University Faculty Council Meeting
10 September 2004

Members Present: Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Bill Grimshaw (SOC), Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Arthur Lubin (AMAT), William Newman (MSED), David Peterson (PSYC), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), Ken Schug (BCPS), Phil Troyk (BME), Miles Wernick (ECE), Geoff Williamson (ECE),

Members Absent: David Sharpe (ARCH), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Ralph Brill (Kent), Bogdan Korel (CS), Joel Goldhar (SGSB)

Procedure:

• CAMCOPT and UCOPT appointments; Representatives rotating off of UCOPT are Raju (Psyc), Schmaus (HUM), Tourk (SGSB); representatives rotating off of CamCOPT are Edelstein (AMAT), Troyk (BME), Shahidehpour (ECE), and Williams (MMAE). In replacing these representatives, we will construct a slate and submit it to the Provost for his assent.
• Faculty Survey: Faculty members are sought for help in drafting and editing questions and in analyzing the results. Bruce Fisher was very responsive last year to the recommendations of the Faculty Council representatives, so this effort is worthwhile. It would be best if we were to find volunteers to participate, including volunteers who are not on faculty council.
  
• Carryover issues from last year:
  • COPTs: The committee that drew up the 2004 Faculty Handbook had drafted a structure containing just two levels of COPT: a University-wide Committee on Promotions and Tenure (UCopt), and an academic-unit Committee (AUCopt). At the faculty meeting in late spring 2004, this two-level system was voted down, so the previous three-tiered system remains in place. Currently the middle tier operates at the Campus level, not the College level, in spite of the fact that the campuses have little administrative identity otherwise. Passions flare with respect to this issue: should there be a middle level? Should the middle level operate out of the Colleges? If so, what happens to academic units, like Psychology, that stand alone and are not part of a college? These issues remained unresolved in the spring. Michael has suggested that we should work toward either switching to a two-level system  or rationalizing the three-level system.
  • Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Committees: what authority do they have? Can they do things on their own or do they review ideas and then pass them on for Faculty Council consideration? If the Studies Committees do have some autonomy, how far does it extend? It was noted that these committees are chaired by senior administrators, not by faculty members. For issues brought to the Faculty Council from thse committees, we need better information so that we can act on their recommendations in an informed way. The question of whether an issue can be resolved at the Studies Committee level is somewhat tied up with the question of which issues the Faculty Council itself can act as final arbiter rather than passing the question on to the full faculty. In the spring , John Callend, Joe Locicero, and Michael Young tried to define criteria for the studies committee part of this problem and didn't complete it.
  • Institute of Business / IBIS / UG business / IPROS / EnPros: In summer 2003, when many faculty were away from campus, Denis Roberson was appointed administrative head of the Institute of Business. This is mostly an administrative entity, and Mr. Roberson is not a category-I faculty member. There is some concern that the specifically academic parts of this organization's portfolio, including IPros, and EnPros, should be supervised by a faculty group as a quality control.  The  Undergraduate Business program will eventually have a regular faculty structure; currently, because the department is so small, it is overseen by an advisory committee that includes main-campus and Stuart faculty. The undergraduate business program will also eventually join some college. The Provost described this scenario early in the planning for the program, and has maintained his description repeatedly since then. Michael distributed copies of his correspondence with the Provost about these issues to show that we are continuing to feel concerned about these questions. The overarching question relates to the structure and oversight of the Institute of Business and its academic content; there are also detail questions about the quality of the IPros and Enpros, and the content of the undergraduate business curriculum. 
    
  • Finance committee report: Howard Chapman distributed a comprehensive financial report at the very end of the spring semester; we agreed we should have a real finance committee to continue to interact with the administration. Michael argued that we are not asking the IIT administration to hand over financial decision-making to the faculty, but that we should be able to play a role. Provost Myerson has agreed that the Faculty Council should participate in budgetary process; it's now up to us to appoint a group to do so.This group will meet regularly with Vice President John Collins and Provost Myerson.
  • Library: There have been a lot of problems with IIT's libraries over the years. We have had a discussion of library issues at almost every University and Main Campus Faculty Council meeting. Library issues will continue to arise.
  • Intellectual property policy: a vote was taken on Carlo Segre's proposal on this subject at the Main Campus and University Faculty Council meeting in the spring. We need to assess how to follow up on this. [Secretary's note: I discussed this issue in some detail with Dean Segre after the September Faculty Council meeting. Our conclusion is that the parts of this IP discussion that relate to compensation for replayed courses is a strictly administrative issue and need not be brought before the University Faculty. The parts related to faculty ownership of course-related resources is related to material in Appendix K of the Faculty Handbook, and will need to be brought into consonance with that Appendix. Furthermore, the University Counsel has recommended that the policy be reworded somewhat. So Dean Segre and Mary Ann Smith will rework this policy and the portions of it that may require Handbook revisions will be brought to the attention of the Council later this fall.]
• Elections: Michael suggested that we now elect a chair and secretary and allow the new officers to function for the remainder of the meeting. Joyce Hopkins observed that traditionally the chair has been a member beginning his or her third year on the Council; the reconstituting of the Council out of the ashes of the old one makes that difficult. The Council agreed that all members would be considered eligible for office to maximize flexibility. [Secretary's note: this criterion for eligibility is consistent with Appendix B of the Faculty Handbook.]

Nominations:

• Chair: Phil Troyk was nominated for chair of the council. No other nominations were received, and Phil was elected unanimously. Accordingly, he immediately began to moderate the meeting.
  
• Secretary: Andy Howard was nominated for secretary. He was elected unanimously.
• Vice-Chair: We recognized the need to appoint either a vice-chair or a chair-elect, depending on how that position is described in the Faculty Handbook. We agreed to deal with this position at the October meeting; Phil will need to miss at least one meeting this year, so we will need someone to run the meeting he misses. [Secretary's note: this office is "Vice-Chair," according to Appendix B of the Faculty Handbook.]
  
• COPTS:

  We need to recommend three members for UCOPT and four candidates for CamCOPT. Candidates for these Committees do not have to be full professors, but faculty members of lower rank will have to exclude themselves from votes on promotions to full professor. The following individuals were put forth as candidates for CamCOPT: John Kallend (MMAE),  Jafar Sani (ECE), and Miles Wernick (BME / ECE). It is understood that Applied Math recommend a name to Phil, and Phil and Andy will request comment by e-mail from the Council. Because of the urgency of providing this information to the Provost, this (slightly incomplete) slate was approved by the Faculty Council. [Secretary's note: the Applied Mathematics Department offered the name of Prof. Tomasz Bielecki as a candidate for the fourth CamCOPT position a few days after the meeting.]

  UCOPT: Fouad suggested delaying consideration of new members for this group until the missing academic units are present. Ken Schug moved and Fouad Teymour seconded a motion to this effect, and the Council agreed to the delay.

Faculty survey:

Ken Schug, Geoff Williamson, and Maritsa Poros (check spelling) worked with Bruce Fisher last year. Robert Krawczyk agreed to join the effort. This group of four faculty members will work with Bruce this year; Joyce Hopkins will substitute for Maritsa if she is unable to do it.

Meeting schedule:

In previous years the University Faculty Council has met at noon on the third Friday of each month. After some discussion the Council agreed that the second Friday would work better. Accordingly the schedule will be for meetings at noon on 8 October, 12 November, and 10 December 2004; and 7 January, 11 February, 11 March, 8 April, and 13 May. Meetings will be held in the Trustees' Dining Room of the HUB until further notice.

Finance committee and involvement

Howard Chapman carried out an ambitious effort, but it took a long time to get his report into a sensible form--too long for the faculty to take any real action on it in the spring. Phil suggested that if Council wants to be actively involved in dealing with the University's financial woes, we will need to understand the administration's plan, under which IIT's cash-flow deficit is being covered by the IITRI sale. The unfortunate thing is that that IITRI sale could otherwise have been used to rescue the endowment. The administration's master plan has 3 components, each of which is supposed to deal with one-third of the projected shortfalls:

• increase in enrollment by 15%;
  
• increase in tuition revenues;
  
• increase in endowment.
  

Communication:

Committees:

Studies Committees: Geoff suggested that we include Joe LoCicero in discussions of the Studies Committee responsibilities.

Other: There is a need to fill several other standing committees with UniFC members. Phil asked that each member plan to come to the October meeting prepared to serve on one or more committees (see "Communication," above).

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned about 1:40 pm.