Announcements - Prof. Tyrrell
Prof. Tyrrell attended the Budget Retreat and the Board of Trustees meeting at
Edwardsville on September 11 and 12. Dan Long, Executive Director of the Illinois
Economics and Fiscal Commission, made a presentation and discussed the FY 03 and
FY04 budget situation. He indicated that the FY03 budget faces a possible
rescission unless there is a tax increase approved and this seems unlikely.
FY 04 he predicted will have a flat revenue stream for the State which presumably
means little or no additional State funding for Higher Education.
Key ideas discussed during the Budget Retreat were -- There is a need for planning
and prioritization in a time of diminishing resources. The Board approved the FY
03 budget for the total SIU system -- approximately $614 million. Only 38% comes
directly from tax dollars.
The FY04 Operating and Capital RAMPs were approved with an 8% increase request in
operating funds (including a "3 + 1 + 1" salary increase request).
The appointments of Kevin Dorsey as Dean and Provost of the School of Medicine,
John M. Dunn as Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and John Koropchak
as Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Dean were approved.
The report of the 2020 vision committee led by Paul Simon was also distributed
and briefly discussed at the Board meeting. Dr Tyrrell distributed copies of this
report to the Council members.
An e-mail/phone number list of Council members is being prepared and will be
distributed later.
The Intercollegiate Advisory Committee has been reduced from 19 to 10 members.
Six members will be faculty to be selected as follows -- 3 by the Faculty Senate
and 3 to be chosen by the Chancellor. Dr Tyrrell indicated that he has had
discussions with the Chancellor on the possible involvement of the Graduate
Council in nominating faculty members for this committee.
The Research Misconduct Committee needs to be in place as soon as possible. There
was some misunderstanding as to how the membership of this committee should be
selected but that has now been clarified.
Dr Tyrrell also attended the Big Picture meeting where the University's budget
proposals for FY04 were discussed with IBHE representatives.
Dr Tyrrell said that he was occasionally upset by individuals who seemed to think
nothing good ever happened at this university or who made negative comments about
the quality of our faculty. He thought it appropriate to mention four faculty whose
efforts had recently come to his attention:
- Prof. Beth Lordan of the Department of English, a nationally recognized
novelist, who presented a reading of her work at the Charles D. Tenney Distinguished
Lecture Series.
- Prof. Larry Hickman of the Department of Philosophy, the 2002 Outstanding
Scholar, who presented a lecture on "John Dew's Social Vision."
- Prof. Stephen Dollinger of the Department of Psychology had his course on
"The Psychology of Personality" written up in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education.
- Prof. Sherri Lukes of the Department of Dental Hygiene whose volunteer work
providing dental treatment to people in Matamoros, Mexico was written up in
Southern Windows.
Dr Tyrrell said these faculty would grace any university and yet they are only a
small fraction of those who strive every day to excel.
Southern at 150 Draft Report -- Discussion
Prof. Tyrrell asked the chairs of the standing committees to make presentations
based on their discussions of the Draft Report with their committee members.
This would then be followed by comments and questions from any Council member.
Considerable discussion followed.
New Programs Committee - Prof. Muhlach
(See Appendix A)
Education Policies Committee - Prof. Pineau
(See Appendix B)
Program Review Committee - Prof. Vaux
(See Appendix C)
Research Committee - Prof. Steger
(See Appendix D)
Discussion
Prof. Parker indicated that he has problem with the word "relevant" used frequently
on p. 16. Who decides what is relevant?
Prof. Leitner expressed his concern with the name of Southern at 150. It looks
like we are trying to get rid of the name Southern Illinois University because
of the party school image. There are at least four institutions with the name,
Southern.
Elise Shalda (GPSC) expressed concerns about not using university resources to
improve the campus grounds. The document does not talk much about resources.
Many times the University goes outside to find resources. Students could do
projects and add these to their portfolio and this will help them to get jobs.
This could benefit the University.
Prof. Lieberman asked who the audience is for this Report -- legislatures, alumni,
student, faculty, or staff?
Different audiences will respond differently and it is not clear to what extent
the faculty and students are being addressed by the Report.
Chancellor Wendler answered that this document is intended for multiple audiences
and that it is difficult to write a document for multiple audiences.
Prof. Shay stated that understands that this is a broad-based document, but since
everyone is concerned about specificity, his concerns are about the lack of
specificity as to the role of Fine Arts.
Prof. Dettmar stated that he was impressed to see the document's emphasis on
research, scholarship and creative activity. However when talking about research
productivity and trying to emulate the top 75 research institutions the emphasis
is clearly being placed on research and development dollars-humanities and arts
do not get much of those. He is concerned that when push comes to shove, the
money is going to go to externally funded research and not to scholarship or
creative activity.
Prof. Brown commented that quotations from John Dewey needs to be in the document.
We should focus on students who are at the door now. The complexion of student's
age and citizen is changing. The proportion of people of color is shifting. The
idea of how to teach them is not shifting. We should use our own existing resources.
What component do we have in our vision for the future that states that when a
student arrives we will do what it takes to make her ready? Our focus should be
on increasing the graduation rate. We need to attack the very issue of how to
teach those who are different from us.
Amy Sileven (GPSC) stated that she was surprised that Center for Teaching Excellence
showed up in the faculty section and not in the graduate student section. There was
no section in the report on graduate student research and graduate student
development. Legal assistance with patent and intellectual property is needed.
Dean Rice stated that if students are doing patenting that involves University
property or resources or federal grants, they must go through the Office of Research
and Development.
Prof. Moe supported Prof. Ed Shay's comment on lack of specificity about support
for Fine Arts. Part of the environment of the University is to create a regional
University community that would include support of the Fine Arts. Emeritus could
be helpful to the University in its academic pursuit.
Dean Rice suggested that SIUC should develop a Cultural Center. Steps need to be
taken to establish this.
Prof. Muhlach stated that the graph on p. 23 shows that we are behind our peers
in research and development expenditures. Strategic hires have been targeted
primarily to increase external funding to the University with an emphasis on federal
funding.
Dean Koropchak mentioned that this document is also directed toward the capital
campaign fund-raising process. As far as the measures of research productivity
are concerned, the discussion at the research committee stressed the importance
of all the different areas of research and scholarly activity. Research funding
is one of the measures but not the only measure.
Prof. Pineau stated that there seems to be a dichotomy between academic excellence
and profile of new incoming students. There is a dichotomy between recruitment and
retention. We need to make efforts to resolve this dichotomy.
Prof. Steger stated that one thing may make this document more acceptable to a
wide range of faculty would be by pointing out that federal funds with large
amounts of overhead are used to support the humanities and arts.
Dean Rice concurred with Prof. Steger's comment regarding overhead dollars that go
to humanities, fine arts, MCMA which historically has not brought large amounts of
grant dollars. We are no longer a state-supported university, we are state-assisted
university. Money has to come from donors or outside sources.
Elise Shalda (GPSC) expressed concern regarding making priorities and where the
money is coming from. Who makes the list of priorities?
Prof. Tyrrell stated that there are four main sources of funding: tax dollars,
tuition, research and creative dollars, and capital funding. Capital funding should
be emphasized much more strongly since this is the area that can provides us with
the most flexible dollars.
Dean Koropchak stated that in the document, there are a lot of specific ideas as
to how to generate dollars and raise funds including a target of $20 million dollars
for an endowment for graduate fellowships. We are currently working with a
potential donor right now to raise $750,000 for our PROMPT fellowship program which
supports minority students.
Chancellor Wendler stated that 215 people were involved in preparing this document.
As far as specificity is concerned, this is a report that would guide short and long
range planning rather than the planning document itself.
Amy Sileven (GPSC) indicated that a parallel structure is needed in discussing
graduate and undergraduate matters. In the undergraduate section, it is stated that
25% of the tuition will go toward scholarships and undergraduate education, but in
the graduate section, a total amount of dollars is given. In the graduate section,
there needs to be a commitment as to how the differential tuition is going to be
spent.
Prof. Tyrrell concluded the discussion by emphasizing the need to reexamine what
we do and the need to prioritize in our decision making process. There is in fact
no better time to do this than when we are most keenly aware of the limitations
imposed by our available resources. Across the board increases and cuts are
inherently detrimental to individual and departmental striving for excellence. They
provide no incentive to do better and they represent a failure in leadership.
