Grundy Reporter

University of Illinois System Senate Committee on General University Policy met March 21.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

Present: Chair Nicholas Burbules, Anustup Basu, Joanne Kaczmarek, Melissa Madsen, Bruce Rosenstock, Joyce Tolliver, Michael Ward

Ex officio: William Bernhard, Sharon Reynolds, Deborah Stone

Absent: Jacob Chimack, Shelby Pichla-Thompson

I. CALL TO ORDER

A regular meeting of the Senate Committee on General University Policy (GP) was called to order at 11:00 am with Chair Burbules presiding.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the February 21, 2022 meeting were approved as distributed by roll call vote.

Yes: Basu, Burbules, Kaczmarek, Rosenstock, Tolliver, Ward

No: None

Abstain: None

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

No requests received.

IV. CHAIR’S REMARKS

Chair Burbules commented that the main focus of the meeting will be GP.22.04 (Guidelines on Departmental Statements). If time permits, then GP.21.01 (Intellectual Property in Relation to Course Materials) will also be discussed.

Chair Burbules noted that GP provided feedback on GP.20.02 (Review of Provost Communication #9: Promotion and Tenure) at the last meeting and the item remains on today’s agenda for any additional feedback that GP would like to provide.

V. OLD BUSINESS

GP.20.02, Review of Provost Communication #9: Promotion and Tenure Chair Burbules asked if GP members had any additional feedback on the proposed revisions to Provost Communication #9. GP members had no additional feedback to provide. Bernhard thanked GP for the thoughtful feedback at the last meeting.

GP.22.04, Guidelines on Departmental Statements

Chair Burbules shared the updated draft guidelines and summarized the three guidelines:

• Any unit statement should always state that the position of the department should not be taken as an official position of the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

• Faculty of the unit should consider whether the statement represents the full membership of the unit.

• When a position is taken on “extramural” issues, the statement should clarify how the position is directly related to the unit’s academic scope and mission.

Kaczmarek suggested that it would be helpful to use bullet points to clarify the three recommendations and then have the explanation come after each recommendation.

Basu commented that GP may want to make a distinction between freedom of expression and duties as a faculty member. Chair Burbules responded that the distinction is the rationale for the more restrictive view. When exercising academic freedom as a faculty member, there are still responsibilities when speaking as members of the University.

Ward expressed concern that this could be a way for faculty members to represent personal opinions as those of the unit.

GP discussed that it is often more appropriate for a group of faculty to speak as a group instead of as the department/unit.

Chair Burbules noted that the intent is not to prevent a unit from making a statement, but instead that when a statement is issued that the unit has carefully canvassed the members of the unit to ensure the statement accurately represents the entire unit.

Bernhard commented that the administration previously discussed forming a task force on this issue, but it was decided to wait to see what guidelines are recommended by GP prior to the formation of a task force.

Tolliver noted that it is helpful for a Dean to have a document that has been discussed and approved by the Senate to consult to make the determination if a unit head is acting appropriately on unit statements.

Bernhard suggested a revision that a unit should have a process regarding departmental statements in the unit bylaws, including the agreement to consult all stakeholders.

Chair Burbules agreed that the procedures for establishing the process for departmental statement should be outlined in the unit bylaws.

Chair Burbules will update the draft guidelines for further discussion at the next meeting.

GP.21.01, Intellectual Property in Relation to Course Materials

Chair Burbules noted that the General Rules state the following:

• Traditional academic copyrightable works created using system resources usually and customarily provided are owned by the creators. Such works need not be licensed to the system.

• Traditional academic copyrightable works created with use of system resources over and above those usually and customarily provided shall be owned by the creators but licensed to the system. The minimum terms of such license shall grant the system the right to use the original work and to make and use derivative works in its internally administered programs of teaching, research, and public service on a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis. The system may retain more than the minimum license rights when justified by the circumstances of development.

Chair Burbules commented that if a faculty member accepts support “over and above” the usual (e.g., graduate assistant, summer salary), the University is given an investment in the development of the course regardless of whether it’s an in-person or online course. The investment grants the University the right to reuse the materials and continue to have the course taught if the faculty member leaves. He commented that many faculty members may not understand the implications of accepting this additional support.

Bernhard shared that his understanding is that this type of agreement is being used in discussions with faculty members when developing online courses. He suggested that GP invite Laura Hendley, Assistant Provost for Educational Innovation, and Doug Shontz, Senior Associate University Counsel, to the next meeting to discuss this issue.

Tolliver commented that the development of an online course includes the need to be conscious of additional requirements (e.g., copyright) that a faculty member may not be conscious of for an in-person course. She noted that ATLAS (Applied Technologies for Learning in the Arts & Sciences) has an agreement that faculty are required to sign when they are involved in creating a course. She suggested that it would be helpful to review other agreements and any intellectual property language in those agreements.

Chair Burbules will invite Hendley and Shontz to the next meeting to discuss this issue. He asked GP members to send concerns/questions with him so they can be shared with the guests prior to the meeting.

GP.22.02, Campus Administrative Manual Reporting Certain Forms of Misconduct to Research Sponsors Policy

No new discussion.

GP.22.03, Severe Sanctions Less Than Dismissal for COVID-19 Testing Non-Compliance No new discussion.

GP.15.01, Statement on Administrative Hiring Practices

No new discussion.

GP.21.16, Revision to Provost Communication #27: Shared Governance for Academic Units – Unit Bylaws

No new discussion.

GP.07.04, Multi-Year Contracts Policy and Implementation

No new discussion.

GP.15.08, Tenure Review

No new discussion.

GP.20.03, Proposed Revisions to the Statutes, Articles IX and X – Administrative Leave No new discussion.

GP.21.11, Guidelines for Faculty Engagement

No new discussion.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

GP.22.06, Revision to Provost Communication #26: Promotion to Teaching, Research, or Clinical Associate or Full Professor Titles

No new discussion.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 12:25 pm.

https://uofi.app.box.com/v/GeneralUniversityPolicy/file/943768864892