Faculty Senate Minutes
2006 No. 611
March 9, 2006
The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President
Bill Boggess on March 9, 2006 at 3:02 PM in the LaSells Stewart Center.
- Action Items: Category I Proposals - Create a New B.S. in Forest
Operations Management, Reduction in Graduation Requirements for Selected
College of Engineering Programs, and Name Change for the Rangeland Resources
Degrees; and OSU Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
[Motion 06-611-01 through 04]
- Discussion Item: Joint Report of the Renewable-term Professorial Rank
Task Force and the College of Agricultural Sciences Fixed Term Faculty
- New Business: None
Category I Proposals
Mary Cluskey, Curriculum Council co-chair, presented the following proposals which
have all received approval from the Curriculum Council.
- Create a new B.S. in Forest Operations Management - The degree is
based on technical forestry and forest operations courses in
Forest Resources and Forest
Engineering areas and in the College of Business to earn a minor
in business management. This will be a third option for the
College of Forestry and is
distinct from the other two options since it is focused primarily
on forest practices and industrial forest organizations. It
is less quantitative than
the Forest Engineering degree and less multi-use management oriented
than the existing Forest Management option. The intent is to
submit the B.S. for accreditation through the Society for American
Foresters upon approval. It is anticipated there will be about 20 graduates per year
with a total of about 70 undergraduate students. The proposal will use existing
faculty, but additional sections, labs and GTA support may be
necessary when the full projected numbers are reached. The proposal suggests that the funding
needs will be met with student credit hour generation, donor
support, reallocationof funding and perhaps endowment funds. There was no discussion.
Motion 06-611-01 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
- Reduction in Graduation Requirements for Selected College of Engineering Programs - The
proposal would reduce credit hours from 192 to 180 and includes the Colleges of Science,
Forestry and Engineering. Cluskey noted that Electrical and Computer Engineering degrees
are in the process of merging and may submit a proposal to change hour requirements at a
later time. The rationale is to bring the engineering degrees in line with other OSU
degree programs. This proposal may result in a slight reduction in tuition and expenses
for students since there are fewer credits. The proposal has met with the approval of
college faculty and is consistent with their accreditation requirements. There was no discussion.
Motion 06-611-02 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
- Name change for the Rangeland Resources Degrees to Rangeland Ecology and Management -
This proposal would change the name of the B.S., M.S., Ph.D., M.Agr., and M.A.I.S. degrees,
and the minor in Rangeland Resources to Rangeland Ecology and Management. The rationale
is that the change aligns the degree titles with the department name which was changed
last spring, it is a better reflection of the current market and industry terminology,
and it was felt that the proposed name is a more accurate description of the course
of study. There was no discussion.
Motion 06-611-03 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
OSU Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
Larry Curtis presented for approval the revised OSU Procedures for Handling
Allegations of Research Misconduct
document initially discussed during the February Faculty Senate meeting.
Curtis noted two substantive changes to the report: 1) The committee
now listed; and 2) Regarding confidentiality of the complainant - the
complainant is not identified in the early phases of an allegation,
including the initial
assessment or inquiry. However, if the complaint moves to the investigation
phase, the identity of the complainant is included in the investigation
document received by the respondent. There was no discussion.
Motion 06-611-04 to approve the document passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Joint Report of the Renewable-term Professorial Rank Task
Force and the College of Agricultural Sciences Fixed Term Faculty Issue Group
Dan Edge presented for discussion the Joint Report of
the Renewable–term Professorial Rank Task Force and the College of Agricultural
Sciences Fixed Term Faculty Issue Group. He and Bill Braunworth each chaired
separate, but related, groups representing Extension and Agricultural Sciences whose
reports were merged at the recommendation of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
since there were similar and parallel concepts. The purpose of the presentation was
to make Senators aware of the report and to solicit feedback. Edge acknowledged the
work of faculty on both groups.
Basically, the charge was to look at the use of professorial ranks for non-tenure faculty.
Although some consider this recommendation to be the first in a series to eliminate
tenure, this is not the case.
Recommendation #1 - Would establish a new series of renewable-term,
professorial Extension faculty ranks: Assistant Extension Professor, Associate Extension
Professor and Extension Professor. (The term 'renewable-term' is being used as opposed
to 'fixed-term.') Rationale: Extension has changed substantially in areas of funding and
emerging short-term issues and needs. An example of an emerging issue is the avian flu
which would not require a long term commitment to a faculty member. There are multiple
resources from which faculty are hired and it is no longer clear whether the funds are
dedicated state, federal or grant related, so it made sense to begin thinking about
renewable-term professorial ranks. Use of the new ranks would be appropriate under the
- Position description includes at least 15% scholarship;
- Funding for the position is entirely or partially state or federal funds;
- If state/federal funds are used, the programming need is of limited duration
(2-10 years); and
- Up to a maximum of 30% of an Extension program's state and federal funds are
allocated to renewable-term positions. In this instance, program is defined as the
major Extension program areas (4-H, Agriculture, Family and Community Development,
Forestry, and Sea Grant).
Recommendation #2 - Would allow hiring of non-tenure track professorial
faculty on state/federal funds or a combination of funding. Use of non-tenure track
professorial ranks would be appropriate under the following situations:
- Position description includes at least 15% scholarship;
- Funding for the position is entirely or partially non-recurring funds;
- If state/federal funds are used, the need for the position is of limited duration
(2-10 years); and
- Up to a maximum of 30% of a unit's state/federal funds are allocated to renewable-term
positions including Instructor rank faculty.
Recommendation #3 - Would permit multiple year, rolling contracts for
renewable-term professorial and instructor rank faculty after a three-year probationary
period. Edge noted that the OSU Faculty Handbook allows a two-year contract and the Chancellor
has given authority for three-year contracts with presidential authority.
Recommendation #4 - Would provide comparable compensation for renewable
term and tenure/tenure-track professorial rank faculty. Edge it was felt this was necessary
to attract quality faculty.
Recommendation #5 - Would monitor salaries and renewal term options.
Each college dean shall be responsible for monitoring equity of salaries between renewable-term
and tenure-track positions of similar ranks, and prepare a report no less than every five years
that is accessible to the OSU administration and Faculty Senate. This would ensure that units are
not exceeding the 30% limit on renewable term positions and to make sure that they are, where
possible, providing comparable salaries.
Senator Lundy, Engineering, noted the 2-10 year time frame and questioned what happens in year
9 or 10 when it is realized that a short-term need has turned into a longer term. Edge responded
that the committee felt there was a need for a 'sunset.' If a longer term was needed, it could
be opened up to a tenure track position and the individual could compete for the position.
Senator Brewer, Agricultural Sciences, noted that the Fixed-Term Faculty Task Force also recommended
rolling contracts over a year ago.
Senator Wilcox, Health and Human Sciences, questioned the process and asked whether the Faculty
Senate would need to approve the faculty ranks. President Boggess was unsure, but responded that
may be the case. Provost Randhawa was also unsure and offered to check on the process. Edge
noted that there are similar, existing positions for clinical faculty in Veterinary Medicine
and Pharmacy. Wilcox felt that this should pass through the Faculty Senate and perhaps also
the Faculty Status Committee.
Senator Wilcox referred to the preamble which states that some institutions have no tenure-track
Extension faculty, and the OSU rationale is that some faculty are currently misclassified as
instructors. He felt it is not clear there is a 10-year limit. Edge noted that the initial
report contained language that would allow a waiver of search, but it was determined that a
permanent position should have a national search. Wilcox felt the interpretation should be
more clearly defined.
Senator Wilcox expressed concern that an Extension tenure-track position creates an option
with limited application. Edge responded that most groups providing input felt strongly
that there was an appropriate role for tenure-track positions, but there are needs that
could be served by the type of position proposed. President Boggess mentioned he has not
heard a systematic conversation against a continuing role for tenure-track in Extension.
He noted that, in the past, 100% of the Extension budget was in tenure-track positions
and the proposal allows flexibility. A national report on Extension suggests no more
than 70% of Extension budgets should be allocated for tenure-track and 30% for all
Senator Wilcox felt there would be advantages to having three categories - tenure-track,
renewable and instructor. However, people may be confused to have a title with Extension
tenure-track and one without. Edge noted the intent is not to create a second-class
professorship. Braunworth explained the difference is the use of state and federal
funding vs. only using contract funds. Edge mentioned that colleagues were contacted
nation-wide and, although many have non-tenure-track positions, some felt it would be
helpful if tenure-track positions were available in terms of evaluation and recognition
within the university system.
Senator Iltis, Liberal Arts, questioned the process by which a faculty member moves beyond
the 10-year period into a tenure-track position and how this would align with the existing
promotion process. Edge responded that the committee did not take the process that far since
their charge was to determine whether or not the process had traction, and suggested that
reference to this would need to be included in the Faculty Handbook. During discussions,
it was felt that the Provost or Faculty Senate President would develop criteria for
advancement. Iltis felt it was reasonable that the proposal would come back to the
Faculty Senate for approval. Provost Randhawa felt that, if the university moved in
this direction, the Faculty Senate would need to be involved in determining the criteria
and anticipates a similar process in developing criteria for the research track; he
suggested that the Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee could draft the criteria.
President-Elect Quinn asked if the third criteria in Recommendation #2 meant there is a need
for a limited duration class or if the need for the position is related to scholarship. Edge
indicated it referred to the sunset period, but stated they did not give thought to a limited
duration class. Quinn also questioned flexibility related to non tenure-track spousal
accommodation. Edge responded that accommodation was college and unit specific and there
are a number of scenarios. Quinn felt that the need for the position should be clarified.
Edge encouraged Senators to share the report with colleagues and contact either Braunworth
or him with comments by the end of spring break.
REPORT FROM AND DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST
Provost Randhawa's report included the following:
- Budget - Need to reduce 2006-07 recurring expenses about 5-6%, or about $13-14 million,
in response to increased costs associated with health care, PERS, salaries, etc.
He noted that, although the average is about 5.5%, there is quite a bit of variation
with academic units ranging from 4-13% to 4-20% in support units. There are two elements
related to the negative numbers: one-time spending, consisting of about $30 million in
carry-over during the past year, has ceased and recurring expense reductions resulting
from health care costs, etc.
- Rebasing - This involved looking at the sources and uses of Education and General Fund
money, which is about $235 million that comes into the university. An evaluation was performed
to determine how much is being allocated to academic units and how much is allocated to
teaching expenses. An objective was to determine if the core enterprise of the university
was being funded at a reasonable level. The analysis, based on two full fiscal years (2004-05)
of data, revealed that the following four colleges contribute more than they are allocated:
Science, Liberal Arts, Health and Human Sciences, and Business. Colleges receiving more
resources than they provide are Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Forestry, and Veterinary
Medicine. In terms of E&G budget, the size for these colleges is relatively small, and
they are more heavily focused on research. Following analysis and deliberation, the decision
was made to move about $7.5 million over the next five years into the four colleges that are
under funded relative to what they are providing to the institution. The amounts to be received
by college are: Science, $2.5 million; Liberal Arts, $2 million; Business, $1 million; and Health
and Human Sciences, $2 million. For 2006-07 the under funded colleges will receive the following
amounts: Science - $1 million, Liberal Arts - $800,000, Business - $500,000, and Health and
Human Sciences - $200,000. Randhawa noted that this funding is based on OSU's current educational
The money being reallocated comes from several sources: reducing $1.5 million in Athletic
subsidies; recovering overhead charges from auxiliaries and statewide public services; and
ending the seed money to E-campus to get the program going. He hopes to recover more than $7.5
million with the biggest priority to building central reserves. Randhawa stated there are absolutely
no resources available centrally.
- Long-term planning - In the long-term, given the available resources, Randhawa felt there
are two areas in which OSU needs to move in the direction of top ten: distinction in selected
programs within the five thematic areas and providing an exemplary student experience. He has
talked with the Executive Committee and the Provost's Council on this topic. There are
potential scenarios being considered in terms of the size of enrollment, the mix of the students,
programs offered, etc. Once the direction is solidified, Randhawa will share the information
either in person or via email. He is working with Mark McCambridge and will place the information
on the web and will provide an opportunity for feedback.
- Veterinary Medicine Dean Search - Sherm Bloomer is chairing the search committee.
- Carnegie Classification - Randhawa will forward a message to faculty regarding OSU's
Carnegie classification. He explained that, initially, OSU was ranked Research Extensive.
However, due to efforts by Rebecca Sanderson and others in Institutional Research providing
additional data, the classification was revised to Very High Research University, which is
the highest ranking.
- Fixed-Term Faculty Task Force - Randhawa and Becky Johnson are working on the multi-year
contract recommendations and are drafting a set of recommendations that will be shared with
REPORT FROM AND DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
President Boggess' report included the following:
- Scientific Ethics Forum - He thanked Philosophy and the Spring Creek Project for co-sponsoring
the forum and Kathleen Dean Moore and Charles Goodrich for their efforts related to the
public forum. He recognized those on the panel: Edward Brook, Courtney Campbell,
Jonathan Kaplan, Mary Jo Nye, John Cassady and Anne Guerry and thanked Karyle Butcher
for hosting the forum in The Valley Library.
The Executive Committee suggested working toward a University Day keynote speaker to address
core issues of academic freedom and professional responsibilities; no specifics have been
Boggess encouraged Senators to email him with thoughts or suggestions, particularly
related to either the research enterprise and activities or graduate student issues. He
anticipates involving appropriate Faculty Senate committees in these issues.
Senator McLeod, Science, observed that no issues were mentioned related to undergraduate
students. Boggess noted that the Executive Committee talked about this, but has not yet
gone to the next step. He has not contacted anyone, but felt that there are opportunities
within the Baccalaureate Core to better integrate ethics and science and possibly ways to
work with the Horning Endowment. Senator Roberts, Liberal Arts, shared conversations
during the forum that OSU graduates students who are literate in either the arts or
sciences, but not both - well educated graduates need literacy in both science and
humanities. Senator McLeod stated there are graduates trained in the content of an
area but not in all aspects of the practice or culture of a discipline.
- Long-term Financial Planning Scenarios - Boggess has discussed with the Executive
Committee, Provost Randhawa and others his frustration at the sense of being unable to
tell a coherent story about the future of OSU. If the aspiration is to be a top-ten land
grant, the meaning and metrics need to be defined, such as: what would the student/faculty
ratio need to be, what would be the average per student expenditure, what would faculty
salaries and average class size look like, etc., then work backwards from that using
various funding scenarios. Assuming that the legislature will not increase funding, it
would be necessary to work backwards with lower enrollment, increased entrance requirements,
maintaining state funding, and increased control over tuition; Boggess is working on a
scenario that may allow these elements. Resources would be saved if students are more
prepared and remedial courses are not needed. He suggested the possibility of creating
baccalaureate core themes, a learning community and integration of science and humanities.
There are ongoing conversations around what would be possible, what the implicit contracts
would be with the state to gain approval and with students and parents regarding class size,
enhancing the learning experience, etc. He noted that Provost Randhawa has asked
Institutional Research and the Business Office to calculate the median parameters
and work backwards to determine what that would mean.
Boggess noted that some conversations are occurring within the state system related to
selling one of the OUS institutions. He felt there was no reason why OSU needs 19,000
students when WOU is desperate for students and could deal with some of the access
issues. There is also talk of allowing some differentiation of missions within OUS
and felt that the research mission could differentiate OSU from other institutions
and create a different undergraduate environment. Boggess invited faculty to visit
with him or Executive Committee members if they have ideas on how to address issues
of accountability, access and affordability in the context of constraints and possibilities.
Senator Barker, Liberal Arts, suggested that the metrics from top-ten land grant institutions
would increase the number of faculty in Sociology by about 40, but the scenario presented
would actually reduce the number of faculty. Boggess felt it would be possible to attain
measures of quality and differentiation, may attract more resources, and noted his comments
were not defined in terms of the median number of faculty and students. Barker felt that a
critical number of faculty were needed to be considered a top ten.
Senator Curtis, Agricultural Sciences, reminded faculty that promises from the legislature
of increased funding for additional students have not been realized and noted that enrollment
per student above 15,000 results in a loss.
Senator Iltis noted that frustration regarding access is palpable. He related that there are
seniors who can't get into speech courses, and the problem is getting worse. He felt the crisis
will get serious when students realize OSU is no longer a four-year institution, but a five-year
institution. He appreciates any innovative ideas to move away from that crisis. Boggess felt he
could go to the legislature and make a case for the scenario he is working out that assures
access for 15,000 students and increases requirements so there is less need for remedial
courses which results in fewer and, hopefully, smaller sections. He has been working
closely with Mike Quinn on this issue. He felt there is a lack of energy because faculty
are concerned about how to get through next year and there is no vision to follow. He
noted there are some very elite educational institutions that are quite small.
Boggess invited faculty to share thoughts and reflections with him, and felt it
was time to determine how to articulate the future.
There was no new business.
Agricultural Sciences: Brewer, Curtis, Dreher, Edge, Engel, W. Austin
for Huddleston, Penner, Savage, Thompson.
Associated Faculty: Arthenayake, Barr, Beach, Dempsey, Dorbolo, R.
Johnson for Eklund, Elmshaeuser, Fernandez, Gillies, Gomez, Hughes, Larkin,
S. LeBoeuf for Miles, Minear, Oldfield, Rosenberg, Ross.
Business: Banyi, LeMay, Raja, Wu, L. Dang for Yang.
Education: L. Hinman for Ward
Engineering: Bose, Huber, Hunter-Zaworski, Lundy, Pence, Sillars.
Extension: Galloway, Godwin.
Forestry: Clauson, Doescher, Freitag, Reuter, Sexton.
Health & Human Sciences: Acock, Asbell, Bowman, M. Mahana for Braverman,
Friedman, Ho, Wilcox.
Liberal Arts: Anderson, Barker, Carson, Edwards, Folts, Iltis, Kingston,
Melton, Oriard, Roberts, Shaw, Valls.
Library: V. King for McMillen.
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Benoit-Bird, Skyllingstad, Spitz.
Pharmacy: Nauman, Stevens.
Science: Barofsky, Flahive, Giebultowicz, Gitleman, Ho, Lajtha, McCune, McLeod, Parks.
Student Affairs: Langford, Larson, Schwab, Tsuneyoshi.
Veterinary Medicine: Estill, Jennings, Mosley.
Agricultural Sciences: Anderson, Bolte, Cassidy, Coblentz, Duncan,
Gregory, Jepson, Mallory-Smith, Meink, Sorte, Weber.
Associated Faculty: Greydanus.
Engineering: Jovanovic, Lee, Levien, Momsen.
Extension: Butler, Carr, Hathaway.
Forestry: Brunner, Puettman.
Health & Human Sciences: Grobe.
Liberal Arts: Brayman Hackel, Farber, Helle, Henderson, Lunch.
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Duncan, Torres, Wheatcroft.
Science: Brown, Grunder, Jansen, Jones, Kimerling, Mason, Matzke,
Rajagopal, Smythe, Spatafora, Taylor.
Student Affairs: Etherton, Hoogesteger, Winter.
Veterinary Medicine: None
M. Albright, M. McCambridge, M. McDaniel, S. McLaughlin, and S. Tesch
Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-officios and Staff Present::
B. Boggess, President; M. Quinn, President-Elect; J. Hale, Immediate Past Senate President; Senate; Ex-officios: L. Ciuffetti and S. Randhawa; M. Beachley, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.
The meeting adjourned at 4:41 PM.
Faculty Senate Staff