Development Plan that the Campus Administration prepared from documents that schools had submitted over the past few years, which we submitted, in turn, to the Higher Education Commission. We distributed copies of that 10-Year Development Plan and asked for comments from all of you and in particular from the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council. We have received a number of responses from a variety of sources. This agenda item has to do with the response of the Executive Committee. Professor Jerry Powers is going to report.
PROF. POWERS: Vice President Bepko, Secretary Zunt, and members of the Council, the Executive Committee has asked me to report on their behalf. At the onset I would like to recognize the fact that Jeff Vessely and Monroe Little had substantial input into this report which was prepared in a very
17
short time frame.
The report represents a general response by the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee to a request by Vice President Bepko to critically review a draft of the IUPUI Report on a Ten-Year Plan for Campus Development. The original draft of the Ten-Year plan was distributed at the Fall Faculty meeting of December 4, 1986. A January 24, 1987 revision of the original report was forwarded to the Executive Committee on February 12, 1987.
The Executive Committee appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the development of this very important document, and appreciates the fact that, in its present form, it reflects primarily the viewpoint of the campus administration at IUPUI. We also would like to make clear that, given the time frame within which we were asked to provide feedback, it was not possible to solicit the input of the entire Faculty Council, nor was it possible for the Executive Committee to review the document at a level warranted by its significance. We offer our comments, therefore, as preliminary in nature and as an initial reaction to what we view as a beginning phase in a continuing process in which. all relevant constituencies in the University community will be afforded ample time and opportunity to provide input.
The Executive Committee recognizes the considerable effort that has already gone into the development of the Ten-Year Plan prior to our receiving it. It applauds its general thrust as a macro vision of the campus development for the coming decade. It was felt, however, that many of the specifics, of the type identified in the preliminary comments of the staff of the Commission for Higher Education, can be addressed effectively only at the micro level by the schools and departments directly effected. On the most recent revision of it there was attached a number of appendices, one of which consisted of comments from the Commission for Higher Education which raised a number of questions which they in turn asked the University to respond to. It was our opinion that on many of the questions that were raised, they couldn't be answered directly by administration. It would have to filter down at the local level to address the specificity that was called for.
To help facilitate the process described above, the Executive Committee believes that the Ten-Year Plan for Campus Development should be communicated to as many members of the IUPUI community as possible, which has already taken place as Vice President Bepko pointed out. We believe that the best way to achieve this is by holding town-meeting-type discussions on campus to discuss the implications of the plan for students, faculty, and staff of the various schools that comprise IUPUI. It is our conviction that such an approach would not only encourage the development of a shared purpose among competing campus groups, but also develop campus-wide support for the Ten-Year Plan.
University systems exist for the purpose of educating students. Students and faculty may be viewed as the only essential components necessary for the achievement of that purpose. Nevertheless, the development and appropriate management of resources are necessary, if not sufficient, requisites for the development of quality education. For that reason, the Executive Committee applauds the administration's statements concerning the IUPUI deficiency in the area of per student expenditures.
18
This deficiency may have been created, in part, because of a reputation of being able to do more for less, but there is a need for an infusion of additional funds to correct that problem. Examples of doing more for less might include the fact that it is common for IUPUI facilities, equipment, and even staff to be provided, at no cost, for seminars and subsequent examinations for various state and national governing bodies. Many "special"
events require support from the campus with little or no remuneration.
Secondly, it is agreed that the ratio of part-time and full-time faculty needs to change. In conjunction with this change is the need to provide additional staff support. One method of accomplishing these changes might be to provide more flexibility to the managers of the funds, so that allocation of resources could conform to local priorities. Certain controls appear to be levied as if irresponsibility were the expected behavior at the school or department levels. Some incentives might be provided to deans and department chairs alike with the expectation that savings will take place.
Policies and guidelines must still reside in the highest academic offices, with the decisions about expenditures within the guidelines being delegated to
the lowest possible level.
With respect to capital improvement, the Executive Committee concurs with the administration's dual commitment to the construction of the new University Library facility including adequate collections and access to emerging technologies, as well as with the goal of consolidating the School of Science and the Herron School of Art with the Michigan Street campus via the construction of a new S.E.T. facility and Visual/Performing Arts Center. In the absence of adequate library facilities with direct access by all components of the University system, IUPUI can never hope to achieve its mandate as a first-rate, world-class university.
The observations contained in this brief Executive Committee response are preliminary and global in nature. They are intended not as a criticism of the Draft Report, but as a general statement of the committee's reaction to those components of the report which it feels deserve special attention and primary emphasis. We appreciate the fact that the development of a Ten-Year Plan for Campus Development, together with a strategic plan for its implementation, is a complex and demanding undertaking. It is in a spirit of cooperation and mutual commitment to excellence that we welcome this opportunity to participate in the planning process. Undoubtedly, there are many difficult issues around which we are likely to disagree, but in the words of the late John Cardinal Newman, "Nothing would ever be accomplished if an individual waited so long as to do it so well that no other individual could find fault with it."
I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have or direct them to other members of the Executive Committee who participated extensively in our original discussions of the Ten-Year Report.
PROF. ROBBINS: I have a question of Vice President Bepko. You announced the development of this plan, I think it was at the November 6 Council meeting. I asked the question then about the level of Faculty Council involvement in the process and your response led me to anticipate something more than, it has occurred to me now, has happened. Would you comment on what you anticipated at that time and whether or not you feel that the level of discussion at the
19
Faculty Council meeting has met what you anticipated.
VICE PRESIDENT BEPKO: Given that it is such a preliminary, early stage, yes, it has been what I anticipated. You have to understand that this was a document that we prepared at the direction of the Commission for Higher Education. It was especially apt that Jerry closed with that quote because we were told that we had to have a development plan on, I think, September 11.
The Commission said that they would like to have it by mid-October so that they could consider it and have it on the agenda for their November meeting.
That gave us a grand total of about 45 days. I was brand new at this job at that point, so we thought it was a very very short deadline.
We thought that what we would do is to put together something that was based on what we had in our files already. We did some research in our files and found documents that the schools had provided, found insights and ideas in the Mission Statement project that had gone on for the 18 months prior to that and on this basis, put together the first draft. Since then, all we have really done is to respond to the Commission's inquiries about the development plan.
As Jerry suggested, the inquiries that we have had from them have led us into very specific matters that probably are best addressed at the school level.
We did discuss these issues with the schools that were affected and responded to the Commission's inquiries but that is all we have done at this stage. We thought, at this stage, we should, however, distribute this document widely and ask for comments and ask the Executive Committee in particular, to take it up and examine it and give us their comments. But, we see this as a much longer process and dialogue which will result in much more discussion in the Facul ty Council. That discussion will, I hope, result over time in a strategic plan for the campus, a plan that we can publish for general consumption and one that is a bit more detailed that we can use for our own internal decision making purposes. The result would be a plan that is carefully crafted in cooperation with the schools and that involves substantial Faculty Council discussion and input in the future.
PROF. ROBBINS: I would like to put a question to the Executive Committee as to whether or not they have discussed any plans to follow this portion of the more complete draft. Is that on the agenda of the Executive Committee or do you anticipate it will be?
PROF. ZUNT: When we hear that there will be further development, we would be interested in being involved. The whole Council would be. The Executive Committee, when this issue came to us, because of the deadline, we had six or seven weeks, the Executive Committee actually voted to determine whether this should go to the Faculty Councilor should the Executive Committee do this themsel ves. Because it is an el ec ted body by the Facul ty Council, the Executive Committee decided they would be an appropriate body and would be able to accomplish this task in the very short time that they had. But, yes, when we hear that there will be further plans, we will be interested.
VICE PRESIDENT BEPKO: We haven't established the procedure for that yet because at the December meeting and in subsequent conversations with Susan and the Executive Committee we have invited commentary not only on the document but on the process which we should use. I think we are still in a position to want comment on the process that should be used. One thing that we did not want to do (without thinking carefully about it) was to create, on the heels
20
of the Mission task force project, another project of that kind with a hierarchy of committees that involved 100 or so faculty members. We thought that there might be a more direct way; perhaps town meetings, perhaps discussion in the Faculty Council sitting as a committee of the whole, but a more direct way than to have that large apparatus we created for the Mission project. Also, we thought that faculty wouldn't relish the idea of having another project with that kind of broad effort right on the heels of the Mission Statement project. Maybe now that people are rested we can start another project like that, but we had hoped that we would be able to do this a little differently and we are interested in comments to that end.
PROF. WILSON: This is a type of philosophical issue that bothers many of us in the School of Science. That is that there seems to be a gap between goals of the University, and I mean Indiana University as a system, and the Higher Education Commission. I will give one example. Indiana University submitted the budget this year for quality improvement in the salary line. The Higher Education Commission increased the Bloomington line by five percent and decreased the non-health line to 25 percent of what Indiana University asked for. This sent a message to us that the Higher Education Commission doesn't think much of our goals. That is, we have a strong faculty and we need graduate programs and a whole gamut of additions but we can't get them to be committed to quality improvement of our salaries. We have the impression, many of us, that what happened is that the University gives the Higher Education Commission a budget which reflects their goals. They put it on the table and then they shrug their shoulders and walk out of the room. The Higher Education Commission comes in and they say "We don't believe, for instance, that we should build graduate programs in Indianapolis or that that faculty is really worth preserving or improving the quality." Then they cut the budget in their own way. The goals don't seem to mesh. We can present all these goals forever and Higher Education Commission is never going to be happy until somehow what we request does not conflict with what they assume.
I would like to see a clear statement of what the Higher Education Commission sees for this campus because I think we would be mortified to look at the numbers that they present in the budget. You can't help but think they want us to be a high quality, undergraduate institution and they don't want graduate programs here and they don't want quality faculty. Someone has to be
telling them that the two have to go together.
VICE PRESIDENT BEPKO: There are a lot of questions wrapped up in what you said. I don't know whether I can sort them all out in the short time available except to say that the University, and officials of the University, have worked hard to try to convince the Higher Education Commission of the wisdom of the University's recommendations especially with respect to catch-up money for this campus. I think that what the Higher Education Commission did this year was not to look askance at the Indianapolis campus or to denigrate it with their recommendations. They simply took a formula and said quality improvement funding would be given on the basis of that formula to everyone.
It just happened this year that the University had requested more for the Indianapolis campus and less for other campuses. When that formula was applied across the board, it made it look as if Indianapolis was being cut while others were being increased. But, it really wasn't that way at all. It is just that the Higher Education Commission used a standard formula, a standard percentage of the base, in making their recommendations with respect
21
to quality improvement. I don't think that the Commission for Higher Education has a dislike or any bad opinions of this campus. I think that there are some points on which we may not be in perfect agreement, especially with respect to graduate education. I don't think that they have the opinion
that there shouldn't be graduate education. I think that their thought is that we have argued that we need funding to replace part-time faculty members, and to raise salaries, and to improve undergraduate education in that way.
They say "Well, if that is true then we ought to focus mostly on undergraduate education right now until we have settled most of those problems." We should not launch a major effort to build graduate programs at this stage. I think that is where the disagreement may come. We may want to go a little faster than they do in building up graduate programs. We have to be very careful not to undercut our own arguments which, in the past, have been based primarily on the needs of undergraduate education. We have argued that we need more teachers because we are offering too many courses through part-time faculty.
We have argued that point principally in the context of undergraduate education. If we now say that the real issues are with respect to graduate education, it will undercut our requests. At a minimum that is what they have pointed out to us.
I don't think there is any kind of impass and we are working with the Comission staff right now to try to reach some agreement on a development plan to satisfy them and also satisfy our aspirations. That development plan won't probably please us very much when we look at it. It won't be the kind of strategic document that we would like to have to sit and read that made us feel good at night or to show to our colleagues at other universities. It is going to be a document that is worked out through discussions that has things in it that the Commission wants us to have in it; it will contain dispro- portionate detail in some areas in which the Commission has an interest and will be in the form of a progression of biennia.
The other document that will evolve out of this whole process, I hope, will be a strategic plan that we can use for our own planning and we will be proud to show the people in the community. It also will be something that will please us to send colleagues at other universities. It will contain the same infor- mation, but will be in a different form.
PROF. HODES: Is the contemplation that each of us here or each of the schools will get copies of the draft and that we will put them on our own agendas and our own faculty meetings and come back with suggested amendments? Exactly, how will, from the bottom up, the flow of information come?
VICE PRESIDENT BEPKO: This is something that we haven't decided on. We don't know what to recommend at this point. Everyone has copies of this draft of
the Plan. They have been distributed here, they have been sent to all academic units. We didn't send one to everyone on the faculty although we could do that. What ever people do with it is up to them. We think within the next couple of months we will have a better idea of what kind of procedure we could use and recommend to the academic units, but the academic units are free to do whatever they like right now. If you think it would be appropriate in a given school to take it up at a faculty meeting, I think that is perfectly fine. We are interested in getting as much commentary as we possibly can. We would like to hear from everybody. If we did though, it would be hard to manage all of that. We are not prepared at this time to
22
Dalam dokumen
Memorial Resolutions
(Halaman 113-119)