PURDUE UNIVERSITY CALUMET

COUNCIL OF FACULTY DELEGATES

MINUTES

7th Meeting April 7, 1997

Present: Professors C. Chancey, R. Colon, S. Conners (Sergeant-at-Arms), M. Dobberstein, A. Elmendorf, R. Evans, R. Foreman, J. Hack (Presiding Officer), J. Jennings, L. Mura, B. Pai, K. Pierce, D. Pick, L. Rittenmeyer, C. Sekhar, S. Sil, C. Stacy, R. Stankowski, S. Tickoo, W. Ting, G. Wegner, L. Willer, M. Dakich (Parliamentarian), J. Mitchell (Student Government), J. Wermuth (Secretary),

Absent: Professors C. Torres-Robles and J. Walker; Vice Chancellors L. Bryant, G. Newsom and S. Singer, Chancellor J. Yackel

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

II. Professor Foreman moved the approval of the minutes of the March 3,1997, meeting of the Council of Faculty Delegates. Professor Sekhar seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes passed.

III. Professor Dobberstein moved the acceptance of the agenda for the April 7, 1997, meeting of the Council of Faculty Delegates. Professor Chancey seconded the motion. The motion to accept the agenda passed.

IV. Chancellor's Report

There was no report from the Chancellor.

Professor Hack said the Agenda Committee had reviewed Purdue University West Lafayette Senate Document 96-8 Semester Grades and Scholastic Indices which proposes a +/- grading system, and generally agreed with the concept. Professor Jennings asked that the Research and Educational Policy Committee review the proposal.

Professor Hack said that Dr. Carolyn Jones, Assistant Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, had met with some Purdue Calumet faculty to discuss a preliminary draft of a faculty grievance procedure document. She said there was concern expressed that the selection of the grievance panel would be shifted, on the Purdue Calumet campus, to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. She said that the Office of the President plans to issue an Executive Memorandum from the President on grievance policy and procedures for all Purdue employees. Discussion followed which included a request that the Agenda Committee review the draft, and that the draft be made available to those faculty who desire it.

V. Special Business of the Day

Election of Candidates for the Office of Presiding Officer of the Council, 1997-1998

Professor Ting said that Council Document 93-6 provided the procedure for selecting Council members for the post of Presiding Officer. She asked the members of the Council to rank all four candidates listed on the ballot from highest to lowest, so that a rank-order list can be submitted to the Chancellor. Ballots were distributed and collected.

Council Document 97-02. Establishment of the General Education Review Committees. Research and Educational Policy Committee. For Discussion.

Professor Mura withdrew Document 97-02 from consideration by the Council.

Council Document 97-03. Appointments to the General Education Review Committees. Research and Educational Policy Committee. For Information.

Professor Mura withdrew Document 97-03 from consideration by the Council.

Council Document 97-06. Responsibility for General Education. Research and Educational Policy Committee. For Discussion.

Professor Mura introduced Council Document 97-06 for discussion. After very little discussion, Professor Pai moved the Council Document 97-06 to action. The motion to move Council Document 97-06 to action passed. The motion to approve Council Document 97-06 subsequently passed. In response to a question from Professor Willer, Professor Mura said the Research and Educational Policy Committee will work with the academic departments to ensure that advisors receive timely information on the general education courses acceptable for the programs under their purview.

Council Document 97-05. Proposed Constitution of the Faculty of Purdue University Calumet. Agenda Committee. For Discussion.

Professor Hack initiated the continuing discussion on Council Document 97-05 by reviewing the plan for its approval. She said the plan includes completion of the discussion of the draft by the Council at its present meeting, review by the Agenda Committee on April 14 of changes proposed to the draft by the Agenda Committee and the preparation of a final draft for submission to the Council at the extraordinary meeting on April 21, and submission to the faculty for vote by the end of the present academic year. She said that the meeting on the 21st will focus on the proposed constitution, and will include the annual reports of the standing committees.

Professor Hack opened the discussion by asking whether there was any further discussion on items I through IV. Concerning item I, Professors Sekhar expressed concern over visiting professors having academic voting privileges but no benefits. Professor Sil and others advocated a one year waiting period before voting privileges are extended to visiting faculty. Discussion followed. A straw vote yielded ten votes for the concept and eleven votes opposed.

Concerning item V, Professor Wermuth asked whether the Vice Chancellor for Advancement should be included with the other Vice Chancellors. There was strong

discussion of vice chancellorial voting privileges, with opinions being expressed ranging from no privileges to committee but not Council privileges to all privileges.

Concerning item V.A.4., Professor Lerner said there was an unclarity concerning whom the at large delegates represent. It was noted that vice chancellors with faculty rank could be elected as at large members. Professor Mura asked that items V.A.3. and 4. be clarified. Professor Elmendorf said that the committee agreed that the departments referred to in the proposed constitution are the present academic departments even thought some are presently called schools; e.g., the School of Management would elect one departmental member to the Senate. Professor Mura also proposed that some arbitrary number of members be chosen and all be chosen at large. While there was support expressed for this idea, several members expressed concern that small departments might lack representation under this condition of membership. In response to a question concerning item V.A.3., Professor Dobberstein said that the intent was to permit the Council to expand its membership as needed. Professor Colon expressed concern over the potential size and consequent workability of the proposed Senate, especially when the Schools in the School of Schools develop their own academic departments. Professor Jennings suggested a type of voting which would give smaller academic departments more elective clout.

Professor Dobberstein asked those present to send their particular ideas to him and other members of the committee as soon as possible so that the Council could stick to its plan for approval of the constitution.

Concerning item V.B.4., Professor Lerner recommended that an Office of the Secretary of the Faculties be established to handle Senate business. Professor Wermuth said that, at present, the Secretary’s duties are not sufficiently onerous to warrant such an office, that a clerical person will require resources that might best be used elsewhere, and that the Office of the Chancellor is required to provide clerical service and has done so with little interruption to the Office of the Chancellor or the present Council.

In response to a question from Professor Conners on the election of Senators, Professor Elmendorf referred to item V.E., Transition. In response to a question from Professor Colon about the exclusion of those serving on the present Council from serving on the new Senate in 1998 because of the four service year rule, Professor Elmendorf said that with the approval of the new Constitution, no provision of the superseded Articles would have effect on faculty government.

In response to a question by Professor Jennings, Professor Dobberstein said that no one had checked with any one in West Lafayette concerning what the Board will accept and what it will not accept.

Professor Dobberstein said that item VI. A. Operation of the Senate gives more flexibility to the Senate. He said that the rest of the item is the same as Item V. in the present Articles. Concerning item VI.B., Professor Colon suggested that the number needed for a quorum be included in this item. Professor Dobberstein, in consultation with Professor Dakich, agreed that this suggestion would best fit the ByLaws.

Professor Dobberstein said that item VII is unchanged from the Articles.

Professor Dobberstein said that item VIII contained some few changes. He said that in item VIII.2. the quantity of petitioners had been changed from an absolute number to a percent of the voting faculty. Professor Jennings expressed concern about who would decide whether a petition had validity. He said it is not clear whether the Senate can ignore a petition by considreing the reason as substantial. Professor Colon noted that the number of petitioners is one half of the number of faculty required to vote on an action under petition.

With no further discussion on the document, Professor Dobberstein urged those present to sent to him specific recommendations for improvement of the draft constitution.

VI. Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business.

VII. Reports of Committees

Committee reports were deferred to the meeting of April 21.

IX. Adjournment

The meeting ended when it was determined a quorum no longer existed.

c:\cfd96-97\cfd0497.doc