1974 Reorganization Resolutions

The Bloomington Faculty Council affirms an overriding commitment to the pursuit of excellence in scholarship and research and recognizes this pursuit as a primary mission of the Bloomington Campus. In carrying out any recommendations on the reorganization of Indiana University, no steps should be taken which would interfere with this commitment to excellence.
(Approved: BFC 9/20/77)

A. Academic Leadership Resolutions
A.1. In order to provide a mechanism to confront major decisions involving academic excellence, priorities, directions, joint and separate programs, resource allocations, standards and their implementation-- especially for the Bloomington-Indianapolis core--a policy committee should be established for that purpose with the Executive Vice Presidents of the two campuses as co-chairpersons and the Vice Chancellor/Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs or equivalent as members.
(Approved: BFC 10/19/77)

A.2.In order to maintain the academic excellence of the Bloomington Campus, it is the responsibility of the Bloomington Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs to be fully and intimately involved in the preparation of all aspects of the Bloomington budget.
(Approved: BFC 10/19/77)

B. Personnel Resolutions
B.1. The faculties of each multi-campus unit should move as rapidly as possible toward the development of common application of the standards for promotion.
(Approved: BFC 10/19/77)

B.2. The faculty of each multi-campus unit should move toward common guidelines for the preparation of dossiers and common review procedures for promotion. Promotion recommendations for Bloomington-based and Indianapolis-based faculty members of multi-campus units should be considered by joint promotion committees, formed from those operating for the two campuses; the recommendations from these joint committees should be made to the chancellor/provost who has supervisory responsibility for the unit to which the faculty member belongs. For multi-campus schools operating on other campuses, the joint promotion committee should include representation from the other campuses.
(Approved: BFC 11/1/77)

B.3. We reaffirm the principle adopted by the Trustees of Indiana University, July 25-27, 1969, that tenure is specific to a single campus.
(Approved: BFC 4/4/78; UFC 3/11/80)

B.4. First, tenure and promotion recommendations undergo the first systematic review at the school or departmental level. Review by merged and system schools permits representation on committees by faculty members from whatever campuses the schools deem appropriate and allows rigorous application of uniform standards across all candidates. The recommendation from the school passes to the local campus on which the candidate is or is to be tenured. Local campus procedures are followed in consideration of the dossier, resulting in a campus recommendation. This procedure allows application of uniform procedures across the campus and contributes to the sense of academic community. Third, the recommendation from the campus passes to the reporting line Chancellor/Provost, who makes the final recommendation to the President. This procedure clearly defines the role and authority of the Chancellor/Provost to recommend promotion or tenure on another campus. It removes the aspect of double jeopardy.
(Approved: UFC 10/13/81)

B.5. Faculty assignments should be based on program needs with faculty members in positions of their greatest strength and professional interest. New faculty members should be employed with as clear an understanding as possible regarding possible assignments and teaching responsibilities on a single campus or on more than one campus.
(Approved: BFC 12/6/77; UFC 3/11/80)

B.6. Faculty who teach or are engaged in activities on more than one campus should have their loads adjusted to reflect their assignments.
(Approved: BFC 12/6/77)

B.7. [Defeated resolution calling for elimination of salary differentials attributable to geography.]
(Approved: BFC 12/6/77)

B.8. Uniform policies for payment of summer salaries on all campuses should be achieved as soon as possible.
(Approved: BFC 1/17/78)

B.9. A faculty member of a multi-campus unit may bring his or her grievance to the Faculty Board of Review of any of the campuses on which the multi-campus unit operates. Once the choice is made by the faculty member, only that Board of Review may consider the case. The Board of Review shall use its regular procedures and give its recommendations to the administrative office with supervisory responsibility for the program in which the faculty member is employed. A librarian should bring his or her grievance to the IU Librarians Faculty Review Board. That Board shall use its stated operating procedures.
(Approved: BFC 1/17/78)

B.10. [Defeated resolution which would have allowed Boards of Review to augment their membership by adding members from another campus when considering a
case involving a faculty member of a multi-campus unit.]
(BFC 1/17/78)

C. Faculty Governance Resolutions
C.1.a. [Defeated resolution calling for faculty representatives to sit on Central Administration's committees.]
(BFC 2/7/78)

C.1.b. We request that the President of the University meet once a semester with the Bloomington Faculty Council to discuss matters of mutual interest.
(Approved: BFC 2/7/78)

C.1.c. We recommend that the President be informed of the faculty's desire to establish and maintain close communication on matters of academic excellence, and that
means to accomplish that end be discussed by him and the Bloomington Faculty Council.
(Approved: BFC 2/7/78)

C.2.a. The present Constitution of the Indiana University Faculty indicates--and we reaffirm--that the primary faculty governing body should be on each campus, with
only those matters taken to multi-campus bodies which require such action. Except for the basic item suggested in the next paragraph [C.2.b], items should reach the
University Faculty Council agenda only at the request of one of the campus councils or the President.
(Approved: BFC 2/7/78)

C.2.b. An item of obvious system-wide significance is the approval of new degree or certificate programs for submission to the Commission on Higher Education. This is now done by a committee composed primarily of administrative officials.

Although the development of degree and certificate programs on particular campuses of the university certainly involves administrative, financial, and political considerations--it seems clear to us that responsible faculty judgment about academic content and quality should be of primary importance. Nor can the development of such new programs be left completely to the discretion of the faculty of a particular campus; the relative importance and need of programs must be assessed within the university community before they are submitted to the Commission. Furthermore, the continuation of academic programs in perpetuity should not be presumed: such a faculty-dominated group should scrutinize existing programs from time to time. The University Faculty Council should create a committee which would have responsibility for recommending directly to the Trustees and the Higher Education Commission the establishment and continuation of all degree and certificate programs. The committee would also recommend directly to the Trustees and the Higher Education Commission any shift in academic programs from single-campus status to multi-campus status and vice versa. The committee should consult with the Faculty Councils of the campuses affected by any such shifts in academic programs. The majority of committee members would be full-time faculty members. The University Degree Program Proposal Review Committee should no longer be responsible for making such recommendations. Staff assistance should be supplied to the new Council committee. The membership of the committee should reflect the distribution of full-time faculty members on the various campuses of the university.
(Approved: BFC 2/7/78)

C.2.c. [Considered this recommendation to be an information item rather than an action item: it called for fewer meetings of the University Faculty Council--perhaps allday
(BFC 2/7/78)

C.2.d. [Tabled: this recommendation called for a Bloomington-Indianapolis faculty body.]
(BFC 2/7/78)

C.2.e.We recommend that the Bloomington representation on the University Faculty Council (and on the Bloomington-Indianapolis group mentioned in #C.2.d. above) be composed of members of the Bloomington Faculty Council. [BFC bylaws were subsequently amended to implement this resolution.]
(Approved: BFC 1/21/78)

C.3. [Defeated this recommendation which would have designated all deans and program directors as ex-officio members of the BFC.]
(BFC 4/4/78)

D. Budgetary Resolutions
D.1. Bloomington and Indianapolis budgets, budget requests, and state appropriations should reflect as accurately as possible the academic programs which have activities on each campus.
(Approved: BFC 2/21/78)

Budgets, budget requests, and state allocations should reflect as accurately as possible the academic programs which have which have activities on each campus.
(Approved: UFC 11/13/79)

D.2. An intercampus services account should be established which would make it possible to shift personnel and services temporarily from one campus to the other to reflect as accurately as possible the services which are being performed by either campus for the other.
(Approved: BFC 2/21/78)

An intercampus services account should be established which would make it possible to shift personnel and services temporarily from one campus to another to reflect as accurately as possible the services which are being performed by one campus for another.
(Approved: UFC 2/12/80)

D.3. Contingent upon the implementation of Resolution #D.4., Bloomington and Indianapolis budgets should reflect all academic and academic-related income and expenditures on each campus: therefore, income from research grants, including indirect costs, should be treated as nearly as possible as campus-specific income to the campus on which the research costs are incurred. Arrangements for conducting multi-campus grant activities should be made through the proposed intercampus
(Approved: BFC 2/21/78)

D.4. The Bloomington Campus budget should reflect academic activities on the Bloomington Campus: therefore, the Central Administration budget, budget request,
and budget appropriation should be distinct from the Provost’s budget, budget request, and budget appropriation.
(Approved: BFC 2/21/78)

E. Program Resolutions
E.1. Undergraduate student transfers into any school, college, or department of the university from the University Division or from any other school or college shall be
made only with the consent of the school, college, or department into which the transfer is being made and upon the basis of standards approved by them. (Approved:
BFC 4/18/78; UFC 11/13/79)

E.2.a. [Tabled: recommendation asked that any curricular change affecting other units should be publicized and cleared through the Dean of the Faculties.]
(BFC 4/18/78)

E.2.b. Schools, colleges, and departments should not change their requirements for undergraduate admissions without publicizing their intent to do so. The schools,
colleges, and departments should allow a reasonable period of time to elapse between publicizing the changes and instituting changes in standards.
(Approved: BFC 4/18/78; UFC 11/13/79)

E.3. [Tabled: recommendation required that any graduate course--to be counted toward any graduate degree--must have the approval of the school involved for the
content and quality of the course on the particular campus at which it is taken.]
(BFC 4/18/78)

E.4. Increased efforts should be made to help Bloomington students with internships, work experiences, clinical practice activities, and similar programs in the
Indianapolis metropolitan area.
(Approved: BFC 4/18/78)

Increased efforts should be made to help I.U. students with internships, work experiences, clinical practice activities, and similar I.U. programs in the metropolitan
(Approved: UFC 11/13/79)

E.5. Multi-campus schools should conduct their placement activities in such a way as to give full and equal help to all their students, whatever their campus, with the understanding that this may involve the utilization of differing offices and facilities on different campuses.
(Approved: BFC 4/18/78)

E.6. Where responsibilities for program and budget activities on a particular campus are vested in different administrative offices, differences in view as to program expenditure priorities should be resolved by negotiation and mutual consent or--failing such agreement--by the President, with as much consultation with representatives of affected faculties as possible.
(Approved: BFC 4/18/78)