Members present: Glenn Broadhead (HUM), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Warren Edelstein (AMat), Joel Goldhar (Stuart), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci) Joyce Hopkins (Psyc), Andy Howard (BCPS), Bogdan Korel (CS), Bob Krawczyk (Arch), Vijay Kumar (ID), Art Lubin (AMat), William Newman (MSEd), David Peterson (Psyc), Victor Perez-Luna (ChEE), Jay Schieber (ChEE), Phil Troyk (BME), Miles Wernick (ECE), Chris White (BCPS).
Absent: David Sharpe (Arch), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Geoff Williamson (ECE), Ralph Brill (Kent), Ganesh Raman (MMAE).
Guests: Mary Henry (HR), Beverly Perret (HR), John Collins (Finance); Douglas Davis (Fidelity), Tom Harty (Fidelity), Michael Houser (Fidelity), Tony Perrin (Fidelity)
Opening: The meeting began at 12:10 in the Trustees' Dining Room of the Hermann Union Building.
Introduction: Phil observed that the University Faculty Council had resolved to meet over summer but we had been unsuccessful in doing so. He proposed that we hit the ground running, especially with respect to University budget issues. Phil has met with Vice President Susan Wallace, and she welcomes participation of the Faculty Council in the administration's budget process.
Election of UniFC Officers
The Faculty Handbook specifies that University Faculty Council officers should be elected at the May meeting, but we didn't have a quorum at that meeting. Accordingly, we need to elect officers now. Phil observed that the only active officers of the University Faculty Council are the president and the secretary, apart from the committee chairs. We will plan to select committee chairs at the October meeting. Phil also pointed out that he and Andy Howard, who were president and secretary during AY 04-05, had agreed to serve again and had been nominated for re-election as of the May meeting. Joel Goldhar renominated the slate, and Bill Grimshaw seconded; no one else came forward, so the election was held, and Andy and Phil were unanimously re-elected. Phil reminded the UniFC that he had been elected Faculty Senate chair at the April 2005 meeting.
Meeting venue and schedule: Andy suggested that we meet in a room that has Internet access, preferably wireless, so that we can refer to Web documents will we meet. We will determine the ideal location between now and the next meeting. We discussed times and dates of meetings. Mondays appear to work better than other days, and the second Monday of each month is probably best. Some members have conflicts in the early afternoon, so we agreed to meet earlier than noon. The next meeting, accordingly, will be held on 10 October from 11:45 am to 1:15 in a location to be announced. The remaining meetings of the fall semester will be 14 November and 12 December.
Phil announced that we plan to rely more heavily on electronic communication, so relatively few documents will be distributed at the meetings. Documents will be distributed as e-mail attachments and posted to the UniFC website (http://www.iit.edu/~unifc). Andy said our access to that site is temporarily interrupted, but the interruption will have been resolved by the October meeting. Phil said that when issues arise that require action between scheduled meetings, we will plan to conduct electronic votes. If one or more members ask for a face-to-face meeting on an issue that has been voted upon electronically, we will revisit and re-vote the issue at a meeting, and the electronic tally will simply be recorded. Otherwise, the electronic vote will be taken as definitive.
New investment plan: Currently, faculty and full-time staff can choose either to buy into a retirement plan from TIAA/CREF or use a plan from Mutual of America. The Mutual of America plan has been less successful than the Human Resources Department had hoped, so Mary Henry, John Collins, and others put out a request for proposals to replace this plan. Only one proposal was received, from Fidelity Investments. Howard Chapman has been involved in the discussions with Fidelity, and he introduced Mary, John, Bev Perret, and four representatives from Fidelity so that they could describe their proposal. Their proposal will be considered by the IIT Board of Trustees at its 20 September meeting, so this UniFC meeting is the appropriate time for us to hear about this plan. Howard pointed out that Fidelity has a major presence already in Chicago, with four investor centers in town and retirement-plan contracts at several other Chicago universities.i Howard pointed out that Fidelity has a major presence already in Chicago, with four investor centers in town and retirement-plan contracts at several other Chicago universities. Phil observed that the Faculty Council has no specific role in the selection process for employee investment plans, so part of what UniFC would need to do is to decide how to respond to the presentation. He asked that the Fidelity representatives limit themselves to 40 minutes including discussion, and the Fidelity presenters agreed to that.
Tom Hardy leads the Fidelity team; Doug Davis, who is already the representative in charge of IITRI, would be our representative if this proposal is accepted by the Board of Trustees. Doug distributed a booklet describing Fidelity's investment plans to all UniFC members, and pointed out that Fidelity would be available for individual counseling as well as plan-specific discussions. Howard asked how IIT staff members would decide among the hundreds of funds that Fidelity offers. Tom said there would be no restrictions but that they will offer some guidance to direct investors into specific funds. Several members asked about transfers of investment dollars between Fidelity and CREF; the Fidelity representatives said that would be possible. They pointed out that Fidelity is a diversifier, so individual investors would not need to work in both plans in order to obtain a varied portfolio.
The Fidelity team and the Council discussed the transition from Mutual of America to their plan. It won't be necessary to move funds from Mutual of America, but it would be advantageous to do so, since the Fidelity accounts will be active. Council members asked about annuities; we were told that Fidelity isn't an insurance company so they don't do annuities themselves; however, Fidelity could find a competitive product for IIT staffers.
Mike Houser said that a local representative will meet with participants on site, either either individually or in groups to discuss investment strategy and options for distribution. They are open to having meetings at the departmental level, at which participation is often found to increase over completely open meetings. Douglas Davis said that he is Salt Lake-based, but that most of his business is in Illinois, and that his portfolio includes Northwestern, University of Illinois, IITRI, and Illinois State. He said the structure of Fidelity's academic plans includes 150 funds, but that the brochure keeps the choices simple: there is a core list of funds, organized by expiration date. Individuals who want a more specifically tailored program can get one. He said that Fidelity cannot set up investments in individual stocks because 403B funds aren't allowed to do that; but individuals could invest in individual stocks outside the 403B.
Chris White asked what the value of this program is for Fidelity. Doug replied that they make money from the management fees, which range between 10 and 200 basis points (0.1 - 2%) depending on the nature of the investment service. Mary Henry said that IIT employees have about $25 million in assets in Mutual of America now, and that most of that amount is likely to end up at Fidelity.
Howard asked whether the funds are no-load; the Fidelity team said yes. Doug Davis and the other Fidelity team members went through the handout, offering an overview of Fidelity's plans and services. He suggested that Fidelity has led the movement toward use of sophisticated technologies in the investment world. Tom pointed out that because Fidelity is not publicly held, it is free to reorganize its structures without reference to an external board. Howard asked how long would it take to set up a plan at IIT. John Collins and Mary Henry said some elements of the plan could be in place by mid-November, but that January or February is probably a more realistic date for the shift of funds from Mutual of America. Doug said that Fidelity can be flexible about the startup dates. Mary observed since IIT manages IITRI's payroll, and IITRI already remits some employees' funds through Fidelity, the mechanisms are already in place.
Phil noted that the decision to accept this proposal will be made by the Board of Trustees, after which some implementation decisions could be made. So he asked what the appropriate action on the part of the UniFC would be. Howard said that Mary Anne Smith has asked that we provide a vote of confidence in the Fidelity plan, so that that vote could accompany Fidelity's presentation to the Trustees. Phil asked what would happen if we refused to provide that vote of confidence; John said the administration would probably withdraw its recommendation of the proposal.
Miles Wernick moved adoption of a statement of endorsement of the Fidelity plan; Howard seconded it. Joel Goldhar noted that he was uncomfortable with endorsing a specific company; he would like to see more choices. Art Lubin asked what the source of dissatisfaction with Mutual of America was; Mary replied that MofA's system is antiquated and time-consuming to use, and that its performance poor. She said Fidelity has had a good record at IITRI, both in terms of investment success and ease of implementation. Kevin Cassel said that Fidelity does offer numerous choices, because they have so many funds Glenn Broadhead said that we have now heard enough to have confidence in the committee that picked this plan as a successor to MofA. Phil noted that Howard was the Faculty Council's point-man on these issues, and that he is the most knowledgeable faculty member in this regard. Howard noted Fidelity, like Vanguard, publishes a lot of independent newsletters that are not connected with Fidelity. One he subscribes to has had a great performance level, working three portfolios, and that experts have been impressed with these semi-independent choices. Phil suggested the following wording for Miles's motion: The Faculty Council endorses the substitution of Fidelity Investments for Mutual of America in the IIT faculty retirement plan. Glenn Broadhead called the question, and the motion passed 16-0 with two abstentions.Appendix K changes: Phil and Andy noted that Carlo Segre has asked the Council to follow up on actions taken by the Main Campus Faculty Council in 2003 to modify policies associated with intellectual property rights on internet-based courses. Certain aspects of this will require changes to Appendix K in the Faculty Handbook. These changes will be posted to the UniFC website and sent out ask an e-mail attachment.
Undergraduate Studies Committee: Phil observed that this committee is, according to the Faculty Handbook, a subcommittee of this Council, so the Handbook mandates that decisions within its purview pass from the committee to the Council. In many instances decisions made at the Council level need to be further vetted by the University Faculty itself, with the IIT Board of Trustees having final authority. The UG Studies Committee itself has felt that their work is being marginalized because of this multi-step routing. Changes in curricula must be vetted in this way; often these changes are derailed at the level of the University Faculty meetings, where it is often difficult to obtain the quorum necessary for action. So the President's office has proposed that curricular changes terminate at the University Faculty Council level so that the entire faculty wouldn't have to agree to everything. This would delegate more authority to the Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Committees and to the Faculty Council. According to the President's Office proposal, any curricular decision made at the level of the Faculty Council could be required to be brought forth to a University Faculty vote upon petition by 20 eligible faculty. Clearly this change in authority will require modification of the Faculty Handbook. Joel asked whether we need a new faculty handbook revision committee. Phil suggested that certain specific changes be proposed out of the October University Faculty Council meeting, in time for the late-October University Faculty meeting; more structural changes would be developed during the academic year for action at the spring University Faculty meeting.
University Faculty Council Committees: The Council needs to appoint, from its membership, chairs of several standing committees. The remainder of the membership of these committees can be drawn from Council members and non-Council faculty. He asked that each member think about what committees he or she wants to serve on and volunteer between now and the October meeting; appointments will be made then.
Appendix J: Phil noted that the Council's support of Jay Schieber's proposal regarding changes to Appendix J of the Faculty Handbook has been nullified by action of the President's office. This change would have removed the words "same-sex" from the "domestic partners" provision of that Appendix, with the effect of allowing opposite-sex domestic partners to receive the same access to health benefits that are now offered to registered, same-sex domestic partners. The President's office has analyzed the financial impact of this proposal, and determined that it would cost the university about $200,000 per year. Jay said he would pursue legal avenues toward redress of this situation. Joel observed that the university lost $19 million in AY04-05 and is balking about a $200,000 provision. Phil proposed that the council pursue this matter further before Jay takes legal action; no specific action was taken, however.
Admissions Strategies: Andy recommended that the Council discuss the University's strategies for targeting prospective students, particularly at the undergraduate level. After some discussion it was agreed that the Council would invite Mary Ann Rowan to come before the Council to discuss the university's undergraduate recruiting strategy at its October meeting. Glenn noted that the Communication Across the Curriculum group has evaluated two-thirds as many portfolios this year as last year, but that may be partly because transfer students are no longer are required to submit them. He doesn't know who decided that transfers shouldn't be required to submit portfolios. Joel pointed out that Mary Ann reports to Provost Myerson, so the ultimate responsibility for the University's recruitment strategy derives from him.
Financial reportage committee: Howard said that the Financial Reportage Committee has been meeting, and that a report will be available soon. Phil asked whether the report could be made ready for the 10 October meeting; Howard said he is assembling information now, and will try to make it available by then. Phil observed that we had decided not to discuss the report in the spring because the fall enrollment figures and budgetary specifics were unavailable then, so it becomes especially important to discuss it now. Joel asked whether the report would incorporate information from an updated 990 form. Howard said that it was unclear whether that would be available.
Course assessment: Phil asked whether we should be recommending or even mandating a change in the current approach to course assessment. He has asked Joyce Hopkins to follow up on this.
Tenure and Promotion: The reorganization of the system for the Committees on Promotion and Tenure needs to be back on the table. We will seek Ken Schug's leadership in continuing this process.
IPRO Proposal: The Undergraduate Studies Committee brought forth a proposal in AY 04-05 to reduce the number of general education requirements associated with IPROs from 6 to 3. The Council asked for a clearer exposition of the reasons for the change. Phil asked the UG Studies representatives to be prepared to discuss these reasons at the October meeting.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:50pm.