previous sectionnext section

BUSINESS MEETING

I. GENERAL BUSINESS

Trustee Walda: It’s always a great pleasure to be in Bloomington in May. On the eve of Commencement, It’s a good time to reflect on the greatness of this campus, which is due in large part to Chancellor Ken Gros Louis. It’s been a great pleasure to work with you, Ken, and the trustees thank you for everything you’ve done.

One of my favorite tasks at this time of year is to recognize some of the people who work behind the scenes. They deserve to be singled out for their contributions to this campus, and to our lives as members of the Indiana University family. I would like you meet some of them today. It struck me that we rarely pause to think about how well the Indiana Memorial Union works; about the good food, the excellent meeting rooms and all of the topnotch technical support we get for our meetings. None of that happens automatically or magically. It takes hard work and very good people. In fact, there are about 500 employees who contribute to the success of this building. They’re here 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They have to be: The IMU hosts more than 15,000 visitors annually.

Today, I’d like to introduce four people who work behind the scenes, and to recognize the great contribution they make. First is Phil Sullivan. Phil has been with Indiana University for 27 years. What that means is that he was working here when I was a student, and of course, I’ve seen Phil on and off over the years. But I’ve never had the chance to say thank you, which I do now on the behalf of the trustees. Phil is in the Meeting Services Department, which means that he handles the physical setup for conferences, meetings and gatherings like this one. Phil, thank you for your great service and for being here.

The next person I’d like you to meet is Kathy Mullins, who is in the housekeeping department, and who has been with IU for 25 years. Kathy I know very well because amongst other things, she takes care of the Metz Suite, where I have the opportunity to stay now and then. I am told that Kathy can handle almost any function in the back of the house, ranging from laundry to room servicing. These are things that the public never sees, but are absolutely vital. I want to thank you, Kathy, for all of your good work and the board does, as well.

Next is Brian Lowery. Brian is the assistant production manager in the kitchen and has been for ten years. It’s Brian and his colleagues who enable the IU kitchens to serve about 1.7 million meals a year, and of course the receptions and gatherings and so on. We were all talking, Brian you’ll be happy to know, at one of our meals yesterday about how pleased we are with the food service that we have seen this month. The productions have been wonderful. The food has been good and we thank you for your work.

The last person I would like you to meet, certainly not the least, is Joel Washington. Joel has been with us for seven years, and is a member of custodial services. You can thank Joel and the people who work with him for the way this building looks, with its gleaming brass and shining windows and freshly buffed floors. Joel is a man of many talents. I also invite you to take a look at the vivid portrait of jazz artist Wes Montgomery over by Sugar and Spice. That’s his work, too. Joel thank you for making this a beautiful place in many ways.

I wish we could have invited all 500 of the people who work in this building to our meeting for recognition. The board would like to ask the four of you to convey to your colleagues our appreciation for the good work that you do on this wonderful facility. Thank you.

I would also like to introduce a visiting dignitary from the California State University system, the former chair of that board and a current member of the board of trustees for the CSU system, Martha Fallgatter.

A. TRUSTEE BUSINESS

  1. Approval is requested of the minutes for the meeting of April 6, 2001, which include the Administrative Action Report of March 8, 2001.

    Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

B. PRESIDENT’S REPORT

  1. Action Items
    • a. Approval is requested for the creation of the Trustee Professorship.

      President Brand: With respect, I would like to change the agenda, and start with the creation of the Trustee Professorship. I recommend also that the first holder of the Trustee Professorship be Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis.

      Resolution of the Trustees of Indiana University

      Authorizing the Creation of a Trustee Professorship

      WHEREAS, there is a need for a titled professorship for the highest-level administrators who return to teaching;

      AND WHEREAS, this position would recognize contributions to the University and provide an appropriate position and title when these individuals return to faculty status;

      NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that the Board of Trustee create a Trustee Professorship, and direct the President of the University to develop terms and provisions related to the position. Said provisions from time to time.

        Provisions of the Trustee Professorship:

      1. The President of the University or the Trustees may initiate recommendations for Trustee Professorships.
      2. Trustee Professorships require the approval of the Board of Trustees.
      3. Trustee Professorships are University-wide positions.
      4. Trustee Professorships are for a five-year renewable term. The Trustees retain the authority to rescind this title and its privileges at any time.
      5. Trustee Professors are to be engaged in teaching and research. Trustee Professors are expected to engage in some teaching for each semester in residence. With the concurrence of the appropriate dean, Trustee Professors may teach in departments, schools or campuses other than their home departments, schools and campuses.
      6. Trustee Professors shall also undertake special assignments, as identified by the President of the University or by the Trustees. Such special assignments might include chairing a high-level search committee or assisting the Indiana University Foundation in a specific fund-raising effort.
      7. Trustee Professors shall receive a supplement of $25,000 per year in addition to their academic salary, if any, with the final amount to be determined by the Trustees. This supplement will be provided only when it is consistent with the 18/20 Retirement Plan.

      Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

    • b. Approval is requested to designate an area on the IU Bloomington campus as a Research and Teaching Preserve.

      Vice President Clapacs: A couple of months ago, trustees heard a presentation by Professor Michael Hamburger on a proposal to find more space, and designate that space for the purpose of research and teaching. At the request of President Brand, Chancellor Gros Louis appointed a task force, and Professor Hamburger has chaired that task force, meeting at least once a week. We are here today to formally recommend that you set aside lands already owned by Indiana University for the purpose of research and teaching. I would like to ask Professor Hamburger to briefly walk you through the considerations that this task force has been focused on.

      Prof. Hamburger: At the earlier presentation in Indianapolis, I provided you with some background on the preserve initiative, and now I am returning to present the findings of the task force. In a sense, the resolution that you have before you is a very simple one. It is an effort that doesn’t require any grand construction of plans for new buildings. It doesn’t require the creation of a new school or department, nor a reorganization in the finances of the university, but it is one that we feel could have an enormous impact on the reputation of IU as a leader in research in the natural sciences and also an enormous impact on the education of future generations of students on the IU Bloomington campus. It asks that you create a new land-use category termed "research and teaching preserve." In other words, this is IU property that would serve as an academic resource in its own right. A kind of natural laboratory to foster new interdisciplinary research in environmental sciences and to encourage field based teaching on the IU campus.

      We are proposing this application for two specific parcels of university land, one the Moore’s Creek Preserve, a 260-acre track in Southern Monroe County on Lake Monroe, and the other, Griffy Woods, 185 acres of the northern-most portion of the IU Bloomington campus adjoining the city’s Griffy Lake Preserve.

      I just wanted to say a word about the process. As you may recall, this task force was named by Chancellor Gros Louis about two months ago with a charge to bring forward a possible designation of preserve areas for the IU campus. The group is quite diverse, including representatives from the principal science departments involved in research and teaching in this area, and also administrative groups involved in managing the preserve. The representatives included Ben Brabson from the Department of Physics; Meredith West, psychology; Lauren Reisberg and Keith Clay, biology; Bruce Douglas from our department, geological sciences who also chairs the bachelor of science and environmental science program; Hedrick Henchman, who chairs the environmental science program at SPEA; Scott Sanders, department of English and Wells Scholars program; Jim Ridenour, representing the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation; Lisa Pratt, associate dean for sciences of COAS; Jeff Alberts, representing research in the University Graduate School; Lynn Coyne from IU Real Estate, and Vice President Clapacs.

      We considered a number of different criteria in selecting these two areas, and I wanted to focus specifically on three of them. One is diversity. We sought land areas that had a broad range of ecological, topographic, geological conditions that would lead to as variable as possible a range of teaching and research uses. Second was proximity to campus. How easy is it to get students out in the course of a one- or two-hour laboratory? How accessible is it for research. The third criterion was access to neighboring public land.

      Those three criteria lead us to these two pieces of land. We also considered the land at Bradford Woods in Morgan County and Lilly-Dickey Woods in Brown County. Those are both extraordinary pieces of land in their own right, and I think we want to encourage possible uses of those areas as well for research and teaching, but we thought it best to focus our efforts on these two areas closest to campus. The Moore’s Creek Land is essentially three adjoining parcels of land that were acquired at different times totaling about 260 acres. It includes about a mile and a half of Lake Monroe waterfront. There is a great deal of neighboring federal land owned by the Army Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Forrest Service, and we have already had some initial discussions with them about collaborative land use. We feel that this area, because of its very rugged topography and highly diverse ecosystems, would be very valuable for faculty research and specialized graduate research, but perhaps not appropriate for very intensive classroom-type use. We’re recommending that this area be designated in its entirety as a preserve.

      The second piece is a segment of the Griffy Woods. One exciting development to emerge out of this process has been very fruitful discussions with the City of Bloomington. We worked closely with Steve Cotter, from the City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department. The city has, in principle, agreed to designate about 130 acres of its land as kind of a companion research preserve that would have a similar mission and goals to the university land, but would continue to be owned and managed by the City of Bloomington. Together these would create a preserve with a total of 315 acres dedicated to research and teaching. I think beyond the practical value of this land, it’s an excellent symbol of collaboration between the city of Bloomington and the university, and I think it will lead to enhanced efforts, particularly in areas of environmental education and outreach.

      We view this as a campuswide, and perhaps a university-wide, facility that probably wouldn’t fall under the auspices of a single school but should be directly under the governance of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and presumably with a formal management structure that would decide what kinds of activities are appropriate on these lands. We are not asking for any additional finance. We have agreed that for the initial period the costs can be absorbed by existing academic and administrative units.

      Resolution of the Trustees of Indiana University

      Designating of Research and Teaching Preserve

      Whereas, The Trustees of Indiana University recognize the importance of providing a broad range of academic experiences for the students of Indiana University; and

      Whereas, the Research and Teaching Preserve Committee, appointed by the Chancellor of the Bloomington campus has researched and recommends the establishment of dedicated research and teaching preserves; and

      Whereas, the establishment of a research and teaching preserve as a land use category on land owned by The Trustees of Indiana University which provide a natural field setting for research and teaching activities of Indiana University; and

      Whereas, designating appropriate areas as preserves for research and teaching will complement existing facilities and infrastructure of Indiana University; and

      Whereas, it is within the purview and authority of The Trustees of Indiana University to establish land use categories from time to time for the campuses of Indiana University;

        Now, therefore, be it resolved, as follows:

      1. That there be established a campus land use category to be designated "Research and Teaching Preserve" in and upon which will be conducted research and teaching activities and furtherance of the mission of Indiana University.
      2. That there is hereby designated the area of the Bloomington campus described on the map attached hereto, (and there should be map with a green outlined area at your place) and made a part hereof, as the "Griffy Woods Research and Teaching Preserve".
      3. That’s approximately 185 acres. That there is hereby designated the area in Monroe County, Indiana adjoining Lake Monroe as described on the map attached hereto and made a part here of as the "Moore’s Creek Research and Teaching Preserve”. That’s approximately 240 acres.
      4. That the President of Indiana University or the President’s designee in consultation with the faculty, shall establish a management plan to be govern the activities to be conducted on Griffy Woods Research and Teaching Preserve and the Moore’s Creek Teaching Preserve and finally point five.
      5. That the management of the Research and Teaching Preserve shall report to the President biannually on the activities being conducted on the preserves established hereby, including all research projects and teaching activities thereon. The President shall inform The Trustees of Indiana University of the report and any comments or recommendations thereon.

      Vice President Clapacs: If you think of this as a financial investment, that’s approximately 420 acres of university ground dedicated to research and teaching; at $5,000 an acre that’s a $2,100,000 new investment in research at Indiana University.

      Trustee Obremskey: I would like to know why this hasn’t been referred to the Facilities Committee before now. It seems to me this has to with land use, and usually it has been our policy that any change in any land use or any designation of any land use is reviewed by the Facilities Committee before it is passed on to the board for action.

      Vice President Clapacs: Trustee Obremskey, I think the answer to that question is that since it came to the full board in February, we decided to bring the issue back to the full board for final approval. It seemed to be a matter that was of interest to all nine trustees.

      Trustee Obremskey: Isn’t this a deviation from the way we usually operate?

      Vice President Clapacs: It might be, but it’s a deviation in the right direction so as not to minimize the interaction, but to actually enlarge the interaction of the board to include everybody.

      Trustee Obremskey: Well, if we have first the interaction of the Facilities Committee and later the interaction of the whole board, it seems to me we have got a much broader and a much greater opportunity to review the material. I didn’t get the resolution until this morning. I didn’t get the brochure until I sat down here at the desk, and I have not had an opportunity to review it. The only contact I had previously was the presentation we had at a previous board meeting, and a brochure that I received from Professor Hamburger sometime in the past. I think this is a significant step on the part of the university, and I think it ought to be subjected to the scrutiny of the Facilities Committee before it is passed on to the board for their approval. I move to table the resolution until the matter has been submitted to the Facilities Committee for its review and recommendation back to the Board of Trustees.

      Trustee Walda: I hear no second.

      Trustee Backer: With all due respect to Trustee Obremskey, I think that we are wasting time taking it back to the Facilities Committee. We walked down there yesterday and saw the property. It’s a gorgeous piece of property, and it would be a travesty to ever develop it. I see nothing gained by delaying the approval of this.

      Trustee Obremskey: Except to the extent that it’s an important consideration, and I think that we need to follow established policies and procedures with regard to a matter of this importance.

      Trustee Eichhorn: I usually agree with my esteemed colleague Mr. Obremskey, in this particular instance I do not. I don’t see that there would be any benefit of additional review or study by the Facilities Committee.

      Trustee Walda: We will vote on the issue of tabling. It fails. We are back to the issue itself. Any questions with regard to the resolution? As noted, many of us on this board did walk that property yesterday. It looks like exactly what we should be doing with it.

      Trustee Obremskey: If you don’t mind, Mr. President, I would like to know why now, after 50 years or more, we need to ramrod through a teaching and research preserve?

      Prof. Hamburger: I think we view this, first of all, as a culmination of a long process that has been going on among the faculty and administration for over a year now. What we are proposing here is not something unique to Indiana University. In fact most of the major Research I universities have set aside land, like this, for research and teaching. I think we view this as a fairly modest proposal. We have been very careful, particularly in the Griffy area, to not involve any of the potentially developable lands that might be used for future expansion of campus activities, and the partnership with the city represents an extraordinary opportunity to get a very special piece of land that could be used for research and teaching.

      Trustee Obremskey: As I recall, when we were talking about a golf course out that way that there was a good deal of research and teaching going on these facilities. Why do we need to set a preserve aside for a purpose that has been ongoing for 50 years?

      Prof. Hamburger: That is absolutely correct. There is a great deal of activity that goes on in an ad hoc way. What this does is regularize and formalize the activities in such a way that it could be managed properly so that there is some governance over what kinds of activities are or are not appropriate. I think the City of Bloomington is increasingly concerned that there is a lot of this activity that they are not even aware of. I think they see as one of the benefits the possibility of keeping track of and sharing data and results that come from research and teaching that is done in this area. Finally, one of the issues has always been the possibility of beginning long-term research projects that perhaps might be displaced if the land is dedicated for another purpose. That’s why we seek this designation.

      Vice President Clapacs: Michael, isn’t true that in filing or requesting grant support that it would be helpful to be able to say in a grant application that this research takes place in a preserve that has been set aside forever, so to speak?

      Prof. Hamburger: Absolutely, I didn’t mention that, but there are a great deal of opportunities for external funding for this kind of work. NSF, for example, has a specific program that is dedicated towards field-based teaching. I think a commitment of a university resource for this would be viewed as a very strong in-kind contribution.

      Trustee Obremskey: With regard to the Griffy property, is it fair to say by the designation of this specific area as a research and teaching preserve that the remainder of the property would be able to be developed how the Board of Trustees determines it should be developed without burden of having to be considered research or teaching area?

      Prof. Hamburger: I think that is always in the purview of the trustees to make those land use decisions. I think again, we have gotten a very clear sign from the administration that the areas under consideration here are those areas that are not likely to be developed for other university facilities in the foreseeable future. And, of course, we would always like reserve the right to readdress the issue some years down the line. I think, in a sense, if this is approved, the ball is in our court to show that we can effectively use the area for research and teaching and if it is being used effectively, that’s great and if it is not, then we certainly wouldn’t have any grounds for making any additional demands. President Brand: No presumption is being made about adding to this land for the nature preserve in the future.

      Vice President Clapacs: In fact, the actual action item we are recommending today is to simply change the designation of this piece of ground near Griffy and at Moore’s Creek to read “research and teaching preserve.” With regard to the rest of area on the north and east side of the bypass, that will continue to be designated as you have designated it -- for recreational and athletic purposes.

      Trustee Obremskey: I guess what I am concerned about is that we’re running out of space for intramural development. If we want to move the intramural development out to this area in years to come, I don’t want to have to deal with the same sort of brouhaha that we had to deal with when we wanted to put a golf course out there. I know that you can’t speak to that, but I feel very strongly that if we are going to designate this area as a research and teaching preserve, then we ought to be able -- unhindered -- to do what else we want to do with the remainder of that property.

      Prof. Hamburger: Again, my comment is if you look at the boundaries of that land, we have been quite careful to designate lands that are pretty much restricted to the steep ravened slopes and the wetland valley bottom. I think it is fairly unlikely that any of this territory would be prime candidates for athletic or other purposes for the land. I guess I just mentioned a comment on the history of this, I think we are cognizant that there was a rough and fairly rocky history that represented a very successful coming together of a variety of points of view and I think we have successfully come to conclusion that we think maximizes the value for the research and teaching mission of the university, but also leaves open the maximum amount of flexibility for future growth of the campus. Trustee Obremskey: If possible Mr. President I would like to take up the Griffy Woods research area and the Moore’s Creek research and teaching preserve as separate resolutions.

      Trustee Walda: You would have to make a motion to amend the resolution which has been moved and seconded and then we could determine whether or not the board would like to do that.

      Trustee Obremskey: I move that we separate the blocks of land here that we are talking about so that the Griffy Woods research and teaching preserve would be considered separately from consideration of the Moore’s Creek research and teaching preserve.

      Trustee Walda: You have heard Trustee Obremskey’s motion is there a second?

      Trustee Richardson: Second.

      Trustee Walda: Any discussion with proposed amendment of the resolutions? All right, all in favor of the proposed amendment, which is to separate the two issues, signify by a show of hands. All in favor raise your right arm. All opposed. Looks like a tie. The chair votes with those opposed. The proposed amendment fails. Now, we are back to the original resolution. Any other discussion?

      Trustee Obremskey: Well, I don’t have any fundamental problem with designating a research and teaching preserve, nor do I really have a problem with the Moore’s Creek research and teaching preserve. I do have a problem with the Griffy Woods research and teaching preserve for a variety of reasons, some of which I have expressed and some of which I haven’t. From a philosophical perspective, I do not oppose a designation of a research and teaching preserve. The location of it however, I have reservations about.

      Trustee Walda: Any other final comments? I call for the vote. That’s eight yeas and one nay. Thank you. Congratulations and good work from your committee.

      Approved on motion duly made and seconded.

  2. Report from Vice President Clapacs and Sarah Uhlemann of the Student Environmental Action Coalition on an institutional purchasing policy on products derived from old growth forests

    Vice President Clapacs: It is a pleasure to present Sarah Uhlemann, who is a native of Chesterton, Indiana, and will graduate in December with a undergraduate degree in SPEA, and to her right Joshua Martin, who tomorrow will graduate with a Masters degree also in SPEA. Joshua is originally from Monroe, Connecticut but now calls Bloomington his home.

    You will remember about a year and a half ago, two students made a presentation to you regarding their interest in creating a policy that would prohibit the university from purchasing wood or paper products derived from old growth forests. Sarah and Josh are the current representatives of the Environmental Action Coalition, and with a lot of help from Paul Sullivan in my office, and Guy DeSteffano, who heads the purchasing operation, we’ve come to a happy resolution.

    Sarah Uhlemann: Thank you. As you mentioned, I am with the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC). We generally work on campus-focused issues like recycling and waste reduction, and we have also been working on larger issues like forest protection. A major part of forest protection is decreasing demand for forest products in this country. So, when we looked at our own personal consumption, we realized that our consumption is intimately linked with IU’s Purchasing Department. Basically, we didn’t want to be using old growth, and we found out, of course, the administration didn’t want to be using old growth either. The policy we are presenting today is an excellent example of how IU is not only being a progressive leader in the environmental movement, but is also an excellent example of how the administration listens to, and works with, students.

    Josh Martin: I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk to you today. In light of the resolution that was just passed establishing the teaching and research preserve, I must say that this is by far my proudest day to be a student at Indiana University.

    An old growth forest is a forest in pristine condition; one that has never been developed by humans. Research shows that in the United States, we are down to only about three or four percent of these original forests still standing. They are very unique and rare resources. By protecting this habitat, we also protect species from extinction. And now, Indiana University, by making this commitment, is using a creative approach that’s coming more and more in practice in environmental policy, in terms of changing the market and using free market type processes.

    Trustee Walda: Thank you very much for that report.

  3. Remarks from S. James Sherman, University Faculty Co-Secretary

    Prof. Sherman: I would like to begin with a report on the last University Faculty Council meeting. The first item on the agenda involved the post-tenure review process. Trustee Richardson was kind enough to attend this meeting, and there was a lively discussion of post-tenure review process. Certainly, some different perceptions were expressed, and I always view that as a healthy process. I think that we learned a lot from each other in terms of what the process might be like and where it would go. I think it will work because the trustees want it, the administration wants it and the faculty want it to work. I believe that it will move forward effectively and efficiently. I agree with what I think is a position that we all can adopt, and that is first that University Counsel keep a close eye on the processes and the procedures that are involved, and if we need to make changes because of legal reasons, we certainly will. I certainly agree that we should review this process in a couple of years to see how it’s doing. Again, I thank Trustee Richardson for his appearance at the UFC council.

    Trustee Richardson: Thank you for inviting me.

    Jim Sherman: My second item is intercampus transfers. It’s moving on schedule. We had agreed that by end of year, the 100- and 200-level courses would be taken care of. I got a fax from Mike Wilkerson yesterday; there are really very, very few courses that raise questions at this level. They are being resolved. There is an adjudication committee, and we expect this to be finished up in a very short amount of time. Next year we will move forward to the 300- and 400-level courses. I am fully confident that we will meet the timelines that the trustees have set for this process.

    We talked at the UFC meeting about the partially paid family leave policy. I believe that Trustee Obremskey will report on this from his committee. The UFC recommended that this policy be extended in the future; it will run out on June 30 if nothing is done. We hope that you will continue such a policy. I provided the trustees with the statement of UFC as well as with data over the last three years on its use.

    President Brand: Meredith Suffron, the outgoing president of IUSA, is not with us. She may be taking her last final. Jake Oakman, the incoming president of IUSA, is here.

  4. Remarks from Jake Oakman, incoming president IUSA

    Jake Oakman: Our new administration just took over about 10 or 15 days ago, so we are still getting our feet wet. We’re planning our activities for the summer and the fall. I look forward to working with the Board of Trustees.

  5. Good News

    President Brand: Now, Mr. President, we come to my favorite part of these meetings and that’s the good news.

    I am pleased to tell you that IU Kokomo has just received initial accreditation for its undergraduate and master’s business degree programs.

    The International Association for Management Education commended IUK’s School of Business and Management Sciences in a number of ways. The review board praised the school for offering student-centered learning and for bringing an array of real-world activities to the classroom. Our congratulations to the school’s faculty and to Chancellor Ruth Person. And that brings me to my next item of good news. As you know, the IUB endowment campaign has been a triumph. It was the largest fund-raising campaign ever conducted at IU, and it has exceeded our expectations. At the beginning of the campaign, IU ranked near the bottom of the Big Ten in its number endowed faculty positions. We are now in first place among public Big Ten universities. Let me repeat that: First place. This achievement is nothing short of remarkable. The campaign was a great team effort. My thanks to all who devoted their time, effort, and resources to it.

    And speaking of first-rate faculty, I would like to point out that two of our faculty members were recently elected to National Academy of Sciences.

    They are Lawrence Einhorn, Distinguished Professor of Medicine, and Elinor Ostrom, who is the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science. Elinor is also co-director of IU’s Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change. Professors Einhorn and Ostrom join 10 other IU faculty members who have been elected to this prestigious organization. And Thomas Mathiesen, Distinguished Professor and David J. Jacobs Professor of Music was elected last month to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. These faculty members have just received one of the highest honors an academic can achieve.

    My final item of good news also focuses on the exceptional quality of our faculty. You are all familiar with the Faculty Colloquium on Excellence in Teaching, or FACET, which has done so much to recognize and cultivate outstanding teaching by IU faculty members. FACET got started in 1989. It was the brainchild of then-Dean of the Faculties Anya Royce Peterson and IUSB Professor of English Eileen Bender. In 1995, through the support of an SDC grant, FACET was expanded to all eight IU campuses. To be elected to FACET is a coveted honor. The colloquium now has 321 members selected through a peer review process. FACET has become a national model, and it is a marvelous resource to the university. That has been true in large part because of Eileen Bender’s expert guidance of the program. For this, she deserves our admiration and our gratitude. As you may know, Eileen has decided to retire as FACET’s director. I am happy she could be here this morning to share with us some thoughts about FACET’s past successes and future directions. But before I turn the floor over to Eileen, I ask you to join me in a round of applause to congratulate her on her fine leadership and service to the university. Eileen…

    Prof. Bender: Thank you, President Brand, President Walda and thank you trustees because without your support, FACET wouldn’t be here. Your support has continued from the very beginning. In two weeks, FACET will be holding it’s thirteenth annual retreat at which we celebrate good teaching, we celebrate good teachers and we celebrate Indiana University’s commitment to teaching as an academic community. Good teaching is not just simply an individual effort, and no one knows that more than I do. The FACET community, itself, has shaped this excellent program; there is not an area of the university not represented among the 321 members. It’s not only their individual effort, it is their collective effort.

    FACET’s ideas have been translated into programs that are setting a national standard. FACET has lead the way in recognizing the importance of part-time faculty and in the organization of its Leadership Institute, that fosters what Peter Sengy calls in a business context, a learning community. We now see faculty as leaders in the classroom, in their deliberative bodies and in their departments. FACET also has taken leadership in the national conversation on the scholarship of teaching. It is important to know that once elected to FACET, one is always a member. That is why the community of FACET, which is augmented each year by about two-dozen faculty members from each campus, has grown. It is not a one-time teaching award, although it certainly serves that function to recognize teaching excellence in individual members. FACET is more than a teaching award and these activities that I have briefly covered are just some of the external evidence of what the investment yields in terms of dividends in the classroom, on the campus, across the university and at a national level.

    President Brand: Eileen as you see is a passionate and articulate defender and advocate of FACET and she deserves the credit for moving FACET to national prominence.

    Trustee Richardson: FACET is far and away the best thing that ever happened across the university to improve the quality and interest in teaching, and there are a lot of people who are responsible for that, but it would not have happened with out Eileen Bender. She gave us twelve really great years and I am glad we are recognizing her at this time. President Brand: Let the minutes so read.

    Finally I’d like to take this moment to introduce Sharon Hamilton and Bob Orr who will now be the co-directors of FACET.

    Prof. Orr: President Brand, President Walda, and trustees of Indiana University, Sharon and I are both excited about the prospect of leading FACET in the next decade. We have been associated with FACET since 1991 and have subsequently championed teaching and learning excellence by conducting a variety of workshops and conferences both for FACET and our home campus. We bring leadership and great enthusiasm to this appointment and pledge our commitment to promoting FACET and teaching and learning excellence throughout the IU system. As part of our five-year vision, we want to consolidate FACET’s current initiatives and ventures while allaying some of the reported misperceptions about FACET by other faculty and administrators. It is our goal to work collaboratively with any and all campus efforts to provide teaching and learning excellence. Prof. Hamilton: I just want to mention three operational priorities that we have established. The first is to build collaboratively, engaging all campuses. Eileen’s leadership and stewardship have been nothing short of superb and we’re not about to change that. We have an awesome responsibility in taking that forward.

    The second thing is to align our efforts with national issues, such as diversity in its broadest sense, and issues of technology that are taking us into whole new worlds of teaching and learning. One example might be what we call the inoculation system -- giving you the dose of knowledge that you need when you need it. This is very helpful for some people, but it raises really fundamental questions about what is teaching, what is learning.

    The third initiative has to do with funding. We are very fortunate that Eileen Bender and Ken Gros Louis have agreed to serve a leadership role on an endowment campaign for excellence in teaching and learning that will be part of the FACET initiative. And then there’s operating funding; we’re going to set up a task force to look at external grants and other funding possibilities to carry on the work that we have been entrusted with. Trustee Obremskey: I, too, have a good news item: Trustee Jim Morris was recently awarded a Spirit of the Prairie award for his extraordinary, significant and unprecedented contributions to the Indianapolis community over the years. It is a very prestigious award.

II. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

A. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Morris

Trustee Morris: Thank you, John and thank you, Pete. We had a very good meeting of the Finance and Audit Committee yesterday. First of all, you know that the Finance Committee is also the Audit Committee and, as such, we had our annual meeting with Michael McRobbie, chief information officer, to hear his assessment of information technology on the campus and related security issues. In light of the security breach in the Bursar’s Office in December, we wanted to define who within the university has the leadership role in developing and implementing policies that are necessary to minimize unauthorized access to our information technology system. We also wanted to bring some definition as to who would have the responsibility for assuming leadership in the event of a difficulty within the system comparable to the one we had in December. There can be all sorts of security breaches, intrusions into the technology infrastructure, unauthorized disclosure of electronic information, etc. It is important that we be precise as to how these issues are going to be addressed when they come about because they potentially have great significance, and we need to be equipped to deal with them promptly. So, our committee endorsed a resolution, which we bring to the full board for consideration. Essentially, it says that the Vice President for Information Technology and CIO is charged with developing and implementing policies necessary to minimize the possibility of unauthorized access. The vice president, working closely with the internal auditor, also has the responsibility for the leadership and control of difficulties in this area when they occur. I move approval of this resolution and ask for your support.

Resolution of the Trustees of Indiana University
Regarding the Leadership, Responsibility, and Security of IU’s Information Technology Infrastructure

WHEREAS, the advent of the Internet has significantly transformed the manner in which information is stored on interconnected servers throughout the world; and

WHEREAS, the Internet is an information technology environment in which it is possible to have inadvertent or intentional unauthorized access to Internet sites and related servers; and

WHEREAS, successful intrusions into Internet sites and servers can lead to the disclosure of sensitive personal and institutional information; and

WHEREAS, it is critical that Indiana University protect its institutional information and information technology infrastructure so as to reduce the possibility of unauthorized access to servers holding sensitive information or running mission-critical applications.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Trustees direct the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology and CIO to develop and implement policies necessary to minimize the possibility of unauthorized access to Indiana University's information technology infrastructure regardless of the Indiana University office involved; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Trustees direct the Office of the Vice President for Information Technology and CIO, which may draw upon the experience and expertise and resources of other University offices (including the Office of Internal Audit), to assume leadership, responsibility, and control of responses to unauthorized access to Indiana University's information technology infrastructure, unauthorized disclosure of electronic information and computer security breaches regardless of the Indiana University office involved.

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Morris: Like many national policy groups, this committee has an interest in improving public institution accounting; we are all interested in having access to the information that will allow us to stay on top of the financial health of an institution as large as Indiana University. Vice President Palmer and her colleagues have been working on trying to find ways to effectively keep the board and its finance committee up to date on our financial health on a quarterly basis. They have been doing this at a time when the government accounting standards board, which sets the standards for audit and accounting for an enterprise like ours, has also been addressing this issue. This is in its embryonic stages, and there are all sorts of government entities -- universities, public agencies, housing authorities, etc. -- which are all very different. We’re not yet satisfied that they fully understand the financial, especially the revenue side, of an institution like ours, but nevertheless we’re making really good progress in developing new consolidated statements. You will recall when the Wall Street representatives were here last year, Indiana University got very high marks for the overall financial health of the institution. You all may have been as surprised as I was when they were reviewing the financial health of Indiana University, they talked about the financial health and strength and growth of Indiana University Foundation as a factor, which we would not have normally considered to be a factor in our bond rating. But, in fact, they look at a consolidated balance sheet when they try to get a picture of the financial health of a place like ours. So, while we acknowledge that you have to look at all of the auxiliary enterprises individually, and you look at the campuses and you look at the schools and you break it down into its pieces, there is a time to look at in a consolidated fashion. So, we’re beginning to do that. It will become a more useful tool when we have comparative data, historic data over time to relate to. Obviously this is new so we don’t have that, but we will have it going forward and we will tweak this to make it as useful as we possibly can. It is pretty significant step forward.

Next, you will recall that you delegated to our committee authority to issue bonds for some refinancing and some new financing. We’ve been working on that issue, but we have not yet issued the debt. We are talking about $200,000,000, and you will recall that you gave us authority not to exceed 6% and not to have a term of more than 25 years for the issue.

Next, we had a good report from Maynard Thompson on issues related to financial management on the Bloomington campus, prompted in part by earlier challenges within the Colleges of Arts and Science and the School of Music. The good news is the financial health of both those organizations is returning. The basic challenge is to develop a system that guarantees the deans and fiscal officers live within their approved budgets, and that we find a way to avoid surprises. But, the good news is that the School of Music and the College are headed in the right direction.

We then had a final report on the reserves for the IUPUI campus. The reserve is about $23 million at IUPUI, and the board requirement is something in the $10- to $12-million range, and we were curious as to why the reserves were almost twice the requirement. Bob Martin explained it very well, pointing out that most of the reserve money is allocated for good purposes, but he will continue to keep us up to date in writing and we’ll share that with you if you have an interest.

B. CAMPUS COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

  1. Report from Trustee Breckenridge

    Trustee Breckenridge: Thank you, President Walda. Trustees Dean Hertzler, Steve Backer and Steve Ferguson were in attendance, along with Vice Presidents Clapacs, Nelms and Palmer.

    Jo Ann Campbell gave an illustrated presentation on service learning at IU Bloomington. Service learning is growing by leaps and bounds. Some of the projects include working with homeless children, participating in medical projects and developing social welfare policy.

    We also had reports from Dan Rives on the Human Resources Management System, and from three student government leaders. IU Southeast President Andrew Takami brought us up to date on the new activities director there, and on the progress of the new library building. IUK President Jeff Sedberry also spoke.

    Then our meeting was adjourned and we had a town meeting with spokesman Phil Worthington who is concerned about the noise ordinance, violence and trash from students in the neighborhood. We are working with him and with Vice President Terry Clapacs to try to alleviate some of his concerns. Trustee Walda: On behalf of the trustees, I would like to express our appreciation to Andy Heck for your years of terrific service to Indiana University. Andy will become the vice president for human resources at Tulane University.

C. UNIVERSITY POLICIES COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Obremskey

Approval is requested for the following new degrees.

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Obremskey: We had an interesting discussion on two related topics, teaching resource centers and associate instructor training programs, in an effort to try to find out just what steps are being taken in the university to assist the faculty in the development of their teaching skills. With regard to the teaching resource centers, I am happy to report that we do have a fairly extensive system in place. I was impressed to learn that each of the schools seem to have their own internal teaching resource efforts. The associate instructor training programs, thanks to an early impetus from Trustee Richardson, have improved significantly in the amount of monitoring and work that’s being done to assure that the A.I.’s not only have the intelligence to teach, but also the ability to do so.

We returned once again to post-tenure review and the ongoing effort to get all campuses to develop a post-tenure review. I have been assured by everybody, although not in writing, that by November 2001 we will have in place a post-tenure review system for the entire university system. Finally, we reviewed the family leave policy that will expire by its terms on July 1 if we don’t renew it. It will be considered by the committee at the next committee meeting and will be submitted to you for approval in the June board meeting.

D. FACILITIES COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Eichhorn.

Trustee Eichhorn: The Facilities Committee met yesterday morning at 9:00 a.m. with Trustees Hertzler, Ferguson, Obremskey, Walda and yours truly, present.

2. Project Approval

3. Real Estate Matters for Approval

Trustee Eichhorn: The next item for your approval relates to the naming of the atrium in Van Nuys Medical Science building. It is proposed, and the approval of the board is requested, to name the atrium of the Van Nuys Medical Science Building the Mills Atrium in honor of Senator Morris Mills. Policy does not require that the naming of an interior space such as the atrium be taken to the Board of Trustees. However, the addition to the Van Nuys building is a very high-profile structure in the heart of our medical campus. We approve the naming of the atrium in honor of Senator Mills and we move its approval by the full board.

Trustee Walda: Does this require a names committee approval and has that occurred?

Trustee Eichhorn: That has occurred.

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Eichhorn: We heard several reports. One involved the cooperation between the university and the city of Bloomington for the relocation of sewers. There will be extensive construction during the summer, and the city will close Tenth Street beginning through August 15. We also toured the new Theater/Neal-Marshall Center, which is going to be extraordinary.

It’s going to be a world class structure.

III. PERSONNEL ACTIONS

1. INDIANA UNIVERSITY – President Brand

2. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON - Vice President and Chancellor Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

3. INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS - Vice President and Chancellor Bepko

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

4. INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTH BEND - Chancellor Perrin

5. INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

IV. APPROVAL OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENTS

No Items

V. AWARD OF DEGREES

Approval is requested for the award of degrees as of April 17, 2001

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

Action Item: University Faculty Council Policy on Academic Appointments

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

VIII. NEXT MEETING

Trustee Walda: There will be a special meeting of this board on Tuesday, June 5, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the conference center at IUPUI. The business to be discussed is the budget of the university, tuition and fees, of course the reason we are having a special session is that we don’t have a final budget yet from the legislature. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be:

June 21-22, 2001 -- IUK -- Kokomo, IN

Trustee Breckenridge: President Walda, I just have one comment. I had an opportunity to go to Connorsville, Rushville, Indiana to visit the IU-Ivy Tech combined facility there. I was amazed at how nice that facility is. It is in an old warehouse that has been renovated. I would like to complement and congratulate Chancellor David Fulton on that facility. I was very, very pleased. It was the first time I had a chance to see it.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned to meet again on call of the Secretary on June 21-22, 2001, at Indiana University Kokomo

Robin Roy Gress
THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY


previous sectionnext section