FACULTY SENATE: Committee on Committees, 1995-98, (Chair, 1996-98); Faculty Senate Membership Task Force, 1997; Faculty Senate Task Force on Collective Bargaining, 1995; Library Senator, 1993-1995; University Honors Committee 1988-91; and Faculty Status Committee, 1985-88 (Chair, 1987-88).
LIBRARY SERVICE: Reference and Research Consulting Group, 1995-present; Promotion and Tenure Committee, most recently 1998/99; Assistant Librarian - S.S. Universe - Semester At Sea - University of Pittsburgh, Fall 1994 Voyage; Bibliographic Instruction Coordinator, 1976-1990; and Project Librarian, Council on Library Resources, Library Services Enhancement Program for Oregon State University, 1976-77.
UNIVERSITY SERVICE: AAUP/OSU Chapter Treasurer, 1990-present and AAUP/Oregon State Conference President, 1997-present.
Candidate Statement: Over the years I have become increasingly interested in a variety of faculty issues as they relate to quality higher education in the State of Oregon. My involvement in the Faculty Senate and its Committees and AAUP capacities has led me to believe that close and cooperative relationships between faculty and university administrations are critical in the development of a higher education system which will provide quality education for its constituents and quality teaching and research opportunities for its faculty. I see this opportunity to serve on the IFS as a way to work toward the enhancement of those critical relationships.
1. Over the next two years, what critical issues for faculty will be best addressed through IFS?
I think that the most critical issues facing faculty in the next two years will deal primarily with governance, budgets and faculty salaries, and curricular challenges brought about by increasing student enrollments and budget "deficits" at a time when the Legislature thought they had corrected higher education's financial problems. I would hope that IFS would be actively involved in examining these challenges and working toward solutions for them. I am concerned about the validity of using the "corporate model" in administering our academic institutions because I believe it minimizes the faculty voice in important curriculum decisions and in scholarly research activity. I wonder about institutional budget agendas which do not address legislative and OUS Board initiatives to raise faculty salaries to the mid range of national levels. I fear for important areas of scholarship which may die when student enrollments become insufficient to "justify" their continuation. What kind of an academic environment for the future are we embracing? I would hope that IFS and local campus faculty senates would be instrumental in contributing substantive ideas toward the planning of a better future.
2. What would you do if you thought a policy set by the OUS Board was harmful to faculty?
I believe in working within established methods of advocating for positive "course correction" whenever possible. I would hope that there are reasonable and acceptable ways to approach the OUS Board when a faculty body such as the IFS has well grounded reservations about a particular course of action that the Board may be advocating. The major challenge as I envision it would be to act together as faculty bodies quickly and efficiently enough to offer appropriate alternative positions for the Board to consider before making its final decision. In general, the Board activities and plans are presented in advance of their meetings which should enable faculty groups to respond in a variety of ways. It is very important for IFS and faculty groups at the local campuses to pay attention to OUS Board meeting agendas, Chancellor's Office activities, and local campus administrative agendas and to present positive recommendations at every opportunity. It would also be important for us to design and recommend positions, programs and activities to the Board, the Chancellor's Office, and our own administrations which would improve higher education in Oregon for our students and ourselves.