Members Present: Javad Abbasian (ChEE), Patricia Bach (Psyc), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci), Andy Howard (BCPS), Vijay Kumar (ID), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Eun-Jeong Lee (Psych--for Joyce Hopkins), Art Lubin (AMAT), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE), Boris Pervan (MMAE), Ganesh Raman (MMAE), David Rudstein (Kent), John Snapper (Hum), Phil Troyk (BME), Catherine Wetzel (ARCH), Chris White (BCPS), Geoff Williamson (ECE), Wai Gen Yee (CS).
Members Absent: Warren Edelstein (AMAT), Ali Emadi (ECE), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), William Newman (MSED),
Student Government Representative: Caitlin Hubbard (absent).
Faculty and Staff Visitors: John Anderson (President), Mary Anne Smith (Counsel), Vivian Weil (Ethics Center)
Student Visitors: Adam Bain.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order about 12:32pm on Friday 12 October 2007 in the Armour Dining Room of the Hermann Union Building after lunch.
Phil Troyk (BME), UniFC chair, noted that he would prefer that the UniFC's participation in the search for the Provost and the Dean of the College of Engineering be a two-step process—one meeting to ask for names for a nominating committee, and a separate meeting to actually recommend names to the President. However, President Anderson wants the names by 26 October, so we would need one meeting on 19 October and another on or just before 26 october. Chris White (BCPS) asked whether names could be submitted by email; Phil replied that there are logistic problems with that approach. Chris said that the task of consulting with the academic units could be done electronically, and then the Council could gather to assemble a list to submit to the President. Phil agreed, noting that we could dispense with a second meeting as long as Council members go back to do their homework.
Jack Snapper (Hum) asked whether IIT could advertise the positions even before the official search begins. Mary Anne Smith, University Counsel, said the selection committees need to draw up the position descriptions before any publicity could go out. Phil said the conservative approach would be to go back to the faculty members to seek their input into the process. Joyce Hopkins said that if we emphasize going back to the Academic Units, not just the AU chairs, then there will be nothing to complain about. Chris White recommended that we send an email to the full faculty, urging interested faculty members to discuss the selection committees with their own UniFC representatives.
Vijay Kumar (ID) asked why interested faculty members need to go through their UniFC representatives at all: it should be sufficient to send names directly to the UniFC chairman for consideration by the full Council at the late-October meeting. Andy Howard noted that the full faculty has a meeting scheduled for mid-October, and that could be an opportunity to publicize these committees. Geoff Williamson (ECE) noted that candidates for the committees might want to speak at the late-October UniFC meeting. Joyce Hopkins supported having the submitted names come through the Council representatives, because that will help us begin with a more manageable list. Phil noted that some criteria for filtering would be useful. Jack said there were pros and cons associated with filtering the list before the meeting. Zia Hassan (Stuart) noted we should at least make certain that the candidates for the committees are actually available. Phil said that kind of validation should be the responsibility of the UniFC representative. Joe LoCicero (ECE) asked whether we could limit the pool of candidates for the committees to those brought forth by UniFC representatives, plus self-nomineees. Mary Anne Smith asked whether this discussion was primarily about candidates for the Provost search committee. Phil said not necessarily: our goal here is to establish a procedure.
Joseph Orgel (BCPS) suggested that each academic unit should put forward two names per committee, with the unit representative bringing those two names before the UniFC. Phil asked for a straw vote on whether to seek nominations directly from the general faculty, or instead filter all names through the UniFC. The result of the straw poll was 9-7 in favor of limiting nominations to submissions from the UniFC. Joe asked that the Council inform faculty members that they can participate through submissions to their UniFC representatives; Chris proposed that we encourage participation, rather than just allowing it. Bob Krawczyk (Arch) asked how to handle a situation in which an Academic Unit meets to decide on some names, and then two days later someone in the unit wants to be nominated.
Phil noted that the Council has not defined the internal process that each Academic Unit should adopt. Geoff said the Council, at its late October meeting, should include in its deliberations a discussion of the issues facing the Provost and the Armour Dean. Andy said the Council's tradition is for the individual unit to decide how to assemble its list of names. Phil asked whether there should be a limitation on the number of names we submit to the President for these committees. Several Council members said no: no limits shoul be set, apart from ensuring that the nominees be willing to serve. Jack noted that Armour representatives will need to perform double duty, since their participation in the selection of their own Dean will be particularly critical. Vijay asked whether nominations might be submitted by email. Phil said that would be unnecessary, since each Council member can bring in his or her own list of names. Council members who cannot attend the late October meeting can send their lists to Phil or Andy. Mary Anne noted that non-Engineering faculty can serve on the Armour Dean Search Committee. Art Lubin (AMat) asked whether Academic Unit heads can be among the names submitted from the Council. Phil said yes. President John Anderson noted that it would be useful to know why people are being nominated to these committees; Phil affirmed that that information would be included in the final list submitted by the Council to him.
The Council then discussed when to hold a special meeting to select nominees for these selection committees. It has to be by 26 October to meet the President's deadlines. After some discussion, the Council agreed on 12:45-1:45pm on Wednesday 24 October 2007 at a location to be determined. Zia noted that he has a conflict on that date, but can pass names on to the Council. Howard Chapman (Kent) asked whether names can be sent to the UniFC secretary as they are established; Phil said yes, but there must be a hard cutoff on submissions. Geoff recommended setting a deadline but allowing late submissions. Andy proposed 5pm on 22 October, so that the full list can be assembled at 5:01pm. President Anderson noted that the UniFC will need to pick student representatives as well: the Student Government Association will supply its list of names to Andy by 22 October. Phil noted that Howard, Zia, and Vijay should seek Law, Business, and ID nominations by 22 October.
A progress report is being distributedi; the co-chairs of the search committee, Kathy Riley (Hum) and Hal Krent (Kent), are out of town. Kathy prepared this summary; Any questions can be directed via Phil Troyk to her.
Phil noted that Banner Academic will come online around April or May, so Susan Wallace will be happy to send someone later in the AY to talk about that. Chris White asked Kathy Scharko for her view on the transition from FTS to Banner Finance. Kathy replied that the University is now in the stabilizing phase. It is developing new ways to teach people how it works. Chris asked whether the transition has been easier than you expected, harder, or about what you expected. Kathy said it has been about average; IIT is doing a more rapid implementation than to some institutions. Chris asked she feels that the process is converging; Kathy said yes. Phil asked Kathy whether she has anything she wants to tell us. She said the Human Resources part of Banner is being set up now. A difficulty has arisen in getting information back from Academic Units and other departments. Chris noted that the Council is concerned about the transition into Banner Academic: academic advisors don't want to be left high and dry. Phil said Susan will send someone to discuss that. Joseph Orgel said that OTS plays an important role, so OTS should send someone as well to that UniFC meeting.
Diep Nguyen (BCPS) noted that many Academic Units have to hire part-time faculty. Those people need IIT email addresses in order to get access to Blackboard. Human Resources have said that Payroll has to pay those people in order for them to authorized to get email addresses; Payroll, in turn, says they cannot pay those part-time faculty members until they appear in the Banner systems. Diep asked how we can resolve this Kathy said that they are designing ways to resolve that. Phil asked Kathy to let us know how that will work once it is resolved. Kathy said there will be a set of answers in December and another set in May. Jack noted that if OTS is allowed to issue short-term email addresses, the immediate issue for part-time faculty can be resolved.
Chris asked Kathy whether her opinion was that when the system transition is complete, Banner will be a significantly better system than what it is replacing. Kathy said yes, but we need to ask what constitutes "complete". There is a lot of building still to do.
Joe noted that a fringe benefit of being on the faculty used to be inexpensive parking: in the last few years the cost of parking has gone up rapidly. He proposed three possible solutions. Joyce Hopkins (Psyc) noted that her academic unit has discussed this, and they are outraged. John Collins has said that our parking rates are comparable to those at other universities in the area. Some Faculty Council members noted that several of the parking lots are not being kept up properly. If several faculty members were to write to John Collins, perhaps that issue would be addressed more agressively. Mary Anne Smith noted that IIT's monthly parking fee is still lower than that of many other schools in Chicago. Joe argued that this used to be a fringe benefit, and now it's absent. William Newman noted that he is making less money now than when joined the faculty. Jack Snapper said the same, and that he was particularly unhappy about being told that couldnot park on campus on the day of the presidential inauguration. Joyce noted that faculty and staff used to be able to to park on State Street between 31st and 30th; that's no longer possible because of the parkway that has been built. Several faculty members asserted that we are putting up with low wages and allowing this fringe benefit to disappear. Phil asked whether this should be an action item for the UniFC at this stage, or whether we should bring it back to our academic units. Andy moved approval of option 3 on Joe's document, viz. that the Council supports limiting annual parking-fee increases to the smaller of the cost of living percentage increase, or the average IIT faculty salary percent increase. Joyce Hopkins seconded the motion. Joyce noted that we need to send our stand on this subject these to Vice President Collins with copy to the President. Phil noted that the Provost is the Chief Academic Officer, so he is the logical recipient of this proposal. Mary Anne suggested that we treat this as a petition, rather than a Faculty Handbook change. Howard Chapman recommended that the proposal be drafted more carefully. Joyce noted that the current system is discriminatory because handicapped people have to pay for parking. Mary Anne noted that there are actually fewer parking spaces on campus than there used to be: this is, in effect, a way of discouraging parking. Phil recommended suggest withdrawl of the motion, and Jack recommended postponement. Joyce said she would be satisfied with drafting a petition, and Jack proposed that we draft it at the Nov meeting Patty Bach (Psyc) suggested forming a committee to draft the petition; Phil suggested the committee include in its charge a plan for how and where to submit the petition. Jack suggested that Joe should form the committee; Joyce and William Newman agreed to serve on it.
Andy noted that the Council is involved in University finances in two ways: through the annual financial report, which Howard Chapman has assembled each of the last several years; and through representation in groups that are involved in drafting budgets and other financial planning activities. Phil suggested that Council members come to the 24 October meeting prepared to offer up names of participants in the financial planning process, so we can begin conversations with the President, the Provost, and the CFO about how to proceed.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:58pm.