Main Campus Faculty Council
Meeting of 24 October 2003

Present: Glenn Broadhead (Hum), Jeffrey Budiman (CAE), Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Brogan Dexter (BCPS - student), Andy Howard (secretary - BCPS), Vijay Kumar (ID), Christena Nippert-Eng (Social Sciences), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), George Schipporeit (Arch), Ken Schug (BCPS), Phil Troyk (chair - BME), Geoffrey Williamson (ECE), Michael Young (UFC chair - Psyc).

Absent: Gady Agam(CS) Jinqiao Duan (AM), Joyce Hopkins (Psyc), Robert Krawczyk (Arch), Kenneth Noll (ChEE), Jay Schieber (ChEE), Xian-he Sun (CS), Miles Wernick (ECE), Judi Zawojewski (MSEd).

Visitors: Peter Lykos (BCPS).

1. Minutes 12 Sep: Christena Nippert-Eng pointed out that she was added to Student Affairs Committee after the meeting, not during. Otherwise the minutes were adjudged correct. Chris proposed approval; Mike Young seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
2. Proposal to join UFC to MCFC meetings (Young): The Main Campus Faculty Council discussed the appropriateness of holding University Faculty Council meetings in conjunction with MCFC meetings. Most of the business conducted by UFC and MCFC is really joint, so Mike Young, as head of UFC, and Phil Troyk, as head of MCFC, plan to work out merged agendas for meetings. This should lead to greater efficiency. In this period of transition from the old Faculty Handbook to the new one, this may mean holding a few MCFC/UFC meetings downtown. Provost Myerson has indicated that he would prefer to work directly with the University Faculty Council when he has matters to discuss with the faculty. After some additional discussion Michael Young moved for approval of a motion to hold UFC meetings jointly with MCFC meetings; Glenn Broadhead seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
3. UCOPT nominations for submission to provost: At its previous meeting, MCFC members were asked to submit nominees for the University Committee on Promotions and Tenure. An engineering faculty member is rotating off, so it would be appropriate for the new member to be from an engineering department. David Arditi (CAE) was nominated at the September meeting; no other names were submitted in the interim. Geoff Williamson moved and Jeff Budiman seconded the nomination of Phil Nash (MMAE) as an additional candidate; the motion carried unanimously. The provost will now make a selection, probably from these two names.

4. Committee Membership
   • Student Affairs: Chris Nippert-Eng has agreed to chair this committee. No other names were put forth.
   • Computing: Gadi Agam and Xian-he Sun have agreed to be on this committee. Subsequent to the meeting the secretary has learned that they have recruited the following additional members: Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Greg Pulliam (Hum), Peter Lykos (BCPS), Eduardo de Santiago (CAE), Ophir Trigalo (OTS), Grant Bunker (BCPS), Martin Felson (Arch), Scott Peters (Social Sciences), and Xiaofan Li (AMAT).

5. Brief reports from Standing Committees:
   • Academic Grievance: MCFC engaged in a brief discussion of this committee's role, but no action items emerged..
   • Sabbatical: No new report.
   • Library: George Schipporeit reported that he, Ken Schug, Phil Troyk, Glenn Broadhead, and Chris Nippert-Eng are on this committee and that it needs to establish a regular schedule of meetings. After some discussion the group decided to meet on alternate Fridays at 10am. Chris has spoken with Sohair Wastawy and Christopher Stewart recently, and would like to invite Sohair to an MCFC meeting. Galvin Library has invited three prominent speakers to a conference, and Sohair is hoping that faculty will be inspired by their presence. Chris suggested that part of the library committee's role will be to explore ways to channel additional funds into the libraries.
   • General discussion: Phil suggested that each committee should submit one written report each year. This proposal was accepted by the Council.
6. Communication between Studies Committees and Faculty Councils: Phil Troyk noted that the Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Committees have historically operated autonomously of the Faculty Councils even though they are officially standing committees of MCFC. This independence has led to communication gaps. He asked that each of these committees arranges to appoint a representative to MCFC; this representative would attend MCFC meetings and provide regular reports on the committee's activities, including a summary of the discussions of major issues. It was noted that there are members of the two Studies Committees already on MCFC, so these current members can act as liaisons this year. Accordingly, Ganesh Raman agreed to serve as liaison from the Undergraduate Studies Committee to MCFC, and Glenn Broadhead will perform that function for the Graduate Studies Committee. One of the reasons these liaisons are needed is that the chairs of these two committees are deans, not regular faculty, so the administration, rather than the faculty, produces the official reports from the Studies Committees. Jeff Budiman asked whether the Studies Committee chairs should attend Faculty Council meetings. The consensus was that the liaisons will do a better job that than the chair in most instances, but that we may wish to invite the Studies Committee chairs under special circumstances.

   A general discussion of the role of MCFC in development and oversight of academic programs ensued. Phil brought up the example of a new Ph.D. program proposed for Computer Engineering: should all the scrutiny of this program occur at the Graduate Studies Committee, so that the MCFC simply acts as a rubber stamp for its approval, or should this body participate in the scrutiny? A variety of ideas issued forth; the prevailing opinion was that the Faculty Council need not re-invent the discussions held at the Studies Committee level, but that we should provide real oversight in order to reduce the likelihood that bad or vaguely defined programs get approved through zealous marketing by administrators. The liaison from the Studies Committee will need to provide a real summary of the discussion of each major program approved at the committee level, including the negative remarks, so that MCFC can appreciate the issues involved. Phil emphasized that the Faculty Councils are responsible for approving academic programs, whereas the Studies Committees' roles are in distilling the issues brought to the Faculty Councils.

7. Subcommittee to improve DeCoPT/CamCoPT/UCoPT communication:
   Phil Troyk and Ken Schug wish to improve the transmission of information from the department up through to the University Committee on Promotions and Tenure. There is often a disparity between the numerical votes taken at each level and the language found in the transmittal letter for the candidate; the letter may be more glowing, or less glowing, than the vote would suggest. Ken argued that if the faculty does not take responsibility for this process it will lose authority over it. Allan Myerson has asked for a resolution to this problem as well as the paucity of information transmitted up the line in these cases. Glenn Broadhead asked whether IIT subscribes to AAUP policies on tenure; the answer appears to be that IIT does, but only nominally. Those policies argue that the best place for the review of a candidate's qualifications is at the departmental level. A lively discussion ensued; the outcome was an agreement that a committee or task-force of the University Faculty Council should be created to improve communication in this process. The committee should be chaired by a University Faculty Council representative but should draw from the faculty as a whole. Ken agreed to serve on this committee and to recruit members for it. The changes that will come from this process may or may not require revision of the Faculty Handbook.
8. Undergraduate Business Degrees, IPro/EnPros:
   Phil noted that the IIT administration has proposed an undergraduate business department and degree program. It was discussed at the Undergraduate Studies Committee level and was approved in concept there and in Main Campus Faculty Council, with the understanding that the details of the curriculum would be worked out later. The provost recognizes that this process left some loose ends dangling, and would like to regularize this discussion and firm up the approval. The academic home for this program and department was initially ill-defined. The current version of the plan calls for creation of an administrative entity to operate the department and also run the IPro, EnPro, and Leadership programs.

   The Council discussed the program and the appropriateness of this administrative structure. The Provost does recognize the need for academic oversight of the IPro/EnPro programs, but there remain doubts about having Dennis Roberson, a non-academic administrator, in charge of a structure that includes academic programs. Peter Lykos observed that it may be logical to have EnPros managed as part of a business education unit, but since IPros are not particularly business-oriented, there is no clear reason to operate IPros from within this unit. A wide-ranging discussion of this administrative structure and the undergraduate business program followed. Geoff Williamson asked whose idea the latter had been: it appears that the originators of the idea were Zia Hassan and others in the Stuart School, but their original conception had been that it should be operated from the Stuart School. Peter asked how far along the publicity for this partially-approved program has proceeded; Brogan said some publicity has already been mailed. Later in the meeting Chris Nippert-Eng read a statement expressing the Faculty Council's concern over the origin and future of the undergraduate business degree, and asked for a report from the originators of the program so that the Council could consider these issues in proper context. A discussion ensued, but since at that point the meeting was drawing to a close, no formal action was taken.

9. UFC matters:

   In accordance with the vote to hold UFC meetings in conjunction with MCFC meetings, the group then considered agenda items specific to the University Faculty Council.

   • Faculty Handbook Revision:
     The committee charged with revising the Faculty Handbook has completed its work. The University Faculty Council had agreed to carry out a brief review to catch major flaws in the document before it was brought before the full faculty for review. UFC's detailed review would then begin in parallel with the scrutiny by the faculty as a whole. The revised handbook, together with descriptions of the changes from the old version, appear on the web at http://www.iit.edu/~unifc/handbook/. There are also several paper copies extant, including enough for all members of UFC. UFC members at this meeting were encouraged to take their copies immediately. The Council agreed that the deadline for preliminary comments from UFC members would be 7 November. Andy agreed to send an e-mail to that effect out; in fact, Mike himself issued that e-mail after the meeting.
   • Industry professor (Allan Myerson):
     This matter will be deferred until the next UFC meeting.
   • Calendar issues (Don Ucci):
     Allan has asked that UFC appoint a committee to work with Don Ucci on calendar issues; Mike will find someone head this committee.
10. Old business:
    • Rewording: Ken Schug said that his recommendations regarding changes to the wording in the recent faculty in have, for the most part, been followed. He had reviewed the survey and sent his recommendations to Bruce Fisher; Bruce adopted most of what he asked for.
    • Attachments: George Schipporeit brought up the awkwardness of deciphering attachments to e-mails. Some attachments are hard to read if the recipient lacks the software that generated the attachments. Andy Howard suggested that any message shorter than one page should be sent as plain text rather than as an attachment; the Council agreed to this.
11. New business:
    
    • CAC: Glenn Broadhead pointed out his Communication Across the Curriculum program is the only actual academic program that is still managed within the undergraduate college. Phil said this looks like orphanage of the program.
    • There were no other items of new business brought forth.

12. Adjournment
    The meeting was adjourned by acclamation of the remaining attendees at 2:10pm.