SIU Faculty Senate discusses stopgap budget issues
At a recent meeting, the Southern Illinois University Faculty Senate discussed how the university should manage stopgap budget funds to last through the end of the year.
Below are the minutes from this meeting, as provided by the Senate.
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES OF THE 2016-2017 FACULTY SENATE
July 12, 2016
Members present: Deborah Burris, Joe Cheatwood, Sandra Collins, Elizabeth Cox, Jon Davey, Judy Davie,
Sandra Ettema, Ahmad Fakhoury, Sandy Fark, David Gilbert, Michael Hoane, Bobbi Knapp, James Mathias,
Grant Miller, Howard Motyl, Ryan Netzley, John Reeve, Benjamin Rodriguez, Melissa Viernow, James Wall,
Cherie Watson, Peggy Wilken, Wendi Zea, Kay Zivkovich
Members absent with Proxy: Kyle Plunkett (Eric Chitambar proxy), Saikat Talapatra (Aldo Migone proxy)
Members absent without Proxy: Shaikh Ahmed, Jason Bond, Terry Clark, Shawn Cheng, Kathleen
Chwalisz, Tobin Grant, Michael Koehler, Ruth Anne Rehfeldt, Robert Spahr, Shelley Tischkau, Gray Whaley
Ex-Officios and guests: Brad Colwell (Interim Chancellor, ex-officio); Provost Susan Ford (Interim Provost
and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, ex-officio); Andrea Imre (Associate Professor, Library Affairs),
Meera Komarraju (COLA Dean, IBHE FAC representative)
The minutes from May 10, 2016 meeting were presented for approval. All minutes unanimously approved
by voice vote.
1. Judy Davie commented about Governor Rauner’s controversial appointment to the IBHE
that was discussed at the April and May meetings; it has become clear that the legislature
will not vote on this appointment before September; it has been strongly suggested that
universities not make statements of opposition at this time; a number of universities moved
forward with producing letters of opposition to the Illinois Senate Executive Appointment
Committee; the Executive Council has decided that discussion of a resolution of opposition
remains tabled at this time and will be discussed in the fall, closer to when this matter will
be discussed by legislatures.
2a. Interim Chancellor Colwell started by saying that Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting is this
Thursday, July 14 and the agenda is on the BOT website; the most recent stopgap money
received from the State will all be applied to FY16; legislatures stated that it was for FY17;
$5.3 million was also received which covered MAP grants for spring 2016; currently there
are enough funds to make it through November/December; nothing is expected to happen
in Springfield between now and November; it is being speculated that it will be January
before anything is done because that is when the clock resets and it only takes a simple
majority vote for approval; $21 million in permanent cuts have been made; Summer
enrollment was down; 10 day count was 6,381; 5% down from Summer 2015; there has
been an increase in online/off-campus students; on-campus numbers are down in double
digits; diversity and inclusivity discussions are still moving forward over the summer; Dr.
Stan Shingles, a speaker/consultant from Central Michigan University, is coming to SIUC to
meet with associate deans, deans, vice chancellors, and chancellor for a full day of diversity
training; the organization of the Diversity Council is moving forward; the position of
Associate Chancellor for Institutional Diversity is not being filled at this time; an in-house
person will be named to fill the position as interim; resources will have to be found to do a
national search to permanently fill the position; a presentation about the 2017 Eclipse will
be given at the BOT meeting this week; there have been a lot of comments from various
community members regarding concerns about student move-in day and the start of the
Fall 2017 semester coinciding with the 2017 Eclipse; move-in day for students will be
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; no parent, family, new student convocation for Fall
Page 2 of 6
2017; parents will receive a lot of communication about what to expect and the move-in
schedule for those days; all other universities in the line of the eclipse are staying open;
SIUC wants to be in line with best practice; there will be a closure of classes on Monday, the
day of the eclipse; work is being done on getting the final permit to partially drain and
dredge the Campus Lake; anticipated cost will be $300,000-$350,000.
2b. Provost Ford
Provost Ford stated that Summer enrollment is down overall; if the current summer model
is going to work and if summer school is going to work, we need to think about what
students want, what students will take, and what will keep students here for summer; the
big negative is that students don’t get financial aid over the summer; options are being
explored to help deal with the financial issues related to staying on campus to do summer
school; think creatively with the deans about what kinds of academic offerings that would
be appealing to students to make them stay here over the summer; as on-campus
enrollment drops, online enrollment is going up; it is getting close to where there will be
more online summer students than on-campus summer students; while incoming freshman
and sophomore fall enrollment is down, the junior and senior enrollment is up; this shows
that retention efforts are working; Dean of the Library search should start soon with hopes
that it will be completed in the upcoming year; Dr. Dafna Lemish, Dean of the College of
Mass Communication and Media Arts, has announced that she will be leaving in October; an
interim dean will be elected when the faculty return in the fall.
E. Cox asked if the ad has been placed for the Library Dean search. Provost Ford replied
that is has not been placed and added that work is being done on the final preparation of
the ad that incorporates as many as possible the recommendations that were given by the
previous search committee. Ford stated the operating paper of Library requires that the ad
be approved by the faculty in the Library; hopefully the ad will be to the Library faculty
within the next couple weeks for approval and get the ad out by the end of this month;
closure date for the ad will be the end of August early September; a search committee will
have to be formed when faculty are back on campus.
H. Motyl commented that in the Chancellor’s earlier comments, it was said that the
legislature said that the most recent stopgap funds are for FY17 and that we are using it for
FY16; in their minds, they could say that we have already received money for FY17 so we
are not going to give you everything for FY17 and we are still going to be short for FY16.
Chancellor Colwell responded yes, that is correct; over the two fiscal years, they have only
given us 40% of our budget. Provost Ford added that the message that we are sending is
thank you for giving us 82% of our FY16 budget, but you have not given us anything for
FY17; that is the message that all the universities are giving; the concern is that they will
come back and say yes we did with the second stopgap.
K. Zivkovich asked if there is a way to go on record with the legislature in more detail
about the funds that we have and have not gotten. Chancellor Colwell responded that that is
being done at the system level and that President Dunn is working on that.
C. Watson commented that she was pleased to know that SIU was recognized for being a
university for international students and asked if that will change anything regarding the
cancellation of the search for the Director of the Center for International Education. Provost
Ford responded by saying that that search was cancelled because of some issues with the
search as it was proceeding and it was determined that we had someone in place that could
serve as an interim for another year; it was determined that it would be good not to spend
money bringing people in for interviews at that point since there were already difficulties
with the search; the decision was made to close the search; reopen it this year with the idea
that permanent candidates would be brought in late the spring; the idea is that there would
be movement in Illinois and to be fiscally more responsible by finishing the external search
at that point in time.
Page 3 of 6
Chancellor Colwell added that because of the budget situation, search candidates, faculty,
and administration are being poached; we have to be very careful with our searches, if we
aren’t getting great pools of candidates, it may be best to stop the search and wait a year.
Provost Ford stated that she neglected to comment earlier that there are two new Deans
that started on July 1; Terry Clark in the College of Business and Matthew Keefer in the
College of Education and Human Services.
B. Rodriguez stated that he has a question that is probably for Dr. Garvey but wanted to
ask it just to get it on the record; an announcement came out Monday that there are going
to be Undergraduate Assistantships positions this year but application won’t be reviewed
until a couple weeks in to the fall semester; these were cancelled last year so where is the
money coming from for this year. Provost Ford replied that that is a question for Dr.
Garvey, but she did happen to have a conversation with him about this; there is less money
going in to the pool for undergraduate assistantships this year, but they are not cut
entirely; by thinking ahead, Dr. Garvey is reducing the number of positions from the start
hoping that the positions filled can go through the full year.
3. Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE
Meera Komarraju attended the meeting on June 21, 2016 at Illinois State University and
presented a summary of the attached report. (Attachment A)
R. Netzley reiterated part of the report that stated the IBHE is mainly an advocacy group
to legislators on behalf of universities and colleges and not to micromanage what happens
within universities and colleges and stated that in his reading of all the performance based
criteria that has come out of that place over the past seven years, they are full of [explicit].
Netzley asked if they even recognize the fundamental contradiction of the incompatibility of
those two jobs. Netzley added that it is his understanding after reading the IBHE statute,
they are not a regulatory arm at all, and has been treated as one; their recommendations
have the force of regulatory but they are basically a budgetary advocacy group; which are
they? Netzley adamantly stated that he finds it very offensive that the IBHE states that they
are not micromanaging when they tell us the how big a program has to be and the number
of graduates it has to have and added the fact that someone in that room actually said they
don’t micromanage is unbelievably shocking to him.
M. Komarraju suggested that we invite them to SIUC. Netzley agreed.
Provost Ford stated that it is her understanding that the performance metrics in terms of
size of programs and number of graduates is not out of IBHE alone, it is out of a committee
that includes IBHE as well as people from the legislature who outnumber the people from
IBHE. Netzley commented that those people are even less qualified to make those
decisions. Ford stated that she does not disagree with that, and just wanted to clarify that
that particular set of metrics is not solely the decision of IBHE.
4. Graduate Council
No report. Next Graduate Council meeting is September 1, 2016.
5. Academic program prioritization committee
J. Davie gave a status update about the committee; the joint task force completed a
preliminary prioritization metric in May and submitted it to the Provost; it was also
circulated to faculty; after receiving input, Mike Eichholz, Co-Chair of the committee, has
revised the metric fairly heavily; because of the heavy revisions that were in line with the
Provost’s, VCR’s, and faculty comments, Eichholz would like the task force to reconvene in
early August to discuss and approve before it moves forward and becomes the final version;
Page 4 of 6
once the final version is approved by the task force, it will be forwarded to the Provost and
the task will be complete.
E. Cox ask for background information about the task force since she is new to the Senate
and asked if the charge for this task force came from the Provost. Provost Ford responded
by saying that she had asked the Faculty Senate and Graduate Council to consider taking up
the task of developing criteria for program prioritization; the way it is done was completely
up to the two groups; they requested a specific charge in writing from President Dunn who
was then serving in the role as Chancellor; that charge was received in fall 2015 and the
task force was assembled according to the criteria set by the Graduate Council and Faculty
Senate. Cox stated that she had some concerns regarding the most recent revisions to the
metrics and added that the Senate may not have time to review those changes before they
are finalized and submitted back to the Provost.
J. Davie stated that this task force worked autonomously and the role of the Faculty Senate
and Graduate Council, as stated in the charge, was not to approve final versions.
R. Netzley asked why not test the final version. J. Davie responded by saying that that the
task force does not have access to the data needed to test the final version, neither does
the Provost and added the Executive Council was uncomfortable asking the Senate to
approve something that is untested.
H. Motyl commented that the task force was set up to do this work very quickly; we know
that NIU did this and took a long time to do it; is it not possible for us to take more time
and really do it right. Provost Ford responded by saying when NIU went through this
process and when she made the suggestion to start this process, it wasn’t in the climate of
a budget crisis. Ford added that administrator make decision all the time about how to
spend their money; Ford stated that she felt it was time for faculty to have a say in how
resources are distributed across campus; when these decisions are made they happen very
quickly; having a plan in place helps make those decisions; it is a concern that as long as
there is a budget crisis and the longer it takes to develop criteria to prioritize, more serious
financial decisions are going to have to be made without taking faculty driven prioritizations
H. Motyl stated that he is not suggesting that it take two years to complete this which is
the amount of time NIU had; perhaps a little more time to review the most recent revisions.
J. Davie stated that the task force did borrow heavily from NIU when developing the
metrics; this can definitely be discussed more when the recent revisions are available.
D. Burris stated that she wants to make a statement for the record as a curriculum person
and continued by saying that we are making decisions when we are not sure who we want
to be as we move forward, we are not sure what we are going to be, we are not sure how
much money we are going to have, and we know that our enrollment is way down for the
size of campus that we have. Burris added that we need to follow very carefully protocol in
good curriculum building in deciding what our curriculum is to meet who we want to be.
Burris continued by saying that she does not see how any committee who is doing any sort
of prioritization is going to help if we don’t know who want to be and what curriculum we
are going to use to be who we want to be; once those decisions are made, then we can
prioritize programs; build the weak programs that we want to keep and remove the
programs that do not fit in the future of what we want SIUC to be.
Provost Ford responded by saying that she understands the point; those conversations have
actually happened among the deans; in some sense, the vision of what SIUC is in the future
is not that different where we were with the strategic plan that was put together over a
multiyear period engaging well over 100 people on this campus; we are going to remain a
Carnegie High Research Institution; we are going to remain a doctoral granting institution;
Page 5 of 6
we may not have as many PhD programs, but we are going to have enough high quality
PhD programs that we retain our Carnegie High Research standing; we are going to remain
an institution that is going to offer a breadth of programs and not become a STEM
J. Davie stated that the task force was very conscious of not being narrow minded when
developing a metrics that might cut out something valuable to the vision of SIUC.
D. Burris asked if the task force was made aware of the discussion the deans had; if that
information was kept isolated from the task force then we’re not on the same level.
Provost Ford responded by saying that there was discussion two years ago in Graduate
Council and Faculty Senate about the mission staying the same.
D. Burris stated that she appreciates the areas the Provost commented on and added that
once you get below the doctoral programs, the undergraduate curriculum is huge; is that
what we want; there are some departments in colleges that shouldn’t even be in that
particular college; restructure; have those programs in colleges where the leadership is
focused on those areas and can help them grow.
6. Non-Academic Program Review Committee
A. Imre reported that the committee continues to meet and review non-academic areas with
the exception of Human Resources, it is no longer part of the review; HR is working
independently on ways to save money and has been given a charge by the Chancellor to do
so. A lot of areas being reviewed have presented options to work more efficiently but
require an upfront investment to do so.
G. Miller asked if there is any interaction between the Non-Academic committee and the
Academic Committee; for example, Touch of Nature is considered non-academic, but
Anthropology is interested in it because of Forensic Anthropology; the interaction of nonacademic
and academic areas is very important. Miller added that he is fearful that the big
picture about how non-academic and academic areas interact is getting lost. A. Imre
responded by saying that there are two subcommittees within the Non-Academic Committee
and that topic is being discussed by one of them.
K. Zivkovich suggested that now would be a really good time to start communicating what
has been done with non-academic versus academic units; let everyone know what these
non-academic units do in relation to the academic units; not everyone knows these things;
colleagues may see these committees as ways to determine what programs to cut; a larger
statement needs to be made to show a proactive sense of leadership and inform people;
there is too much negative information out there; we need to clarify the positive things
about what is happening on campus.
H. Motyl commented that the Executive Council had a very frank discussion with the
Provost and Chancellor at their last meeting; we need to hear visions and goals from our
leadership; we hear all the negative; we need to be informed of those things, but focus on
getting the positive information out there as well.
K. Zivkovich added that it is our responsibility to educate our elected officials as well as the
Board of Trustees about the positive things going on at SIU.
J. Wall stated that on a systematic level, it takes a year to change the title of a course;
we’re asked to be entrepreneurial and follow the business communities and what the job
seekers are looking for, but in order to develop the curriculum to do that, it’s going to take
a year to get it on the books. Wall added that he understands the contracts with the
student, the course catalog, etc. Can we not figure out some way of doing that better?
Page 6 of 6
Provost Ford responded by saying that change the title of a course and go through the
Form 90 process and have it there for the student to see within two months. Wall replied
that perhaps that has been miscommunicated to him.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE – Howard Motyl
H. Motyl reported that after the May meeting there was some confusion voiced about Activity Insight; in
response to that, Jim Garvey has been invited to join the September Senate meeting. Motyl also noted
that the Provost requested that the current Code of Ethics for Faculty be reviewed because it has not be
revised since the 1990’s; there may be some language that needs to be changed; this is not a demand;
nothing has been discussed as to how that might happen, but it is being looked at.
R. Netzley asked why we are potentially going through the process of revising a Faculty Code of Ethics
when the Board of Trustees has the final authority to approve it and has already shot down the code of
ethics that the Graduate Council worked on six or seven years ago. Provost Ford responded by saying that
we will have to talk about that.
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLCY COMMITTEE – Ryan Netzley, Chair
FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE – Ruth Anne Rehfeldt/Shaikh Ahmed, Co-Chairs
BUDGET COMMITTEE – Gray Whaley/Kathleen Chwalisz-Rigney, Co-Chairs
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES – Ahmad Fakhoury, Chair
A. Fakhoury presented the University Committee Appointments for approval (Attachment A). No
discussion. Appointments approved unanimously by voice vote.
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE – Deborah Burris, Chair
J. Davie announced that the Senate does not meet until September.
Ben Rodrigues, Secretary