January 24, 1997
(Includes resolution regarding teaching excellence awards.)

Trustees Present: President John D. Walda; Vice Presidents Frederick F.
Eichhorn, Jr., and P. A. Mack, Jr.; William A. Cook, Robert H. McKinney, James
T. Morris, Frank D. Otte, Ray Richardson, and Ann Whitlock Swedeen.

University Representatives: President Myles Brand; University Chancellor
Herman B Wells; Vice Presidents and Chancellors Gerald L. Bepko and Kenneth R.
R. Gros Louis; Vice Presidents J. Terry Clapacs, Judith G. Palmer, Christopher
Simpson and George Walker; Treasurer Steven A. Miller, Secretary of the Board
J. Susan Parrish; Chancellors David J. Fulton, Hilda Richards, and F.C.

Attendees: Herman Blake, Ray Bonhomme, William Burgan, Raymond Casati, Lynn
Coyne, Luis Davila, Douglas DeFrain, Judy Eichhorn, Dorothy J. Frapwell,
Deborah Freund, James Green, Edwin Greenebaum, Robin Gress, Donna Hankee, Andy
Heck, Linda Hunt, Sonja Johnson, Gary Kent, Martin Lukaszewski, Robert E.
Martin, Richard McKaig, Sara N. McNabb, Robert Meadows, Robert Moats, Thomas
Mulcahy, Kenneth L. Perrin, Shirley Perrin, Bryan Rives, Dan Rives, William H.
Schneider, Winston Shindell, Curtis Simic, James Swedeen, Jerry Tardy, Maynard
Thompson, Susan Voelkel, Don Weaver, Albert White, Kim Wilcox, Douglas M.
Wilson, also Jill Keough and Melissa Tarrant, Recorders, and the staff of the
University News Bureau.




     1.   Consideration of Teaching Excellence Recognition Awards

          Board President Walda recalled that at last month's meeting the
          Board heard the report from the President's Committee on Teaching
          Awards with its recommendations regarding the implementation of
          the teaching excellence awards.  He said there was some discussion
          among the participants who differed in their views as to how the
          money should be divided and/or spent. The trustees asked them to
          work together to find a compromise recommendation. He called on
          Deborah Freund, Dean of the Faculties, to give a report on the

          Professor Freund thanked the trustees for allowing the extra month
          for the faculty to work out a compromise.  She said that three
          concerns were raised in their discussions.  The first was whether
          awarding bonuses to 25% of the faculty was too many faculty
          members.  She said that this clause did not change because the
          original President's report suggested that no more than 25% be
          awarded bonuses.  The second concern related to the size of the
          awards, and in order to provide campuses with flexibility, knowing
          local campus conditions and in order for the mathematics to come
          out properly in some cases, that phrase was reworded.  The third
          concern, which comprised the bulk of their discussion, regarded
          the issue of setting aside a maximum of 15% of the funds for each
          campus to spend in faculty development geared towards the people
          who need it the most. She explained why she believed this was a
          laudable idea.  She said that the original suggestion of a bonus
          would be in the end to improve teaching.  She said that it is
          unlikely that a single approach would solve a complicated problem,
          and that setting aside 15% of the money would provide another
          means of improving teaching.  She said this compromise preserves
          the integrity of the original suggestion and does not diminish its
          power in any way.  

          Professor Bill Burgan commented that the question of the
          percentage of eligibility and the change for the amount of the
          award was based on doing the calculations at IUPUI.  He said that
          the UFC had found significant complexity and differences both
          between campuses and between schools on the larger campuses in
          terms of the numbers of full time faculty, the salaries of faculty
          and the tuition rates and number of students taught.  He said that
          changing the wording would give better flexibility.

          Professor Ed Greenebaum said that this project has been underway
          for approximately one year.  In that time, there has been
          extensive discussion and concern from the campuses about what they
          need to accomplish the goals indicated by the Board of Trustees. 
          He said that the concern expressed regarding the need for
          flexibility led to the UFC adopting the recommendation they made
          to the Board at the December meeting.  He said that he and
          Professor Bill Schneider held perspectives of faculty
          representatives, and Professor Freund came from the perspective of
          the chair of the committee appointed by the President with a
          particular mandate which they acted on in a very constructive and
          effective way.  He said that the work they had done in the past
          month was based on the mandate from the trustees to find some
          resolution of the matter that would to some degree be responsive
          to those constituencies, and at the same time, be a resolution
          that the Board might find acceptable.  He said that there are some
          aspects of this recommendation that are not entirely consonant
          with what members of both of these groups have thought.  But, he
          said they had made their best effort and offered it to the Board
          for consideration.

          Board President Walda said that all the trustees appreciated the
          manner in which the faculty responded to their request.  He also
          said that they understood that Professors Greenebaum and Schneider
          were put in difficult circumstances and he underscored the
          trustees' gratitude for the constructive manner in which they
          approached the recommendation brought to the  Board. He said that
          the trustees recognized Professors Freund, Greenebaum and
          Schneider and others had spent a significant amount of time and
          energy on this project. He expressed appreciation to all of them
          on behalf of the Board for their efforts. 

          Trustee Richardson proposed removing the previously introduced
          motion from the table and making a new motion of the new
          resolution. He said that the adoption of this resolution would
          fulfill several items spoken to in the Strategic Directions
          Charter, most obviously that which specifies the University will
          provide rewards for excellence for all who teach in the
          University.  He said that there has been some discussion on the
          question of whether IU does properly evaluate and reward teaching. 
          He said that this resolution will settle that question and will
          demonstrate that the trustees care enough about the teaching
          efforts made by all faculty to reward them and show appreciation
          to them. Trustee Richardson then reviewed the 13-month history of
          the process used to bring forth this recommendation, which
          included campus reviews, trustee reviews, the President's
          committee's work, and fine-tuning in the last month of the
          process.  He commended the efforts of all involved, and especially
          noted that the UFC had been doing a splendid job with addressing
          issues brought to them.

          Trustee Richardson addressed the two suggestions brought forth. 
          He said that if a campus decided to give $2,500 to all of their
          winners, and to delete 15% for faculty development, only 8.5% of
          the faculty would receive rewards, which is a totally different
          concept than the 25% that was discussed.  It gives a richer reward
          to a much smaller number of faculty, which is a change in
          character of the award.  He said that he was not sure that this
          was intended, and that the revised resolution would allow awards
          ranging from $500 to $2500, and that the average award would be
          $1,000, per the recommendation of the President's committee.  The
          $2,500 would not be allowed to be given to all recipients, but
          would be reserved for cases of exceptional merit.  Trustee
          Richardson said that taking the faculty development money out of
          the award pool would significantly reduce the available money, and
          he called on Trustee Eichhorn for an alternative solution.  

          Trustee Eichhorn said that the revised resolution did not give any
          consideration to the proposal that 15% of the TERA funds be used
          for faculty development. However, he said that President Brand had
          agreed to make a sum available from the strategic directions fund
          for faculty development that would be commensurate with the 15%
          proposal.  This solution would not reduce the amount of money
          available for faculty awards.  

          President Brand added that the source of the funding would be the
          strategic directions set aside monies.  In order not to disturb
          the on-going process of the second round, these monies would be
          taken out of the third round, but be made available immediately. 
          The amount would be $150,000, or 15% of $1 million.  So it would
          be available at the same time that this resolution goes into

          keeping in place the second round of strategic directions, but
          coming out of the third because it fits in with the strategic
          directions principles of improving and rewarding teaching.

          Trustee McKinney asked if the strategic directions committees
          would set the distribution method for the faculty development

          President Brand responded that they would.  He said that it would
          be done by a proposal basis in the same way as the strategic
          directions monies.

          Trustee McKinney said that he was in favor of the proposal.  He
          said that the three-year review will allow ample review time to
          make adjustments as necessary.  

          Professor Greenebaum said that Professors Schneider, Burgan,
          Freund and himself were all in agreement that the $1,000 average
          component of the proposed resolution should be dropped because the
          mandate for the average award to be $1,000 would be very difficult
          to achieve without undermining the success of the program.  He
          emphasized that he did not perceive any spirit to make the rewards
          as large and few as possible. 

          President Brand asked whether it would be preferable to go back to
          the original report "$500 to $1,500." 

          Professor Greenebaum said that the report submitted by Professor
          Freund contained the preferred language.

          Professor Freund stated that the language read, " Awards should
          range between a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $2,500."

          President Brand asked whether leaving the amount at $500 to $1,500
          would provide more flexibility.

          Board President Walda asked Professor Schneider to give an example
          of why mathematically this becomes a problem. 

          Professor Schneider said that it depends on how the campuses
          decide to allocate the funds and whether a campus has a large
          number of schools. He said that it could be based on credit hours
          taught, tuition generated, or simply on the number of faculty.  He
          said that it makes the most sense to  make the allocation of funds
          to the schools and then let the schools decide how they wanted to
          administer it, to involve the department or not.  But, he said,
          there will be differences in averages between the schools. The
          $500 to $2,500 was the range picked to provide the necessary
          flexibility. He said that averages would be impossible to maintain
          because first the money would go to the schools and the
          departments.  They would then have to report back and then it
          could be determined if the averages were right.  

          President Brand asked whether leaving the award between $500 and
          $1,500 would simplify matters.

          Professor Schneider said that it would simplify the administration
          but it would not give the flexibility that might be needed.  He
          said that some schools might need the flexibility to have the
          range go to $2,500.  He reiterated Professor Greenebaum's
          statement that there was no intent to subvert it, but it was a
          matter of letting the average fall the way it falls.  Of course,
          the awards will be reviewed and they could see how the averages
          came out. 

          Trustee Richardson said that he did not see anything in the
          President's committee report that placed restrictions on whether
          the money goes to a school, a department or a division, so that
          level of flexibility is already there.  He said that he understood
          the mathematical issues, but that the flexibility is there for the
          campus.  He said that the campus can divide the money in such a
          manner that works best under the flexibility provided in the
          President's committee report. 

          Professor Schneider said that the point with this is how closely
          the trustees want to manage the way  these awards are determined. 
          He said that if the trustees feel that it needs to be kept within
          the $500 to $1,500, that would be their decision. The
          recommendations that were made came from a spirit of allowing
          those decisions to be made without the encumbrances of keeping
          track of averages and having the flexibility to make the awards
          depending on the number of faculty and the number of students
          taught.  Narrowing the numbers would make it more restrictive.  

          Trustee Mack said that the last thing this Board wants to do is
          micro-manage.  He said that they have an opportunity with seven
          campuses for an experiment where each campus is a laboratory. They
          will be reviewing this each year.  He said that they do want to
          delegate the responsibility. He said that it was important to
          decide and move on, and that he did not want to see this issue
          postponed another month. He referred to figures that Vice
          President Palmer had provided, which indicated the number of
          faculty, number of teaching awards, and budgeted reserve, comes to
          $956,922 available for this program.  He suggested that the awards
          be established in the range of $500 to $2,000 without an average,
          and let the chancellors and the deans manage the program. 

          Trustee Richardson said that the President's committee report
          indicated a considerable amount of flexibility with no mandates to
          the campuses about how to distribute the money among schools or
          divisions.  However, he pointed out that this award was intended
          to be a pat on the back with a financial award attached to it.  It
          was never intended to be so large that people would look at it
          with envy, but was intended to be around $1,000 which provides
          some compensation, but not too much. He said that raising the
          amount to $2,000 or $2,500 changed the character of the award. He
          said that he would like to see the amounts set at the levels of
          $500 to $1,500 as suggested by President Brand.   He said that he
          would like to amend item four of  the resolution before the
          trustees to read, "Authorizes the maximum award of $1,500 and a
          minimum award of $500."  This would eliminate the provision for an
          average amount.

          Board President Walda asked if that would include the suggestion
          made by Trustee Eichhorn, with President Brand's support, to
          include $150,000 out of strategic directions funding for faculty

          Trustee Richardson said that it would, though he did not think it
          was appropriate to obligate strategic directions funding in a
          teaching award motion.

          Board President Walda indicated that he was trying to avoid
          another motion.

          Trustee Richardson said that as long as it was in the record that
          President Brand had committed the $150,000, he was sure that would

          Trustee McKinney said that he recalled a recent impassioned
          presentation about the fact that we were allocating too much money
          and the awards would be too high.  He said that he was surprised
          by the $2,500 amount.  He said that he wanted to do what was best,
          but there was conversation earlier that even $1,500 was too much.  

          Professor Schneider said it is better characterized as not
          mandating an award of $2,000 or $2,500; it was to allow those at
          the ranks of the schools or the departments to make that decision
          while giving them as much flexibility as possible. He said that a
          pat on the back differs from person to person and the need is to
          allow that decision to be made there, not to raise the rewards.  

          Trustee McKinney said that some faculty members did ask for the
          level to be kept low. 

          Professor Schneider said that those faculty members will be able
          to decide that but at the same time not restrict other faculty

          Board President Walda reiterated the motion.  

          Trustee Mack said that these awards would be determined by April,
          1997, and the trustees would then receive a report on the winners.

                      ON TEACHING EXCELLENCE
                        RECOGNITION AWARDS

           WHEREAS, the Indiana University Board of
          Trustees has approved the Strategic Directions
          Charter; and,

           WHEREAS, the Strategic Directions Charter asks
          that we "place student learning...first in the
          University's mission", and "encourage innovative
          advances in teaching...," and states that "We will
          provide rewards for excellence for all who teach in
          the University; and,

           WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees requested that a
          method be developed to reward teaching excellence;

           WHEREAS, the President's Committee on Teaching
          Awards, after receiving advice from the University
          Faculty Council, has filed its recommendations with
          the Board of Trustees.

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board
          of Trustees:

               1.   Adopts the final report of the President's
                    Committee on Teaching Awards,
               2.   Releases the award funds to the campuses,
               3.   Specifies that all of the award money go to
                    award winners, who then, pursuant to the
                    Committee's recommendation, "may choose whether
                    to receive the award in cash or to establish an
                    account to be used for other professional
               4.   Authorizes a maximum award of $1,500.00 and a
                    minimum award of $500.00, 
               5.   Requests that the first year's awards be made no
                    later than April, 1997.

Unanimously approved on motion duly made and seconded.


         J. Susan Parrish, Secretary