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: Adam Bain.
Faculty and Staff Visitors: Mary Anne Smith, Carlo Segre, Joel Goldhar, Joseph Orgel
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 12:39pm on Friday 2 November 2007 in the ballroom of the McCormick / Tribune campus center after lunch.
Banner Academic:
Phil Troyk has discussed with Susan Wallace the mechanism by which
Banner Academic will operate. Ophir Trigalo will not be the lead implementor
of that system: instead, Rebecca Nicholes (IIT Registrar) will be.
Rebecca and Susan have already discussed faculty participation and debugging
the system before it hits the streets.
The most optimistic plan under consideration would have the program
implemented at the end of spring semester, i.e. after student advising
for summer and fall 2008.
The committee we are proposing to create can talk with Rebecca to get
this going.
Chris White asked what the plan and the timescale for implementation really are. There remains considerable confusion about this. It's important for the UniFC to stay involved, both for communication and because we can offer some help to the process. The Council's interest in the subject is not intended to be confrontational; UniFC should want to work with the implementation team to make this a success. Jack Snapper suggested that our committee should include Prof. Matt Bauer from Computer Science, if he is not already involved in the implementation team, since he has such a major role in the current registration system. Chris suggested that the SGA should work on this too. Adam Bain asked whether Banner Academic would replace Web for Students. Andy Howard replied in the affirmative.
Carlo Segre noted that, in addition to Banner Academic, which provides functions for registration, IIT has purchased DegreeWorks, a software package for degree audits and advising. Rebecca's team is codifying that now.
Phil noted that there will need to be a plan for training. Chris agreed and asserted that we need appropriate training, and we need to work toward effective communication in terms of acting as representatives. So he encouraged UniFC members to make sure that they communicate back with their constituents about this. Joel Goldhar noted that Marty Barrett in SGSB is an expert in financial and accounting systems of this kind. Joseph Orgel mentioned that he is a member of a committee involved in post-implementation issues associated with Banner Finance. That committee has had an opportunity to respond to recent changes in the Banner Finance system.
Phil asked how we should proceed. Jack Snapper suggested that we assemble a committee and ask it to report back several times as we near the implementation date. Further discussion ensued. Phil noted that many people might be interested in this issue, and asked members to seek input from their academic units. Chris White agreed to compile that input. Joseph suggested that if we get a lot of volunteers, we should take advantage of that spirit. Phil argued that the subcommittee should begin by finding out what the initial plan was. So the direction to the UniFC membership will be to return to your units, find out who is interested, and suggest names to Chris. Jack suggested that the Graduate Studies committee should be involved in addition to Undergraduate Studies. Adam said he would be able to offer two or three names of SGA members to participate in this effort. The beta testing of the new system could involve the Academic Affairs committee of the SGA.
Geoff Williamson expressed some confusion about the process. Faculty advisory roles are important in beta-testing the new system. With Banner Finance, the presentation that the faculty received was not consistent with the actual experience of the implementation. Beta testing -- advisory roles are clearly needed. The faculty are an interested user group, not the supervisors of the implementors. The important issues involve questions like the existence and nature of a backup plan. We should, in fact, encourage as much participation as possible in beta testing but there needs to be a clear report back so we can see how the Banner Academic implementation will differ from the Banner Finance implementation.
Phil argued that our first task should be to determine how this committee can best communicate back to the UniFC and the faculty. He and Geoff argued that clear charge to the committee as to its scope of work will be important. Catherine Wetzel noted that training for faculty is not all equal. Not all faculty need the same kind of training. She argued that cookie cutter training won't be tolerated. Geoff commented that there will be users who have problems, but we need to deal with the big issues first. Chris pointed out that students will receive no training, so their interface to the system must be straightforward and intuitive.
Budgeting process:
Phil said Susan Wallace has affirmed that this is a good time
to revive the notion of faculty participation in budget planning,
and that she is anxious for it to happen.
President Anderson is heavily involved in budget decisions.
The participation and influence of faculty and others in the process are
important and welcome, but not decisive.
The decisions will be made by the President.
The Council's pre-appointed committee members will get in touch with
Susan and begin the process.
(Secretary's note: the current members of this committee are
iJoel Goldhar, John O'Leary, Phil Troyk, John Twombly, and Michael Young.)
Andy argued that we should spend a few minutes discussing the charge to the budget-planning committee. Geoff observed that Pres. Anderson has talked about transparency. Our interest in this budgeting processing grew out of a lack of transparency in the past. This committee should go in without an illusion that they will make the budgetary decisions, but it should be able to push for transparency about how priorites will be set. Howard Chapman noted that his committee found it very difficult to get a handle on decision making. Some decisions are made by a Dean, and others at the Vice President or Provost level. It is often hard to figure that out who is deciding things at those upper levels. Patty Bach suggested that before we can contribute to the decision-making process, we need to understand the current process more thoroughly.
Geoff offered an example regarding his concern over prioritization, namely, the construction of the McCormick-Tribune Campus Center. There was initially a controversy about whether to renovate the existing student center or to build a new facility. The University made a prioritization in that case. Geoff asked what the logic was that led to the order of events. He noted that many of our administrators are themselves faculty, so the faculty is part of the process already. In situations like the MTCC construction, what the Council will seek is transparency and honesty.
Phil suggested that we have two goals: (1) developing a mechanism for gathering information, and (2) understanding the rationales for decisions. Joel noted that we began this discussion last June. We are currently in a transition, as we often have been; we should be concerned about the endpoint of that transition. He asked whether IIT is moving toward a professionalized model, in which each academic unit is expected to pay for itself, or one in which the rich units will help to pay for the poorer ones. The question of how centralized the University is is significant. He encouraged creation of a task-force to examine whether the centralized, micromanaged approach that has been in operation recently is really working. He asked what kind of structure would actually support, motivate, encourage, and reward faculty and managers to innovate.
Phil asked whether such a commiteee would provide a statement as to where we want the institution to go and the structure that would encourage that. Thus the Council's recommendations could be based on long-term concerns, rather than just a short term interest or a purely reactive approach. Phil asked whether Joel would be willing to assemble a group to deal with this. It is conceivable that such a group would eventually converge with the budget-planning committee. Joel agreed to look into this. Joyce Hopkins affirmed that ultimately the short-term and long-term concerns should fit together.
Financial Report: Howard Chapman distributed a preliminary financial report. The administration has not seen the version he distributed, so he asked that we keep it mostly confidential. Phil suggested that we take it away and look it over, but not make it a subject of hallway chatter. Howard spent several minutes articulating the content of the report. Among other things, ne noted that the operating deficit actually went up ($9.3M in FY07, up from $8.4M in FY06). He discussed admissions issues and test scores, and noted that the operating loss is actually considerably smaller than the endowment draw. Andy noted that the discount total was absent, and asked how soon that could be included. Howard said that would be available soon.
Howard noted that admissions inquiries were down significantly for AY07 compared to the previous year. The argument advanced by the Administration is that admissions materials are better targeted now, so more of the inquiries are likely to be translated into enrollment. Apparently this approach worked: we have better enrollment even though the number of admissions is down.
Phil asked for an executive summary of the contents. He asked how soon the Alion source will be exhausted; Howard said he didn't know. Phil noted that refinancing the university's debt has helped the overal financial picture, and asked whether that refinancing appears in this report. Howard said that that element is shown on the top of page 3. Mary Anne Smith noted that refinancing did open up an opportunity for investing in capital projects. That will dry up by the end of this academic year.
Geoff asked whether we could get comparative numbers from other Universities for enrollments, endowment size, and grants. He acknowledged that that would be a lot of work, but it would help us put our own numbers in context. Howard noted that the endowment has not performed all that well, so the recent change in investment strategy could result in some improvements. He affirmed that the kinds of comparisions Geoff is seeking would be time- and effort-consuming. Mary Anne noted that benchmarks for endowments are available from Susan's office.
Phil reaffirmed that Council members should take the report away, look it over, and continue to ask questions. The current version is almost a comprehensive report on the state of the University, and is an amazing amount of work. The Council enthusiastically concurred with Phil's expression of appreciation to Howard.
UniFC governance and officer terms (Jack Snapper):
Jack distributed a handout with a set of
recommendations regarding
UniFC procedures, as set out in Appendix B of the Faculty Handbook.
The proposed change in section IV.D. would make explicit the notion
that the process by which an Academic Unit would choose its representatives
would be determined by the voting members of the AU, not by the chair.
The committee is also recommending that the
Downtown and Main Campus Commitees be abolished,
because they're no longer functional.
In sections IV.L. and VI.B. there is a typo in the handbook itself
that should be corrected, and these include changes in the election procedure
itself.
Jack has himself (not the committee) added in the suggestion that the
Faculty Senate could hold its own election if it were to meet;
this election would be separate from the deliberations of the UniFC.
The discussion of Faculty Council officers is tricky to word and includes a
provision for dealing with the possibility
that the chair might not be a member.
Phil noted that the process described in these recommendations implicitly means that no UniFC chair can stand for re-election; this is because the semi-automatic promotion of the Vice-Chair to the chairmanship prevents a chair succeeding him or herself. He also noted that the recommendations from the committee constitute a conceptual approach, and that the final wording of these new provisions will need to be cleaner. Jack agreed with that. Phil asked Geoff Williamson whether he would be willing to work with Mary Anne Smith in rewording these new provisions, since Geoff's experience with the last Handbook revision would help him do it effectively. Geoff agreed to do so.
Phil then began the discussion of the recommendations. The proposal for a two-year term for the Council chair helps to provide for real experience in the job. Andy suggested that the chair-elect's transition to chair should not have to be reaffirmed by the Council; it should instead be automatic. He noted that most groups that provide for automatic transition from chair-elect to chair operate this way. There was general agreement to this alteration in the plan. Mary Anne noted that it would be messy to have a non-member serving as chair or chair-elect. Allowing for an ex-officio title would resolve that problem. Phil noted that under that arrangement, the size of the Council itself would slightly variable. Joyce suggested that to resolve the question of a chair not being allowed to succeed him or herself, we could simply provide that the chair-elect would not be chosen under those circumstances.
After additional discussion Andy moved and Patty seconded the motion that the ideas found in this document be accepted in concept and ask Geoff and Mary Anne to draft them into a form suitable for an actual handbook change. This motion was approved by acclamation. Jack, Phil, and Geoff noted that the proposal would then come back to the Council for further consideration.
CoPT procedural guidelines:
Chris White reported back from the committee on CoPT procedural guidelines,
which consists of himself, Howard Chapman, Peter Beltemacchi, and
David Williams.
He noted that this group is small enough to get the job done.
There is plenty of opportunity for interaction as they move forward.
Chris hopes for an item for discussion at the January meeting.
(Secretary's note: there will not be a January meeting,
but the opportunity could appear at the 2 February meeting).
Parking: Joe Locicero reported that his committee has met electronically, but it is not yet ready for a report back to the Council. Joyce asked whether it makes any sense to put the parking proposal, in some form, into the faculty handbook. Phil argued that the Handbook was the wrong place for this type of proposal, and Mary Anne agreed.
Academic Freedom Committee: Phil will soon convene the Academic Freedom Committee to consider the Ethics Code proposed by Vivial Weil's group. (Secretary's note: This committee consists of Patty Bach, Howard Eglit, Phil Troyk and Jialing Xiang.) Geoff Williamson and Joel Goldhar may get involved in this as well.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2:10pm.