Faculty Senate Meeting with Chancellor, 11-7-17

Notes, Faculty Senate Meeting with Chancellor, 7 November 2017
by Jon Bean

FS President Kathleen Chwalisz opened the meeting by stating three themes the Executive Committee thought ought to be addressed:

1. What are the issues? How are they being addressed?

2. How well is the reorganization aligned with our mission?

3. Where are we now in the process?

Chancellor (hereafter MM): made some prefatory comments and then answered the questions in the order presented on the two-page sheet given to Faculty Senate prior to the meeting (a collection of individual comments by members of the Senate). Questions are attached to these notes.

MM: I have received over 500 ideas from faculty, staff, and community. Probably 750 people and 300-400 faculty. I have read every single one of them.

This would be the “greatest example of shared governance you have seen in your lifetime.” It’s “all up to the faculty.” “I have zero control over programs.”

Department Questions: MM’s initial comments:

Faculty will own the curriculum, determine requirements, etc. “How is it going to be taught?” is answered by the faculty.

Resources: no different than what you have now. School directors will allocate.

Chairs: a separate category of comments and questions. MM paused and his speech was halting. He took it very slowly stating that “this is an interesting question” before answering.

            MM: Chairs are no longer going to be administrators. Program Director (PD) will be a service role that someone takes on for “2-3 years.”

            “My biggest pushback has come from chairs who don’t want to lose their jobs.” But “we don’t want people being chair for 25 years.”

            Administrative savings are not minuscule. A 1% raise would cost $1.1 million, for example.

We need to think like a service-minded community who does all the work chairs used to do. This is a ‘culture shift’ because “you are not used to thinking” that way (in terms of service).

Q: Why the need to eliminate departments?

MM: contractual responsibilities require him to abolish chairs to effect structural change.  Bean asked if that meant he thought the CBA restricted him from reorganizing without eliminating departments? Dillala jumped in and said “university policy.” Bean: “And the CBA?” Dave D. “university policy and the collective bargaining agreement.” Dave D. because of policy and CBA, we could not have a department without a department OP or chair.

More questions from FS members on departments followed. . .

            MM and Dave D.: we can revisit this down the road. Perhaps 5 years from now we recreate departments in some areas but to change NOW they must go.

            MM: we are going to reassign “administrators” to departments to take over some of the administrative workload (things like travel reimbursement, etc. that aren’t directly related to serving the discipline).

            MM: many shared tasks (now done by multiple chairs) might be done by School Director (SD).

            Dave D.: we already have programs operating with PD’s – CASA, Healthcare.

QUESTION:  how is SD selected?

            MM: initially interim/internal and then an open search.

QUESTION: could the PD just do service and the SD do the financial and other work of a chair?

            MM: No. The PD will do the same work as the chair (he flip flopped on whether work would or would not be lifted from the chair and handed to SD or staff administrators).

            Lizette: admin could bring office staff up (from departments) to School level.

QUESTION: could the Plan be redrafted to split the work of chair into representational service to PD and logistical to SD? MM: No.

QUESTION: some of our greatest colleagues aspire to be chair with the prestige and responsibility that entails. The kind of individuals you do want as chair. Why would those individuals do it if “there is no carrot”?

            MM: Those individuals “can aspire to be School Directors”

QUESTION (T. Grant): Is there any R1 university that has a structure with schools and no departments?

            MM: No. But this is the way I have to do it (again, given his “hands are tied” by contractual responsibilities).

Higher admin cuts: Provost office took biggest cut - $1.8 million

Schools:

Innovative new structures:  Example: “School of Social Science and Multicultural Studies”

QUESTION: T. Grant asked about the politics of majority rule in drafting School OP that might privilege large-faculty programs or a coalition of programs at the expense of other programs.

            Dave D.: You could adopt the Senate model (equal representation, no majority rule)

            T. Grant: what is to prevent a majority of the School (presumably, House or Senate structure) from eliminating degree programs, draining them of support, etc.?

            MM: there will be a “honest discussion” will determine which programs the School decides to grow, merge, or let die.

            T. Grant: how well will NTT-heavy departments or low TT faculty/high student count departments fare under School politics?

            MM: I could “insert myself” to be an “honest shepherd” to prevent abuses, but I won’t do it unless the FS asks me to do it. Besides, “I believe in the goodness of people.”

QUESTION (Ojewuyi): Dismantling of departments and chairs “is going to continue to be a problem.” This is being “imposed” and the faculty are invited to discuss everything but that essential point, which admin says is not negotiable.

            MM: Agrees that it should have been talked out over a couple of years but . . I have NO TIME. Cited low enrollment. “You are going to have to trust me.”

POLICE ACADEMY

QUESTION: Explain to us the Policy Academy. Isn’t that a problematic program to be promoting at this time?

            MM: First, the state of Illinois only allows current police to apply for police academy. He has to get that rule changed (!) before SIU can even admit students who are not already police.

            Second, we are going to develop the most progressive peace officers in the nation with “multicultural competency.” One proposed name for the school is “School of Social Justice and Multicultural Competency” [not sure if he meant School of Social Sciences and Multicultural but he did say “Social Justice”]

*MM’s theme: to make SIU a place that creates LEADERS. “That’s the hook.”

TENURE

QUESTION: Where does tenure reside?

            Dave D.: The Schools. That’s why it is important to have T&P language you want in School OP.

ENROLLMENT AND R1

QUESTION: How does getting rid of departments improve enrollment?

            MM:   -new programs

                        -Schools with aligned programs will attract students with synergy.

QUESTION: How does reorganization improve our R1 status?

            MM: Engineering, for example, is missing “critical elements,” including “chemical engineering” – every top program has CE. MM suggested that Chemistry department had blocked development of CE and that kind of obstructionism has to stop.

            MM: Fundraising. We need “case statements” that we are “really trying to make ourselves better.” Donors need a narrative of change they can invest in.

RMEs

QUESTION (G. Miller): What is the RME calendar?

            Dave D. 80-100 from admin will pass on to FS.

INSTRUCTOR OF RECORD

QUESTION: we attract grad students – whom we need to teach our courses – by the chance to be Instructor of Record.

            MM: They aren’t really Instructor of Record if you are “supervising them.” Even if you let them do EVERYTHING a professor does (syllabus, text, lecture, grading, etc.) if you still have the power to say they can’t do something, then they aren’t really instructors. Example he gave: If you have a grad student assigned to teach 12^th century musicology, you would stop them if all they were doing was teaching the Beatles to the class, right? [Um, OK]

            MM: Perhaps we need new term but policy prevents us. Perhaps we need to redefine the term.

RECRUITMENT

QUESTION (Davey): What about recruitment?

            MM: ads are out but TV ads aren’t very productive. We need new marketing materials and targeted recruitment. We can use the existing business/marketing expertise we have here (presumably CoB?). “We have never really done that here”

Dave D. came back to the contractual issue to pre-empt a “lot of phone calls I might get” (he directed his initial answer to Bean, who had pressed on the nature of contractual responsibilities that required such a change).

MM ended with a discussion of housing scholarships (more of them means reduced tuition waivers means $$$ and also an on-campus community. We need more “living and learning communities.”

Bean asked why the library was closed on Saturday. MM said that should not be and “it’s going to change.”

QUESTION: How about knocking down the walls between SIU and the Foundation?

            MM: Believe me I’m working on it.