Minutes for University Faculty Council Meeting,
12:30pm - 2:00pm, Friday 8 December 2006

Members Present: Patricia Bach (PSYC), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Warren Edelstein (AMAT), Ali Emadi (ECE), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Chow Lam (PSYC -- for Joyce Hopkins), 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), Geoff Williamson (ECE).

Members Absent: Vijay Kumar (ID), XiangYang Li (CS), Ganesh Raman (MMAE),

Student Representative Present: Jason Tenenbaum.

Student Observer Present: Avelo Roy.

Visitors Present: Bob Carlson (CS), Ali Cinar (ChEE), Tom Jacobius (IPRO), Mary Anne Smith (University Counsel)

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order about 12:35pm on Friday 8 December 2006 in the ballroom of the McCormick / Tribune campus center.

Meetings for spring 2007:
The Faculty Council has been asked to determine in advance its meeting schedule for spring 2007. In general members are satisfied with Fridays as a meeting time, and we will continue to meet from 12:30 until about 2:20 on the chosen Fridays. Lunch will be provided, beginning at noon on the chosen days. After some discussion the following Fridays were chosen: 19 January, 9 February, 9 March, 13 April, and 4 May 2007.
Secretary's note: These dates have been confirmed and the locations have been posted on the UniFC website.

UCoPT Appointment from Architecture:
Because there are a limited number of available faculty from the College of Architecture who can serve on the University Committee on Promotions and Tenure, we are obliged to deviate from the procedure outlined in the Faculty Handbook to provide a nominee for UCoPT from Architecture. The solution suggested by the Provost would be to allow Mahjoub Elnimeiri to continue serving on UCoPT. The Council agreed that this would be the best solution; Jack Snapper moved that we accept the Provost's recommendation, and Joel Goldhar seconded the motion. The Council approved the motion unanimously, and the secretary said he would communicate that result to Noreen.

Center for Professional Development:
Mary Anne Smith has offered a revision of the proposed Appendix S in the Faculty Handbook, defining the operations and the oversight of the Center for Professional Development and the programs it offers. Bob Carlson, director of the CPD, was invited to discuss its programs with the Council. Bob described the admission requirements and the way that curricula are defined for CPD programs. Phil Troyk suggested that an important part of our task should be to define what marks the territory of the CPD as distinct from other parts of the University. Sanjiv Kapoor said that the Computer Science Department is uncomfortable with the fact that the CPD offers masters degrees; Alex Budiman said the CAE department has discussed the role of the CPD as well. Joel Goldhar suggested that the Appendix should state that the postbaccalaureate degrees offered by the CPD cannot be Master of Science Degrees. Bob observed that CPD does not offer MS degrees.

Some UniFC members expressed concern over the availability of bachelor's completion degrees from the CPD. Bob said the two bachelor's completion degrees currently offered are the Industrial Technology and Management degree and the Information Technology and Management degree. The CPD offers Masters degrees in these two areas as well. Phil suggested that IIT should require annual approval by oversight committees of the faculty lists for these programs, and argued that this kind of annual approval would be less restrictive than requiring one-at-a-time approval of individual hires. Mary Anne Smith suggested that incorporating that kind of specific procedure into the Appendix would unnecessarily restrict the CPD's operation.

After some additional discussion Phil asked for a motion to approve Appendix S as submitted. Andy Howard moved for approval, and Bob Krawczyk seconded it. During the discussion of the motion, Joel Goldhar asked for addition of a section VI defining the scope of the CPD's responsibilities regarding the character of its undergraduate and graduate programs. Phil noted that such a revision would require reconsideration of the document by the Undergraduate Studies and Graduate Studies Committees. Sanjiv Kapoor asked what fraction of the enrollees in the CPD were part-time students; Bob said it was about 50%. Sanjiv said he was opposed to the motion because of the restrictions articulated in paragraph I of the Appendix. Phil noted that because this Appendix is a revision to the Faculty Handbook, and would therefore be placed on the agenda of the next University Faculty meeting if it passes. After additional discussion the motion to approve the inclusion of Appendix S as submitted passed 16-1. Phil encouraged UniFC members to communicate this result back to their Academic Units for further discussion.

Proposed Ph.D. Program in Collegiate Mathematics Education:
Zaur Berkaliev (MSED) presented a proposal for a Ph.D. program in Collegiate Mathematics Education. He noted that there are no equivalent programs in the Midwest; only Oregon State and Syracuse offer similar joint degrees. There are more semester-hours of mathematics courses in the program than of education courses, and there is an emphasis on research. The primary purpose of assembling this proposal is packaging and marketing; the courses for this degree already exist.

Joel asked how long it would take for a student to complete this degree working part-time. Zaur estimated six years, varying according to the student's preparation and intensity. Art Lubin argued that the program is rigorous; he said the Applied Math department in fact wondered if it were too rigorous for the target community. After brief discussion the Faculty Council approved the program by consent. The secretary agreed to announce the passage of the program to the faculty and communicate the result to the President's office so it can be reviewed by the Trustees.

A discussion ensued regarding the timing of the proposal's approval. Appendix P of the Faculty Handbook specifies that degree programs approved by the UniFC must be announced to the full Faculty for a 30-day consideration period; if ten or more requests are received by the Faculty Council to bring the program to a vote of the full faculty during that 30-day period, then the proposal would need to be voted on by the faculty at a University Faculty meeting. Because a holiday period was about to begin, many Council members were concerned that if the approval were announced in December, some faculty might feel that the 30-day consideration period mandated in the Faculty Handbook would not allow for sufficient public discussion. Accordingly Phil and Andy agreed to publish the passage of this program on 16 January, so that the 30-day period would begin on that date. That would still allow 30 days for consideration prior to the March Trustees' meeting.

Financial Plan:
Howard Chapman distributed a revised version of the University Financial Report that he has prepared. The Council noted that the current plan calls for the University to go into the black in 2010, whereas the plans published in previous years called for break-even by 2007. Warren Edelstein asked for more details than Howard had been provided. Joel Goldhar noted the use of "EBIDNAR" bookkeeping in the University's statements, and said use of this tool is unusual. He noted that the university is in the black now apart from depreciation. Mary Anne Smith observed that the Council could invite Susan Wallace to speak to the Council about financial matters. She noted that the enrollment goals for 2007 were not met, whereas the 2006 goals had been met. Phil was concerned that the administration has not offered an explanation of why the goals of the plan articulated in 2004 have not been met. The Council agreed to assemble a list of questions that we would want Susan Wallace to answer. Joel said he would like some discussion of what the University's profit centers are, and the degree to which each department and academic unit either earns or loses money. He would also like to see an analysis of the amount of overhead carried in each entity; in summary, he would like to see an economic analysis as well as a financial analysis. Phil, Joel, and Howard agred to draft a set of questions and distribute them to the membership; once those questions have circulated, they will submit those questions to Susan Wallace for her to answer at a UniFC meeting.

IPRO Program Commmittee:
At an earlier meeting the UniFC discussed the need for an active program committee associated with IPros. Tom Jacobius distributed a document describing the charge to the committee, known within the program as the "Interprofessional Studies Committee." The nominees for the current committee are Profs. Javad Abbasian, Peter Beltemacchi, Bob Carlson, Chris Conley, Ali Emadi, Susan Feinberg, Dan Ferguson, David Grossman, Margaret Huyck, Peter Lykos, Sheldon Mostovoy, and Phil Troyk; Jay Fisher and Dennis Roberson would be staff members on the committee; and three students would serve, two of whom are Dror Ben-Zeev and Michael Cama. This slate was approved by acclamation. The UniFC secretary will seek an electronic copy of the committee charge so it can be posted on the UniFC website. The Council urged the Interprofessional Studies Committee to work with the committee working on finances and long-term operations.

iClickers for University Faculty meetings:
Chris White and Mary Anne Smith have looked into the feasibility of using iClickers for quorum counts and vote-tallying during University Faculty meetings. Phil said President Collens has indicated that he is in favor of this approach, and Mary Anne Smith affirmed that we can do it.

Course Evaluations:
The Council renewed its discussion of student course evaluations and ways to increase participation in the program. Incentives for participation (like a raffle for an iPod); disincentives for non-participation (like refusing to issue grades early if a student has not participated); and eliminating the evaluations altogether have been discussed. Mary Anne Smith said she again raised the question of returning to paper evaluations after several years of web-based evaluations; the Provost says this is not an option.

Jason Tenenbaum said many students do not understand how these evaluations are used in faculty evaluations and in scheduling. He believes that the evaluations should continue to be used, but he suggested that the timing is poor: they are distributed at a time of the semester at which students are extremely busy and therefore disinclined to fill out forms. He said some of the survey questions are irrelevant to some courses, and that the provision for course-specific questions is insufficient. Incentives for participation would be slightly helpful, but Jason doubted that they would make much difference. He said students would probably participate more in a paper-based system.

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