n.b.: All faculty members listed here are category I except those marked with an asterisk, who are category II.
Present at Main Campus Meeting:
IBIS: Elizabeth Durango-Cohen, Dan Ferguson*
Kent School of Law: Lew Collens
Institute of Design: Vijay Kumar
Manufacturing Technology and Management: Keith McKee
Present at the Downtown Campus meeting:
Kent School of Law: Susan Adams, Bernadette Atuahene, Katharine Baker, Ralph Brill, Gerald Brown*, Howard Chapman, Sungjoon Cho, Dan Hamilton, Sarah Harding, Steven Harris, Harold Krent, Gary Laser, Nancy Marder, David Rudstein, Michael Scodro, Jeffrey Sherman, Ronald Staudt, Joan Steinman, Keith Ann Stiverson*, Kent Streseman*, Mary Rose Strubbe*, Dan Tarlock, Richard Warner, Richard Wright.
Public Admininstration: Richard Bonaccorsi*.
IBIS / Stuart: John Bilson
Stuart Graduate School of Business: Mike Gorham*.
Convening and Agenda: The meeting was called to order at 12:17 pm on Wednesday 23 April 2008 in the McCormick/Tribune Campus Center and, via television feed, from a room of the downtown campus. This meeting was called by President Anderson as a regularly scheduled activity. All Faculty-Council-based agenda items were posted on the University Faculty Council website beginning no later than 9 April 2008.
Susan Wallace (Chief Financial Officer) explained the transition to Banner, both for finance and academic applications. The implementation of Banner Acacemic will be delayed two months; many changes are underway. Joseph Orgel (BCPS) asked what the plans were to involve the faculty and key administrators in resolving these issues. Susan said she will meet with Bruce Fisher to find out what the issues are and then distinguish among training issues, system problems, and other difficulties. A downtown-campus faculty member asked how much Banner is expected to cost. Susan said the original estimate was $6.6 million, and she expects the final cost to be close to that number. A downtown-campus faculty member then asked how much the University expects to save in reduced staffing as a result of implementing Banner. Susan said that the goal was to expand the capacity of existing staff, not to reduce the number of staff. She hopes that it will not be necessary to add to the staff. In payroll there has been a reduction because of online timesheet submissions.
President Anderson noted that every major research university has had to go to more complex reporting systems in order to satisfy requirements of the Federal granting agencies and the Department of Education. At many universities the cost of compliance has climbed above $50 million.
John Anderson noted that the cost of full-time faculty salaries and benefits amounts to 29% of the university's operating expenditures; another 32% is being spent on full-time and other staff, including part-time faculty. 4% goes to designated spending; facilities and departmental service costs 13%; and non-personnel costs cost 22%. He is directing new approaches to analyzing budgetary issues. He said his 2008/09 operating-budget goals are to provide a 3% raise pool, reduce the operating deficit by $3 million; decrease the excess endowment draw; increase net tuition; and fund capital projects at a lower level than in hearlier years.
The revenue targets include an 8% increase in net tuition revenue; a 9% increase in indirect costs ($3.9M->$4.3M); $6 million in unrestricted philanthropy; and a flat or reduced draw on endowment. He expects an $8 million increase in tuition revenue and $2.4 million in increases in all other streams. He is acknowledging a $3.1 million reduction in anticipated unrestricted gifts, and a $0.7 million reduction in salaries from expired gifts; the net new revenue is expected to be $6.6 million. Meanwhile, he expects expenses to increase by $7.2 million; most of this is associated with salary increases and personnel additions, mostly on the academic side. 10% of the increase is budgeted for utility costs, and 7% for the Office of Technology Services. President Anderson noted that he doesn't believe in the concept of hiring into "slots".
The planned draw from the endowment is 10.3% for FY09: his goal is to drop that to 5 or 5.5% in a few years. He intends to implement Respnsibility Center Management over the next few years; under this arrangement, Deans & Vice Presidents will be responsible for both revenues and expenditures within their area of authority. Targets are being set for revenues and expdenditures, and central administrative and support costs are being allocated to academic units on a rational basis. He intends to implement incentives for positive entrepreneurial behavior; and Deans, Vice Presidents, and chairs need to become involved. Dan Kaplan (BCPS) asked where, within the President's pie-chart of expendutures, the part-time faculty fit. The answer was that they are included in the "staff & other" slot.
President Anderson discussed admissions and retention. The goal for 2008-2009 is 535 deposits for undergraduates and raising retention toward a goal of 90%. The expectations for graduate and professional enrollment is 129 domestic students and 905 international students who have filed I-20 forms.
Joseph Orgel asked whether or not the 9% increase in indirect cost revenues is based on new grants and contracts. The President replied that that 9% increase is a target, not a projection. Joe Locicero (ECE) asked two questions about finance. First, he asked whether any thought of a capital campaign is now on the back burner. The President replied that, to the contrary, a campaign is planned, but its public phase will begin after the recession ends. Betsy Hughes noted that the quiet phase is beginning now, and the public component might begin in two years. Joe then asked whether the raise pool might be merit-based rather than purely for inflation. The President said that it is merit-based. The current plan is the best we can do.
Phil Troyk (BME) noted that the Faculty Council needs to bring three issues before the full faculty: the Aerospace Engineering BS degree; voting rights for Category II faculty; and a proposed change to Appendix P of the Faculty Handbook.
Aerospace BS Program:
Representatives from the MMAE Department
presented the Aerospace BS Degree to the faculty:
Margaret Huycki offered a friendly amendment:
she proposed to leave the IPro portion of the degree program
as it is,
and replace the design-IPro combination with a general elective.
She moved this amendment, and it was seconded.
Joe Locicero began the discussion with a question:
he asked whether the department's curriculum committee
had considered setting up their program as described in the amendment.
David Williams (MMAE) responded that the committee had considered that
possibility.
He noted that there have not been any aerospace-related IPros up to now.
The unamended proposal forces the Aerospace faculty to participate,
and brings rigor to the process.
Mike Gosz (MMAE) asserted that he doesn't understand how the faculty could be entertaining this amendment, in that it involves a fundamental change in a curriculum without an opportunity for the hosting department to consider how to make it work. Phil agreed, but said the amendment is in fact in order. Michael Young asked how the original proposal would work: would the Ipro administrators and the department both have to be satisfied that the combined course works? Dave Williams responded that wouldn't be easy, but would nonetheless be worth it. The first aerospace design course is theoretical; the 2nd one—the one we are discussing—is more hands-on. There is an opportunity for interdisciplinary work here. Andy Howard (BCPS) asked whether the department would be prepared to abide by the amended proposal if it were to pass. David responded that the department would not be happy, but could live with the amended proposal.
John Kallend (MMAE) noted that he doesn't understand the need for the amendment at all: his department is preared to abide by the requirements imposed by the IPro committee. Joyce Hopkins (Psyc) asked for a clarification—that the MMAE faculty would prefer the unamended model but could live with the amended version. David Williams confirmed that. Joe LoCicero spoke in opposition to the amendment, in that it discriminates against two other departments that already have this kind of system. Ken Schug (BCPS) articulated two concerns: first, that the unamended proposal causes a departmental activity to preempt a General Education requirement, and second, the statement of non-Aerospace students being admitted only with an instructor's permission is inconsistent with IPro rules. After this extended discussion, the faculty voted on the proposal: in the end the voice vote was against the amendment, and in favor of the MMAE Department's original proposal.
Extension of voting rights to category II faculty: Phil put forth a proposal to extend voting rights to Category II faculty for academic year 08-09. He proposed approving the extension by general consent. However, some faculty asked for a category I vote by hands, and Joe LoCicero asked for a discussion of the question. Andy Howard said the Category II faculty deserve to be able to vote. David Williams said they need to attend the meetings. At that point a hand vote was held, and the motion to extend voting rights to Category II faculty carried.
Appendix P modification: Phil asked for approval of the proposed amendment to Appendix P of the Faculty Handbook. He noted that the last sentence of section D6 would need to deleted because it is inconsistent with other parts of the Appendix. Michael Davis (Hum) began the discussion by asking how one is to distinguish between a significant and a non-significant change: this would have an influence on how these issues would come up for faculty consideration to begin with. Phil responded that the UniFC decides collectively whether or not any given proposal involves a significant change. Joe LoCicero argued against the proposed handbook change in that it did not come through the Undergraduate Studies Committee. Accordingly, he moved that the proposal be referred to the UGSC for consideration. Geoff WIlliamson seconded the motion. On a voice vote the motion appeared to be defeated, but a faculty member called for a division of the house. On a counted vote, the motion to refer the proposal to the UGSC carried 51-48.
Phil noted that he was really pleased with the degree to which the faculty governance has improved over the years. The President thanked Phil and Andy Howard for several years of dedicated service.
President Anderson noted that the University's current
Strategy Vision statement reads as follows:
IIT will be internationally recognized in distinctive areas of education
and research, using as its platform the global city of Chicago,
driven by a focus on professional and technology oriented education,
and based on a culture of innovation that embraces bold and transformational
ideas.
The University will make the decisions and investments necessary to achieve this vision by following these core operating principles:
Michael Davis noted that the vision statement has nothing in it about ethics, and asked whether the word "ethical" be inserted in front of "culture". The President said that was a good point, but suggested that the ethics statement should be in the core principles rather than the Vision Statement. Jeff Terry (BCPS) said that research isn't listed among the core operating principles. The President said that it is in the vision statement, and that the steering committee had thought about putting it into the core operating principles. Krishna Pagilla (CAE) asked what metrics would be used for improving the University. Greg replied that benchmarking and metrics would be included in the plans. The President noted that the task forces will include members besides those in the steering committee.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:59 pm.