Members present: Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Warren Edelstein (AMat), Andy Howard (BCPS), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Art Lubin (AMat), William Newman (MSED), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE), David Peterson (Psyc), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), David Rudstein (Kent), Jay Schieber (ChEE), Jack Snapper (HUM), Phil Troyk (BME), Miles Wernick (ECE), Chris White (BCPS), Geoff Williamson (ECE)
Student representatives present: Alejandro Taboada, Govind Wakhlu.
Absent: Jeff Budiman (CAE), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Bogdan Korel (CS), Vijay Kumar (ID), David Sharpe (Arch)
Guests: Lew Collens (Pres / Kent), Mary Anne Smith (Counsel).
Opening: The meeting began at 12:50 in the ballroom of the McCormick-Tribune Campus Center.
Minutes: The minutes from the 21 November meeting were discussed. Sanjiv Kapoor provided some corrections, as did Phil Troyk. Geoff Williamson moved approval of the modified minutes, and Jack Snapper seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
UCoPT: Keiichi Sato (ID) cannot continue as a member of the University Committee on Promotions and Tenure. Pat Whitney has proposed that John Grimes (ID) replace him. Geoff Williamson moved and Jack Snapper seconded approval of this proposal; the appointment was approved 16-0 with one abstention.
IPRO Proposal: As requested, Jack Snapper has assembled a committee to recast and bring back to the UniFC the Undergraduate Studies Committee's proposal regarding changing the University-wide IPro requirement from six semester-hours to three. The committee will converge soon on a report.
Diversity Statement: Mary Anne Smith has crafted a Diversity / Affirmative Action Statement to guide the university in its day-to-day conduct and as a document relevant to the accreditation review by the North Central Association. The University Faculty Council discussed the document. David Peterson suggested adding the phrase "gender orientation" to the second paragraph following "sexual orientation." Mary Anne was asked whether the affirmative action language is specifically applicable to hiring procedures for faculty. Miles Wernick asked whether this diversity statement should be in the Faculty Handbook; the general consensus was that it belongs as a standalone document, not as a part of the Faculty Handbook, at least in part because it governs other groups on campus besides the faculty. No formal action was taken regarding this statement.
Faculty Handbook proposal regarding Teaching Family Members: Mary Anne presented a proposal to incorporate language into Article VII of the Faculty Handbook that would define restrictions on teaching children or other close family members. The UniFC discussed the proposed addition to the Handbook. It was asked whether, if a faculty member in fact was obliged to teach a close relative, the student should be graded on a Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory basis; the answer to this suggestion was no. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the definition of a "close" relative: some members would prefer a precise definition, and others would prefer to leave it vague. The Council also discussed changes to the wording of the policy. It was suggested that we add a sentence like "The faculty member is obliged to report to the Academic Unit Head the perception of conflict." Mary Anne was asked to return at a future meeting with a better-defined policy, and she agreed to do so.
Discussion with President Collens: As requested, President Lew Collens attended the meeting, both to address the Council's concerns, to bring to the Council's attention some issues regarding faculty participation in long-range planning, and to discuss faculty engagement in University affairs. As regards long-range planning, he presented a set of "Platform Initiatives," "Academic Unit Initiatives," and other proposals for long-term renewal of the University. He is hoping for extensive faculty involvement in a Platform Initiative regarding student experience. He also described the plans for the Technology Park on the south end of the campus. Under the rubric of "Academic Unit Initiatives," he discussed the utility of comparing IIT's practices to those used at peer institutions. Chris White argued that this kind of comparison happens constantly on an ad hoc basis, but that there exist no budget or structure for making organized comparisons. Several Council members emphasized need for funds to conduct organized comparisons. President Collens said funds would become available only if there was an expectation for an offsetting revenue stream. Lew brought up marketing issues as part of the 2010 Initiative. He would like to see the mean income to the University per undergraduate increase from the current value of $12,000 annually, and more skillful marketing of IIT's programs to high school students might help . Miles suggested that the "Research Chair" concept, used in a number of major universities, might be a draw for new students.
Phil and Jay Schieber asked Lew about the opposite-sex domestic partner proposal that the UniFC passed at its April 2005 meeting. The President's office rejected the proposal to extend fringe benefits to opposite-sex domestic partners under similar conditions placed on same-sex domestic partners. Lew reaffirmed that the decision not to extend benefits to opposite-sex partners was based on cost: this extension was estimated to increase the cost of the health program by about $200,000 per year. Jay argued that the inconsistency between benefits for same-sex partners and for opposite-sex partners is a violation of law. It was suggested that a possible outcome of additional pursuit of this proposal would be abolition of the same-sex benefit. Mary Anne Smith agreed to look further into this issue.
Lew acknowledged that attendance has been suboptimal at University Faculty meetings, and asked for the Council's participation in a resolution of this problem, particularly as regards quorum counts. He suggested that a faculty committee might be engaged to help plan the statutory once-per-semester faculty meetings to increase faculty ownership of the process. The suggestion was made that UniFC itself should have a budget to implement some of its own plans. Other solutions to the problem are stuctural. Jack Snapper suggested that lowering the quota for a valid University Faculty meeting from 25% to 20% or even 18% would be sufficient to make the meetings canonical without destabilizing the influences of the individual academic units. Lew offered support for the idea that the UniFC itself be somewhat further empowered: certain decisions (like routine approval of modifications to graduate programs) could be implemented as soon as UniFC passes them, rather than requiring further approval by the University Faculty. David Peterson and others asked how the UniFC could play a leadership role in the process.
Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held from 11:45am to 1:15pm on Monday 9 January 2006 in the MTCC Ballroom. (Secretary's note: the final agreed-upon start time is 11:30 am.)
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 2:05 pm.