Faculty Senate Minutes, May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Purdue Northwest Faculty Senate Minutes

May 3, 2019

10:00 A.M., Portage Meeting Facility Room 113


Voting members present:

M. Connolly, G. Domke, A. Sindone, H. Zhao, D. Kozel, S. Rezak, F. Colucci, C. Gillotti, L. Pelter, VQuinn, P. Stompor, C. Fewer, G. Schultz, R. Cherry, R. Vega, M. Curia, A. Mitra, S. Trekles, D. Detmer, A. Elmendorf, R. Kramer, R. Ocon, Y. Zheng, M. Zimmer, R. Calix, C. Chen, M. Mascha, K. Scipes, K. Kincaid, J. Davis, J. Dorman, C. Morrow, R. Calix, L. Taylor, X. Wang, G. Stefanek, Y. Zhang, R. Merkovsky

Senators absent:

C. DeLeon, S. Smith, A. Alavizadeh, W. He, D. Gray, J. Polman, J. Tazbir, W. Yu

Non-Voting members present:

T. Keon, R. Mueller, S. Lerner, J. Pula, L. Goodnight, J. Colwell, S. Turner,

Visitors present:

C. Murphy, D. Feikes, D. Underwood, D. Nalbone, G. Barrow, C. Ragan, P. McGrath, J. Duzinkiewiecz, C. Holford, R. Stankowski, R. Haite, D. Clark, J. Williams, N. Nemeth, J. Swarts


  1. Determination of Quorum
  2. Call to Order: 10:00am
  3. Approval of the Agenda
    1. Elmendorf moved to approve the agenda, Schultz seconded. The motion carried.
  4. Approval of Minutes of the April 12, 2019 meeting
    1. Elmendorf moved to approve the minutes, and Mitra seconded. The motion carried.
  5. Approval of Minutes of the April 19, 2019 special meeting
    1. Scipes noted a minor correction in the wording of the informal resolution as part of these minutes under item 3.p.iii. The minutes will be corrected as the following: “Nalbone proposed that given the fundamental flaws in the SRA process, “the reports from it should not be used as a source of data for decisions affecting academic programs, administrative support functions or strategic planning.
    2. Elmendorf moved to approve the minutes as amended, and Mitra seconded. The motion carried.
  6. Memorial Resolution for Patricia Hales(N. Nemeth)
    1. Nemeth presented a memorial for Patricia Hales, Continuing Lecturer of Communication for 18 years.
  7. Remarks by the Senate Chair (D. Detmer)
    1. IFC Resolution 15.6
    2. Detmer thanked all of the Senators for their hard work this semester. Also, Jerry Holt is out of the country, so Saul Lerner has agreed to come in as Parliamentarian for this final session of the semester. The Senate thanked him for his service.
    3. IFC Resolution 15.6 is available to read at your leisure, but further remarks will be sent out in a written memo.
    4. Vega presented a short report indicating that faculty will receive general information about the faculty feedback survey in a forthcoming letter. She thanked Paul Hecht, Interim Chair of English, for his discussion openly with his department on how he will address the concerns raised in the feedback for his leadership. Detmer noted that Kathy Tobin also discussed the strengths and weaknesses cited for her within her Department of History and Philosophy as well.
  8. Remarks by the Chancellor (T. Keon)
    1. Chancellor Keon apologized for his absence for the past several meetings, due to Board of Trustees meeting conflicts. He also thanked the Senate for their work. In particular, he noted that this year the Senior Leadership has had a lot of opportunity to hear faculty thoughts and get feedback on different subjects. The Chancellor appreciates, absorbs, and uses that feedback, and he encourages further feedback as we move forward.
    2. Chancellor deferred to Provost Mueller, who noted that a minor mistake was stated in the April 19 special Senate meeting. He noted that after conducting research, the fee for consultant Larry Goldstein was $44,000, not $10,000 as originally stated.
  9. New Business
    1. Curriculum Documents Approval
      1. Taylor moved to approve the curriculum documents, and Schultz seconded.
      2. Vega and Domke noted that there were issues with School of Education documents CHESS SOEC 18-83 and 18-81. The proposed changes indicate a replacement of three math courses (MA 13700, 13800, and 13900) with pre-calculus (MA 15300) and STAT 13000. This has been discussed previously between SOEC Director, Math chair, and Dean of CES, and the recommendation was that such a change was not appropriate. However, the curriculum document as proposed was never brought to their attention for review, and the department was not consulted. Domke noted that elementary education teachers do not need pre-calculus, so this change will not cover the Indiana Academic Standards for mathematics.
      3. Schultz responded that the issue was brought up within the unit and that careful consideration was made. But, there is also a question as to whether the curriculum process can stop necessary changes in programs for accreditation purposes. SOEC students score below state averages on mathematics for licensure tests, and the unit feels that elementary education majors do need pre-calculus as they are not ready for the college math exams, even though they are learning more about elementary math teaching in the classes slated to be removed. Schultz agreed that there has not been enough discussion and is open to more. He suggested a compromise that the math courses are left in the document as originally in the program, and approve the document with that amendment. The document must otherwise pass due to recent accreditation changes.
      4. Vega noted that she is the curriculum chair in SOEC, and she received notification on minor revision of these documents, but did not see the major change in the math courses that was made at the time. It was not sent out to the rest of the committee in the School due to this, and faculty were not aware that the Math department has not been consulted or that the math courses were slated to go away. There may also be unification and personality conflicts involved in this decision-making that needs to be looked at and moved past in order to have a serious conversation about math in the education programs.
      5. Merkovsky asked if geometry is required in licensing. If the 3 math courses are removed, students will not receive any geometry. Schultz responded that many of our students still do not show a mastery of math upon completing their program, and is concerned about low pass rates on licensure tests. He indicated that he is open to different courses or course curriculum to meet those needs.
      6. Domke noted that she is math faculty and a parent, and she believes that pre-calculus is likely not going to help teachers as much as geometry and algebra.
      7. Guest D. Underwood spoke on behalf of the MA 137, 138, 139 courses, and noted that we have students that are not as prepared in math as they once were upon entering these courses, much less the program. Our students have limited ability to multiply and divide without a calculator, which has happened because of state standards impacting the school curriculum. A pre-calculus course will not help our students overcome this. A large portion of the licensure test includes geometry, which is covered in the 137, 138, 139 courses. She fears that alignment with state accreditation changes is not there and that SOEC may lose accreditation if this program moves forward as proposed. Other universities are creating courses similar to the courses we have now to meet those accreditation changes.
      8. Taylor moved to accept the friendly amendment to keep the MA 137, 138, and 139 courses in the programs. Domke seconded. The motion carried.
      9. Other curriculum documents were moved by Taylor for approval, and Schultz seconded. The motion carried.
    2. Remarks by Invited Guest(Professor Dave Feikes, Chair of the Senate’s Westville Task Force)
      1. Feikes presented the report from the Westville ad hoc task force. Westville enrollment has declined, as it has in other colleges, but Westville’s was significantly higher than others in the area. The committee looked at data from Institutional Research, high school students and guidance counselors, and Westville students, and offered fourteen recommendations.
      2. Sindone noted that data collection is ongoing through summer and the committee plans to continue meeting in the fall.
      3. Schultz noted that enrollment declines may have started earlier than unification (2012). An increase in dual credit, along with the removal of associate degrees per the state of Indiana, had impacts on enrollment prior to unification. Feikes noted that the committee looked at core enrollment only as dual credit numbers did not reflect actual income or enrollment. Furthermore, certain populations have moved or left the university, such as student athletes, and the key is to look not so much at the problems and the data, but to look at solutions.
      4. Sindone agreed and indicated that the impact and the solutions are most important. How has dual credit from the high schools changed, and what is the relationship with those schools? What can we do to improve those relationships, as PNW does not work without Westville? We must look at increasing student life opportunities and other issues under consideration.
      5. Scipes indicated that students have lost a great deal of trust in the university due to changes in schedules and lack of availability of classes on their home campus, so guaranteeing that they can finish classes where they want to is essential to rebuilding that trust. Some faculty are also being forced to travel which reduces morale, and this issue should also be addressed.
      6. Gillotti indicated that we should think of it as an opportunity to teach elsewhere, rather than “being forced.” She also noted that she had a Hammond student who was taking a course in Westville, but because he had to take his sister to school and relied on bus service, he was not able to catch the bus on time for class. Therefore, the transportation issue needs to be addressed in a more serious way.
      7. Lerner indicated that he teaches a Saturday capstone course for the Liberal Studies program, which began on the Westville campus. All students graduating except one will be attending commencement in Westville and were enrolled there, but they are taking the class on the Hammond campus. We have now created this new program on the Hammond campus, and it has the potential now to grow.
      8. Chancellor thanked the committee for their work, and has been talking to faculty one-on-one to collect further information in multiple ways. Much of what is on the report includes feedback also shared by many others, and the Senior Leadership will look at each recommendation to address each one in turn and bring information back as soon as possible.
    3. Remarks by Invited Guests (Vice-Chancellor Steve Turner and Professor Chris Holford, representing the Chancellor’s Westville Task Force)
      1. VCFA Turner and Dean Holford provided an abbreviated presentation on the Westville campus similar to the open forums held for staff and students earlier in the semester. They noted that all items are available in the VCFA shared drive, including comments from all attendees of the forums.
      2. Hammond and Westville data were compared to show declines in associate degree programs based on state mandates, which happened at different times at PUC and PNC, but the trends were similar.
      3. Turner noted that we should not be comfortable with enrollment at either campus, as downward trends are happening in both places. The things that will be good for Westville students will be good for all PNW students.
      4. Lerner asked if associate degree programs phasing out made the enrollments in area community colleges go up. We do not know this data at this time, but it is speculated that Ivy Tech enrollment did go up during this time.
      5. Merkovsky asked about the specifics of the ICHE changes. This was the phasing out of associate degrees offered by the 4-year institutions, which included phasing out prison-based education programs offered at Westville. Keon also noted that this impacted admissions standards, and a number of students who were not prepared in English and Math would be able to enroll in Ivy Tech instead of at PNW for remediation. However, Turner noted that it is short-sighted to lay the declining of enrollment on any one variable – rather, we are in the position we are in based on a number of factors.
      6. Guest J. Swarts indicated that the overall number of programs offered has also increased due to unification, giving students more options while enrollment overall is still declining, so this impacts course cancelation issues. In other words, we now have a shrinking pie, with more pieces of that pie, to go around, which affects enrollment in individual courses. Lerner added that competition between departments intensifies under these conditions and diminishes enrollments in certain classes as well.
      7. Concurrent enrollment students have also declined a great deal between 2016 and today, and introductory credit hours are also reduced for incoming freshmen as they already have dual credit before coming in. A typical freshman has at least some dual credit; however, there was less exposure and involvement in dual credit in Hammond, so this has affected that campus less.
      8. Graduating high school classes in some areas are increasing while others are decreasing in our feeder schools, including Crown Point, Valparaiso, Chesterton. The biggest changes in enrollment are coming from Porter and LaPorte counties. There is clearly a pattern based on where the high schools are, as relationships with local high schools have been impacted and we have some work to do to improve.
      9. Guest C. Ragan asked if we know where these students are going if not coming to PNW. This is difficult to track. Mitra asked if those Porter and LaPorte county students were going to West Lafayette instead of PNW, but Turner indicated that this does not appear to be the case.
      10. Morrow asked if there are demographic changes worth looking at such as family income and population characteristics in the impacted counties. Turner noted that Porter County has increased in population but LaPorte has been static, while Lake County has lost population. Family income and college attainment is much higher in Porter than in the other two counties. The LaPorte and Michigan City area has also had a greater loss in income due to loss of major employers over the past 10 years, but the per capita income has remained similar to Porter.
      11. Recommendations from the committee include similar recommendations to the Senate ad hoc committee. Turner and Holford noted that Admissions is already looking forward as far as 2021 to make changes and recruit the next two years of students. We have to move the university forward and implement measures to reverse these trends now.
      12. Taylor asked about articulation agreements with Ivy Tech. Holford replied that we are looking at all articulation agreements with other community college systems in Academic Affairs. Chancellor Keon also noted that there is a full-time position employed to work on the Core Transfer Library to allow transfer students to move more quickly and easily between those colleges and PNW. The Chancellor implored the faculty to assist in making sure the articulation agreements for each program are revised as needed.
      13. Schultz inquired about internal policy changes, such as cancellation policies, since unification that may have affected one campus more than another. Turner noted that the answer should always be “it depends” when it comes to class cancelations and how it will impact students at different points in their programs. Provost Mueller responded that overall policies have not changed, but the way the Deans determine loads has changed and how they balance the expense of instruction versus enrollment. The issue of whether policies should be same across campuses is an important thing to examine, and there might indeed need to be different policies for each campus. Gillotti noted that this is an argument for faculty to teach on both campuses.
      14. Gillotti also also asked about the non-traditional population and whether there has been any marketing to bring those students back to Westville, as in the past, this campus has had a higher non-traditional enrollment. Chancellor Keon indicated that Senior Leaders are taking a serious look at this and recommended that the faculty consider completion degree programs (30 hours or less) that we can market to this group to lay out a part-time schedule that allows them to complete their degree programs. Many of these part-time students left us and went to Ivy Tech, but are not necessarily graduating as rates at Ivy Tech are 20% or less. There are multiple issues impacting enrollment, and each department should look seriously at class sizes and not just simply hire LTLs to work for lower rates. In many accredited programs, we are limited in the number of qualified LTLs available.
      15. Mascha also related to non-traditional students with regard to Purdue Global. Advertisements are targeted to part-time students to finish programs, which are online and attractive to them. With the push toward enrollment of traditional students, we have shut ourselves out of this market and need to figure out how to get back in.
      16. Lerner noted that history programs offered completion degrees for social studies teachers in Illinois; do we have the potential to bring in students that might otherwise go to Governor’s State? We can improve our social studies teaching degree by adding a transition to teach option. We currently do not have one, though the reason for this is not clear as there is a transition program for English.
    4. Remarks by Invited Guest (Professor Dave Nalbone, Indiana AAUP President)
      1. Nalbone presented a proposal for academic reorganization and resource allocation, based on his research on budget trends and direction of the university. The Senate Constitution authorizes the faculty to make proposals related to resource allocation and academic organization.
      2. The proposal focuses on administrative reorganization, and a summary of the proposal includes:
        1. Reducing Senior Leadership Team (SLT) to 3 members – Chancellor, VCAA, VCFA: this puts focus on academics rather than other areas (1 of 6 votes in SLT). This will also force more efficiency from administrative support functions, consolidated under one Vice Chancellor.
        2. Reclassifying other 3 VCs to Associate VCs under Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration: this recommendation is budgetarily driven based on average salary increases for new hires being higher in proportion to other salary increases. The cost curve has gone up steeply for administrators versus faculty.
        3. Reclassifying 4 current Associate VCs to Assistant VCs: these positions would become direct reports to relevant Associate VCs, a recommendation also related to steeper salary increases.
        4. Eliminating 4 positions that are either unfilled or unnecessary positions that can be filled by faculty at lower costs.
        5. Rectifying Athletic Director pay: the current salary given is almost $100,000 more than the average athletic director salary at other, similar colleges.
        6. Placing a moratorium on new administrative hires: we have lower enrollments and thus a need for fewer faculty and less administrative support. Nalbone recommended putting faculty in support positions to take advantage of institutional memories and decrease administration-faculty tension as more faculty are involved in administrative work. This does not apply to administrative positions that require extensive skills faculty cannot easily acquire.
        7. Placing a moratorium on administrative sabbaticals: there is no need to provide extra compensation for no work. Faculty sabbaticals require a proposal, work to be done, and a report, while administrative sabbaticals do not.
        8. Projected savings include about $890,000 annually for items 1-5, with items 6-7 highly variable depending on the nature and extent of the processes, searches not conducted, and salary savings. This would be an ongoing process to develop the proposal further.
        9. Elemendorf asked if we have looked at other universities with a model of this sort, whether they have seen savings. Nalbone noted the case of Hamilton College adopting a faculty fellow model for a large number of administrative positions, which showed that there were many barriers broken down between faculty and administration, but budgets have not been analyzed in the wake of the changes.
  10. New Business
    1. Senate Documents for Action
      1. FSD 18-20: Resolution Regarding the PNW Faculty Senate’s Role in the Suspension of Academic Programs(K. Scipes)
      2. Scipes presented the document for vote related to power of the faculty to make final decisions on curriculum. The Education Policy Committee evaluated the document having decided to require a substantial majority (6/9 votes), with each member evaluating the document individually in order to ascertain their own understanding of the constitution. Therefore, this was not a biased process, and there was a 9-0 vote in favor of the document stating that the Senate has the final say on curriculum, as per the Constitution.
      3. Mueller asked about a collaborative conversation and invitation to include legal counsel in order to understand what is legally given as rights and powers to the Senate and administration. Scipes noted that a legal representative was contacted at West Lafayette (Trent Klingerman), but the committee had not yet gotten back to the Provost with the results. Scipes reported that Klingerman indicated that any PNW recommendation or disagreements would be referred to West Lafayette, but he also indicated that PNW knows its business best. We should use a collaborative process to get to these agreements as much as possible. Mueller would like to have further discussions with Mr. Klingerman and the faculty together.
      4. Fewer echoed that Trent’s recommendation so far has been inconclusive, and that further discussion should be invited. Kozel agreed and suggested he be invited to Senate in the fall.
      5. Scipes moved to adopt the document, and Schultz seconded.
      6. In discussion, Scipes noted that this is an ongoing situation and there are still some issues not yet understood. However, the Senate won’t meet again until August, so passing the resolution now will establish the groundwork to move forward, and Klingerman can be invited at that time to contribute to the conversation.
      7. Kozel moved to table the document until further discussion can be had in August. Domke seconded.
      8. Morrow noted that legal counsel works for the university, but not necessarily for the interests of any specific entity. Therefore, legal counsel is not an unbiased agent in decisions and we should not assume that an unbiased opinion will be given. Kramer further noted that a decision will not necessarily come out of a discussion with counsel.
      9. Schultz asked about the nature of the question. Are we asking if there is a possibility that faculty do not have oversight over curriculum? The Constitution was passed by the Board of Trustees, and it is unclear as to why there is now a question about the powers of the faculty as per the Constitution. Kozel responded that we are not asking that fundamental question, but rather asking about the relationship between administrative decisions related to funding versus faculty decisions made over curriculum.
      10. Domke asked whether we need to make a resolution about something that is already in the constitution. Detmer indicated that there is a dispute over the discontinuance of programs, and that administration draws a distinction between suspension and discontinuance. However, the argument is that these are related issues, so the resolution indicates that the Senate should make decisions about both suspension and discontinuance to block unilateral decisions from being made by administration.
      11. Lerner provided background on the academic autonomy achieved in 1974 by PUC. The academic authority of the faculty was adopted at that time by the Board of Trustees, and in the course of the administrations under Chancellor Combs, Yackel, and Cohen, that view was sustained. Under Chancellor Keon, we are now at the moment of dealing with the SRA process and affecting changes based on the report, so there is now an issue brought to light that hasn’t previously been debated.
      12. Mitra responded to Domke’s comment of debating what the Constitution already says. Consultation has not always been done on suspension of programs in the past from the administration, and these decisions are not always performed based on budget concerns alone. He believes that Senate should at least have collaborative decision-making authority to avoid such situations.
      13. Quinn echoed the desire for a collaborative discussion, and has heard both administration and faculty note there is no value in unilateral decisions being made. Coming back in the fall to discuss will help the Senate come to a better and clearer understanding of the issues.
      14. Fewer indicated that the Board of Trustees ultimately has authority over suspension and closure decisions. Disputes will get resolved there for those issues that have not been tested before.
      15. Cherry argued against tabling the resolution and asked for a vote on the document as it stands, given that we have known about the SRA issues and have had concerns over faculty control over programs. This resolution helps us establish our voice, and this is what the document allows us to do. Mueller responded that we should all understand the meaning of terms being discussed as well. Legal counsel will help us interpret and come up with a full and shared understanding.
      16. Kozel noted that it makes little sense for administrators to simply close programs without figuring out how to possibly support them first. We must work on the assumption that Senior Leaders will not just close programs unilaterally between now and August, and will have discussions with departments to make intelligent and informed decisions together.
      17. Morrow indicated that there may be confusion about what is meant by collaboration. Are we working together on decisions as recommended in SRA, or are we having conversations about scope and authority of faculty over curriculum? These are different issues and we should ensure that we distinguish that.
      18. The vote on the tabling of FSD 18-20 until August was made, with 13 Yea and 18 Nay. The motion was defeated.
      19. The vote on accepting FSD 18-20 was made, with 20 Yea and 10 Nay. The motion carried.
    2. Senate Documents For Discussion
      1. FSD 18-21: Curriculog Training Resolution (L. Taylor)
        1. Taylor presented the procedure for training all faculty and staff in using Curriculog. The resolution is effective in Fall to make training labs available.
        2. Taylor proposed to move the document action, and Schultz seconded. The motion carried.
        3. Cherry moved to accept the document, and Taylor seconded. The motion carried.
      2. FSD 18-22: Revision of Promotion and Tenure Document: Adding “Engagement” to Promotion Criteria for Clinical and Research Faculty(R. Brusca-Vega)
        1. Vega presented a clarification from the Provost, which allowed for the Promotion and Tenure guidelines to be slightly edited to update promotion criteria for clinical faculty. Active participation in engagement is now included.
        2. Vega moved to bring the document forward for action. Detmer seconded.
        3. Schultz asked why the language wasn’t there in the first place. Elmendorf indicated that it was dropped inadvertently during revision.
        4. Detmer moved to pass the document, and Mitra seconded. The motion carried.
      3. FSD 18-23: Resolution on SRA(D. Detmer)
        1. Detmer presented the outcome of the April 19 meeting with a non-binding informal resolution proposed related to this document.
        2. Nalbone suggested a friendly amendment: “…source of data for decision-making in academic and support functions, and strategic planning.”
        3. Schultz asked whether we are rejecting all data collected in SRA, and Detmer responded that the issue is that there shouldn’t be any special status given to SRA data or recommendations, and it should not be taken as being any different from other data collected for analysis.
        4. Scipes indicated that the April 19 meeting included over 100 faculty and the overwhelming result was that there was a rejection of the process of the SRA as well as the findings. We need to have an inclusive and collaborative process to determine recommendations to move forward, which the SRA was not. Some findings were useful to pursue further, but the methodology was flawed and overall, the reports should not be used for such decision-making. Scipes welcomed the Chancellor’s follow-up letter to move more slowly through the strategic reallocation process.
        5. Kozel noted that the summary reports and the transparency with which they were generated are suspect. The data provided on the templates is still good data. Vega responded that practically, it would be difficult to simply remove the knowledge of the SRA summaries from our memories and separate them from the rest of the report.
        6. Chancellor Keon suggested the friendly amendment, “…used as [the sole source] of data”. Merkovsky also requested that the document be wordsmithed further before it is presented for action.
        7. Schultz questioned the confidentiality agreements signed by members of the task forces, as they cannot make additional comments or clarifications. Mueller noted that these individuals have signed a charter indicating that they maintain confidentiality as to the processes of the report in order to protect individuals’ votes and discussions during deliberations. All of us, including SLT members, have opinions, but only 30 people have spent large amounts of time with these data. As echoed by Morrow, no task force member should feel retaliation from others based on SRA report recommendations.
        8. Scipes agreed that no one should feel threatened, but these individuals were put into a position where they were engaged in a flawed process, without transparency.
        9. Kozel suggested that the summary reports be used in the language of the resolution, rather than the reports in their entirety.
      4. FSD 18-24: Gen. Ed. Designation Procedures and Application Form(L. Pelter)
        1. Pelter presented the document as taking care of details related to Gen Ed process changes.
        2. Kozel presented minor revisions to the document, which will continue to be revised to address conflicts with due dates.
        3. Pelter moved the document with amendments to action, and Quinn seconded. The motion carried.
        4. Pelter moved to approve the document, and Quinn seconded. The motion carried.
      5. FSD 18-25: Gen. Ed. Course List Update, May 2019(L. Pelter)
        1. The course list update as of May 2019 was presented to ensure the catalog is current with additions and removals.
        2. Pelter moved the document with amendments to action, and Quinn seconded. The motion carried.
        3. Pelter moved to approve the document, and Mitra seconded. The motion carried.
      6. FSD 18-26: Faculty Senate support for reinstating the B. S. in Economics Degree as previously approved(A. Sindone)
        1. Elmendorf presented that this resolution asks for the delivery of a program that was previously passed in Senate in 2017, prior to the implementation of the Academic Program Change/Creation (APCC) form process.
        2. Mueller responded that there was never a new proposal received on a program in Economics signed by a department chair or dean. He is excited about innovative new program offerings, and would welcome a proposal, budget, and data points with enrollment projections, but has not seen this proposal yet.
        3. Mitra noted that the APCC form was introduced after the BS in Economics was approved, which was an existing program, not a new program, being reactivated. Financial viability data was put together at the time of the original proposal. Mitra questioned why the BS Economics needed to go through the APCC process retroactively, and why the process was stopped after the fact by the department chair after already working on the proposal.
        4. Mueller responded that he was not aware that the program was previously existing, and it may need to go through state and HLC approval processes. R. Stankowski responded that a BS in Business existed with economics as a concentration, along with finance and other areas. Those were split into separate degrees, but the economics major was not moved forward at that time. P. McGrath indicated that a number of years ago, a BS in Economics was defined but has not been active. Mueller noted that after that a certain period of time of such inactivity, a program may leave the state records. Given that the state doesn’t have the program listed and we are not currently sanctioned to offer this program, the funding model and faculty implications must be collected before we can move forward. Mueller indicated that he wants to assist in moving this program to the state level.
        5. Swarts added that at the time of the decision not to move forward with the program, as department head, he did not feel it was in the best interest of the department. There is nothing stopping the new department chair from advancing the proposal at this point, however.
      7. FSD 18-19: Resolution on Summer Employment Practices (R. Brusca-Vega)
        1. Vega noted that employment practices across the university for summer are not always equitable or transparent. However, Faculty Affairs is rethinking this and asked the Provost if he would be willing to appoint a task force on summer employment.
        2. Provost Mueller responded that each college and department needs are very different related to summer funding, and he was reluctant to make a one-size-fits-all decision. He would be happy to meet with interested faculty to understand the issues and questions. Vega and Faculty Affairs committee accepted this.
        3. Kozel indicated that it may be useful for each college to adopt a written summer policy made easily available to all faculty.
        4. Fewer noted that this issue illustrates the value of a Senate budget committee, as faculty understanding of how the Summer budget works is not totally clear as far as what is fair and equitable.
    3. Issue for Discussion: Workload for Clinical Faculty
      1. Vega noted that clinical faculty clarification has been made regarding promotion, but contracts for clinical faculty are still in question regarding teaching responsibilities. Mueller responded that he is not aware of practices prior to his arrival, and has not reviewed all appointment letters for each clinical faculty. People have been appointed to positions based on different needs in different colleges, including clinical engagement. There are probably contracts with very different teaching loads expressed; how and how often these can be revised is being discussed with legal counsel.
      2. There is no university-wide policy that clinical faculty must teach between 14-16 credit hours. The clinical designation is newer to the university, but we are moving toward hiring more clinical/professional faculty and fewer continuing lecturers. The purpose of clinical/professional instructors is to have teaching personnel in the faculty rank, versus continuing lecturers that have staff designations.
      3. Clinical faculty are expressing that they have not received a copy of their contracts since unification. Provost Mueller responded that the contracts are now rolling, but appointment letters should be available to those who ask to review them. Trekles noted that many faculty have not seen appointment letters since before unification, and do not have copies of their letters since the time prior to unification. Copies have been requested in the past, but the requests were not granted.
      4. Vega stated that clinical faculty are being defined in a very specific way as people who “go out into the field,” but others were hired with expectations to teach more and work with students, but are not necessarily going “out in the field” under a specific definition. Vega indicated that some are wondering if they are now going to be terminated based on a stricter definition of their workloads, and they are afraid for their jobs.
      5. Clinical faculty are also often traveling more between campuses and there are issues with the time between getting from one campus to the other. One example is a faculty member scheduled to teach within an hour of finishing a class on a different campus. Students won’t have a chance to talk to those faculty after class, and there may be other issues related to this. Is there a minimum allowed time to schedule faculty between classes across both campuses?
      6. Mitra noted that Provost Mueller was not aware of decisions made prior to his coming to PNW, and therefore more communication on policies is necessary to help everyone get on the same page. This is especially important in scheduling and staffing courses, as well as defining different types of faculty. Different disciplines have varying needs either for professional faculty or for tenure-track faculty, and the disciplines should have more input in these decisions. Mueller responded that he does not have specific input or control over discipline area decisions; he agrees with Mitra that the needs of departments and programs should be articulated through department chairs and deans. Each year, the deans rank their position requests, and the Provost rarely, if ever, challenges those rankings, and funds those positions with funds available based on those rankings.
      7. Schultz noted that some clinical faculty have contracts that state 14-16 contact hours, which is not consistent for all. Most of these faculty are from Westville, where expectations for teaching were often higher.
      8. Dorman agreed that contact hours is the language used in clinical contracts from her experience, and that can vary from course to course. It is not a set, standard number as with credit hours, which have a different meaning.
  11. Remarks by the Representative of the Student Government (J. Schooley, SGA President): SGA representatives were not present to provide a report.
  12. Remarks by the University Senate/Intercampus Faculty Council Representatives (J. Pula/V. Quinn)
    1. WL Senate Rep Report
    2. Purdue Global lost 38 million dollars in the past year, but President Daniels indicated that this figure is not correct based on Pell grant income. According to the terms of the purchase, Kaplan Higher Education is responsible for Purdue Global’s operating expense deficits for the first five years, so income balanced out expenses.
    3. In response to earlier questions, University Senate representation at Purdue Global includes 11 administrators and a small number of faculty, as indicated in the report.
    4. HSA card fees are incurred when a staff or faculty member requests a paper copy. Changing to electronic copies fixes this issue.
    5. Intellectual property rights were discussed in the Senate Representative report. Intellectual property that arises in any part of an employee’s work is property of the institution and subject to perpetual non-exclusive, royalty-free license for the university to distribute for research and educational purposes. Therefore, the faculty or staff member individuals may own the copyright, but Purdue owns the use of it with the right to reproduce and distribute.
  13. Open Discussion (if time permits)
    1. Kozel indicated that extending the period of input on SRA and the Strategic Plan through the Fall 2019 semester was discussed on April 19. He moved to accept this as a formal resolution, and Schultz seconded. The motion carried.
  14. Adjournment: 12:58pm