previous sectionnext section

BUSINESS MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Trustee Eichhorn: Welcome everyone, thank you for being with us today. Thank you for a perfect meeting, great entertainment, terrific food and a wonderful presentation this afternoon. It’s inspiring to see students of that caliber. Let us begin.

A. General Business

  1. Approval is requested of the minutes for the meeting of March 4, 2005, which include the Administrative Action Report of February 9, 2005.

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

B. PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Dr. Herbert: Thank you very much Mr. President. My report will be rather brief today, but I would like to join you in expressing our appreciation to Chancellor Reck and her staff, faculty and the students for the very warm welcome that they have extended to us here on the IUSB campus. I think it’s clear that very exciting things are occurring here and I want to complement the chancellor on the very focused and visionary strategic plan that’s been developed. Thank you for sharing that with all the members of the board. Now, the challenge is to achieve all of the excitement that you have articulated there. I think that the video just tells your story so very well. So thank you again for your hospitality and also for giving us some additional insights into the very impressive things that are happening here on your campus.

There are several pieces of good news. First, I want to comment on the new rankings that came out last week with regard to private giving to universities. I am especially proud, as I hope each of you has been, with regard to being first in the Big Ten with regard to private support. We are third among all public universities and 13th among 971 institutions that took part in the survey. I think that ultimately we can be very proud of the fact that so many alumni and friends of this university have recognized the outstanding work that’s being done here, and the fact that IU has placed in the top 20 among all institutions in the receipt of private support for 13 out of the last 15 years. This says a great deal not only about our reputation but also our credibility in the context of all the work that we’re doing.

One other area that has not gotten a great deal of attention, but I’d like to share with you is that we also received some additional good news last week from the Mellon Foundation, which has just awarded us a $2.5-million grant for the development of the Kuali Project. Dr. Brad Wheeler, associate vice president and dean of information technology, is chairing the project, which has developed a new open-source financial system software for colleges and universities. This is something that has very significant long-term implications for us and other higher education institutions around the country. Vice President McRobbie has indicated that the Kuali Project will do for financial systems what Internet2 and the National Lambda Rail are doing for networking. It’s based upon a proven financial system design that has been in use here for the last decade. So that also tells you how advanced we have been with regard to some of our systems. We have already integrated some parts of the Kuali Project with our recently implemented PeopleSoft and HR Systems, and I think what’s impressive about this also is not only is it being built around some of our successes up to this point, but also we’re partnering with several other universities including Cornell and Michigan State in this effort and I’m very proud of all of our colleagues who’ve been involved in that.

There’s another accomplishment that I’d like to share with you because it gives one more indication of the quality of our students. Last week the excellent training that IU School of Music provides on the Bloomington campus was recognized once again. Jordan Bisch, a 23-year-old bass from Vancouver, Washington, was named one of one of four grand-prize winners in the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions. His professor is Tim Noble, who has appeared on opera stages around the world, and is extremely proud of Jordan. I had a chance to meet him at Tim’s home, and I think his accomplishments say much about the quality of the School of Music.

With regard to the Kelley School of Business, I had the opportunity to attend the recent annual conference, and I was particularly impressed not only with the attendance and enthusiasm of those who were there, but also with the caliber of speakers and some of the award winners. CNN journalist Erin Brown was one of the major speakers. Jeff Smulyan, chair of the Board of Emmis Communications, received an award, as did Ursula Burns, president of Business Group Operations at the Xerox Corporation, and William Parrett, CEO of Deloitte and Touche. They are all alumni of our institution and their comments just reinforce the significance of their experiences here as students at the university.

I want to remind everyone that we are all set for the public forum on tuition and fees on April 13 in Bloomington from 1:30 to 3:30. We are prepared to engage the entire university family in this conversation. We will have it televised on each of our campuses, and we will be in a position to respond to email messages as well. I think this will clearly be organized in a fashion that’s consistent with your expectations and is responsive to the legislature’s concern.

The final part report of my presentation relates to the discussions that we had during the last meeting. Obviously, as we talk during these very important fiscal times it is veryimportant that the university do all it can to assure it’s operating in as efficient and as effective a fashion as possible. During our last meeting we talked about some of the cost-saving measures that we are undertaking in the context of purchasing. We have done a very good job in managing our health care costs. We have engaged in some path-breaking licensing agreements for computer software as well as partnership agreements for computer hardware.

The final area I’d like for you to be aware of is some of the things we are doing in outsourcing. I think this is helpful background as we approach the public forum on tuition so that you can have a sense that we are trying to do all we can to be as efficient as possible. I’ve asked Terry Clapacs if he would give you a overview of what we’re doing with regard to outsourcing.

Terry Clapacs: Thank you Mr. President and members of the Board of Trustees. As the president said a moment ago, this report compliments what we talked about last time when we outlined some of our efficiency initiatives that have been undertaken around the university family. A key part of being efficient is to always consider a decision whether or not we provide a service or purchase a service. That’s a key part of good management at any institution and certainly has been that at Indiana University.

Maybe the best way to begin the discussion is to simply recall what our administrative mission is at Indiana University. At the top of the list, of course, our mission is to support and enhance the academic mission of the university. We follow one step behind the academic plans of the chancellor, the president and you, and we fulfill those institutional responsibilities to external constituents, meaning that we make sure that we are complying with all regulations and requirements that the state or the federal government place on the university and that we are conducting our business in the proper way. Third we contribute to the overall excellence of the institution, and then finally we achieve continual improvements in quality, productivity and effectiveness. Now no where in this mission statement, which is a mission statement that we adopted in the vice president of administration’s area more than a decade ago, no where does it say that we need to operate businesses, that we need to provided services ourselves; our real task is to simply make sure that that service is delivered and is available to the academic enterprise at Indiana University and it is done so in an efficient and cost effective way. So the decision to do it in-house or to do it elsewhere is always with us.

There are many reasons in fact, to outsource. They may seem obvious. But clearly the first would be expertise. There are specialized services that would be too expensive for us to create or do ourselves, and they are certainly available to us. Another time to use outsourcing is for one-time or infrequent projects; you can’t gear up to do things that are going to be with us for a short period of time and in those cases it’s almost always better to outsource. Peak needs, that should be obvious too. You can’t have a staff on board and pay through the valleys in order to have them available for the peaks and so we try to manage ourselves in a way so that when we have peak needs, and we’ll try to give you some examples of all of this in just a few moments, we can go to the marketplace and find it and avoid all the HR costs, benefit costs, etc. that comes with having people working on our own staff.

What should be the outsourcing criteria? First, there are financial considerations, and that includes direct and indirect costs. Having a true cost model, an accurate cost model, is a key for making this decision. Service levels are another factor; if we buy the service we need to insist that the same standard be provided to our constituencies as if we were doing it ourselves. So in any agreement, we would need to have a proper service level establishedand in place. Then there’s management control and efficiency. In the end we are responsible for making sure the service is there and available and we’ve got to be able to control that. Next is competitive environment. There will be times when we can buy in the marketplace because the environment in the marketplace is so competitive that if we do it ourselves we know that it would not be the most effective way to provide the service. There are also other factors like human resources, regulatory and legal compliance, real estate. What would we have to do to support a function if we do it ourselves? That’s a very key issue, for example, as we think about the future of the printing plant on the IU Bloomington campus that occupies a piece of real estate on part of the campus that we are developing another plan for and yet for the moment we’ve got this building that we own and have to support. Then there is a culture of course and we’ve run into that in almost every case. Some of you may remember the great controversy that surrounded us when we outsourced and did something a little different many years ago with our travel arrangements. It did not fit the culture of Indiana University so those issues have to be thought about in making this decision.

Just to give you an idea of the current level of outsourcing, over 20% of our services today, our services which are expenditures that provide outsourcing at Indiana University. That includes by the way, large construction projects, all of which are outsourced at Indiana University. So to give you some dollar amounts, last year we purchased $190 million worth of construction services that we did not provide ourselves. That’s one year all outsourced. About $80 million of our budget went to purchasing goods and services outside the university.

Here are some outsourcing examples, and again, some of them may be so obvious and so intuitive but in the area of expertise, legal counsel is one. University Counsel Dottie Frapwell has a very small staff, and she is able to do that because that office does not try cases, and they are able to outsource them. Architectural and engineering design is another area. We design small projects in-house, but we outsource most of the major projects. At every board meeting, in the Facilities Committee, we hear from outside architects who provide services to us. Some other examples would be geotechnical and consulting survey, elevator design and code compliance, computing consultants, hotel management, and environmental consulting and investments.

In the area of specialized services, you will see banking services, investment services, student loan processing services, hazardous waste disposal, utilities; our electric bill alone on the Bloomington campus is almost $19 million a year. We buy gas, we buy water treatment, telecommunications services, travel planning, specialized computing systems, catalog order fulfillment, these are just a long list of things that we don’t do ourselves, even in the area of landscape maintenance. We have a crew in Bloomington, for example, that takes care of the turf around the campus, but in the last 15 years the number of people who do that has grown smaller. One time we had almost 62 people on the grounds crew, today it’s at 32 and when the state says how do you provide that service, well you go outside the university and so on the perimeter on the Bloomington campus, all of that is outsourced to others. We still do the interior part of the campus because we still think in terms of the look that we want that’s very important. Plant management, high voltage maintenance, major elevator repairs, HVAC maintenance, energy management, all provided by others not ourselves. These are specialized services, very obvious services that we don’t have available inside. Mortuary service is for the school of medicine and cadaver disposal.

There are others more effective outside, …food services, printing, event ushering, delivery services, election services, motor pool, W2 processing, vending, all examples of it’s more effective for someone else to do that.

Dr. Herbert: Terry could you comment on the motor pool? It differs by campus.

Terry Clapacs: Yes it does differ from campus to campus, and the IUPUI campus a few years ago, decided to get out of the business of operating a motor pool. That’s been done by private sector in Indianapolis, and frankly I have heard few complaints from anybody about the way that service is provided. In Bloomington we continue to operate a motor pool and my guess is that we will have to take the local marketplace into consideration. In Indianapolis, a larger metropolitan area, there are more businesses available to provide services for some of these things. There were several companies willing to take on providing motor pool services. I think today in Bloomington, we probably have enough business resources in the community, and that’s one that we will need to take a look at in the very near future. It comes up all the time. We have a fairly new motor pool operation site on the east side of the bypass, but it’s a building that can be usable for many purposes, including other service functions, and so it wouldn’t be a problem. But yes, in the system we have two motor pools, one is outsourced and one is not. But I can tell you that various car companies, particularly National within the Big Ten, which has a preferred-provider agreement, is very interested in the motor pool operation in Bloomington and they approached Guy DeStefano about a month ago and I think they have given us some numbers that will require us to look at it very carefully.

A few other examples of outsourcing would be fire response. Some universities maintain their own fire department. In Bloomington, for example, that service is provided by the city of Bloomington and we pay them for that. We pay the salary of a certain number of firefighters and we provide equipment to them and so that is outsourced. Again these are things that universities generally aren’t equipped to do for ourselves.

Trustee Shoulders: Terry, what are we saving on? We are paying the men and paying the city, where are we making our savings on what? Equipment?

Terry Clapacs: They are not on our payroll. Of course it puts them into a bigger network. If there was a large fire for example, and it’s not just the fire station that’s located just near the campus if that would be necessary, it would probably be firefighters and equipment from other stations around the city. That way we have the luxury of calling on the whole unit to respond not just the few that we would have on staff ourselves.

One-time infrequent projects, construction projects for example, environmental remediation, heavily laden with regulatory concerns, computer technology projects, we do some of that ourselves, even snow removal, and you’ll see this again in the next slide, and these are things that, there are people in business that with that kind of equipment it would be very expensive for us to own and operate just for the university.

Under Peak Needs, there’s printing, snow removal, roof repairs, grounds maintenance, traffic and crowd control, anything involving temporary staffing, these are all areas where it would make sense for us to buy the service rather than to make it.

Mr. President, that’s just a brief roundtrip and I could have provided dozens of dozens of slides, but I wanted to give you a taste of things that I know that all of you are familiar with. Again, it’s a key part of our management philosophy at the university and again there’s no reason in the world that we need to do anything for ourselves and it’s only a matter of what’s the most efficient and cost effective way. Our staff, the entire university staff, thinks about that issue in every decision that we make. I’d be happy to answer your questions.

Trustee Ferguson: Terry I commend you for the work you are doing already and I hope that all the chancellors and administrators will join in this effort. When I look at the budget projection for 2005 and beyond, we’ve got to become more efficient in supporting the academic enterprise. If we’ve got to find the funds internally, it’s going to be very difficult; this is not just a one-year window we are looking at in tightening the belt.

Secondly, I heard you mention the IU culture and I know that’s a problem. You get to doing things for a long time and it just becomes part of the culture, and it’s hard to make changes that we need. We need to make changes and we have to step up as trustees and administrators and presidents and look at ways to address these situations.

Terry Clapacs: Thank you for that comment. There’s another point that we don’t make publicly very often, and it’s this: because of the kind of people we hire and the culture itself, our benefit program is a very expensive program. We have a lot of paid time off; we have very good health care benefits; we have very good retirement benefits. When you add employees, you are adding that expense. An outside provider more often than not does not have benefits at the same level. That’s a key consideration for what we do. We talked about this a lot in the past, but you all know that at Indiana University, just in the area of paid time off, an IU employee can be off once every five days, and that’s a lot of paid time off. I mean you still have to pay for that day. That’s never the case when you buy that service outside.

The President asked me to comment on the next steps, and that is why I have asked Guy DeStefano to join me up front. As we announced last time, Guy is in his last year at IU and we have asked him to be the outsourcing czar on my staff. I thought Guy was the most creative in terms of finding new ways, and different ways to do things. He always thought beyond the obvious, he was willing to take a chance and do things differently and he understands the purchasing agreements and he understands outsourcing. So for the coming year, the next step is for Guy to lead an effort to allow for representation from all the corners of the university to look for ways to challenge ourselves to do better and become more effective, as Trustee Ferguson said a moment ago, and he’s already started his work.

Trustee Shoulders: My recollection is that two or three years ago we cut a hundred million dollars. Didn’t we try to find that? Am I making that number up? I remember when Myles Brand was here and the legislature first started cutting R&R etc. Didn’t we pare this budget down?

Terry Clapacs: It has been pared down. I know in university administration we have been paring down for more than a decade.

Dr. Herbert: The key point is that we’re taking this very seriously and I want all of you to have a sense of some of the things that are on the way.

The last part of my report concerns Bill Stephan’s departure from the university. As all of you know, he has served Indiana University with great dedication and integrity for five years. I’ve had the opportunity of working with him over the past 20 months and he has been a pleasure to work with. He served as the liaison to this board; he has served as the vice president of public affairs and government relations, and now vice president of university relations and corporate partnerships. Whatever role he has been called upon to assume he has done an outstanding job, and we have clearly benefited from his considerable skills and his talents, and his ability to work so well with others. I have told him he has done much for the university and we’re going to miss him, and just a fewminutes ago I told him I am still very willing to call Dan Evans to tell him that this was an April fool’s joke and that he’s staying here. Bill, you leave this university a better place as a result of your service. We’re really going to miss you and I’m personally going to miss your counsel and your insights a great deal. So thank you from the bottom of our hearts as members of the university leadership team and also from all of your colleagues who appreciate very much all that you have done to make this a better university.

Bill Stephan: Thank you President Herbert.

Dr.Herbert: To those of you who aren’t aware, his new title beginning April 3 is senior vice president, chief marketing officer at Clarian Health Partners. Going back to the question that Steve Ferguson raised earlier, I’m in the process now of identifying a new vice president. Bill is helping me with that process. During the interim, until we have that person on board, which I hope will occur in the next three to four weeks, I have asked Tom Healy to serve as interim vice president. He has previously served in that kind of role in addition to his other duties and Tom has agreed to do that. I have told him we are going to be moving expeditiously on this and may have two or three other assignments for him but we want to keep all of our vice presidents fully engaged in a wide array of activities, given our commitment to efficiency. Tom, thank you very much for your willingness to assume these responsibilities on an interim basis. Mr. President, that concludes my report.

C. FACULTY REPORT

David Daleke: Good afternoon President Eichhorn, Trustees, President Herbert, I will give a brief update today from the activities of the University Faculty Council. Today is the deadline for applications for the faculty position on the Indiana Commission of Higher Education. I serve on the nominations committee and within a couple of weeks we will be reviewing those files and choosing three to five candidates to put forward to the governor. I can tell you in the call that I sent out to the Indiana University faculty for this position, I received probably two dozen notes of interest and I can tell you amongst those two dozen, we have some very good candidates -- some of the most active faculty both in the university and in the state. It is my hope that we put forward at least one name, or several, to the governor, and that we will have an IU faculty member on the commission. It’s been over 10 years since that’s been the case.

Trustee Ferguson: I’d say that’s an extremely important position. You don’t realize how much influence their presence has on not only the Higher Education Commission, but also to have a responsible faculty member to cover the areas of which faculty are directly involved. I encourage you to find the highest quality candidate for that job.

David Daleke: I don’t know the total number of IU faculty who have applied, but just those that have told me that they have and they’ve had some conversations with me. So I expect that the number may even be greater. But those I have spoken are extremely well qualified. I, too, think this is very important, and I think we have a very good opportunity this year.

Over the course of this year I have been describing the legislative items that have been moving through the University Faculty Council and at our next meeting on April 12 – the last meeting of the year – we have five policies that will come up for final approval. We’ve had multiple readings of these policies on the floor of the UFC, which means that we’ve had plenty of discussion. It gives me some encouragement that we will be able to approve all five of these policies at our April 12 meeting. At that point we will pass them on to the president and then hopefully you will see them in May or June. The policies are: the Chancellor’s Review Policy, the revised Student Code, the Policy On Criminal BackgroundChecks For Academic Employees, the Partially Paid Family Leave Policy, and our Conflicts Of Commitment Policy. Rather than reiterating many of these, I’ll just make a comment on a couple of them.

At the last Board of Trustees meeting we had a very good discussion on background checks, and that discussion was conveyed to the University Faculty Council, and the job policy that we had at that time has been revised appropriately. We’ve also had discussions in the meantime and I think we’ll have a policy that the UFC will approve readily on April 12 and will come to you. I think it’s a good policy, but I also think it’s one that will require some further discussion, and so I hope that we can send our current draft of this policy even in advance of the April 12 meeting so that you can begin to consider it.

The other policy that I’d like to mention is the revision to the Partially Paid Family Leave Policy. The University Faculty Council Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee studied this policy over the course of this year and surveyed the faculty on their use of the policy. We found some very interesting things. First of all many, faculty were unaware that we had a family leave policy, which surprised most of us. Secondly, many faculty who looked into decided they couldn’t use it for a number of reasons. Two of those reasons were cited most often. The first is that the policy is a semester-by-semester policy and didn’t cross over semesters. So, even though we have 15 weeks of 2/3 pay, which is our current policy, if that begin in say, November, then it would end in December. So some faculty decided it just wasn’t worth taking it. The second reason, and the one cited most often, is financial. It’s a 2/3 pay policy, and if you take it, many of the reasons why you might want to take the policy are also the very reasons in which taking a cut in pay would be unacceptable. So a lot of faculty said they didn’t use the policy for that reason alone. I can tell you my personal experience when my daughter was born two years ago, I looked at the policy and that was the same decision that I made. It wouldn’t make any financial sense for me to use it. So although we have a policy, there are concerns with faculty that it’s really not satisfying the goal that we had. So we have some modifications to that policy pending approval of the UFC on April 12.

Also, on April 12 we will have a discussion on the mission differentiation project. President Herbert has informed me that the draft of the mission differentiation report is ready and that it will be forwarded to the UFC next week. We will set aside time at the UFC meeting for an open discussion on this item, and also on two related items that have come from our Education Policies Committee, that is our general education policy and our admissions policies, both which have been working our way through our committees this year. I can say that the general education policy has generated a tremendous amount of discussion all across our campuses. It’s indicated both our similarities and our differences, and I would say in light of the mission differentiation project that we will be able to make some good decisions about where to take these policies. I say this because I doubt that the University Faculty Council will approve the general education policy this year. So the discussion will be ongoing and at an appropriate time as well. This is an appropriate time for that to continue.

Lastly, I wanted to come back to something that Trustee Fergusonasked at the last meeting regarding continuing problems with inter-campus transfers. I brought this up with the UFC at our agenda committee meeting and we had some discussion about the problems that we’ve been having. We’ve had some discussions over the course of this year as well. But just to remind you, 2000 the University Faculty Council approved the Inter-Campus Transfer Policy. That was followed in 2001 by a Policy on The Transfer of Credits From Two-Year Institutions. Then, also in 2002, there was some advice from our Educational Policies Committee on the modifications to our Master Course Inventory. As you know, the Master Course Inventory is a list of all courses that IU offers. Well, the Course Transfer Policy saidessentially that all 100- and 200-level courses between our campuses are transferable. Further, it stipulated that there would be a review of the 300- and 400-level courses. There are many other items in this policy, and I will only touch on a couple of them. One is that this information about the ability to transfer courses was to be made available to students through a website. Some of that was initiated at that time. So we have course numbers and a course title that students can look to in terms of the transferability. However, what was to go along with this was a Master Course Inventory that was expanded to include a greater description of the content of the courses. This would allow faculty on multiple campuses then, to be able to judge whether or not the courses are truly equivalent. And that expansion of the Master Course Inventory was halted primarily because of problems with the implementation of the PeopleSoft project. It was unclear how we could go about doing that. We have it on paper. Of course paper, the description of all of our courses including an abstract and syllabus from all of our courses is someplace, but it’s not readily accessible.

In addition, there were a number of other administrative principles that were included in this policy and as a result of our discussions it’s clear that we have a lot of questions about what happened to the policy and how we can solve some of the problems that we’ve had with the Master Course Inventory and with the inter-campus transfer. So we’ve asked Vice President Gros Louis to come to the April 12 meeting to give us an update on where we stand on the Master Course Inventory. This will probably begin a discussion and will continue into the coming year. Along with that discussion I would like to ask for everyone who has heard anecdotal stories or problems with inter-campus transfer, to please forward that information to me or to Bart Ng. It’s very important that we have specific information about the types of problems that students are having because in many cases we can solve them directly. However, there may be other cases that indicate that there is some type of a systematic problem that we would need to address through the policy. But we need that information and we will be collecting as much information as possible about what’s happened with these policies within the coming months. It will become Bart’s first thing to do next fall.

Trustee Ferguson: David would it be possible for all 100- and 200-level courses that are transferable to just have the same number on every campus so everybody knows that those are the same?

David Daleke: That was the policy.

Trustee Ferguson: Can we implement that?

David Daleke: Well, that was supposed to have been implemented. From the stories that we heard it sounds like there are problems with that and that’s why we need to find out what happened with that policy. That is exactly the content of the policy. I can send you copies of the policy so you can read it. It’s 5 years old at this point so we’ve had some time to use it. It may be that there has been some drift in the courses and the course numbering, that happens as courses change, but that’s something we can find out when we take a close look at it. But it’s of concern to us just as it is of concern to you. The most important thing for us is we need to hear specific examples, detailed examples of what everyone has heard about the trouble of course transfers.

{end of tape}

The last comment I’d like to make concerns the next speaker, David Vollrath, who is professor of management at IU South Bend. He is also president of the IU South Bend Academic Senate. As president of the Academic Senate on this campus he also serves onthe UFC Agenda Committee. He is a very active member of the UFC and in fact is the chair of our University Planning Committee at the UFC level. One of the things that I have noticed in the past two years is that we have people who tend to become very active at the University Faculty Council level on some of our regional campuses and David is clearly one of those people.

David Vollrath: Thank you, and I want to add my welcome to those you’ve already heard in the last couple of days, to the President, the Trustees, Chancellors and other visitors.

My area of doctoral training is social psychology and my special research interest is group decision making. I teach business management at the business school. I am, as David mentioned, very active in governance at the professional level and at the university, and at my school in business and economics. So I am interested, both professionally and personally, in how decisions get made at Indiana University and on the South Bend campus. I wanted to spend a couple of minutes with you today talking about chair governance. We call that participative decision making in the management literature, and it is often contrasted with more traditional top-down hierarchical decision making.

Participative decision making tries to broaden the range of different parties that are involved. One point that I make in my classes about both of those contrasting styles is that neither one of them is affected across the board. So as managers and administrators, the advice is to try to choose a style that meets the sort of decision that you face at the moment. I believe that many of the decisions that we’re talking about today in higher education are what the decision making literature terms “ill structured,” and that means that we’re not clear exactly what we think is ideal, and we’re not clear exactly how good or bad we’re doing right now, and we’re not precisely clear what exactly we need to do the make the situation move us from where we are to where we would like to be. So it’s at the same time those kind of ill-structured decision situations that are the best match for participative decision making in contrast to traditional top down decision making. So I want to compliment this president and this Board of Trustees for their wisdom and continuing the past practice of having the UFC co-chairs here at your meetings, bringing faculty perspective to your deliberations. I think that that is effective because participant decision making will increase the odds of high quality decisions and decisions that are accepted widely by other parties.

For similar reasons, I’m also proud of the process that this campus has used in dealing with another of those ill-structured problems of mission differentiation. I wanted to spend a couple more moments sharing with you the process that we’ve used here at the South Bend campus to address the president’s mission differentiation initiative.

While the president assigned responsibility for this initiative to the chancellors, our chancellor immediately broadened that process by asking faculty representatives and myself and Eileen Bender to work with her vice chancellors in crafting our campus’ response to the six questions that were sent to stimulate conversations of this nature. In October we further broadened the participative process here on this campus by inviting staff, students, alumni and community members to join the administrators and faculty in two large campus forums. In November the draft mission statement was discussed, amended and endorsed by our Faculty Senate and today we are waiting eagerly the president’s feedback on our draft mission statement. We’ve already invited administrators, faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members to attend two forums next week on this campus, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, to discuss the feedback and take our mission statement to the next level. On April 15 the mission statement will then be presented once again to our Faculty Senate for endorsement. So when you receive our mission statement next fall Iknow that you will find it to be of high quality and very acceptable and that those qualities represent the really broad participative process that’s gone on into it’s development. Thank you.

Dr. Herbert: Mr. President if I could express my appreciation for the excellent job you and your colleagues did David. I thought you clearly fleshed out the important issues as you’ll see in the materials that we will be forwarding next week. We definitely heard very clearly the important messages that you convey. So thank you very much, I hope you’ll express my appreciation to your colleagues.

Trustee Eichhorn: We turn next to Mike Renfrow, President of the IU South Bend Student Government.

D. STUDENT REPORT

Mike Renfrow: Thank you, President Herbert, President Eichhorn, Board of Trustees, I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today and on behalf of the students here at IU South Bend, I extend my sincere welcome to our campus.

Now is an exciting time to be a part of Indiana University South Bend. The growth and development I’ve seen in a few short years since I began attending here has turned me from a student who came here just to attain a degree to a student leader, and after May, an active alumnus.

The first thing that made me passionate about IU South Bend was the professors. As a non-traditional student coming back to school to pursue a degree in chemistry, I was nervous about what college would have in store for me. I quickly learned that the professors here couldn’t be farther from unapproachable or intimidating. Their eagerness to help their students learn, helped aid my transition back into the world of academia. Their passion, I believe, is one of the reasons that enrollment is up and the need for increased academic space is becoming evident. The professors’ high level of dedication and their commitment to academic excellence will always be the cornerstone to the success here at our university.

The second major attribute of our school that inspired me to become more involved is the growth of student life, which starts right here in this building, the Student Activities Center. The students of IU South Bend are so grateful for the support and the board showed us in helping us acquire this building only a few short years ago. This building serves as home to many of the components of our student life. Housed in this building is our school paper, our events production board, our athletics programs, our health services and it serves as a home base for our clubs and my personal favorite, voice of the students, the student government.

In the past few years, we have experienced tremendous growth in many of these areas. One of the reasons for that is due to the maturation of our programs, which are now fully staffed. This year alone we seen marked increase in club sports, intramural sports, and attendance at events such as our family movie nights that now draw 250 people. I’m sure you see the preparations going on out on the main floor for what will be the largest student organized event on campus, a concert featuring national recording artist Blessed Union of Souls. It will pull our students and our community together to show that IU South Bend is a place where things happen and give us a chance to showcase this building to the community and to future students.

Finally we could see the willingness for students to get involved by the participation in ourstudent government elections. I was so excited to be part of an election last year that broke all known figures in voter turnout while leaving us just about 25 votes shy of the voter turnout in our sister campus IUPUI. As you can see participation in student life is booming. All of these things have demonstrated to me the excitement, the growth and the reason that IU South Bend is the place to be right now in Northern Indiana.

Almost all the student life areas that I mentioned benefit from our student activity fee. This fee has benefited our students by providing recreational outlets such as the ones that I just mentioned plus subsidized childcare through our own childcare development center, free tickets to art events on campus, and additional leadership training. This fee has brought so much to our campus, but as we grow we must also grow to adapt with the changes needed by our students. The IU Student Government Association had been proud to work with our administration in developing a health fee plan that would increase student health services on our campus health and wellness center. The final plan was recently presented to the entire student government association, which swiftly supported what it saw as a growing need on campus.

Our student body is comprised of both traditional and non-traditional students and they come out pretty equally 50-50. This mix helps to make a wonderful diversity on campus but also supplies us with many students who are no longer on parental health care and need additional help. At this time our over-burdened health and wellness center is only able to sustain itself through the help of our nursing department. This responsibility should be shared by the students through the proposed student health fee. Very seldom is it that you are going to get students coming out in support of a financial increase. But I come today, Mr. President, to the Board to ask for future support in allowing us to take care of our own through a health fee to help our campus reach the level it needs to be to support its students properly.

Trustee Breckenridge: Mike, what do you consider an appropriate health fee for this campus?

Mike Renfrow: The student health fee that the student government worked with the administration on was $16 per person.

Trustee Shoulders: Just what would that cover? Is that a health center thing or is that a co-pay?

Mike Renfrow: What this would help us do is bring in more staff. We’ve increased student visits; in 2003 we had about 500 students visit at our health center. The very next year we had over 900 visits, and that was with very little promotion. Most of it was word of mouth.

Trustee Shoulders: This is like convenient care, emergency care?

Mike Renfrow: Yes, birth control, different things…

I’m Patti Nietch, director of the Health and Wellness Center. I’m a nurse practitioner. I see all of the students, and I need help. We recently hired one more nurse, but we need help. I do the required physicals for nursing students, dental hygiene students and radiography students. One person can no longer do it. Students do not have health insurance, they do not have the means. As you know, going to get a prescription for something is very expensive. We need help.

Trustee Breckenridge: Where is the health center on the IUSB campus?

Ms. Nietch: It is in this building, downstairs in the corner. We have two exam rooms and then my office and then two restrooms.

Trustee Shoulders: Is the administration going to bring us a recommendation on this?

Dr. Herbert: Yes sir, this will be one of the items that you will see at the April 13 meeting. What we have done is to break out all of these items. In the case of this campus the total request does exceed 4% as I recall, is that correct Judy?

Judy Palmer: It does on the mandatory fees.

Dr. Herbert: On the mandatory fees, it’s less with regard to tuition, but we will show you that for this campus as well as the others on the 13th.

Trustee Breese: Would the increase cover an expansion of services or just staff the services that are already provided? Can you tell me what the level of those services are?

Ms. Nietch: It’s a combination of both. I’m a lecturer and director, so I have a responsibility to the School of Nursing to teach, which means we can’t be open five days a week. I also have administrative responsibilities, so I actually hold three hats. The fee would allow me to continue to teach and would enable nurse practitioners on the faculty in the nursing school to come over and see students, so that would expand our services.

Trustee Breese: My concern with this is always whether we might be expanding into services that would become a liability, such as conditions that would require emergency room care.

Ms. Nietch: We have a collaborative agreement in the state of Indiana. In Indiana nurse practitioners can only practice with collaborative agreements. At Memorial Hospital we have collaborative agreements, and we have a collaborative agreement with Dr. Ken Elliott. So when there is something that is beyond my scope of practice they would be referred just as if they went to a care center.

Trustee Breese: OK, but the services would be in the scope of a med check or something like that?

Ms. Nietch: Yes basically. If they need x-rays or something off campus, we don’t have those facilities and are not planning to do that, at least not in the scope of a nurse-managed center, which is what I think many of the Big Ten Schools have.

Trustee Eichhorn: I should tell you that Erin is a candidate for an M.D./Ph.D. degree so some of her questions will be very precise. And now you’re going to hear from a retired doctor.

Trustee Boone: If you were able to get the funding, could you possibly consider outsourcing to some of the local hospitals? I’m sure you are working already with them, or there might be an individual within the community who would be willing to work with you for less compensation, or provide services on a regular scheduled basis?

Ms. Nietch: We’re looking at a number of collaborative options, including a possible partnership with the medical education center that’s under construction. The health center might also allow our nurse practitioners to gain experience and earn clinical hours, whichthey need to to maintain their certification. It’s really important for the School of Nursing. I know that Dean Regan-Kubinski spoke to you earlier about accreditation, and for accreditation we need those nurse practitioners to have these facilities. So we look at it as a nurse-managed center.

Trustee Boone: Maybe you could enlist some of the support of some of the physicians who are retired or near retirement and who would be willing to work in your clinics because there are some things that even nurse practitioners can’t take care of themselves.

Ms. Nietch: That’s correct. Those cases we refer to Memorial Family Practice here in town. We have a collaborative agreement with them and they have sliding scales. There is also free clinic in town, where many physicians volunteer. And this spring, we are holding a second event at St. Joe Medical Center. We did one this fall, and we saw 59 patients from the community for free. All of our nurse practitioners are participating in that.

Dr. Herbert: Mr. President, two campuses are asking for increases in the health fee. One is Bloomington, the second one is here. This one is very significant, but there is an increase in Bloomington also so there is a policy issue that you’ll have to address at that time.

Trustee Talbot: I’m not a bit surprised that you’re almost doubled in services rendered this past year. We’ve been here for the last two days and seen how this campus has developed into a very active campus, so naturally that’s going to follow along with more participation. The other thing, Mike, is it’s so nice to hear you refer to this building as such a benefit. We have loved watching it grow.

Trustee Breckenridge: Mike, I think you are from Nappanee right? Mike and his wife are from Nappanee, which is in Elkhart County. We have a lot of students on this campus who come from the Michiana area and I think it’s just great that Mike comes all the way from Nappanee to IUSB and has ended up as our student body president.

I. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

A. FACILITIES COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Breckenridge

Trustee Breckenridge: Thank you President Eichhorn. We had our meeting yesterday from 1:00 until a little past 3:00 p.m. We had a very fine meeting.

2. Design Approval

3. Real Estate Matters for Approval

4. Naming Matter

Trustee Breckenridge: The next item is an absolute honor for me to be able to present at this time. I move that we name our main library the Herman B Wells Library.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Breckenridge: We then went into several discussion items. We reviewed the IUSB master plan and talked about the rehabilitation of the Associates Building. We also had a review of captive insurance from Paul Sullivan. Then we discussed some very minor legal matters, and then we took a tour of the Indiana University School of Medicine at South Bend, which will be housed in the Ernestine Raclin and O.C. Carmichael Hall, across the street from the Notre Dame campus. I would like to commend the members of our administration for that very fine tour and I think we were very pleased with what we saw and how that facility is coming.

Trustee Ferguson: I’d like a clarification regarding the center. Yesterday as we walked through, we talked about Notre Dame putting in $9 million, and the state putting in $9 million and I understand that it is on IU land. What, exactly, is the relationship between IU, Notre Dame and the state?

Terry Clapacs: The new building is on ground owned by the Trustees of Indiana University. At one time, it was the Logan Center for Disabled Children, which the state decommissioned. Through the very helpful efforts of Representative Pat Bauer, that land came to Indiana University; it is Indiana University ground and you own it. So it is technically land that’s adjacent to the Notre Dame campus, but not on it.

The building is owned by the Trustees of Indiana University as well. Notre Dame is, in essence, a tenant in the building, but the funds used to build the space that they occupy came to us from Notre Dame through a pre-paid lease arrangement. They are there for the next 30 years. They have interesting programs and we are partners. They provide faculty to support our medical education. The entire complex is the Indiana University School of Medicine South Bend. The Ernestine Raclin and O.C. Carmichael Hall is the name of the building, but the programs carry the School of Medicine name, and the center carries the School of Medicine name.

Trustee Ferguson: When you say Notre Dame leases part of it, is it designated or is it in common?

Terry Clapacs: There are some common places, but it is clear which spaces are Notre Dame, they have programs in the building and so there are some common spaces like the auditorium for example and other spaces inside. I hope that helps.

Trustee Breckenridge: Someone said yesterday that the third floor or the upper floor is Notre Dame and the lower floor is IU.

Terry Clapacs: Yes it’s sort of split in a very general way.

Trustee Breckenridge: I know we will have signage there. Will Notre Dame have signage there too?

Terry Clapacs: There will be one sign there and it will be an Indiana University sign and it will identify on the sign that there are in fact Notre Dame programs in the building. But it will be part of the overall university signage program.

B. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Cohen

Trustee Cohen: We had our Finance and Audit committee meeting yesterday starting at 3:30 p.m. We were done at 5:00 p.m. We finished 30 minutes early by eliminating Trustee Shoulders’ jokes.

We had a presentation by Kokomo Chancellor Person regarding their plans for the Commitment to Excellence funds. We had a legislative update on financial matters from Vice President Palmer and J T. Forbes. We had an update from Stu Cobine on the status of the request for information for an underwriter, and we had a presentation by Kathleen McNeely on bad debt write-offs. There were no formal actions taken.

C. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND UNIVERSITY POLICY COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Talbot

Trustee Talbot: Thank you Mr. President. All trustees were in attendance at this morning’s meeting. We had one action item.

  1. Action Item: Approval is requested for the following new degree:

      Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

    • Master of Arts in Political Science

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

  2. Discussion items

    Trustee Talbot: Chancellor Ken Gros Louis did an excellent job in bringing to us a discussion of various accreditation programs and processes. We heard from several people who gave us a very good approach to understanding what these accreditations mean.

    First, we heard from Chancellor Person about the North Central Association Accreditation and what it means for an institution to undergo self-analysis and review. We then heard from Mary Ann Morris, who is in teacher education, and Anna Rominger, dean of business at IU Northwest, both of whom discussed discipline-specific reviews. Dean Rominger outlined for us the processes that are involved, and also the huge time commitment they require. Then we heard from Mary Jo Regan-Kubinski about nursing qualifications and education standards. All of the reports were very well received and provided us with solid information. We were also given a report, showing us which accreditation processes the campuses will be going through, and a timeline, so that in the future we can now address these on a timely basis when they come up and learn more about these specific programs. That Mr. President concludes my report.

D. LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Belanger

Trustee Belanger: Thank you Mr. President. We met just a few short hours ago and most of you were there and so I’ll keep this short.

We started things off with the legislative update. We heard remarks from Debbie Sibbitt regarding Hoosiers for Higher Education. J T. Forbes updated us on some of the legislative process, and then Tom Healy briefed us on our federal relations office, which opened today in Washington, D.C. We also turned to Bill Stephan, who gave us an update on the IU Integrated Image Project. We expect a progress report in several months, especially in regards to efforts to establish some uniformity with regards to the university’s image.

Then we heard an update from our colleague, Steve Ferguson, on the Task Force on Affordability, and we discussed some of the issues facing the state, and a number of recommendations from the taskforce. We finished things up with a discussion on financial aid. Judy Palmer, Charlie Nelms and Ken Gros Louis spoke about some of the proposed changes to federal funding, and we discussed a little bit about how these proposed changes would affect the university and some of the things we may be called upon to do to counteract those changes.

E. STUDENT TRUSTEE REPORT

Trustee Breese: I missed the second half of the Long Range Planning Committee to meet with AUSA, the All University Student Association. As we are nearing the end of the academic year we only had representation from three campuses, but we had some great discussions. We had IU South Bend, Northwest and IU East represented and I guess I’m Indianapolis, so Indianapolis was represented as well.

President James Nieto has instituted at all of the AUSA meetings a leadership corner where we talk about different qualities or aspects of leadership that are important. Today we talked about respect, and had some very good discussions about that.

I updated the students on the Student Trustee Search and Screening that is currently underway. We will be interviewing candidates very soon.

The student are also keeping up to date on the revisions to the Student Code, and know that they have to voice any concerns by April 12. They have been very active on all of the campuses in reviewing the code as it has progressed throughout.

We talked a little bit about planning for next year and we had some updates on some of the campuses. IU East was excited about their campaign for the community, which was officially launched last Friday. I believe Dr. Herbert attended. They were hoping to raise $2 million, primarily for an art gallery and scholarships basically to increase opportunities for the community in eastern central Indiana.

Northwest is excited about the student leaders that they have coming up in this next round of elections which will take place very soon. Their student government has been really building up in the last few years and they are excited about the student participation that’s taking place.

Then we talked about the opportunities here at IU South Bend, and I’m very impressed with this concert that they have put together for this evening. They have a student activities events board called Titans productions that has coordinated this entire production and they already have pre-sale of 1,000 tickets for this evening. The maximum is 2,000, and they think they’re going to get somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 people here this evening. They were very excited that this is really one of those events that’s going to bring together not only the students on this campus but the community, the other institutions in the area. They have Notre Dame students coming, St. Mary’s students coming, high school students from around the area coming, and they are very excited to show off the campus, show off the activity center and, as Mike Renfrow put it, they want to show that this is a place where things happen. I am very impressed with they have put together and I think it shows the wonderful opportunities that are present on this campus for students. That is my report.

III. PERSONNEL ACTIONS

1. INDIANA UNIVERSITY – Dr. Adam W. Herbert

No Items

2. INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON – Interim Senior Vice President and Chancellor Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis

Ken Gros Louis: I’d like to draw your attention to the appointment of Bradley Hamm to be the dean of Journalism. He’s very enthusiastic, ambitious in the best sense of the word, and is very strongly supported by the faculty in the Journalism school. He’ll be here next week to visit more faculty and spend more time with me.

Ken Gros Louis: He’ll be on campus Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

Trustee Eichhorn: Any further conversation?

Trustee Shoulders: I’d like to move approval of the personnel actions, add to my motion congratulations to all of those members of our faculty who will receive as a result of our action today, promotion and rank and a tenure recommendation.

3. INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS - Vice President and Chancellor Charles R. Bantz

4. INDIANA UNIVERSITY EAST - Chancellor David J. Fulton

5. INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE – Chancellor Michael A. Wartell

5. INDIANA UNIVERSITY KOKOMO- Chancellor Ruth Person

6. INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST – Chancellor Bruce L. Bergland

7. INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTH BEND – Chancellor Una Mae Reck

8. INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST – Chancellor Sandra R. Patterson-Randles

9. FOUNDERS DAY AWARDS

Reporting for the record the names of the three professors who received distinguished rank at Founders Day on March 6, 2005.

IV. AWARD OF DEGREES

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENTS

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

VII. NEW BUSINESS

  1. Action Item: Approval is requested to reaffirm the fiduciary responsibility of the IU Foundation Board of Directors.

Trustee Eichhorn: We have two items of new business today. The first appears in your agenda as the reaffirmation of the fiduciary responsibility of the IU Foundation Board of Directors.

There couldn’t be a better time to publicly commend the IU Foundation for its accomplishments.

Just days ago, we all saw headlines announcing Indiana University’s first-place ranking in the Big Ten for the amount of private support it receives from the private sector. IU also ranks third among all public universities, and 13th among all institutions of higher education in the nation in private support.

If this weren’t enough, the IU Foundation continues to set records as it raises the funds that enhance Indiana University’s tradition of excellence. I have said it before, and I will say it again: much of our progress in recent years has been a direct result of the dynamic relationship between Indiana University and the IU Foundation.

Indiana University's need for private-sector support will only increase over the years ahead, and IU and the IUF will be challenged to be more efficient and effective in order to achieve even greater fund-raising productivity.

Thus, I present the following resolution for your consideration:

Resolution of the Trustees of Indiana University
Reaffirming the Fiduciary Responsibility of the
Indiana University Foundation Board of Directors

WHEREAS, the Indiana University Foundation, established in 1936, is charged with the raising, administering and investing of private funds for the benefit of Indiana University; and

WHEREAS, the Indiana University Foundation Board of Directors has responsibility for the fiscal integrity of the Foundation, and has fiduciary and stewardship responsibility for the gift funds; and

WHEREAS, the Indiana University Foundation Board of Directors assures that donor intent is protected as gifts are accepted, administered, expended and invested, and that the long-term purchasing power of invested gifts is safeguarded;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Trustees of Indiana University reaffirm the fiduciary responsibility and authority of the Indiana University Foundation Board of Directors for assuring donor intent related to gift funds.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Eichhorn: Our second order of new business we carry out with decidedly mixed feelings: wishing one our favorite colleagues all the best as he embarks upon a new opportunity. Bill Stephen, would you please step forward?

Fellow trustees, I ask your consideration of the following resolution:

RESOLUTION of the
Trustees of Indiana University

WHEREAS, the Trustees of Indiana University wish to applaud the achievements of William B. Stephan, Vice President of External Relations and Corporate Partnerships; and

WHEREAS, he earned a Doctor of Jurisprudence from IU in 1984 and went on to serve his alma mater, his community and his state with abiding love and deep-seated devotion; and

WHEREAS, he was appointed to the vice presidency in 2001 and served three IU presidents, contributing significantly to Indiana University’s endeavors in economic development, strategic planning, government relations and external communications; and

WHEREAS, he demonstrated a mastery of tact and diplomacy that would make the United Nations proud – even on the golf course; and

WHEREAS, he garnered widespread praise as an insightful and trustworthy representative of the university, but was even more widely respected as a quiet confidant of unparalleled integrity; and

WHEREAS, his beloved Uncle Carl always said, “What’s not to like about Bill?” to which the trustees would add, “What’s not to hold in the highest esteem and commend with warmest affection?”

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Trustees of Indiana University congratulate William B. Stephan on his accomplishments, and thank him for his outstanding service to Indiana University. Adopted by the Board of Trustees on April 1, 2005.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

XIII. NEXT MEETING

May 6, 2005
IUB
Bloomington, IN

X. ADJOURNMENT

Robin and Rosa once again a terrific meeting. These road trips are not easy.

Robin Gress: I would like though to thank everybody here at IU South Bend and I would ask everybody, for the road crew everybody, Trustees and staff if we could give a round of applause because they’ve been great.

Robin Roy Gress
THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY


previous sectionnext section