one of the things he has been telling people is that the tuition increase is not meant as a way to offset the tremendous budget problem; that will be handled through other means, which will be very tough. Part of the culture here has been to make sure that somehow people do not get hurt in these processes when there is contraction. This has resulted in an undermining of the quality of the organization. He pointed to the University's lack of commitment to scholarships as an example, noting this institution presently spends approximately $250,000 on scholarships for meritorious students while other institutions in the SIU-at-150 peer group spend approximately $2.5 million. This is only one of many problems that need to be addressed. He stated that he personally would not be in favor of a tuition hike just to cover the challenges that are left within personnel.

L. Langsdorf acknowledged that there is no clear plan to keep the number of faculty lines and the number of programs. She believes that damages both the University's research and teaching missions. She questioned how Chancellor Wendler proposed to stop that damage. Chancellor Wendler responded that as it now stands, the proposal this year focuses on student needs; next year it will shift towards faculty/staff issues. Students here have been unattended to for a much longer time than the faculty. Because the tuition hike hits the students most directly, he chose to have the students receive the benefits directly that first year in terms of scholarships and financial aid. L. Langsdorf stated there is anecdotal evidence that students are saying they will go elsewhere because the rates are going up precipitously and they do not see they are getting any return on their money. There is also concern that the programs they are interested in will close. She questioned whether the maintenance of programs and faculty lines could be neglected for another year. Chancellor Wendler stated the plan is meant to plug a gap that has existed for 10 years in the areas of student recruitment, scholarships, etc. It is not a cure-all, but is one step in a series of steps that will likely take a number of years. Chancellor Wendler explained that the first three percent of any tuition increase goes straight back to IBHE, who decides how it will be used. The way that is decided is through the RAMP process. IBHE basically funds RAMP proposals with the tuition increases. It is not new money from the state, but is built on the backs of students. He stated it is a form of social engineering.

L. Langsdorf stated that a recent independent audit of the University's budget shows there is about $5.4 million unaccounted for in the SIU Foundation. She questioned why some of those funds could not be used since part of those funds are for the educational mission of the University to retain programs and faculty lines. Chancellor Wendler responded he has not looked at the audit in detail, but the Foundation is a separate organization and does not report to the University in the same way an on-campus unit does. The University has some say over what they do, but it is a financially independent organization. L. Langsdorf questioned why the money could not be used for this and whether that possibility has been proposed. Chancellor Wendler indicated he was unsure it has been proposed, but is something he will consider as he studies the audit results. B. DeVantier asked, when talking about scholarship dollars, how much of that comes from the Foundation. Chancellor Wendler responded it is a very small percentage because the University's endowment is so small. That is another area in need of attention.

4. Interim Provost Perkins reported: a) he has approved the Senate's recent revision to the grade repeat policy, and the new wording will be placed in the Undergraduate Catalog; b) the Association of Research Libraries has recently finished its ranking of research libraries. The good news is that SIUC improved seven points, moving up from 94 last year to 87 this year; and c) he is still working to fill the internal review rosters in an attempt to get the proposed lists to the Senate by July 1.

A. Karnes indicated there is currently a planning exercise on campus that is basically an eight percent across-the- board cut plus restoration of the two percent contingency fund. He asked if an across-the-board approach to budget cuts would be used or if a budget model would be adopted. Interim Provost Perkins responded he sent a memo to deans and directors stating that 10% of the FY03 budget would be held; it will be an across-the-board approach. The first meeting of a budget modeling committee will take place this afternoon. A budget model will be developed that can be used to distribute to units differentially, as well as take back old money differentially.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

R. Hughes reviewed the Executive Council's final report (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). K. Prichard expressed appreciation for the database that was developed to track resolutions, noting there has always been a concern about what happens to resolutions once they have been approved by the Senate.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Swanson, Chair

1. B. DeVantier (for J. Swanson) reported he attempted to work with J. Swanson (who has been ill) to come up with a resolution on the tuition increase. At this time nothing has been generated. He indicated he would be willing to entertain a motion if anyone wanted to put something forward; however, he believed it would be ill-advised to draft something on such short notice. He suggested this issue might possibly be addressed by the 2002-2003 Executive Council.

2. B. DeVantier presented the committee's final report (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE -- J. Duggan, Chair

1. J. Duggan presented for approval the Resolution to Amend the University Curriculum Vitae Form (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). He reviewed the changes, noting the sections were re-ordered in an attempt to reflect the overall order of importance of the items.

Resolution passed on a voice vote.

Interim Provost Perkins indicated that once he receives a clean copy, he would distribute the revised vita form to deans and directors.

2. J. Duggan presented the committee's final report (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). He thanked the members of his committee for their service.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- D. Post, Chair

D. Post stated that K. Having acted as proxy for L. Grace on the committee during the second half of the semester, noting that her name was inadvertently excluded from the committee's final report. D. Post then presented the committee's final report (included as (Attachment F to the Agenda) and highlighted some of the items she included in her final comments. She thanked the committee for their service over the past year. B. DeVantier noted that if any of D. Post's suggestions require amendments to the Senate Operating Paper, they should be addressed by the new Governance Committee.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- A. Woolf, Chair

A. Woolf presented the committee's final report (included as Attachment G to the Agenda). He thanked committee members for their service.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. White, Chair

D. White presented the committee's final report (included as (Attachment H to the Agenda). He thanked those people who were of service to the committee and thanked committee members for their work over the past year. D. Post thanked Interim Provost Perkins for approving the grade change policy, which has been a long time in coming.

NEW BUSINESS

1. A. Karnes stated that although there is nothing being put forward by the Senate on the tuition increase, he sensed some unease around the table about the issue. He did not believe any apologies should be made for raising tuition. The University has undercharged for years, and students are getting a great bargain. If the state government chooses not to fund universities at the proper level, the money has to come from somewhere. It costs "x" number of dollars to run a university, and there is not much choice. R. Spellman made the following motion; seconded by R. Williams:

That the Faculty Senate endorse the tuition increase for FY03 that is currently before the Board of Trustees.

D. Post stated that she has always believed the tuition at SIU is low and that students have a false sense of feeling ripped off by what they pay for tuition. She sympathizes with students and understands that coming up with money is difficult; however, if no action is taken on a tuition increase, the University will fall backward in terms of the quality, numbers, and services it can provide students. She stated she is in favor of a tuition increase and trusts that the administration will come up with the number in terms of percentage that is needed to move forward as quickly and as economically as possible. L. Langsdorf agreed that SIUC's tuition is low and should be raised; however, two factors stand out that would make her vote against the motion. First, there are other ways to go about increasing tuition. The University has many first generation students who come from low- and low/middle income families. This is a precipitous increase, and coming up with the money quickly will not be easy for these students. She would hate to see them penalized, and telling them there will be more workships and scholarships is not a direct response to their concerns about how to come up with the money. Second, she would like to see some clear indication where these monies will go and how they will directly benefit students, as opposed to going to administrative overheard expenses like Oracle. For that reason, the Senate should have some better explanation as to how these monies will directly benefit students before approving a motion. R. Hughes expressed concern about the Budget Committee not being able to come up with a resolution. He believed it to be that committee's responsibility to examine such a proposal and answer questions of this type before endorsing a particular increase at a particular time. R. Spellman pointed out that in approximately two weeks, the Board of Trustees will vote on the tuition proposal, and the Senate will either endorse it or remain silent. There is no option to play with the numbers. G. Nathan noted that people who have lived in southern Illinois for a long time do not realize how inexpensive it is to live here. He indicated that students receive--and will continue to receive--a real bargain. R. Spellman pointed out that for the lower income students, the tuition increase will be covered by the MAP grants. R. Williams called the question.

Motion carried 20-5-1 on a show of hands vote.

2. Interim Provost Perkins indicated he will be putting together a report that will answer all the "unknowns" listed in the report included in Attachment B. B. DeVantier noted the report should be sent to the Faculty Senate President.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

B. DeVantier acknowledged proxies Michael Batterman, Karen Having, and Liz Klaver for their service during the spring semester. K. Prichard expressed appreciation to G. Nathan for taking the time to express his thoughts about SIUC, noting she did not want to see his comments go unrecognized.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Frederick Williams, Secretary

FW:rm

---

Faculty Senate Homepage
Meeting Schedule | Meeting Agenda | Meeting Minutes | Membership | Committees | Operating Paper