Staša Milojević, - bfc.indiana.edu · up on a screen. Its also possible that after something gets proposed on the agenda, we get an email or call from someone says, it would be

MEMBERS PRESENT: Carey Beam, Alan Bender, Simon Brassell, Fritz Breithaupt, Carolyn Calloway-Thomas, Selene Carter, Barbara Cherry, Judah Cohen, Molly Connor, David Daleke, Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, Lori Duggan, Ann Elsner, Phil Ford, Diane Henshel, Israel Herrera, Elizabeth Housworth, Pamela Jackson, Bruce Jaffee, Peter Kloosterman, Kimberly Kohne, Robert Kravchuk, Ivan Kreilkamp, Robert Kunzman, Moira Marsh, Meg Meiman, Staša Milojević, Jesse Molesworth, Thomas Nelson Laird, Nazareth Pantaloni, Eliza Pavalko, Eric Rasmusen, Adam Reneker, Lauren Robel, Katie Siek, Marietta Simpson, Bruce Solomon, Rebecca Spang, Alex Tanford, Jonathan Trinidad, Nick Williams, Robert Withnell. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kyle Adams, Salman Al-Ani, Hussein Banai, Todd Burkhardt, Lingling Chen, Alan Dennis, Jacob Emery, Chris England, Alyce Fly, Linda Gales, Krista Glazewski, Sander Gliboff, Dennis Groth, Carol Hostetter, Kehinde Ligali, Trevor Mcmichael, Michael Mcrobbie, Ethan Michelson, Dan Niersbach, Angie Raymond, Susan Seizer, Patrick Shih, Malcolm Smith, Richard Van Kooten, William Winecoff. GUESTS: Heather Akou (CPC Representative), Daniel Bullock (Research Ambassador, GPSF), Joseph D'Ambrosi (Teaching Ambassador, GPJG), Catherine Dyar (Office of the Provost), Jenny Kincaid (Office of Executive Vice President, UAA), Mark McConahay (Office of the Registrar), Courtney McDonald (Libraries), Robert McDonald (TPC Chair, Libraries), Elizabeth Pear (Director of the Faculty Council Office), Jamie Prenkert (Vice Provost, OVPFAA), Lori Reesor (Vice Provost for Student Affairs), Monica Shannon (Faculty Council Office).

2

Agenda

1. Approval of Minutes of December 5, 2017

2. Memorial Resolution for Mary L. Remley

3. Executive Committee Business (10 minutes) Alex Tanford, Faculty President

4. Presiding Officer’s Report (10 minutes) Lauren Robel, Provost

5. Question/Comment Period

Faculty who are not members of the Council may address questions to Provost Robel or President Tanford by emailing [email protected].

6. Update from the Faculty Council Office (5 minutes) Elizabeth Pear, Director of the Faculty Council Office

7. Questions for the Faculty Council Office (5 minutes)

8. Report of the Athletics Committee (10 minutes) [Discussion Item] Carrie Docherty, Chair of the Athletics Committee Kurt Zorn, Faculty Athletics Representative Fred Glass, Director of Athletics Indiana University Bloomington Campus Athletics Committee Report to the Bloomington Faculty Council for 2016-2017

9. Questions/comments on the report of the Athletics Committee (20 minutes)

10. Presentation on proposed changes to reporting procedures within BL-ACA-A3 Bloomington Campus Policies for Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Appointments (5 minutes) [Action Item] Alex Tanford, Faculty President

Current policy B22-2018: Proposed amendments to BL-ACA-A3 Instructional Effort Reporting (requires IU staff login)

11. Questions/comments on proposed changes to reporting procedures within BL-ACA-A3 Bloomington Campus Policies for Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Appointments (20 minutes)

3

12. Presentation on proposed changes to the BL-ACA-I25 Faculty Scholarly Activity Systems (10 minutes) [First Reading] Judah Cohen, Chair of the Research Affairs Committee Pete Kollbaum, Member of the Research Affairs Committee Current policy B23-2018: Summary of guiding principles and amendments B24-2018: Proposed amendments to BL-ACA-I25 - with markup B25-2018: Proposed amendments to BL-ACA-I25 – without markup

13. Questions/comments on the proposed changes to BL-ACA-I25 Faculty Scholarly Activity Systems

(15 minutes)

4

Transcript

AGENDA ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2017 ROBEL: Welcome back everyone, to our new time our new semester…our new time. Just lots and lots of great activity on the campus already this semester. So, thanks for making your way through the ice, and snow, and cold to do the business of the campus today. And I’ll start as always with a request for approval of the minutes of December fifth. A motion? Thank you. A second? Thank you, Bruce. Any discussion? All in favor? Hurray! That looks unanimous, so I won’t even ask for opposition. I turn now to our Vice Provost for a memorial resolution. Eliza. AGENDA ITEM 2: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION FOR MARY L. REMLEY PAVALKO: Great. Thank you, Lauren. This is not in front of me. This is for Doctor Mary L. Remley. Doctor Mary L. Remley, dedicated educator and nationally recognized scholar, passed away on May 27, 2016. Doctor Remley spent twenty years at Indiana University, as professor in the Department of Kinesiology in the IU School of Public Health. She spent several years teaching in various areas of the country before earning a master’s degree in Physical Education from Ohio University in 1960. She then taught at Macalester College before heading for the University of Southern California, where she earned a PhD in Physical Education in 1970. Just prior to receiving her doctorate, she accepted a position as assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Doctor Remley came to Bloomington as a member of the IU faculty in 1976 and during her time here made innumerable contributions to the field of physical education. She was a dynamic leader in the field of sport history and received numerous honors and awards. In recognition of her lifelong achievements, Doctor Remley’s undergraduate alma mater awarded her the prestigious Alumni Merit Award in 1992. Doctor Remley was awarded the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal by the United States Military Academy. The superintendent of West Point conferred this honor upon Doctor Remley for her outstanding service to the department of Physical Education where she was a visiting professor in 91-92. While at West Point, Doctor Remley wrote a comprehensive history of the Department of Physical Education. Her expertise in the field of sport history was also recognized internationally. She presented in Sweden, Yugoslavia, and Finland. Perhaps the greatest contribution was her dedication to teaching. She continually worked to bring innovative and creative methods into the classroom, so students understood relationships and concepts. As one former student remarked, “Doctor Remley gave me a thirst for new knowledge and the appreciation of learning for its own sake.” Doctor Remley’s distinguished career was also notable by her service and leadership to the profession. She was president of the North American Society for Sport History from 1981 to 83 and was president of the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education in 1991. She served on numerous state, regional, and national committees. A memorial to Doctor Remley would be incomplete without mention of her exemplary service to IU. Throughout her tenure she was a steadily…a steady and strong voice for faculty governance, academic freedom, and gender

5

equity. She relentlessly championed these causes in roles as the Acting Dean for Women’s Affairs, President of the Bloomington Faculty Council, and a member of the Athletics Committee. Those who served with her recognized her ability to listen quietly to a discussion, assimilate the facts, and then gracefully lead others to an objective and fair conclusion. Doctor Remley retired from IU in 1996. As a faculty member in the department and school, she left a positive and strong impact – the department and school is a better place having had her serve as an advocate for faculty and students. She is remembered fondly as a tireless voice for student fairness, and her legacy will live on through the countless students she has taught as well as the policies and procedures she helped the university initiate: we are truly indebted, and thankful that she served Indiana University. We request that this memorial resolution be preserved in the BFC minutes and archive. And we also request that copies be sent to her family.

ROBEL: Thank you so much. Please stand for a moment. Thank you. We turn now to our President for Executive Committee Business. AGENDA ITEM 3: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BUSINESS TANFORD: Thank you. And I want to eco Lauren’s welcome to those of you who came out on this cold day. And

welcome to our new family friendly meeting time. You may notice the absence of television monitors. They

usually occupy the central ring here. That it’s not because we are planning a UFC competition, but because

the…to get the monitors down here in a truck, they have to get the truck started. And apparently it was a bit

too cold for the truck this morning. So, we do not have the monitors. We will…the…to the extent that we would

otherwise have put proposed language and things up on monitors. You’ll have to pull them up on your devices

by going to the BFC website and looking at the…and clicking on the agenda. And everything that we would show

it’s linked to that. If you don’t have a device, lean over the shoulder of the person next to you, so that you see

the language that we are going to propose. And there are always…just bear in mind that the agenda for these

meetings lives on the BFC website. It is a dynamic document not a static one. Which means that at some time

between when you get one emailed to you, usually a week before the meetings, and the actual meetings, it is

possible that some additional documentation would be put…would be linked to items for discussion. We

encourage…for example, if there is an action item proposed, say a new policy, and you have some suggested

amendments, it is much easier if you can get the proposed language of that amendment to the Faculty Council

Office in advance of the meeting, even if it is only twenty minutes in advance of the meeting. Well, maybe

slightly longer than that, so Elizabeth has time to link it to our agenda on the website. And that way, instead of

trying to read seven sentences of language proposing an amendment you…we’ve got it and it can just be brought

up on a screen. It’s also possible that after something gets proposed on the agenda, we get an email or call from

someone says, it would be useful if we also had the 1996 resolution that created this taskforce aware of it is.

So, we may…and that may not have occurred to us…so, we link things to it after the agenda is circulated initially.

So, just remember that. And, you know, a day or two before the meeting, it’s just always worthwhile checking

the BFC website to see if anything has been added. The…one note also…a procedural note…just remember that

we meet the first and third Tuesdays of the month, which means since January has five instead of four

Tuesdays…every once in a month we get a week in a month with an extra Tuesday in it. It will actually be three

weeks until our next meeting and not two. Just I remember my first time on the BFC when I several times showed

up to an empty room, because I had it in my head that we met every two weeks. It’s actually the first and third

6

Tuesdays and it affects us this month. Nomination Committee. Over the holidays, when you were either freezing

to death, or Sarasota, or some place sensible, the ballot went the electronic…the email with the link to the

electronic ballot for this next year’s Nominations Committee went out. The only people who vote for the

Nominations Committee are members of the BFC. So, it’s not a general election. And, so far out of the sixty-four

or some odd eligible faculty to vote, only thirty-seven have voted. I realize that the email came in when you

weren’t paying much attention to these things. Find it. Vote. Voting closes tomorrow. So, the new Nominations

Committee can get to work on things that need to be done late spring and for the summer. On a related note,

we will soon be opening the process for nominating and electing next year’s BFC. The…Particularly, those of you

who are ending your two-year term and not running for reelection. Why you would make that decision? I don’t

know. But, if, you know, if your seat is going to be empty, take some responsibility to go…kind of talk it up and

recruit someone to replace you…to, you know, to talk to you colleagues in your units. Say something at a faculty

meeting about this process. And encourage people to talk to each other and support those who would like to

be on the BFC. The so-called nomination process that we have, is not actually a nomination process, it is kind of

a primary. If you are in…it is not enough that one…that one person be nominated one time. If another person

gets five or six nominations, then the person with five or six nominations is five times more likely to be on the

ballot than the person with one. Because, in the event that we have more people who have been nominated,

then there are slots on the ballot, the people with the most nomination votes are the ones on the ballot. So, if

there’s somebody in your unit that everybody thinks would be a great member of the BFC and they are

willing…encourage lots of people to nominate them. And that, sort of makes sure that they are on the ballot. As

part of the process of getting good people to run…to sort of keep building on the momentum that the BFC has

been building on the last couple of years…about, you know, just…you know…becoming the kind of institution

that people actually want to be involved in, we are creating a website, or improving our website for the

nomination process. And what we would like to do on it is have some…those who read the HT…the, you know,

once a week or so, they have a column where people respond to instant message about some issue with good

quotes. Ken Dau-Schmidt is always up prominent on that list. And so, we would like to put up some quotes from

people, who’ve been on the Faculty Council…have thought the process was worthwhile and can say in a

sentence or two, what it is about it. The…what message it is that you should give to other people that says that

they would, you know, why it’s worthwhile, why they should do it. You should send those to Elizabeth Pear, the

Director of the Faculty Council Office. And we’ll give you some kind of prize if yours is selected. All right. Photos

today. There is going to be a photographer that is going to come today…No? Oh, shoot! My…There went my

joke. I’ll…ready to do it next week. Next time. But, it had to do with Donald Trump. So…

ROBEL: Most seem to lately.

TANFORD: Yeah. And finally, a note about…everyone in this room is supposed to be on a committee and many

of us are chairs or vice chairs of committees. A note about committee communication. Please on your

committees use the official listserv for that committee, that is available and run out of the Faculty Council Office.

It is the only way that we know what…even what committees are talking about. We…for example, this coming

week Elizabeth reports that three of our committees have scheduled meetings for exactly the same hour. That

means that Elizabeth and her staff, who are supposed to sort of be keeping tabs on what the committees are

thinking, can’t go to all three meetings at the same time. The only way we know, is if you use the official listserv

to communicate with yourselves. It also…I mean, we are a…you know, an official university activity and agency

here. And I would suggest, in general we should avoid the use of private email servers for public business. This

was the other half of the Trump and Hillary joke. And I now turn things back over to Lauren.

7

AGENDA ITEM 4: PRESIDING OFFICER’S REPORT

ROBEL: Thank you so much Alex. Well, I have a lot to report today from the very happy to the more unnerving.

So, I’ll move through it at a pretty fast clip. I think…I appreciate everyone who was at the MLK event yesterday.

They were spectacular. James Wimbush and John Nieto-Phillips and all of their staff deserve the highest praise

for the leadership breakfast yesterday morning. We had…I think over 800 people at that event. It may have had

something to do with our keynote speaker, see Kamau Bell who was also fantastic. But, it could also have had

something to do with the fact that a number of people as is traditional, received awards yesterday, including

our own Carolyn Calloway-Thomas. So, congratulations Carolyn. And, I’m very happy to report from that

breakfast yesterday, that Indiana University Bloomington was awarded a Champions of Diversity Award from

insights into diversity. That is a pretty significant award for the campus. The editor of the magazine came, Holly

Mendelson presented herself. There are five thousand higher education institutions in the United States. A very

small number are invited to apply for this. You cannot apply, you know, you can’t just apply. And only fifteen

are chosen. And so, again want to thank my colleagues James Wimbush, and John Nieto-Phillips, and Martin

McCrory before him, and everyone else on this campus who has really worked to assure that we are in fact the

champions of diversity and inclusion. Buildings. We had a terrific symbolic ground breaking this morning. The

ground, as you can imagine, is a little hard to break right now. So, we instead turned over symbolic pieces of

earth and (inaudible). The Regional Academic Health Center will be of an incredibly significant set complex-

campus. For both, our university and for our community. It’s a 350 million…60 million-dollar...once you get

above 3 hundred million it almost doesn’t matter the tens. But, project for our community, which is the biggest

economic development event that this community has seen in many, many decades. Our building…President

McRobbie announced this morning, is going to be funded primarily from Big Ten athletics contract revenues.

And that…it continues the work that has happened as a result of those revenues. Starting with this Global and

International Studies building. So, Fred Glass is here for other reasons, but I want to thank him for his many,

many contributions to the academic mission of the university and this in particular. Thank you, Fred. The Luddy

Hall opened up and classes are going. And…who is here from informatics and computing? Yeah? It’s…we are

all…You are in? Are you both in? You did not move. Ok. You are still in the informatics building. Yeah. I’ve done

a tour of Luddy Hall. And I encourage all of you to go through it. It’s pretty spectacular and has a lot of interesting

features that allow many, many places for students to convene and small groups to meet. And just lots of places

for people to gather. Will be a really great addition for campus, and a particularly great signature building for

that north-south corridor that Woodlawn is now finally. I have the great honor of calling out a lot of other

people’s honors. So, in November we had five IU Bloomington faculty members named Fellows of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science. This brings the number of Triple As affiliated faculty at IU to ninety-

nine. I encourage one of you to be the hundredth. The newest fellows, include Jean Camp from Informatics

Computing and Engineering, Matt Hahn from Biology and School of Informatics Computing and Engineering,

Andrea Wiley from Anthropology, Chen Zhu from Earth and Atmospheric Science, and Adam Zlotnick from the

department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. So, congratulations to all of these colleagues on

outstanding achievements in the field of scholarship and research. We had the 2017 Outstanding Faculty

Collaborative Research Award, presented I think right before Thanksgiving. And it was my colleague Amy

Applegate, who is a Clinical Professor of Law and the Ralph Fuchs faculty fellow and Director of the Viola

Taliaferro Family and Children Mediation Clinic at the Maurer School of Law, who’s been collaborating for years

with Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, a Professor of Psychology in the department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.

So, they presented their lecture on evidence-based practice in real-world family-law settings. And I wanted to

congratulate them and to note how significant I think this award has become in just the three years that it has

8

been on our campus in really recognizing the ways we are a campus and we work with each other across

disciplinary boundaries. Probably, the loveliest event I went to before the semester closed was the Staff Merit

Awards, which every year are heartwarming and terrific events. Its six recipients…six recipients among them

had a 168 years of service to our institution. Carolyn Lipson-Walker. Many of you know, the Assistant Director

of the Borns Jewish Studies Program, who’s been there for…been at IU for twenty-four years. Gary Chambers,

fifty-two years at IU and manager of Utility Information in the Facilities department. Brad Bond, a carpenter in

Facility Operations with twenty-five years of service, who really talked quite movingly about the ways in which

IU allowed him to develop, and expand his skills, and build a life for his family. Jill Kenealy-Minch, an electrician

in Facility Operations who’s been there twenty-seven years. And who said much the same, that she had an

opportunity through the Apprentice Program in Facilities Operation to develop into a skilled electrician. And she

is really…she talked a lot about how much it has meant to work at IU. Rob England. Retail dining supervisor at

the IMU. Sixteen years of service and he’s never missed a day of work in that time. Not one. Not one. And Judy

Roberts, who is the secretary to the chair of the Department of Chemistry, who is twenty-four years of service.

We all know from our academic homes how critically important staff members are to the mission of the campus.

And if you ever really want a…pick me up right at the end of the fall semester, when you are imagining what will

happen as soon as you get all these papers that you have to grade. Come to the Staff Merit Awards, because

you will walk out of that with a wonderful appreciation of the fabric of this community. I want to talk about a

couple of pending items. First DACA. Just to bring you up to date. Remember President McRobbie wrote a

to…and actually met with our congressional delegation back in September. All of the presidents of the Big Ten

then wrote again in December. And at that point, right before I left for the semester, I wrote individually to all

of our DACA students on campus. Just to bring them up to date with the advocacy that the campus is…and the

university is doing and point them again to our website for them that is kept updated. I’ve…we’ve been closely

following the events in Washington. But, also that district-court decision from California that…enjoined the

closing down of the DACA program for the foreseeable future. I guess the upside of that is that it stopped the

administration from refusing to accept applications and from closing down the program. I suppose the downside

of that, is that it seems to have taken the pressure off our representatives in Washington. But, we’ll see…it we’re

watching that quite carefully. And we keep our students informed of everything we know. And the website is

really…I think a pretty good tool. So, that. Ballantine. Where to begin? Work on Ballantine will begin this summer

and will continue into the fall of 2018. And will continue all the way through 2020 academic year. The…Ballantine

provides a significant amount of our instructional space. Seventy-seven classrooms, three auditoriums…about

more or less twenty-five percent of the classrooms on campus, thirty percent of the general inventory rooms,

about sixteen percent of the classes on campus meet in Ballantine. Tom Morrison came and spoke to us last

semester. And you have a sense, I think, of how extensive the renovation is going to be. We’ll start on the south

tower and take forty general inventory classes out of circulation. The renovation has to include things like HVAC.

Good news on that is that when this is done, there will be air conditioning. That’s a big step forward. And then

phase two, we’ll remove thirty-seven general inventory classrooms. So, they are going…they are trying to…we

are trying to do it, so that we don’t take them all out at once. We renovate them in a rolling way. We’ve been

working very hard to find appropriate instructional space across campus. I had conversations with all the deans

about their obligations to the community. And we will of course, find instructional space for everyone. But, I

want to note two things. The first is that, for classes that continue to meet in Ballantine, we will do everything

we can during construction to minimize the noise and other effects of construction activity. But, construction…it

is construction. So, I just…it’s construction. And all classes, because of the constrained space resources, may be

on…subject to the possibility of expanded days, might be taught outside the campus core, might be taught in

spaces not initially designed for instruction. Mark McConahay, the registrar is looking carefully at all potential

9

spaces on campus. So, we maybe all visiting new places on campus that we haven’t visited before. This is a big

deal for our campus to be able to get the space to…into the twenty-first century. And so, it will take a lot of

collective patience to get to the end of this process. And so, I’m going to ask all of you to be advocates for that

patience, as you go back to your departments. And to get through the pending items on a nicer note, I guess…In

just a few weeks, we are going to kick off IU Bloomington second Annual Global Arts and Humanities Festival

with India Remixed. It was last year’s festival China Remixed was terrific, I thought. And this year’s also draws

upon the artistic and intellectual diversity of our campus. And brings in a very impressive lineup of artists,

scholars, cultural luminaries of various kinds. So, we have a performance by Vir Das, the comedian, on February

22nd, an artist talk by Bharti Kher with an installation of paintings and sculptures, a public lecture by Salman

Rushdie, the second Booker-prize winner to visit the campus in less than six months, and it goes on and on. Lots

of filmmakers and films in the IU cinema. And…well, all this will be fun. We also will welcome two of IUs most

accomplished Indiana alumns, media CEO Raju Narisetti on April 4th, and restaurateur, Rakshay Dhariwaltour,

on March 2nd. And Rakshay’s restaurants are really pretty cool in India. I’ve been to a couple of them. He will

take place in a celebrity chef challenge as part of the weekend long celebrations for the holly festival. So, lots to

do this spring to take our minds off the weather. And I will finish with the fact that it is Elizabeth Pear’s one-year

anniversary today, as our Chief of Staff for the Faculty Council. And we can look just at the beautiful agenda that

went out this week and the wonderful website, to see the…what she’s managed to accomplish in this year. So,

thank you Elizabeth. Are there questions from the Council? Yeah. Rebecca.

AGENDA ITEM 5: QUESTION/COMMENT PERIOD

SPANG: I just wanted…especially in the context of your comments about DACA, to point out the one of the other

recipients yesterday at the Building Bridges Award was the UndocuHoosiers Alliance. And one important thing

that came from this body’s conversations with the UndocuHoosiers Alliance last year was the creation of the

BFC scholarship. Many of you gave to that generously last year. But, that was last year. So, it’s time to give again.

And please do. Thanks.

ROBEL: Thank you. Other questions or comments from the Council? All right. Thank you. Elizabeth, were you

skipping your update because of the technology? All right. Report of the Athletics Committee. And we are lucky

today to have with us Fred Glass, who needs no introduction from me. Kurt Zorn, our Faculty Athletics

Representative, and Carrie Docherty who is Chair of the Athletics Committee for the annual report. So, may I

turn it over to the three of you?

AGENDA ITEM 8: REPORT OF THE ATHLETICS COMMITTEE

DOCHERTY: Yeah. Thank you so much for having us today. The report that we submitted to you all was based

on the work that was done during that 2016-17 academic year. And I just want to highlight that during that year

the Committee was led by Dr. David Daleke. So, he is our outgoing Chair. So, I want to thank him publicly for all

the work he’s done over the las four plus years on this Committee, and personally in handing things off to me

the continued assistance that you have provided to me. I know from being on this Committee that you all are

very strict and adherent to your agenda. So, at this time I just want to pass it on to our Faculty Athletics Rep.

and, or immediately to Fred Glass to provide additional details regarding the report.

10

GLASS: Thanks Carrie. Let the record reflect the FAR passed. I did not highjack his comments. Good afternoon

everyone. It’s great to be with you. I looked forward this opportunity to share with you some of the things going

on in the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics and to address any concerns, or questions, or qualms that you

may have. I have a fascinating report full of ruffles, and flourishes, and interesting background, which I’m going

to ring most of that out of the report and sort of do the Joe Friday, “Just the facts” on most of this. If there is

anything in which you have particular interest, please feel free to slow me down or ask after the presentation.

Having said that, I do want to start with one of my favorite quotes from the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-

Tze, who is credited with saying the following…or writing the following, “Watch your thoughts, they become

words. Watch your words, they become actions. Watch your actions, they become habits. Watch your habits,

they become character. Watch you character, it becomes your destiny.” And I think that’s apropos, because we

try to be very mindful of how we describe ourselves and what we aspire to in the Athletic Department. And some

of you veterans may be able to recite by memory, we have five priorities in the Department of Intercollegiate

Athletics. In order. Number one, you want to play by the rules. Number two, we want to be well in mind, body,

and spirit. Number three, we want to achieve academically. Number four, we want to excel athletically. And

number five, we want to be integrated in the broader university. We also believe we are valued based

organization beyond those priorities. So, some of the things that we talk about very expressly all the time are

these values, you know, I just…I won’t give all the interesting background on this, but we need to take our jobs

seriously, not ourselves. We need to be loyal, but always remember that blind loyalty is not loyalty. We want to

presume good faith in our interactions with other people. The Jesuits call that the presupposition. We want to

care for the whole person. The Jesuits call that cura personalis. Follow the golden rule. Or more recently Lauren

has been brought into the platinum rule, “Don’t treat other people like you want to be treated, treat other

people like they want to be treated.” And that’s very important part of our diversity and inclusivity initiative.

Connect with each other. Promote diversity, inclusivity, especially as to race, sexual orientation, religious

affiliation, and gender identity. Have fun. We attract what we project. We are what we tolerate. And take

criticism seriously, not personally. And I get a lot of opportunity to utilize that last value. Those values have

really evolved into our creed. We call it “The Spirit of Indiana: 24 Sports, One Team.” Our priorities are

embedded in that. We are able people of integrity, who play by the rules. We are well in mind, body, and spirit.

We reach our highest academic potential and earn Indiana University degrees. We reach our highest athletic

potential and win championships. We are unselfish leaders and teammates. We represent Indiana University

with passion, appreciation, respect, and distinction. We are positive, responsible, inclusive, and integrated with

our university. We are part of something bigger than ourselves. Those values led us a couple of years ago to

establish the first Student-Athlete Bill of Rights in the country. We are still one of the very few to have that. I’ll

spare you a lot of the details, but they are very, in my view, progressive, and innovative aspects of that, including

be one of the first schools to guarantee a four-year scholarship, a lifetime degree guarantee, various academic

support wellness measures, leadership in life skills support. Specific commitments to a culture of trust and

respect. And giving our student government essentially a Student-Athlete Advisor Council, a collective voice in

how the department is operated. One of our challenges is that…I’m here because the department didn’t handle

a major infractions case very well. And it’s not a coincidence that playing by the rules is our number one priority.

And I tell our people all the time that it’s never the first landing on the aircraft carrier that gets the pilot. It’s the

fortieth, or the sixtieth, or the hundredth. Because, you get complacent…hopefully, not complicit. But, you get

complacent. And so, one of our challenges in athletics is that we get further and further away from our major

infractions case. How do we continue to keep an edge to make sure we are playing by the rules. We do that in

a variety of ways. We have a new leader of our compliance area, Kristin Borrelli. She is an attorney, which is

helpful in that area. We’ve retain Spectrum Collegiate Sports Consulting and its leader Judy Roe Lach, who was

11

a past director enforcing the NCAA to give us ongoing advice and she is…her company has reviewed our

compliance function and our institutional control. They’ve also helped us develop a head coach control plan for

every one of our twenty-four sports. And our compliance staff is the second largest pro rata in the Big Ten. So,

you can say, play by the rules all you want. But, I like to see people’s values reflected in their staffing tables and

their budgets. Speaking of budget, our compliance service of budget has gone from, just under 400 thousand

dollars in 08 and 09 to over 800 thousand dollars. It’s more than doubled in my tenure. We have a very detailed

comprehensive…I think the most detailed comprehensive in the history of the department since I’ve been there.

Gender equity plan, to make sure we are complying with Title IX in letter and spirit. And we’ve had no major

infraction cases in the last nine years. That’s playing by the rules. Being well in mind, body, and spirit to

encourage students to bring forth concerns. We recently established with the advising consent of the Athletics

Committee a student-athlete concerns communications protocol, to help the kids know how to surface

concerns. A really neat initiative from our students was a lifeline rule to model the states lifeline law. So that, it

encourages kids that are maybe in trouble, because of drug or alcohol abuse, to come forth with that and not

suffer repercussions with their sports. Given that they already enjoy that with law enforcement through the

lifeline law. We have a student conduct policy, which works to prevent serious student misconduct, by focusing

on recruiting, education, and sanctions and creates a variety of due diligence measures we look at…to try to

ensure that we are recruiting the kind of kids we want to represent Indiana University. We’ve increased our

student-athlete nutrition budget twofold in the last few years. We’ve been very focused on issues relating to

concussion research. In fact, we are part of the largest concussion research study in the country. The NCAA and

the Department of Defense are funding the Concussion Assessment Research and Education Consortium to

address concerns about concussions, how they occur and their long-term implications. Again, with the advice

and consent of the Athletics Committee, we adopted a new sportsmanship policy best in class. Which I think is

helpful not only to our fans, but protective of our student-athletes and other participants in intercollegiate

athletics. Athletics is not immune from challenges involving sexual assault, and sexual misconduct, and the

prevention of those…and I’d like to believe that in the great tradition of Indiana University we’ve been

innovative in that area as well. We adopted the nation’s first ever policy disqualifying prospective student-

athletes with records of sexual violence, which is being hailed as a model by four other universities. Again, with

very helpful advice and ultimate consent with the Athletics Committee, as we debated the balance of that to

make sure all those involved’s interests were protected. We also have fully implemented at the university Sexual

Misconduct Policy. And we understand clearly that while those issues aren’t limited to athletics, sometimes they

are most high profiled and in an athletics setting. And we try to be aggressive in that area. We’re proud of the

fact that we’ve maintained our Sport Event Security Awareness Designation from The National Center for

Spectators Sports and Safety. In this modern world, I think it’s very important that we are making sure we take

care of our students, fans, staff, coaches…and Simon Skjodt Assembly Hall and Memorial Stadium have both

been certified by that entity and we are one of only twelve schools in the country that have that designation.

We include diversity and inclusivity as part of being well in mind, body, and spirit. We are proud that a recent

study by the Minneapolis Star Tribune found athletics to be in the top three for head coach and senior

administrator racial diversity in the Big Ten. We have been in these times that…we are unfortunately part of the

Provost report. We are very mindful of the wellness of our fifty-three international students from twenty

countries. And as many of you have experienced, a great deal of anxiety has arisen with our international

students and not just from the countries outlined by the President, but across the board. And, we‘ve worked a

lot with campus, to try to make sure they feel as secure and supported as possible. A couple of years ago, I also

established the Athletics Directors Council on Diversity and Inclusivity, which has been awesome. We have at

least one representative from each team. And we talk about issues that kind of go across the board, but really

12

centered on race. And it’s very hard to talk about race. Particularly, in a mixed raced environment. We had

outside facilitators come in and help us talk about those kind of issues, and have them go back to their teams

and talk about those issues with their teams. We were very involved in community service. I’ll spare the details.

We focused on IU Dance Marathon in Camp Riley. Academically, we are very proud that IU has been named one

of the twenty-five schools that dominate academically and athletically. Perhaps most significantly, our most

recent graduation success rate has increased by nearly fifteen percentage points, from what it was in 2011 to

90.6 percent in its most recent report in 2016. That’s an Indiana University record. And it’s higher than the

averages for all Division One schools, all FBS schools, and even all the schools in the Big Ten, which is, you know,

a highly academic conference. The average GPA for our student-athletes is a 3.15. Sixty-eight of our student-

athletes were named Big Ten Distinguished Scholars. That’s the most in school history. We are proud of those

academic accomplishments. Excelling athletically, we had twenty-seven individual conference champions last

year, up from sixteen the year before. Fifty all Americans, up from thirty-eight the year before. Fifteen teams

qualified for the postseason, up from thirteen the year before. One of the most important things I do is hire

coaches. One of my most prominent heroes is Herman B Wells. And one of my favorite quotes from Wells is

when he said, “The quality…” or actually wrote. He might have said it too, but I know he wrote it, “The quality

of the faculty is the most important ingredient in the success of the university. Many things can be done to help

members of the faculty. But, the greatest laboratories, the finest buildings, and the largest salaries will mean

little without people of absolutely top quality to use them. And so, the recruitment and retention of superior

faculty members, must be the first objective of any administration, and must have top priority in the use of the

administration’s energy, mind, and body.” And that’s pertinent to us because our head coaches are our faculty.

And all this other stuff we do in programming and catching up in facilities. And, you know, having credos, and

bills of rights, and all that. Those aren’t any good if you are being undermined by your head coaches. And so,

we take that responsibly very seriously to retain our best. And when we need to make changes or when changes

are foisted upon us to a hire great successors. And we hired great coaches last year in Tom Allen in football.

Archie Miller in men’s basketball. Shonda Stanton in softball. Ramiro Azcui in women’s tennis. And then we

recently hired Steve Aird in volleyball. We are very proud of our integration with the university. Just a few

examples are that every one of our senior administrators is assigned a campus administrator. So, if they

think…their concerns aren’t being met within the department, they are encouraged to interact with people on

campus. As the Provost kindly noted, we have helped fund the cost of the new Global International Studies

Building. And more recently, as announced today, the Regional Academic Health Center from our media

agreements with the Big Ten. We contributed 300 thousand dollars towards the purchase of a new state-of-the-

art MRI machine for the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. They can be used to help with our

concussion studies and would be helpful to our student-athletes. I’ll spare some of these details in the interest

of time. Again, out of a great tradition of Wells, we are proud of our collaboration of the urging of the President

with the Office of International Services and East Asian Languages and Cultures. We broadcast all of our

homes…men’s basketball games in Mandarin, which has been really cool. And now we are doing that with our

men’s soccer program in Spanish. I got a whole thing on sustainability. I’ll just say we are very active in

sustainability. We’re proud that our motto Greening Cream and Crimson was adopted by the university as a

whole, as the sustainability motto. I’ll just give you one this year…Cook Hall ranked number one in energy savings

for the entire Bloomington campus. During the campus energy challenge we’re big into composting and

recycling. And I’ll spare you the factoids on that. The big finish is that, once again, last year’s as has been every

year since 2009 IU athletics finish in the black financially, as you all know. But, some folks don’t know, that we

do that without any tuition contribution, no student fees, no taxpayer money. We are self-sustaining and

financially independent. And in fact, we actually make fairly significant payments to the university—well over

13

10 million dollars to pay for the scholarships of our kids who are on grants and aid. I mentioned the two academic

buildings that we have helped to fund. We pay our administrative fee and we pay for all the stuff. You know,

everybody else pays for whether it’s facility operations, the architect’s office, radio and TV, event services, IUPD,

and printing services…So, I know that was a lot. You’ve been very patient. I’d be happy to entertain any questions

or comments.

ROBEL: I just want to start by thanking you, Fred, for always leading with values. You’ve always lead with your

values. And that’s…I think that goes a long way to explain the success of everything else. The campus is now in

the position, with that graduation statistic, of working to catch up with athletics. And I also want to point out

for the Council, if…we often don’t make these kinds of comparisons between our own university and others, but

it is extraordinarily unusual for an athletics program to be contributing money to a campus. I could make myself

un-liked at the Big Ten Provost meetings by gloating over that fact. Because, it is not the case in other institutions

like ours. So, thank you Fred for really brilliant management of a complex set of programs. And with that, I’d

like to just open it up to the Council. Yep?

AGENDA ITEM 9: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF THE ATHLETICS COMMITTEE CALLAWAY THOMAS: Thank you. Also, wish to applaud you for your spectacular accomplishments. But, I want

to know in light of the revenue that is being generated, to what extent have the grants and scholarships

improved for athletes? I mean, what do they now get? And what have been those increases over the past several

years?

GLASS: Yes. Thank you. So, just for some context, we have about 650 student athletes. I think about a hundred

and fifty of those are on full scholarships. About another hundred are on what I call the fulltime equivalent of

scholarships. Because, only a limited number of sports give a hundred percent scholarship to every student. And

then the others are divided up, and the rest are here without grants and aid. We…the NCAA gives a maximum

number of scholarships for each sport. We support ours to the maximum, so we get as many scholarships as we

can. And they cover everything a normal scholarship covers: room, board, tuition, fees, books, and so forth.

Recently, I think we are near three of our ability to give a personal expense…allowance. So, you know, if you

have a kid and they fill out a FAFSA, they’ve got all the cost. There´s a line for personal expenses, flying home,

pizzas, laundry, stuff like that. Until three years ago we were not allowed to give that as part of the scholarship.

And now we are. Which I think it´s awesome. Costs us about a million dollars a year to do that. But, I think it´s

really outstanding. Because, given all that we demand of student-athletes these days, it´s really hard for them

to have a part time job, you know, like I did at Intercollegiate Printers…or a variety of places around town here,

Jeremiah Sweeneys. I´m dating myself on that one. So, we give the full amount we can to as many people as we

can. And that number is probably about 12 million dollars in value that we basically write checks to the university

for those services.

CALLAWAY THOMAS: Thank you. I have another question if I may.

GLASS: Sure.

14

CALLAWAY THOMAS: On page two of your report, you indicate that the Student Well Being and Equity

Committee review student-athlete exit interviews. Do you mind sharing with us what the yield was?

GLASS: Yes. So, the NCAA requires that we do a sampling of our departing players. And usually at seniors, but it

could also be a transfer…what we’ve instituted is, that we make a very strong effort to either talk to them or it’s

documented to me what we couldn’t talk to them. Every student that leaves, whether as a departing senior, or

a transfer student, or whatever…So, we are more comprehensive in detail than we are required to be by our

governing body. And we ask the same questions of everyone about their experience at the university, their

experience with the department, how is academics, how is compliance…And then I think very telling questions

about the coaching staff. Would you have your future son and daughter play for x? Do you think x can take this

program where it needs to go? And then we´re able to compare those kind of yes-no binary choices with

particular coaches overtime, or compare it to a norm. I don´t have the details of what those answers are, but

we are very deliberate about our exit-interview process.

ROBEL: Thank you.

DOCHERTY: If I can elaborate. And Fred certainly can chime in here…the other thing that I think it’s unique as

far as student-athlete resources, is every student-athlete within intercollegiate athletics is treated equally. It

doesn’t matter if you are on that full ride scholarship or if you are not. All of the resources that are given are

provided to the student-athletes…are equal across the board. And similar to what Lauren said, that’s not the

case across the country.

ROBEL: Other questions for the Committee? Let´s see. I’ve got one and two…let´s start with Adam.

RENEKER: Thanks so much for coming in and giving a report today. My question is about campus integration.

So, earlier last semester you met with a group of us student leaders to talk about ways that we as students can

help student-athletes become more integrated in campus. One of the things that I was wondering was, what it

is being done institutionally to help student-athletes be integrated in campus. Because it seems like while it’s

really great that we are having all these resources for student-athletes. Because it´s difficult being a student-

athlete. And also, at the same time it seems to be removing student-athletes from the general student life and

student body as a lot more the things that they are doing that are happening up at the athletic complexes,

instead of on the general campus. So, I just was wondering what kind of actions were being taken then…to help

further that.

GLASS: You know…I appreciate the question. I guess, I’ll take some issue with the premise. I think we actually

resist momentum to try to have the students more separated from the university. So, for example…I’m not going

to mention any names. But, there are major athletic programs at universities in our region where the kids don’t

go on campus at all. They go to the basketball center. They take all their classes online. They have all their tutors

in there. And they defend that by saying, well they’d be mauled, you know, they are celebrities…they couldn’t

go out there. And we reject that. So, our kids are engaged going on campus. And in fact, when we have our

coaches in, they often tell some of their requirements, you know, you go in…and the class check…if somebody

is not sitting in the front row, it doesn’t count that they are there. And you got to take out your earbuds, you

got to take off your hood, you got to take off your hat…And I think actually…I’d like to think and believe the

hallmark of our students is that they are engaged and they do attend. Now, I think at a meeting we had at… I

15

was noting that we have a psychologist on our staff. Not a sports performance psychologist, but a wellness

psychologist. In part because, when somebody presents for a performance issue, you know, I choke in the

clutch…I can’t convert my practice game to the real game. A lot of times that’s a wellness issue. Their parents

are getting a divorce, they broke up with their boyfriend, you know, whatever it is. And I was challenged there

to say, well that doesn’t seem fair that there will be access, you know, to a psychologist, you know on the

campus. But, I actually think that helps free up resources on campus to the balance of the student body. So, in

any event in ways both micro and macro, we try to have our students be engaged…micro, was one of the things

I was discussing about…the class attendance etiquette, and so forth. And then more of a macro like, meeting

with student leaders and saying, how can we do this better? I was just with the President of IUSA yesterday

about a joint program he was proposing that I think will lead to issues of integration. It’s not easy, I will tell you,

even though it may not be popular in this venue, that sometimes our kids feel isolated from the classes. In this

diversity and inclusivity, I had multiple kids telling me that, I don’t know whether they are isolating me because

I’m black or because I’m an athlete. Maybe some of that is self-generated. But, I do think in some quarters…my

kids tell me they’ll go to great ends not to look like an athlete. Because, they feel somehow there’s as stigma to

that, even with their classmates and unfortunately sometimes with their instructors. So, I think it’s a joint issue.

I’ve enjoyed the meetings with the Executive Board of BFC about how can we try to break down some to those

walls. Sort for the long answer.

ROBEL: Katie?

SIEK: Sure. Thank you for your report. I had a question. It’s a little bit a two-part. How do you document injuries?

Especially, with exit interviews and athletes playing. And then, afterwards…after an athlete graduates, how do

you document their wellness throughout and, how injuries may impact them later in life?

GLASS: Thank you. So, we have a pretty robust sports medicine area that includes primary care docs and is

heavily reliant on athletic trainers. We have a great relationship with the School of Public Health. And have both,

full time professional graduated trainers that have been there five years, twenty years, thirty years…and then

also, kids that are going through rotations in the athletic training program. Your question is particularly

appropriate, because we are right now trying to move toward…how do we do a better job of documenting and

writing things down that we do, and electronic reporting, and all that kind of stuff. Cause, sometimes in the

excitement or dizziness, they don’t write things down. Obviously, that’s challenging. So, number one, we think

we have a well-staffed internal medical sports function. But, we are constantly reviewing…especially now, with

the new technology, and so forth. And then, we also utilize third parties, referring people to orthopedic

surgeons, or whatever. In terms of going forward when a student leaves, we have an exit physical. And so, we

try to document, you know, what injuries do you have now. And our commitment under the Student-Athlete

Bill of Rights is to treat them for one year post graduation. And there’s some Big Ten legislation to extend that

to two years, which we are supporting. So, post departure, we have the exit physical, and we take care of them

for a year, and it’ll soon move to two years. Did that answer…?

SIEK: Yeah. It answers it. I would like to talk off line more. Because, with the concussions study, it’s not going

to come…it may come in one to two years, but it could come in a decade and later. So, it could be…

GLASS: Yeah. There’s no doubt.

16

DOCHERTY: If could take off my Chair cap and put on my faculty hat, there is a robust line of inquiry there that

some folks in the School of Public Health in collaboration with others that are looking at former athletes twenty,

thirty, forty years down the road. So, you know, I agree with you. I think that’s a line of inquiry that could only

battle inform what we are doing from a clinical practice perspective.

ROBEL: wanted…just a note of what Fred said earlier, Indiana is involved in the biggest concussion study in the

country right now. And the School of Medicine is also involved in… It will be a challenge, I know...over time as

we see the results there. But, that’s…we are full participants. Alex, may be the last question?

TANFORD: It’s kind of a two-part question. The first part, I assume you still sort of separately keep track of

sponsored athletes. And my question is, what…currently…what percentage of our athletes are sponsored? And,

how are they perform…doing academically compared to the student body? It was some good numbers on

athletics…athletes generally. But, looking at the subset of sponsored ones, I wondered how they’re doing.

ZORN: So, the answer to the second part is, we do track that. And the sponsored students…student-athletes are

performing as well as the regularly admitted student-athletes, who are performing at the same level as our

general student body. So, the news is good there. As far as numbers, it varies from year to year. The absolute

numbers we’ve had a low last year of about thirty-nine student-athletes in the incoming class. This year we are

about fifty. So, it varies between that. And depends how you want to look at it, there are fifty of six hundred

total student-athletes. But, if it’s the incoming in class, you take a fourth of that, so it’s fifty out of… Right! And

not surprisingly, we have a large percentage that are sponsored that are football recruits for a variety of reasons.

But, I must say our Sponsorship Committee, which it’s composed of four faculty members, look very hard and

carefully at the probability of these students being academically successful. Knowing that we have a really good

academic support staff that can help these students be successful with the attention they get and the learning

specialists. And, I think that’s the reason we are successful. And, you know, I’ll brag on Bruce, who was my

predecessor and probably Bill, who was his predecessor…somebody set up a system that the campus has

adopted for faculty sponsorship. I don’t know if you remember years ago, when I was doing this…and, you know,

before emails…sending letters through the mails saying, I want a sponsor for a student that we sort of like…ok.

Now, they have a committee just like we do in athletics that reviews these to make sure that they have a

reasonable probability of success.

ROBEL: Well…I want to thank Fred, for taking so much time to answer questions, and for the Committee and

athletic representative for the tough work. It’s critically important for the faculty to be involved in the way that

we are involved in athletics. And so, it’s important work. And I know it’s time consuming. Thank you so much

for doing it. All right. Maybe we could take a moment and thank everyone, as they’re leaving. I turn now to Alex

for a short…looks like five minutes…presentation on proposed changes to reporting procedures. Alex?

AGENDA ITEM 10: PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING PROCEDURES WITHIN BL-ACA-A3 BLOOMINGTON CAMPUS POLICIES FOR NON-TENURE-TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL APPOINTMENTS TANFORD: Thank you. This is proposed change to policy A3. And it’s a proposal to make a…what I thought going

in was a very slight revision. Basically, it arose out of a discussion in our Faculty Affairs Committee. Between

them and the Eliza Pavalko, that raised a question about the implications of a change in the report a couple of

years ago, on reporting tenure track versus non-tenure track faculty teaching ratios in some way. And what

17

happened was, the…apparently in 2016 we amended policy A3 to require the Vice Provost for Faculty and

Academic Affairs to give an oral and written report fairly detailed to the BFC every year on the numbers of

tenure versus non-tenure track faculty, broken down by, department, and school, and the numbers, and

percentages, and credit hours, class sections, class subsections…taught by each of those categories of academic

appointees, broken down by class level and class size. This is one of those it seemed like a good idea at the time,

because we were starting to get serious about the process of putting together the NTT Taskforce and looking

seriously at the status of non-tenure track faculty. Well, what we did in 2016 has had unintended consequences.

It has greatly expanded the length of the report that the Vice Provost was to give to us last year. It ran over forty

pages. It is sufficiently particular about what it wants, that it excludes other things that we didn’t know we

wanted. And therefore, we get lots of information, some of which we don’t need, and don’t get information

that we might need. It has also…I suspect Eliza would deny it… I suspect…placed a large burden on her staff to

extract and prepare a report from a raw body of data, that is itself readily available to all faculty with a central

authenticating system login. And because of the requirement that we had to have this report every year, it takes

up a block of BFC time, even in a year when there’s no action item or other relevant issue to which it is

connected. Finally, it has been sort of the ongoing policy of the BFC over the last couple of years to try to cut

down on passive reports. And in…come directly to the BFC, in favor of an ongoing dialog between an

administrator and a relevant committee where they can decide…where that information can be presented and

then the committee chairs, made up of faculty, can decide on a periodic basis what issues they want to bring to

the BFC. So, because of all of that, we proposed…and this comes from the Executive Committee the…that the

section of this policy that specified each year, be amended to include the phrase, “on an ongoing basis.” Simply

on the assumption that we may not need this every year. And secondly, that it delete the phrase, “report orally

and in writing to the BFC,” with what I think was the original intent, “make the data available to the BFC.” And

that allows people on committees and people on the BFC who want information about NTTs and what they are

teaching in class…to make sure that there is a databank that has this information. Without going so far as to

then require that it kind of redundantly be put into report and presented to the faculty. So, those are the…those

are the two changes. Now, when this came out on the agenda, it triggered a kind of a flurry of concern and

emails that this was some kind of substantive change, in what data was being asked of Eliza’s office that they

collect and make available. It is not intended to do that. It doesn’t do that. It only changes the requirement of

an affirmative report to make the database available. Essentially, all of this. Now, out of the flurry of emails,

there were a lot of discussions that I thought were quite productive about what kinds of information we needed

to move ahead on our general discussion of non-tenure track…the role of non-tenure track faculty and their

various responsibilities and rights on this campus. Those issues are currently being thought about and discussed

above the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Non-Tenure Track. The NTT Taskforce. So, while anybody can bring

anything they want to, to the floor here, my suggestion is, if your concerns are that different, information should

be being gathered. Because the issue you think we need to address can’t be addressed on the database that is

currently done. Those concerns should go to the NTT Taskforce or the Faculty Affairs Committee to talk about.

And that’s not really what is on the agenda here. What’s on the agenda here, is simply to change the

requirement of an annual formal report to a requirement that on a continuing and ongoing basis the data must

be collected to be available.

ROBEL: Eliza, anything you want to supplement there?

PAVALKO: Yes. Thank you, Alex. I just want to be sure…and I encourage people if you haven’t looked at the

university institutional reporting website, that…it’s actually that office that does the hard work of putting all the

18

date in there. And so, where we were was, you know, our office would go to that office and they’d produce a

report. But, it’s available to everybody. All faculty and staff can login and see the data in all kinds of

combinations, and all kinds of minute breakdowns, or whatever they want. So, apart from whatever reporting

we do, that’s a really useful website. And I encourage everybody to visit it.

ROBEL: We are in a vastly different place with the transparency of data around tons of things on the campus.

There’s been a big push over the last several years to get more actionable data information online, in useful real

time forms. And so, if you haven’t looked, I do encourage you to look. There’s a lot…there’s a lot there. Ok? All

right. Discussion? Comments? Alan? Yep.

AGENDA ITEM 11: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO REPORTING PROCEDURES WITHIN BL-ACA-A3 BLOOMINGTON CAMPUS POLICIES FOR NON-TENURE-TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL APPOINTMENTS BENDER: Yes. So, some of the problems with the reporting last year, like you said Alex, were…was asking for too

much information. So, one way to get around that problem is to change ACA-A3 to require less information. And

like you said, the specific sort that we can expect to want annually. So, one can ask, why do we even have this

requirement in the first place, whose language is being proposed to be changed? There’s a…why do we have

this requirement ask for this information every year? And, why does the BFC want to know about who is doing

how much teaching in each school? And I think, it’s because it’s just…that’s something basic about…I don’t

know…if we want to be thinking…understanding undergraduate education say on our campus, I think it’s

important to know who is really doing the teaching in different schools. And I think that was the reason for

having ACA-A3 in the first place, was to be able to annually monitor, you know, allow there to be information

for the BFC to look at about how much teaching is being done by different categories of academic appointee in

each school. And so, ACA-A3, which is a Bloomington Faculty Council Policy…it doesn’t stand alone. It’s sort of…

it’s meant to be a way to implement…I mean, from my point of view it’s…ACA-A3 our campus policy that we are

talking about right now…I see it as a way to implement a University Faculty Council Policy that asks for us to…ask

each campus’s faculty governance body. So, in our case the BFC. This University Faculty Council Policy ACA-A12,

specifies that each campus’s faculty governance policy…governance body, the BFC in our case, is supposed to

annually receive information from each school on their campus about how much teaching is being done by each

category of academic appointees. So, I see ACA-A3 where will considering sort of getting rid of it in a way, as

being a way that we are supposed to be implementing…that were chosen to implement this university policy.

And I guess, I would say that if we change this requirement to have…for the BFC to receive information about

who is doing how much teaching in each school. If we change this requirement form being annual to being on

an ongoing basis, I don’t know what we are left with. Cause, what is on an ongoing basis mean…it doesn’t mean

every semester, it doesn’t mean every year, it doesn’t mean every two years. There is no frequency element of

that. So, I guess what’s left is…on an ongoing basis means, as requested by the BFC. I guess is what that means.

So, basically what we would then end up with a policy that’s saying, at the request of the BFC, the Vice Provost

needs to provide this information that we can get by ourselves anyway without her, now that there…now that

the systems are so good. So, I’m just wondering what we are left with. So, I guess I would…I don’t know. It’s…I

kind of feel two different directions here. On the one hand, it’s so easy for us to get this information. We don’t

need the Vice Provost to get it. We can just easily get it ourselves. So, I don’t really need the Vice Provost, so

maybe we should get rid of that aspect of this policy. But, if we, you know, whether we do that or not I

think…what I worry is that then we are at the same time getting rid of this expectation, that’s also part of the

university policy that annually we collect information. And that, I think ideally the BFC could like, put on its

19

website, or put on an agenda, or something to allow it to be distributed. So, it’s not really in. So, it’s really made

public. So, anyway, so I would…I guess, in the worst-case scenario, if this were to pass and this is changed from

having the information being collected by the BFC, not every year, but on an ongoing basis, I guess I would

request that we count this semester as being an ongoing basis, that we don’t just never ask for this information

again. So, I’d like to ask for at least once…let’s look…let’s try to see what kind of information we can get. And

then, if we like that, maybe we’ll decide, oh! maybe this is information that we would like to continue receiving

in the future. And, just a one last thing about this. So, the folks…like Lauren said, there are folks on campus that,

you know, they really devote a lot of effort into creating these sort of reports. I mean, they call them workbooks,

you know, that anybody can go and look it online. And they are trying to figure out right now, what do faculty

want? What do the different school policy committees want? What sort of workbooks would be ideal? It’d be

really nice, if the Bloomington Faculty Council could spend some time right now thinking through, ok, what

would be a sort of workbook that maybe is of the sort that we want be continually obtaining. And that could

also be used at the level of schools and departments, that they can just switch the configuration ask about the

same sort of information at other levels other than sort of more the…well at the school level, I guess. Thanks.

TANFORD: Just to clear up a couple of things. One is the so-called the university level policy, which was passed

back in 1996. Basically, it was enacted at the very beginning of the concern about NTT faculty. It said we needed

to start gathering this information. Shortly thereafter, the university level Faculty Affairs Committee was

disbanded and has never been reformed. So, that the policy sort of sits out there as an outlier. There’s been no

university level committee to reconsider it. And I…if you read it, it doesn’t really require that any campus do

anything in any particular way, nor under the university constitution can the UFC , without very specific…without

going through very specific hoops…the University Faculty Council cannot take away the authority of a local…of

a campus faculty council from…do putting in its own procedures, without very specific things, and a very specific

vote happening that didn’t happen. So, the University Faculty Council Policy, in my opinion, is completely

irrelevant. And we should do what we want to do. And what we think is the right thing to do for this campus.

And…

ROBEL: Ok. I think I haven’t been privy of these…the floury of email exchanges. But, the thing that has changed

so radically, is the availability of information in. So, the Faculty Affairs Committee could…I think, get almost

anything it wanted, out of readily available information, whenever it wanted. And I wonder if the right approach

to thinking about these data might be for the Faculty Affairs Committee to take it on itself to figure out each

year what It wants to explore in the multitude of data, and views, and workbooks, and everything else that’s

available to us. I think Bruce had his hand up.

SOLOMON: Thanks. And I took a look at the…some of the data and it’s very informative. And I really appreciate

the work that goes in there. And…but, my concern is that there’s a big difference between having the

information available on an ongoing basis, which I take to mean, you know, any day you want to look it up you

can, which is great. But, we are…there’s such a huge amount of information available to us. We…there’s a

question of when do we pay attention to this issue. So, I guess my concern about this change is…I mean, I think…I

can see over my career, which is in its fourth decade here. There’s been a huge change in the way that instruction

is delivered on this campus. And my personal feeling is that that took place kind of under the radar of many of

our faculty colleagues. It’s just sort of an ongoing slow change that on any given day is not going to rise to the

level of…we need to consider this and do something about it. And that’s why I like the idea that there is an…a

requirement for an…it doesn’t have to be a report from the Vice Provost, but if it’s in…on the other hand, if it’s

20

just up to the Faculty Affairs Committee to bring it up when they see fit, I worry that we don’t take…at least

once a year take a look at what I consider to be a really fundamental aspect of the way that we deliver instruction

on this campus. And we are the faculty, and this is a really central concern to us. And if we just say to ourselves,

well, the information can be looked up by anybody at any time...I’m just worried that nobody is going to say,

well, today is the day to go and look at that, and to bring it to the floor of the Faculty Council and make sure

that we are monitoring it.

ROBEL: So, you are looking for…I think it’s a…I think what this raises is a really interesting set of questions

about…so, we just had the report of the Athletics Committee. And there’s an oversight function involved with

the Athletics Committee for athletics. There’re oversight functions that happen in a lot of the committees. And

I know that the Council has moved away from wanting reports from various places. But, the…it’s important that

the oversight activity go on. And I think the question you are raising is whether it’s most efficient and effective

to have…and useful for that monitoring to take place triggered by an annual formal report of the Vice Provost,

or whether the alternative structure, which is being propounded here, which I think puts it back on the Faculty

Affairs Committee, frankly, to say this is a regular and important piece of our oversight activity. And we can ask

what we want of this data, or the Vice Provost, or the Provost for that matter. And, you know, shape what we

think the issues are going to be from year to year, as we ask the questions of the data that they raise for us. So…

Ok. Yeah. Ann?

ELSNER: This issue is closely tight to one that we discussed earlier this academic year, in which we were talking

about representation on the BFC. So, to me it’s sort of an amalgam of two issues. One issue being, how many

NTT of this type do we have, how many of that do we have, what do they teach, what’s schools they teach in,

etcetera… And we want to know that, because it’s important to know who is providing our instruction. And we

may have too much of something and too little of something else. But, alternatively I spoke a sentence on a…if

we are going to change the composition of the BFC, then we need to keep up to date as to which types of

appointments, ranks, etcetera, are on this campus. And why we would break it up school by school, and

department by department is that we have these at large positions. So, one of the questions was, is it a good

thing to get someone to meet at large and you don’t worry about what kind of NTT appointment they have, or

alternatively, should one school have one representative or two representatives regardless of which type of

faculty they have. And unless we have the data, we can’t answer that.

ROBEL: Respectfully, I think your conflating issues. The data are all available. I mean, there…it’s not a question

of whether we collect it, whether it’s capable of interrogation, whether any of you in this room can look at it in

any way you’d like. I encourage you to go look at it. I think that it would prompt questions for you. We are about

to talk about the faculty activities reporting. And one of the things that I’ve had just the hardest time doing is

getting actually deans of associate…deans to look at any of this reports. So, I think that the real question here is

not whether the information is collected and available, it’s simply how the Council…whether the Council wants

a report annually of this particular set of things, or whether it wants to leave it to the Faculty Affairs Committee

to look at the data annually and make a determination about what issues, if any, it raises. I think that…I think

that’s the issue. There is no question here that the data are available. The data are available. Yep.

TANFORD: If I can add one thing. I think it’s…there’s also a question of two…where does it make sense to present

this data? That is for every other issue that is important to this campus. We don’t take the initial discussion of

that issue as a whole of the BFC. We delegate it to committees. That’s why we have committees. All this is doing,

21

is suggesting that is a general rule, this information goes first to the Faculty Affairs Committee or the NTT

Taskforce, which is looking at representation issues. They go get the data. And then it’s the committees that are

responsible for coming to the Executive Committee and saying, I want to put something on the agenda. I just

think it is inappropriate for this body to take that power sort of away from future committees and agenda setting

committees, to say we have to have this report every year whether we need it or not. This simply says the data

has to be available. But, it delegates it back…in essence, delegates it back to the committee instead of coming

initially to the full body.

ROBEL: I´m going to try to keep us on time. Yeah. Because, I think we have another one that we need to discuss.

So, unless there´s something that hasn’t been said that you feel that it´s critical to the Council’s vote…

BENDER: So, this isn’t…but, these…the revisions don’t say anything about now the reporting or the collection of

information is going to be done by the FAC or anybody else. It basically says, it’s not going to be…it’s just saying,

we are removing the annual requirement for the Vice Provost to present information. It’s not saying anything

about…it’s not introducing that the Faculty Affairs Committee is going to be taking on this responsibility now. I

just wanted to mention that.

HENSHEL: Ok. So, until that quote-unquote flurry of emails occured, I didn´t see any reason not to go for this.

And what occurred to me in reading through and participating in this discussion was that there is a lot to be said

for having a presentation in a larger body with many more perspectives. Among other points that came out at

that discussion was that…the one that was made previously by Bruce that thigs get passed as if we don´t bring

it into the light with general view where there´s a broader discussion and people can bang it back and forth. But,

the other piece of it is, these data do not just relate the Faculty Affairs, they do not just relate to NTT There´s

data that relates to educational policies because we are training our graduate students. And this is part of the

data there. It also relates to Research Affairs. Again, because it’s a…part of the data that’s in there is how much

we are using of our research budgets, grants, etcetera…to fund graduate students and what opportunities those

provide. So, in other words, there is data there that A, is not being taken advantage of at this point. And B, really

is more than just a Faculty Affairs or an NTT issue. And so, I hate to say this with Alan not here, but he did say

“I´m Vice Chair. “I’m wondering whether we want to go back and look at this again and rethink how we would

do this. That there may be…put together…just have more discussion about whether or not we would have more

input into it. Cause, it can´t just be a Faculty Affairs or NTT, cause that is where things get lost.

ROBEL: I think the answer to that might be that these data are available to all committees. They are available to

anyone who wants them. I suspect that FAC is going to want…it cut up in different ways than EPC. And that one

report may not…to the whole Council, may not service the issues as well as the committees could service them.

But, the question I have right now is, can we proceed to a vote and then we´ll determine whether it passes or

not? And it could go back, unless you don´t prefer to do that. But, we are at the end of our time for discussion.

Ok? All right? So, all in favor of the proposal? Ok? And opposed? Ok. I think it passes. What I would really think

would be sensible at this point is for the committees to spend a little bit of time hopping into the database and

looking at the ways in which they might divide up the…or interrogate the data in ways that would be helpful to

the mission of each of the committees. So, continuing with our theme of data for the day, we are moving on to

the…what I think must be the most considered policy of the BFC for the past several years. This has been to the

Council and various iterations. I think this is time three in just… in a very short period of time. And I turn to Judah

and Pete for their first reading of the policy.

22

AGENDA ITEM 12: PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BL-ACA-I25 FACULTY SCHOLARLY

ACTIVITY SYSTEMS

COHEN: Thank you Lauren. It´s a pleasure to be in front of you in this way. And while I sit before you as the Chair

of the Research Affairs Committee, as we all know this particular policy and its modifications were circulating

on all kinds of interesting ways, since long before I assumed the Chair-ship. So, I´m going to turn the discussion

of this over to Pete Kollbaum, who has been there largely since the beginning of this new revision, to be able to

present the full policy.

KOLLBAUM: Thanks Judah and thank you all for having me. And as Lauren said, I really just have the privilege of

explaining to you…trying to describe some of the work that lots of people have been doing over the last couple

of years. The background was…this policy was initially passed by the BFC in a meeting in the spring of 2016, with

some urgency in order to get a policy in place. So, OVPR and OVPFAA had sort of firm ground on which to make

some of the decisions needed to make with regards to academic insides or other types of software, which they

might need to purchase. At the meeting some concerns with scope, and clarity, and implementation were raised.

But, the policy was passed really in order to get something in place, as we could move forward with the hope

that in the future the policy could be reviewed and revised. The beginning of this year, the BFC Executive

Committee asked the Research Affairs Committee to review the policy again, which it did, and suggested edits,

taking into account edits from sort of the previous Research Affairs Committees as well. Following the Research

Affairs Committee´s edits, RAC then solicited comments from Tech Policy and Faculty Affairs. Input was then

solicited from OVPFAA, which then solicited input from, I believe, the deans around campus, as well as the

Executive Committee and Provost Robel. So, the document you see before you, is the combination of all this

hard work from all these groups aiming to clarify and approve the policy. And so, at this time RAC, TPC, and FAC

humbly request your input on this document and…for approval if…when you feel it appropriate.

ROBEL: First reading. So…open for discussion? Is there anything you’d like to point out in particular that…

AGENDA ITEM 13: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO BL-ACA-I25 FACULTY SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY SYSTEMS

KOLLBAUM: Sure. So, there was three documents, which were provided. And I guess, in theory those would be

on screens in front of us, but they are not. So, the few things…there is a summary document. I don’t know if you

are able to pull that up, if you happen have computers. But, I would sort of highlight really which are the key

summary items. Number one, was really clarify the scope and implementation of the document, as several

people reviewed this from different groups. It was clear that everybody interpreted this document differently.

And so, we aimed to try to clarify really what the document was aiming to do it…across both systems and

individuals, in which was aimed to cover as well as how people might be interpreted and evaluated, especially,

in terms of what aspects of their life might be evaluated. Whether that be research, teaching, creative activity,

or service. Another thing that was really important was, really to clarify the foundational principals of the

document. Although it was in there, it was felt to be a bit hidden. In particular, the groups wanted to clarify that

peer review was the sort of foundational tenet. And that anything that was done from technology could help

supplement peer review, but was not aimed to replace it. Disciplinary differences were another key component,

that we wanted to be sure to clarify. We all come from different disciplines, walks of life… And so, as people

23

evaluate us, those disciplinary differences need to be taken into account. Transparency and accuracy. So, those

being reviewed should know what systems are being used and how. What data the systems are using and how

this data is being used, and have the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies in the data that’s being utilized.

Third important thing that we aimed to correct was clarify the implementation issues. Specifically, to both, the

selection of systems and their use. And there were key differences between each of those groups. And there

are specific paragraphs now, within the new policy that highlight each of those things. A fourth item, was to

specifically identify those responsible for review decision making and remediation of any issues that came up.

So, make it clear that decision-making on selection of systems must include faculty input and assure there are

options for flexibility in cases where exceptions are or may became necessary. But if so, these are critically

reviewed. A fifth, was identify and highlight related policies into just the ministry and office for this policy, since

it has sort of changed, in terms a little bit of what its scope is, specifically stated as.

ROBEL: Thank you. First reading. So, thoughts for the Committee, as they consider the shape of the policy going

forward? Yep. Elizabeth?

HOUSWORTH: So, I assume that the policy has now a revised, includes systems like DMAI. And I was wondering

what other systems it included. For instance, does it include the online teaching evaluations and…or not?

KOLLBAUM: So, those are interesting questions. And those are questions that are all considered by the groups.

Again, the initial policy…it was unclear to individuals who read it, what exactly it did cover. The attempt now is

of course, technology can be drastically changing every year. And so, its attempts to be all inclusive of all

software, which could become and be used to evaluate faculty. So, yes.

HOUSWORTH: In any capacity, research, teaching, or service.

KOLLBAUM: Correct.

COHEN: Let me add to that, that part of the situation here is to recognize again the rapidly developing

technologies here for collecting, as well as arranging data. And also, the pressures that are associated with both

administrations to adopt these kinds of tools, as well as the need to be able to come up with new forms of

evaluation. So, part of the situation here, would be, for example to evaluate in the event that, let’s say, two

existing systems that are being used all of a sudden start to talk to each other. What happens at academic

analytics, it stats to draw data from DMAI, for example. So, that’s why it’s broadly written. But it’s also…we

attempted to write it in a very specific way, to address what to do in the event that there is an issue that arises.

ROBEL: Other questions? Yep. Katie?

SIEK: So, I was wondering how…once we tile this duty together, and with the analytics possibly, how will biases

be taken into account? Especially, with online teaching grading.

COHEN: It’s an excellent question. And part of it, that we are looking at is to try and anticipate that there will be

this connections that possible can take place. We are looking at this in a systemic way at this point. And in fact,

the policy is written that way. Thus…if there is an individual member of the faculty, who feels that data has been

used against them. For example, there is a separate policy about data usage that’s associated with that. And

24

That is one of the…that’s the associated policy…the two-university policy that you see at the end of this one.

This particular policy, addresses what to do in the event that there appears to be a systemic issue. In other

words, that a particular tool that’s used, or a particular set of tools that are used, are starting to pose this kind

of problem. We have a very specific procedure that’s associated with that. Someone who feels like things are

being misused, or the data is being misused, or that there is a problem with bias, goes to VPFAA first. And then

sees if they can resolve the matter with VPFAA. If that cannot happen, then the policy or the issue is raised with

the Executive Committee. At which point, the Executive Committee will make a decision as to whether or not

this needs to be addressed more broadly by the BFC or by a body within the BFC.

WITHNELL: Just to clarify. It’s only a campus policy. So, if DMAI for instance, was a university implemented

software, it wouldn’t apply.

COHEN: Well, we could also look at this in slightly…I mean, in…yes, that is correct, but at the same time there is

a matter of seeing how it applies. Particularly on this campus.

WITHNELL: We’ve discussed this. We can only apply it to software that is purchased and implemented on this

campus.

ROBEL: It’s…I think in reality…I think that’s a great question. But, I think in reality, software of this type is going

to be driven by this campus. We are just so big. And every software purchase I’ve been involved with over the

past six years…it’s the other campuses seeing if they can get included in our packages, because of pricing issues.

As opposed to us thinking we are going to purchase from someone else. So, I guess it’s theoretically possible.

Although, I would think that this is a…I think the bigger issue for the university is that this policy will practically

drive all software of this kind. Because we’ll have to meet the Bloomington policy. And the fact that Kokomo

doesn’t have that policy… Frankly, for most of the regional campuses, if they want access to big software, it

comes because of us. And then they get the purchasing power that comes from a big campus, as opposed to

going their separate ways. One concern I have, and I just don’t think there’s any way around it. Is that this will

basically drive policy for the entire university because, it will have to meet the requirements set out here. Yep.

TANFORD: I wonder being a proceduralist, of course, being the only person who has not figured how to stream

Netflix. I’m not a technology person. But, I do wonder at the end why you say the policy will be reviewed at least

every eight years, when you’ve just said the technology is changing rapidly. Shouldn’t this policy have to be

reviewed more often than eight years?

KOLLBAUM: I think a number that seemed reasonable, both, in terms of making sure it gets reviewed at some

point with the workload of other policies to, you know, there’s a backlog of policies that maybe haven’t been

reviewed in an eight-year period. So, we are open to whatever number of years seems appropriate, without

creating burden. But...

ROBEL: Any other comments that you’d like the Committee to take into account?

NELSON-LAIRD: I’m a little curious about the policy being silent in sort of the value of these systems and the

cost-benefit of this…we’ve, you know, we just haven’t gone through implementing information into these

systems. We spend a lot of our faculty hours on the data input into this. And I don’t know…I haven’t seen

25

anything from the campus that suggests that all of that time actually is worthwhile. So, being…it’d be nice if the

policy said something about evaluating that.

KOLLBAUM: That’s a bit of a tough question to answer. I think that the important aspect, at least from my point

of view, is that the true value of evaluation for me lies in peer review. And so, this other information from really

any technology system can be supplementary to that peer review. How beneficial is that supplementary

information? I think is a very interesting question. I think it all depend on the system. I don’t know, even how

easily available metrics of quality are attainable from these systems and how much they would be of value

across discipline. But, it’s a very good question.

ROBEL: Well, think about it over the next couple of weeks until our next meeting. And talk with your colleagues.

And if we can’t get the heat in here better, I think we’ll go back to the origins of academic regalia and all of us

show up next time wearing ours. Any last comments? All right. Are we prepared then…? Thank you all. Welcome

back.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M.