Minutes for University Faculty Council Meeting,
12:30pm - 2:00pm, Friday 27 October 2006

Members Present: Patricia Bach (PSYC), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Warren Edelstein (AMAT), Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Vijay Kumar (ID), Art Lubin (AMAT), William Newman (MSED), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE), Boris Pervan (MMAE), David Rudstein (Kent), John Snapper (HUM), Phil Troyk (BME), Chris White (BCPS), Geoff Williamson (ECE)

Members Absent: Ali Emadi (ECE), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), XiangYang Li (CS), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), Catherine Wetzel (ARCH)

Student Representative Present: Jason Tenenbaum.

Student Observers Present: Emily Hammes, Avelo Roy.

Visitor Present: Christopher Stewart (Galvin Library)

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order about 12:35pm on Monday 27 October 2006 in the ballroom of the MTCC. It was noted that the high quality of the lunch provided by the caterer is evidence of administrative satisfaction with the UniFC. Not everyone on the Council agreed with this judgment.

UCoPT Replacement: The Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department has proposed that the slot on the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure vacated by Jay Schieber be filled by David Venerus. Phil Troyk, UniFC chair, asked whether there were any objections to this nomination: hearing none, he agreed to forward this nomination to the Provost's office.

Committee Appointments:

1. Sabbatical Leave: Phil described the responsibilities of the Sabbatical Leave Committee. The UniFC will select a chair for this committee, but the chair thus selected will then recommend additional members. Jeff Budiman agreed to serve as chair.
2. Library: At or before the UniFC meeting on 10 November, Christopher Stewart, Dean of Libraries, will have researched the question of membership on the library committee and will present a slate of nominees to the Council. Anyone interested in recommending faculty members to this committee should forward some names to Christopher. Secretary's note: Mr. Stewart provided his list to the Council by email on 7 November.

Financial Report Status:
Howard Chapman reported that progress toward drawing up a full financial report is somewhat behind last year's schedule, partly owing to communication issues with the administration. The contact person in Susan Wallace's office through whom Howard worked last year is no longer available, and the current mechanisms are somewhat slower. He hopes to have a draft report distributed prior to the 8 December UniFC meeting.

Additional Committee Appointments and Considerations:

1. Financial Affairs: Phil reminded the UniFC that faculty participation in planning IIT's budgets is a crucial component to faculty governance. He will work with Susan Wallace to define faculty participation in the budgeting process. His plan is to have roughly three faculty members, two of whom would be UniFC members, meet with the administration. Howard Chapman will not be one of the three. The following names were proposed as members of this committee: Joel Goldhar (pending his willingness), Michael Young, Phil Troyk, John O'Leary. The name of John Twombly of SGSB was also put forth, but he is a clinical professor and therefore might need to serve a different role. The UniFC will finalize its list of participants in this committee at its 10 November meeting.
2. Financial Affairs and Benefits: Howard Chapman has worked on these issues in the past and would prefer that someone else participate in the process this year. The nominees for the Financial Affairs Committee described above, could serve in this capacity along with Howard; Bob Ladenson was also suggested as an appropriate participant. Jack Snapper agreed to ask Bob if he would be willing to do this.
3. Downtown Campus: The question of whether the UniFC should appoint a committee to consider the needs of the Downtown Campus was raised. The consensus was that it is unnecessary.
4. Academic Computing: The Council considered whether or not it is appropriate for the Council to populate this particular committee. If so, the committee should have a well-defined charge and a set of tasks to perform. UniFC representatives are to go back to their academic units to see if there is a need for this group, and should report back at the 10 November meeting. The core question is whether the faculty wishes to have a stronger voice in academic computing.
5. Student Affairs: Jack Snapper agreed to investigate whether or not there is a need for this group; if there is, he will serve as its chair.
6. Grievance: Student grievances are in general handled ad hoc rather than with a standing committee. William Newman agreed to chair a standing committee and will appoint additional members once a need arises.

UniFC Role in resolving the IPRO issue: The Council will ask Tom Jacobius, who has been evaluating proposals for new IPROs as they arrive, for the status of those evaluations; the Council will approve or edit the current list, as appropriate.
The Academic Affairs Subcommittee will evaluate IPROs on behalf of the UniFC by the end of the academic year.

Presidential Search: The University Faculty Council intends to interface and communicate regularly with the Presidential Search Committee; the fact that the chair and vice-chair of the UniFC both serve on the Committee should facilitate that communication. Judy Carr has been asked to maintain a website to provide an official information forum for the search process. The Council wants to be sure that the Faculty Advisory Committee, chaired by David Williams, communicates effectively with the Search Committee itself. The Council engaged in a general discussion of the search process. The University Faculty Council is comfortable with the situation and process so far, and with the level of faculty input.

Center for Professional Development and Continuing Education: The Council wants to continue to discuss these issues, which crystallized around the faculty's refusal to approve a Healthcare Technologies Program at one of its spring faculty meetings. It was understood that the deficiency in that particular program was in the level and nature of faculty oversight on that program, and that brings forth a general discussion not only of the CPD but of IIT's approach to Continuing Education in general. Mary Anne Smith has provided us with a draft organizational plan for CPD itself, and has asked the Council and the Faculty to consider including this plan in the Faculty Handbook as Appendix S. Jack Snapper pointed out that some of the activities of the CPD in fact do not fall into the category of Continuing Education; the Information Technology Certificate Program, which Bill Enright operates and which is administered through CPD, does fall in that category, but not all of CPD's activities do. Some UniFC members felt that the advertising for some of IIT's continuing education programs reflect poorly on IIT as a whole. Others suggested that defining a definition for the CPD within the Faculty Handbook provides it with a special status not shared with other academic or administrative units. Phil has said to Mary Anne Smith that the UniFC is likely to prefer a structure for CPD that subjects it to the same controls and strictures as an ordinary academic unit. Some UniFC members were puzzled by the wording of the CPD page in the University's Undergraduate Bulletin. Among the issues raised is whether approving or disapproving a CPD-specific section of the Faculty Handbook will really answer the question of how continuing education is going to be managed at IIT. Considerable discussion ensued, centering on financial issues (who will benefit from the revenues realized in these programs), quality control (would an oversight committee composed of full-time faculty provide sufficient quality control in a program primarily staffed by adjuncts), and the relationship between semi-independent programs like those offered in CPD and more departmental programs like the Professional Masters programs found in BCPS and several engineering departments. This issue will be considered further at the 10 November meeting.

Tenure Process: Phil reminded the Council of the recent history of the promotion and tenure process at IIT, culminating in the decision in spring 2006 to leave the three-tiered system in place, even though the mid-level tier is essentially inactive at the downtown campus. David Rudstein asked whether the mid-level committee serves as a protection for the candidates or as a roadblock. Joyce Hopkins asked why we are endeavoring to fix something that seems to be working fairly well. Chris White suggested that it would be sufficient to reaffirm that we have had a serious discussion about the subject and have concluded that the current three-tiered system should be left as is. Apart from considering the question of the nature of the middle-tier of the approval process, the Council also discussed the need for a document that would better define the format of the Academic Unit CoPT's recommendations to the higher-level committees. Sanjiv Kapoor affirmed that it would be useful for the Academic Units to receive a better set of guidelines on how to structure candidates' portfolios. Returning to the committee structure, Phil asked that UniFC members go back to their academic units and solicit opinions on the current system and how it could be improved. Chris asked that this request be worded more strongly: Council members should asked whether faculty members want a change in the current system and what the change should be, rather than simply asking the Council to discuss the problem further.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned about 2:20pm.