n.b.: These minutes are put forth in a quasi-shorthand format so that they can be viewed. They will be properly formatted soon.

Jay Schieber's proposal regarding domestic-partner benefits: Mary Anne Smith: (1) discussed with Mary Henry re costs and other schools. No cost numbers are available yet. UofC does both same-sex and opposite. NW & Caltech, Carnegie-Mellon offer same-sex domestic partners only. Rensselaer Polytechnical offers both. One concern: would this weaken the intention of including same-sex unless we explicitly same "same-sex or opposite sex". Arthur: how many people are using the current benefit? Mary Ann doesn't know. Joel: What is the form? MA: described in policy. Phil: is it just one? Yes. Glenn: this is a simple question: should we do it? I say yes, because it's fair? Joel: the other question is, "can we afford it?" Eventually the university will cap the total that the Univ will cover, and the rest will be in the fees. Phil: Glenn's discussion is whether it's right and fair. MA: what happens with kids of same-sex domestic partner? Discussion of children. Jay: we should be looking at this in terms of whether it's right. David Peterson: if IIT wants to be pro-active we should do that. Andy: do we have jurisdiction? Phil: we can initiate it. David Peterson: does IIT want this kind of talent. Joel: this could lead to fraud. Jay: IIT does pursue fraud. MA: we rely on certification and assume honesty. Jay: we're one of the few organized bodies that _can_ initiate this. Arthur: is this urgent. Move to table. Joel second. motion fails Jay: Be resolved to broaden policy so all IIT benefits now available to same-sex domestic partners to include all domestic partners. Glenn seconds. Passed 10-2.

MPA and certificate programs: Karl Nollenberger, Acad Dir of MPA programs and Cert pgms, presented proposals for MPA and certificate programs in in Public Safety and Nonprofit Studies. Rich Bonaccorsi also here. Want to re-establish our primacy in these areas. No real additional resource costs. Joel: is there a limit to the number of courses that are taught by adjuncts? Karl: no. THere is an accreditation system; we don't have an accredited program. Jay: are the others in this area accredited? Karl: no. discussion of accreditation Rich B: we have good marks re quality of program. We also have existing relationships that we need to re-establish. Where we fall short is in corporate offering. Arthur: where do these pgms live in other schools? Karl: NW's Public Policy program is 100% adjunct. Jay: is there a marketing advantage to being accredited? Rich B: it hasn't come up as a burning issue. Flexibility is good; if it suffered that might weigh against accreditation. Joel: do we want a non-accredited program within the rest of what we do? This probably only matters in the context of Ph.D. programs. Karl: UIC is the only accredited one. Joel: maybe we would want this. Karl: we would need 5 full-time faculty. Glenn: move to approve public safety Andy: second. passed unanimously. Glenn: nonprofit; seconded Geoff. Joel: it would have helped if there had been a discussion with Stuart School. This program would benefit from being accredited. Arthur: is there a plan for Stuart to get involved in something like this? Karl: something like one-third of our MPA students are in non-profits. Jay: didn't this go through grad studies. Did this come up there? Karl: no Rich: before we brought this to any of the committees we bounce it off of Deans, including Zia and Buck. Michael Marcus is our full-time faculty member who knows this topic. Benefit is that we'll attract more meat to our program. Karl: we have an MPA Coordinating Committe -- all three deans (SGSB, Law, Sci&Lett) and they all endorse it. Glenn: we think the proposers have done their homework and the future Approved unanimously.

Term limits: Andy explained the way that University Faculty Council terms had been set up in spring 2005. Phil said the intention was each AU could determine how it was going to choose its representatives. Language says Dean, Director, or Officer of a college or instsitute. Joel: why not just say that it'll be involve an election? Geoff: there was one system where the procedure was derived from colleges. Andy: it's pure academic units-based. Geoff: the fact that AU heads couldn't appoint reps was an oversight in the language derived from this. Phil: for the fall we should propose to clean up this wording to preclude admin appt. Kevin: part of the problem is that no one knows who we are. Bill: we're supposed to be voting in response to our own AU's wants and needs.

President of the Faculty Senate: Phil pointed out that, according to the handbook, the University Faculty Council shall conduct an election to select a president of the faculty sentate. An e-mail mechanism was supposed to happen last year and didn't. The fact that it doesn't meet shouldn't deter us from electing a chair. Joel: couldn't the elected chair of faculty council also be faculty senate representative. Kevin: what if the problem is with the fac council chair? Phil: also fac senate chair is supposed to be elected by the faculty, not the fac council. How about we wait till next year. When? Glenn: let's do it now. Andy: fall is better. Glenn: want to establish an independent faculty senate chair. Andy: we could do this at the University Faculty meeting. Glenn: nominate Phil Troyk. Joel: seconded. Phil: we need to nominate officers at the May meeting. I'd like to see those things continue and is willing to volunteer to re-up as chair. Do we want me to be fac senate chair. Joel: we should clean this up in the fac handbook in some way. Andy: moved noms closed. Glenn: seconded; passed by acclamation.

Access to 6 (and 3) accounts: Phil: report on 6-account (and 3-account) issue: We discussed the problem last week; Phil met with Lew last week. It's a serious problem and will get worse. Lew was confused about how it could be happening and questioned its generality. So a budgeting process seems like the only practical solution for existing money; but for new money this has to stop. Why not as a matter of policy say "existing accts will be done with budgeting system, but new money won't be subjected to this"? Lew thought that was pretty clever and said he'd discuss it with the other admin members. Phil told him it was unbelievable that Lew didn't already know about this. Making this policy would be a confidence-builder. Lew will try to get this implemented by the May Council meeting. Joel: this is part of a larger issue. This money did actually come in via the income from the endowment. The rapid and increasing centralization of power is the real source of the problem. The colleges, the departments, the labs have lost power because they can't do anything without asking the central administration for permission to spend money; at the same time the blame for the financial problem is being attributed to us. The Bob&Bob deal changed things: We allocated tenure power to the AU only. --Discussion for whether that's what really happened. -- What we should be discussing is whether the power should belong at the central administration or in the hands of the faculty and staff. This is something that we need to discuss in 05-06. Kevin: faculty do have other options. They could leave. Joel: no. The assumption is that if we could leave, we would; the admin and the trustees make the assumption that we are captive. Phil: so we hope that it'll come up at the May meeting. Joel: want to discuss in '05-06 the policy of keeping tenure associated with the AU.

LLM in Family Law: Don Ucci brought a proposal for an LLM in Family Law and left it with Andy Howard. He asked whether or not we should discuss it immediately. Howard Chapman said that Kathy Baker (full-time) couldn't come. some discussion. Joel: appropriate public service for iit. Howard: moved; Joel seconded. Phil: we could approve it contingent on confirming that Grad Studies did actually approve the program. Glenn: channels issue. Phil: or we could do an e-mail vote. We agreed to that. So Grad Studies can meet and approve it. Howard will have the Law School send me an electronic copy, then I'll ask for a vote. n.b.: Subsequent to the meeting, the Graduate Studies committee did approve this proposal, but Andy never received a machine-readable version of it that could be distributed for an e-mail vote, so it will not be acted upon at the 27 April University Faculty meeting.

Reorganization of Provost's office Joel: (1) student services are underrepresented now. (2) we have redundant administrative functions particularly among colleges, provost's office, and graduate school. This ends up suggesting two vice provosts: one for student affairs and one for faculty affairs. These should both be faculty jobs. So Joel moves to send report to Provost suggesting the following things; Bob K seconded. Glenn reluctantly speaks against motion. Student vs faculty distinction ignores shared interests regarding curricular issues. UG college houses Ed Services, Acad Res Center, CAC. All of these serve people in several colleges and programs. Worried that these programs will get buried even lower than they are. Joel: those offices won't disappear: they'd go to student support services. Glenn: represent academic discipline; so that's different from Greeks. Geoff: speaking against motion because the graduate college functions might get buried at a lower level. Joel: Vice Provost for Academic Affairs will handle that. Geoff: is this an org-chart question? Are we creating new positions? Joel: UG Dean and Grad Dean would go away. Geoff: so you're trying to reorg to reflect a different vision? Joel: yes, and student support becomes a higher-profile thing. Vijay: some misgivings, but this looks like the right response to the Provost's request. It's too bad we weren't asked a more general question. Phil: let's vote. Howard: why does this have to go to the faculty? Phil: informally modify to have the report just go to the Provost, not to the faculty. How about Provost and President? (Phil/Andy) Vote: 7 -6; passes. Howard: have vote sent to the Provost also.

Financial Report: IIT used to raid endowment; had to stop because of downturn; IITRI helped. We're still drawing a lot out of endowment. Complicated discussion of income, endowment, etc.; then of salaries, administration. Howard's recce: release to faculty in the fall with updated numbers. Phil: how do we feel about meeting over the summer? Victor: can we obtain a quorum? Phil: unclear; but we can work anyway. Vijay: fac/admin=1.1; is that unusual? Joel: some are worse, some are better. Phil: If we work over the summer, we could digest it and do something about it. Joel: we have to act on a 12-month year. Phil: it takes a while to get cranked up each fall; meeting over the summer would help. General agreement -- Howard: benefits committee is reactive, not pro-active. Phil: it's up to us to be proactive. Howard: you'll bring the document up. discussion of flex spending.

University Faculty meeting: The spring faculty meeting is scheduled for 3pm on 27 April 2005.