COUNCIL OF FACULTY DELEGATES

MINUTES

5th and 6th Meeting
February 5, 1996

Present:  Professors C. Chancey, R. Colon, S. Conners, K. Corey, M. Dobberstein, R. Evans, J. Hack, J. Jennings, D. Kark, D. Kirkpatrick, S. Lerner, L. Mura, D. Niedner, B. Pai, D. Pick, L. Rittenmeyer, W. Robinson, (President), C. Sekhar, S. Tickoo, W. Ting, C. Torres-Robles, M. Vermaat, J. Walker, M. Zahraee, Vice Chancellor L. Bryant, Vice Chancellor G. Newsom, Vice Chancellor S. Singer, Chancellor J. Yackel, M. Dakich (Parliamentarian), J. Wermuth (Secretary),

Absent:  Student Representative T. Moffitt.

I. The meeting was called to order by Professor Robinson.

II. Professor Lerner moved the approval of the minutes of the December 4, 1995, meeting.  Professor Sekhar seconded the motion.  There were several suggestions to correct the minutes.  The motion to approve the minutes as corrected passed.

III. Professor Hack moved the acceptance of the agenda for the February 5, 1996, meeting.  Professor Lerner seconded the motion. Professor Kirkpatrick moved that the Council override the Agenda Committee's decision to accept the petition to reconsider its previous votes on Council Documents 95-19 (Revised) and 95-20 (Revised).  Professor Niedner seconded the motion. In the discussion that followed, Professor Kirkpatrick said that, since no specific objections were raised in the petition as is required by Article VIII Section 2 of the Articles of Organization, a vote by the faculty (as is required by ByLaw 6.c.) with any meaning is not possible.  Counterarguments to Professor Kirkpatrick's motion included the assumption of clear intent by the petitioners with the lack of a stated objection seen as not substantive enough to reject the petition.  After considerable discussion, the motion was brought to a vote by a show of hands.  The motion to reject the petition passed by a vote of 14 Ayes and 12 Noes.  Professor Robinson as chair of the Council then declared the agenda adopted as amended; that is, with the deletion of Council Documents 96-1 and 96-2.

IV. Chancellor's Report

Chancellor Yackel said that the spring 1996 enrollment was the second highest spring enrollment in the history of the Purdue University Calumet.  He said that across the state and nation, most institutions have flat to lower enrollments in comparison with spring 1995.  He said the increased enrollment has positive budget implications for the 1997-99 biennium, with the previously estimated decrease in state appropriations due to enrollment changes halved to approximately $250,000 spread over three years.  He said minority enrollments had increased.  He said there were 1067 African American and 1012 Hispanic students enrolled during the present semester.  He said that the total minority enrollment now stood at 26% of total enrollment.  He said that present minority enrollments are a step toward the goal stated in the Campus Vision Statement of parity (or 35% of total enrollment) with the local community by the year 2000.  He thanked the entire staff; and singled out the advisors and Assistant Vice Chancellor B. Pelliciotti for their efforts in turning around Purdue University Calumet's enrollment picture.

Chancellor Yackel reviewed present legislative efforts to move forward the classroom office building.  He said a bill had passed in the House and had been approved by the Senate Finance Committee.  He said the two bills did differ, so that if the Senate passes its bill, the two bills will need to be justified by a conference committee before going on to the governor for action.

Chancellor Yackel said that the Council of Faculty Delegates and the Office of the Chancellor were sponsoring jointly a town hall meeting on resource management.  He said that information gathered at this meeting will be part of the March 9 campus retreat for deans, directors and department heads on the 1997-99 budget.

Chancellor Yackel said that even though Purdue University Calumet got a late start on finding an adequate site to offer additional courses in south Lake County during the present semester, enrollment at the Hellenic Cultural Center was healthy with 175 students enrolled.  He said most of the students were new to higher education.  He said the total enrollment at the Hellenic Center, Lake Central High School and Crown Point High School was nearly 500 students.

Vice Chancellor Singer thanked those present who assisted students enrolling in courses.  She said that she has been appointed to a systemwide initiative, the Systems Access Committee, to develop policy about databases and their accessibility to the university community.  She said there seems to have been little done on this issue elsewhere and asked for input from anyone who may have information about the issue.

Vice Chancellor Bryant said that thirteen students had been nominated to Who's Who Among College Students.  He said the future of C-100 is being reviewed by a committee of students, staff and faculty with changes, if any, to be in place by fall 1996.

V. Special Business of the Day

- Council Document 95-22  Policy and Procedures for the Academic Calendar. Resources and Planning Committee.  For Action.

Professor Dobberstein reviewed the document, noted that Fall Commencement had been added to it, also noted that Spring Recess had been designated to occur after the eighth week, and moved approval of the document.  There was a second to the motion.  The motion to approve Council Document 95-22 as corrected passed.

- Council Document 96-1  Affirmation of Vote on Council Document 95-19Rev.  Agenda Committee.  For Discussion.

This document was deleted from the agenda by action of the Council.

- Council Document 96-2  Affirmation of Vote on Council Document 95-20Rev.  Agenda Committee.  For Discussion.

This document was deleted from the agenda by action of the Council.

- Council Document 96-3  Establishment of the General Education Oversight Committee.  Research and Educational Policy Committee.  For Discussion.

Professor Kark reviewed the background of the document, noting that it had been received from the General Education Task Force and reviewed with them by the Research and Educational Policy Committee.

Professor Kirkpatrick distributed copy of a substitute motion for Council Document 96-3 and moved its adoption.  Professor Niedner seconded the motion.  Professor Chancey moved to refer the substitute motion to the Research and Educational Policy Committee for review with the General Education Task Force.  Professor Lerner seconded the motion.  The motion to refer the substitute motion to the Research and Educational Policy Committee passed.

Prior to the discussion of Council Document 96-3 that followed, permission had been granted by the Council to permit members of the General Education Task Force to address the Council as needed.  In the discussion of it, several points were made including the following:  Document 96-3 establishes an unnecessary bureaucracy of committees; Document 96-3 established the subcommittees by disciplines rather than departments, ensuring that discipline based programs will have representation; that if general education is truly an university wide initiative, it is best promoted by departmental rather than disciplinary linkage; and that Document 96-3 establishes a bureaucracy of committees and thus reflects a failure to trust the faculty to do the right thing.  In summary and in defense of Council Document 96-3, Professor Moore (Chair of the General Education Task Force) said that the document establishes a flexible general oversight arrangement that is university wide in scope and faculty based.  He said that general education at Purdue University Calumet, as at any university, is a political issue and that there is a tendency for academic departments, not surprisingly, to serve their own interests rather than that of the university as a whole.  He said that the authority for the general education program, and its oversight, will need to reside somewhere in the university; and that is what the faculty, through the Council of Faculty Delegates, needs to decide.

Professor Robinson then reviewed the discussion and the options available to the Council, and asked the Researcg and Educational Policy Committee to review the substitute motion proposed by Professor Kirkpatrick and supported by others.  He said the committee had the choices of accepting the substitute motion, rejecting it, or merging it with the present Council Document 96-3.  He asked the committee to bring its recommendation to the March meeting of the Council.

VI. Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business

VII. Reports of Committees

Agenda Committee:  Professor Hack said that the Agenda Committee had met on January 22 to consider its own schedule for the second semester, to consider the petition to affirm, and to set the agenda for the February meeting.  She said the committee will meet next on February 19.

Faculty Affairs Committee:  Professor Zahraee said that the committee was reviewing several issues including Council Documents 93-5 and 93-6 which are concerned with faculty recognition.  He said the committee is beginning work on the election of the presiding officer for 1996-97.

Nominating Committee:  Professor Corey said that committee is preparing the annual committee preference survey for distribution to the faculty.

Research and Educational Policy Committee:  Professor Kark said that the committee will meet immediately following the Council meeting and will take up the English proficiency exam issue along with a review of Council Document 96-3.

Resources and Planning Committee:  Professor Dobberstein said that the committee had meet the week previous to the Council meeting and had revised Council Document 95-22.  He said the committee is reviewing the parking proposals prepared by the administration.

Student Affairs Committee:  Professor Hack said that the committee had met on January 16, and had discussed its subordinate committee (Athletic Affairs), the best uses of C-100, cultural enrichment and cultural sensitivity, and student government.  She said the committee will meet next on February 13.

Intercampus Faculty Council:  Professor Hack said that this Council will meet in February but that the date had not been decided.

Student Government:  There was no report from Student Government.

Professor Robinson noted the absence of the Student Government president, and said that a student had been present earlier to act as the Student Government representative.  He said Council rules do not allow for proxy membership, and that the student had left the meeting.  He expressed his displeasure at the treatment of the Council by the president of Student Government.  He also expressed his concern over denial of representation afforded to the student body by the action (or lack thereof) of the president of Student Government.  He urged that both Professor Hack, chair of the Student Affairs Committee, and Dr. Bryant, vice chancellor for student services and dean of students, to work with Student Government to seek resolution of the issue.

VIII. Other New Business

Professor Chancey distributed copy of a motion that 1) directs the Council to call a convocation to discuss the General Education Requirements as approved by the Council of Faculty, and 2) arranges for an advisory ballot (including the list of questions to be asked) of the voting faculty to determine opinion regarding the General Education Requirements.  Professor Sekhar seconded the motion.  After much discussion that included suggestions to change and add to the question list, it was agreed that a convocation of the faculty called by the Council would result in a faculty ballot and that it would be best to leave the nature of the ballot to the convocation.  Professor Chancey then withdrew his motion with the approval of the seconder, Professor Sekhar.

IX. Adjournment

Professor Robinson called for a motion to adjourn.  Professor Chancey so moved.  There was a second to the motion.  The motion to adjourn passed.