Members Present: Patricia Bach (PSYC), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Warren Edelstein (AMAT), Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Art Lubin (AMAT), William Newman (MSED), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE), Boris Pervan (MMAE), David Rudstein (Kent), John Snapper (HUM), Phil Troyk (BME), Catherine Wetzel (ARCH), Chris White (BCPS).
Members Absent: Howard Chapman (Kent), Ali Emadi (ECE), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Vijay Kumar (ID), XiangYang Li (CS), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), Geoff Williamson (ECE)
Student Representative Present: Jason Tenenbaum.
Student Observer Present: Avelo Roy.
Visitors Present: Christopher Stewart (Dean of Libraries), Mary Anne Smith (University Counsel)
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order about 12:20pm on Friday 10 November 2006 in the Alumni Lounge of the Hermann Union.
Committee Appointments:
Phil announced that the library committee appointments would be discussed
during this meeting. He also brought up the question of appointing
a member for the Financial Affairs and Benefits Committee. Phil agreed
to contact John Twombly to see if he would be willing to take this task on.
Faculty Library Committee (Phil, Christopher Stewart):
Phil and Christopher Stewart presented a
slate
of faculty candidates for the committee. Christopher affirmed that Keith
Ann Stiverson, director of the Chicago / Kent library, would be serving as
an ex officio member along with Christopher himself.
He also agreed that he would appoint a faculty member from the Institute of
Psychology. This modified slate was approved by consensus.
Mary Anne Smith noted that this slate is consonant with the charge in the Faculty Handbook (Appendix B, Article V, Paragraph I), apart from the fact that the position of Dean of the Undergraduate College no longer exists. If we are willing to substitute "Associate Provost for Undergraduate Affairs" into that document, then Mike Gosz would automatically be on this committee; otherwise we will have to take explicit action.
Academic Computing Committee: The Council has been asked to revive this committee. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed to a chair from within the Council who would then endeavor to recruit additional faculty for the committee. Warren Edelstein and Art Lubin will work on this.
IPro oversight: It has become clear that there are two levels of oversight called for in connection with IPROs. One is a Project Review Committee; the other is a committee responsible for considering the finances and the long-term operations of the IPro program. With respect to the first of these groups, the Council agreed that the Undergraduate Studies Committee and the Council itself need to discuss the policies under which the Project Review Committee will operate. The second group should be in the purview of the Undergraduate Studies Committee. Jack Snapper agreed to provide an update on this subject at the 8 December meeting.
Committees on Promotion and Tenure:
Phil observed that a wide consensus has been reached that the basic
three-level structure of IIT's CoPT system should be left as it is,
although there remain numerous concerns about that structure.
At the same time there are a number of concerns about
the following issues:
Center for Professional Development:
Mary Anne Smith has offered a new document as a proposed Appendix S
in the Faculty Handbook. It describes the operations and the oversight
of the Center for Professional Development and the programs it offers.
She pointed out that the CPD brings in around $5 million annually in revenue.
The Provost wants to tighten up the CPD's operating procedures,
and he is willing to provide a profit and loss sheet for the CPD itself.
The Council discussed the proposed Appendix and the general question
of the CPD's operations and IIT's continuing education offerings.
Sanjiv Kapoor expressed concerns about the oversight committees for
the CPD-based degree programs, both as they are described in the new
document and as they really exist currently.
Jack Snapper pointed out that the language in the proposed Appendix
does not take into account CPD-based four-year undergraduate programs,
some of which have been brought to the Undergraduate Studies
Committee's attention already.
He also asked whether the time has come for the CPD to be constituted as
an academic unit in its own right.
Phil suggested that the Provost believes that there are insufficient
funds available to allow that to happen, given that it would necessitate
hiring of additional category I faculty into that unit.
He also suggested the discussion would benefit from a tabulation of
what programs are currently available within CPD.
Catherine Wetzel noted that the proposed Appendix does not define a procedure
for replacing outgoing members on the oversight committees.
She also suggested that the task given to these oversight committees goes
beyond oversight: it might be better described as quality control.
Joyce Hopkins argued against converting the CPD into an academic unit,
and suggested that the problem of four-year CPD programs could be resolved
by minor changes in wording.
In the end, Phil agreed to invite Bob Carlson, who is the Director of the CPD,
to the December Council meeting. After his presentation,
Council members will be asked to solicit opinion from
other faculty in their units on the way the CPD operates.
The Council agreed by consensus to this approach.
Harassment Prevention Training:
Mary Anne Smith asked the Council for its views on Harassment Prevention
Training. IIT's insurance providers have informed her that all faculty,
and most staff, will be required to go through this kind of training,
and Mary Anne is soliciting our views on how to achieve compliance.
The program that IIT is using requires a 45 minutes to complete.
Phil suggested a top-down enforcement approach, in which each Dean will
direct the Academic Unit heads under him or her to require all faculty
to attend.
Mary Anne agreed that this would work, particularly if food is provided.
Phil asked all Faculty Council members to inform members of their
academic units of this upcoming requirement.
Faculty Evaluation:
Joyce Hopkins reported that her Faculty Evaluation Committee crafted a new
wording for the exhortation that was provided to students for spring 2006,
in the hope that it would improve compliance.
The outcome was in fact a decrease in compliance—from 57% down
to 37%. She and others observed that the sparseness of data makes
it difficult for CoPTs to base tenure decisions on student evaluations
of faculty.
Phil asked how other universities resolve the problem of compliance.
David Rudstein pointed out that the Law School continues to use paper
evaluation forms, and they achieve 80-85% compliance.
Council members proposed various incentives for participation,
including a drawing for a free iPod.
Some Council members expressed enthusiasm for a return to paper ballots
on the main campus; Mary Anne Smith agreed to look into how difficult
it would be to revert to paper.
Jason Tenenbaum, the Student Government representative,
also agreed to discuss the compliance problem with other student leaders.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned about 2:20pm.