For All Faculty|
The meeting was called to order at 2:30 pm by President Anthony Wilcox. Approval of the June minutes was postponed until November.
- Special Report:President Risser and Provost Arnold
- Action Items: Bylaws revisions regarding Senate inclusion and apportionment determination and a Category I Proposal: Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (through Business-ONE) [Motion 97-532-01 through 03]
- New Business: None
Members Absent With Representation:
Ede, R. Schwartz; Lunch, C. Simin; McAlexander, B. DeYoung; M. Mix, D. Clark; Neumann, J. Schindler; and Schowalter, D. Barofsky.
Members Absent Without Representation:
Acock, Brumley, Burke, Cheeke, Cowles, Farnsworth, Field, Fletcher, Hathaway, Heidel, Hu, Huyer, Klein, Levine, Lundin, Madsen, G. Pearson, Rathja, Rodriguez, Savage, Tiger, and Wander.
Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
T. Wilcox, President; M. Niess, President-Elect; T. Knapp, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.
Guests of the Senate:
B. Becker, P. Easley, S. Francis, L. Burns, A. Hashimoto, L. Maughan, A. Marks, A. Mathany, M. McNamara, A. Morey, J. Mosley, R. Rainey, J. Root, S. Sanford, M. Sher, T. Scheuermann, J. Schuster, G. Stephenson, S. Tenney, B. Thorsness, R. Wess, and B. Wilkins.
PRESIDENT RISSER AND PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT ARNOLD
President Paul Risser spoke about the direction of the University and changes to be undertaken and Provost and Executive Vice President Roy Arnold presented status reports on a number of issues.
President Risser noted that OSU has had some wonderful successes recently: private gifts are up by 15% over last year and the number of donors increased by 10%; current enrollment numbers reflect an increase of 320 students over last year at the same time; freshman retention rates increased from 75% to 81%; and, because the sophomore and junior retention rates are also up, the overall retention rate has increased from 84% to 87%.
Risser commended the efforts of the admissions, recruiting, and orientation programs, marketing efforts, as well as individual faculty members, which combined to increase the student retention rate.
He stated that the environment in the State of Oregon towards higher education is changing rapidly. There is talk of restructuring the State Board, which requires approval by the legislature. In the next 18 months an enormous amount of time will be spent in positioning OSU and other state institutions to increase funding from state sources. Risser felt that the only way to increase this funding is to gain support from legislators and the business community by operating the university efficiently, visibly meet the needs of our users, and successfully market OSU.
President Risser prefaced his proposed changes by noting that they may be surprising, they may be considered slightly unreasonable, and some may wonder if the changes are even possible.
Risser set out three goals: 1) making sure that we provide the most compelling learning experience for students and faculty and staff as an organization; 2) seek to be Tier I quality in every dimension whenever possible; and 3) treat the state as the campus of Oregon State. He stated that it is the faculty and the faculty governance system that will make these goals possible.
He emphasized that the changes are not a directive from administration. The following are suggested actions that need to be taken by the faculty and the faculty governance system to accomplish the above goals. He felt that a fairly heroic effort will be needed from all involved and noted that many will need to think and act differently, including the Faculty Senate.
He outlined the following five steps needed to be taken by the faculty and Faculty Senate:
1. In the next 60-90 days, each department needs to reevaluate every major and minor program, in collaboration with a panel of practitioners, to ascertain whether they meet the purpose and have the content to allow our students to be successful. The Faculty Senate and Dean's Council should provide guidance to academic units.
2. Spend the following 60 days looking at how learning experiences are packaged. Risser encouraged changing the thinking from one-hour courses taught by one person to multi-term, multi-faculty member participation. The Senate needs to work with the Provost's Office and all administrative support units to ensure that, within 60 days, we can functionally go about having "a very rich schedule which is infinitely more flexible than it is today."
3. The spring term issue of OSU Statewide should quadruple the number of the fall term entries. Quadrupling entries can be accomplished by increasing the locations and quantities of courses offered rather than quadrupling courses. Offerings through OSU Statewide should be as complete as possible to meet the needs of our constituents.
4. Take advantage of opportunities to communicate how OSU's research increases the economic strength of the state and improves its human welfare.
5. In the next 60 days, identify a budgeting process that "recognizes the goals we're trying to achieve and which makes decisions based on our successes in meeting those goals." The process needs to be a cooperative effort by the Faculty Senate and academic deans.
Risser noted that he outlined a very specific and very ambitious set of steps, however, he feels these goals are possible. He stated that no university has undertaken what he outlined in the time frame suggested, but that it can happen under the leadership of the Senate, for which he has great respect. The benefits to be gained by successfully completing these steps are: 1) OSU will become a coherent and focused organization; 2) OSU will be viewed as an extraordinarily responsive university; and 3) the budget process will demonstrate a university which is really accountable for its actions. All of these actions combined will present to the State of Oregon an unparalleled argument for increased resources.
Provost Arnold's segment of the presentation contained components of the goals and direction proposed by President Risser.
Arnold updated the Senate on six ongoing administrative searches and appointments:
1) Information Services - Since there was a keen sense of urgency and a need move forward to identify leadership, Arnold requested approval of a waiver of search due to the following reasons: 1) there were discussions statewide and nationally that have implications for how OSU will be positioned to be an active, visible and leading participant, and it's important to be actively represented; and 2) recent budget problems necessitated the need for strong leadership and management. The then State of Oregon Chief Information Officer for the Department of Administrative Services, Curt Pederson, made it known he intended to leave that position, and OSU quickly made contact with him; Pederson started work at OSU in early August.
2) and 3) The Vice President for University Advancement and the Vice Provost for Research are both in continuing search modes. Neither position was filled during the initial search and additional individuals are being considered. A candidate is currently on campus to be interviewed for the Vice President for University Advancement position.
4) The search committee for the Engineering Dean has worked over the summer and advanced a set of recommendations for candidates to be interviewed.
5) Dean Ohvall, Pharmacy, has announced his intent to retire in June. Arnold met with Pharmacy faculty to discuss initiation of the search process.
6) The Director of Athletics search is currently involved in a series of meetings in five locations across the state to determine the characteristics desired in the person selected. A screening committee of eight individuals, including faculty, staff and student representatives, will be appointed. In reference to a recent media article, Arnold stated that Lee Schroeder, Interim Athletic Director, does not intend to be a candidate for the position.
Turning to budget issues, Arnold explained that OSU's 97/98 budget allocation was impacted by low enrollment figures. The BAS model is still in place, but has been modified in two areas: 1) the corridors have been reduced in size - OSU's was 500 students (plus or minus) and is now being defined as 1.5% of the three term average of student FTE, which is just under 200 students; and 2) the budget is for this year only rather than a biennial budget; higher enrollment this fall could impact the budget for next year.
A proposal to deal with the Information Services overexpenditure has been shared with the Executive Committee and other Faculty Senate committees for their input. The proposed recovery plan components consist of the instructional technology fee, general fund support, and self-supporting activities. The plan outlines bringing expenditures back within budget, and below for a time, to recover the deficit situation. Steps being implemented to avoid this situation in the future include regular and systematic budget reviews on a monthly and quarterly basis for all parts of the institution.
Arnold mentioned continuing efforts in several areas:
In response to Senator DeKock, Science, questioning the thinking behind restructuring courses, Risser indicated that some topics don't need to be taught in a lecture format (they may be more effective when taught via the Web), or some may be better taught in a group discussion rather than a large lecture format. There is a need to break away from the traditional format and allow students to learn in different ways.
- Marketing, aimed at recruitment, retention and enrollment, is currently being field tested.
- There have been reviews of the entire university advancement function and, specifically, of the Alumni Association, involving external parties which will result in development of a strategic plan.
- Need to systematically identify specific opportunities for Extended Education and OSU Statewide that OSU can uniquely fill, or can fill in partnership with other institutions.
Senator Gamble, Science, asked how the initiatives proposed by Dr. Risser and the guidelines set forth by the legislature and Chancellor relate. Arnold responded that the initiatives are very consistent with the direction the State Board has taken.
Senator Williamson, Engineering, questioned how faculty will be rewarded for their efforts. Risser responded that the fifth step relates to the allocation process which will further goals and reward successes.
Senator Barofsky, Agricultural Sciences, was disturbed by the vision presented for the university, which he sees as very narrow and focused and reduces OSU to a colossal training school. Risser responded that Barofsky's conclusion may have been drawn from today's discussion, but reminded Senators that this builds on a sequence of steps beginning with his University Day address which focused heavily on the core competencies. He assured Senators he is not implying that OSU go toward a technical or vocational school approach.
Senator Budd, Engineering, inquired concerning the quality of incoming students. Risser stated that qualified applicants for the Presidential Scholarships are up to 860 from 600 last year and qualified applicants to the University Honors have increased by 25%.
Senator Matzke, Science, applauded the forward thinking, but was concerned about budget issues, in particular, with proposals such as the Category I proposal to be voted on later in the meeting. Arnold observed that courses supporting on-campus programs include both tuition and general fund support. Arnold also addressed the counting of student credit hours earned both on-campus and through distance and continuing education as they relate to the budget. He noted that the State Board will now allow institutions to recognize all students who are served by whatever means.
President Risser thanked the Senate for the opportunity to discuss these issues and felt that the Faculty Senate has the opportunity to make many things happen in many ways.
Sally Francis, Task Force on Senate Membership Chair, outlined the task force report and presented proposed bylaws changes affecting Senate inclusion and apportionment determination.
Francis thanked the task force members for their efforts, and Vickie Nunnemaker and Kathy Meddaugh for their assistance in preparing the report.
She explained that the general question before the task force was to consider the structure and size of the Faculty Senate. They sought to create a Senate that would serve the best interests of OSU and all its functions well into the future. It was their belief that an appropriate governance model should be collaborative, with all those with 'faculty' in their title being represented. She noted that the final report was a document of compromise.
The major recommendations which formed the proposed bylaws changes were:
Francis noted that the question of inclusion of administrators in the Faculty Senate was not within the scope of the charge to the task force. However, the philosophy of the task force was one of inclusion and no recommendation to prohibit participation of administrators is being made.
- to include Faculty Research Assistants;
- to include former Management Service personnel;
- to limit the Senate to 132 elected members;
- to base apportionment on a combination of FTE and student credit hours (SCH);
- to do further study to clarify the standing rules of selected committees and councils; and
- implementation strategies
Protection of curricular purview of traditional academic faculty is addressed in two specific recommendations. Recommendation three proposes that the bylaws be amended so that apportionment will be based on 75% FTE and 25% on SCH. Recommendation four proposes that the Committee on Committees review standing rules, specifically membership, of Senate committees and councils that set policies related to curricular and instructional matters.
The task force believes that Faculty Research Assistants will make the same contributions to the Senate as do those faculty currently included. She stated that the data refute the perception that FRAs are typically employed at OSU for very short periods of time and, therefore, have little institutional commitment. She also noted that many FRAs have direct contact with students and even serve on graduate committees. FRAs do have concerns that are addressed by Senate committees, such as Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement, Grievance, and Promotion and Tenure. Since Sr. Faculty Research Assistants are currently included within existing apportionment units, the task force felt it was philosophically sound to also include FRAs within existing apportionment units rather than treat them as a separate apportionment unit.
Francis noted that the new Professional Faculty category includes the former categories of No Rank and Management Service faculty. Currently there are 283 former No Rank faculty FTE included in Senate apportionment and 237 Professional Faculty FTE currently excluded. The recommendation was to include them in existing apportionment units rather than as a separate unit.
The rationale behind using student credit hours to account for 25% of seats assigned to apportionment units, to some extent, compensates for the inclusion of two new groups of faculty members who may have limited traditional academic responsibilities and to address the concern of some faculty regarding protection of curricular purview by traditional faculty members. She noted that SCH will not reflect noncredit instructional activities, such as Extension programs.
The task force is recommending that an ad hoc transition committee be appointed by President Wilcox to guide the implementation of their recommendations and to plan an informational campaign.
The following capitalized areas (exclusive of the article headings) indicate proposed additions to the bylaws while bracketed sections indicate proposed deletions:
ARTICLE III: AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1. The Faculty is defined as members of the Unclassified Academic Staff who: (1) ARE PROFESSIONAL FACULTY, or (2) hold one of these academic ranks: Instructor, Senior Instructor, FACULTY RESEARCH ASSISTANT, Senior Faculty Research Assistant, Research Associate, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor (as defined in Section 580-20-005 of the OSSHE Administrative Rules) [or (2) faculty in academic support, administrative support, and student support units who are assigned professional position titles without rank].
ARTICLE IV: MEMBERS
Sec. 2. Elected Members. THERE SHALL BE 132 ELECTED MEMBERS AS DETERMINED AND APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V, SEC. 1. Faculty as defined in Article III, Sec. 1. shall be eligible for election to the Faculty Senate providing they are stationed within the State of Oregon at the time Senate apportionment is determined annually.
ARTICLE V: MEMBER NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS-
Sec. 1. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate shall determine each Fall the full-time-equivalent (FTE) of Faculty as [described] DEFINED in Article III, Sec. 1., above, in each College or unit AND THE TOTAL STUDENT CREDIT HOURS (SCH) GENERATED BY EACH UNIT DURING THE MOST RECENT ACADEMIC YEAR. [and shall establish the number of representatives and their apportionment on the basis of one representative for each fourteen (14) full-time equivalent Faculty members or major fraction thereof (major fraction thereof is defined as anything above a .50 in figuring, i.e. 74.69 would be 75, 55.49 would be 55). Except, each apportionment group shall have at least one Faculty Senate Member.] THE APPORTIONMENT SHALL BE ALLOCATED 75% ACCORDING TO FTE AND 25% ACCORDING TO SCH, WITH THE NUMBER OF ELECTED MEMBERS OF EACH APPORTIONMENT GROUP DETERMINED BY THE LARGEST WHOLE NUMBER BELOW ITS CALCULATED APPORTIONMENT, AND FRACTIONAL APPORTIONMENT ALLOCATED AS DESCRIBED BELOW. EACH APPORTIONMENT GROUP SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE ELECTED MEMBER. ADDITIONAL SEATS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL ELECTED MEMBERSHIP OF 132 SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED BY ALLOCATING ONE SEAT TO THE APPORTIONMENT GROUP WITH THE GREATEST UNASSIGNED FRACTIONAL APPORTIONMENT AND CONTINUING UNTIL 132 SEATS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED.
OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY STUDENT CREDIT HOUR REPORTS FOR THE MOST RECENT ACADEMIC YEAR WILL BE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE TOTAL SCH OF EACH APPORTIONMENT GROUP.
If the FTE OR SCH in an apportionment group declines to the extent that the total number of Senators to be allotted to that group in the next apportionment year will be less than the number of Senators scheduled to continue their terms of office into the new apportionment year, the reduction in number of Senators shall be dealt with through an election by members of the apportionment group.
In the determination of representation of each apportionment group, all Faculty members who hold academic rank or FTE in one such group shall be included in that group, whether engaged in instructional, research, or extension work, with the apportionment determined accordingly. Agricultural Research and on campus Extension Faculty shall be included with the College of Agricultural Sciences; Home Economics Research or on-campus Extension [Staff] FACULTY members with the College of Home Economics and Education; Engineering or Forestry Research [staff] FACULTY members with the Colleges of Engineering or Forestry, etc.
Senator DeKock applauded the work of the task force. He felt that limiting the size of the Senate makes good sense and was pleased that these other groups were being added.
Senator Barofsky, Agricultural Sciences, stated he was confused concerning the definition of faculty being used in the document. He felt that a university senate was being described rather than a faculty senate. Francis responded that a university senate might also include classified and graduate students and the recommendation is not to include either of those categories.
Senator Miller, Agricultural Sciences, also commended the task force but was troubled with the SCH issue. He felt that SCH tends to diminish a Senate role that faculty not involved in teaching might otherwise have and was concerned about diminishing Extension's representation. He felt the wrong message was being sent. Francis acknowledged that the proposal does disadvantage some apportionment units, particularly Extension. The task force took that into account when determining the proportional weight to assign to SCH. They also believe that the proposal sends a positive message and reinforces the emphasis the university is placing on teaching and learning, and recruitment and retention of undergraduate students.
Francis stated she met with the Extension caucus and talked about concerns voiced on the floor. She emphasized that this is a work in progress and other motions could come forward regarding apportionment or the name of the body.
Senator Lee, Science, supported this well-crafted document of compromise which deals with a difficult situation.
Question was called for from the floor. Motion 97-532-02 to close debate and vote on the main motion passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes. Motion 97-532-01 to approve the proposed bylaws passed by a written vote of 79-22; since 101 votes were cast, 68 was necessary for approval.
CATEGORY I PROPOSAL
Bob Burton, Curriculum Council Chair, presented for approval a Category I proposal for the delivery of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Minor in Business Administration (through Business-ONE) in the following community colleges: Chemeketa, Portland (Sylvania), Central, and Southwestern. Burton explained that the State Board allocated $2.6 million to the College of Business to develop and implement this program. He also noted that the Council felt the curriculum was excellent, but questioned the budget and forwarded the proposal to the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee who agreed that it is expensive, but unanimously recommended approval.
Senator DeKock questioned whether this was a program that is expected to experience growth. Bruce DeYoung, Business, stated that it's difficult to project numbers, but the vision is that the program will grow in student numbers and popularity. He estimated 200 students per year.
In response to Senator Barofsky, Burton stated that external funding was budgeted for four years.
Senator Hale, Liberal Arts, expressed concern about the cost of distance education. He would like a means for the body to determine whether this is a cost effective method of education. Provost Arnold explained that the legislature provided the funds to the Chancellor's Office for the Oregon Joint Professional Schools of Business (OJPSB). The Chancellor was concerned with OJPSB low enrollment and asked the College of Business if they would be willing to design a program as the lead institution for OSSHE. This is a strong and consistent message to access degree completion programs in cooperation with community colleges and OSSHE. The intent is that participants be considered "regular students" with tuition being included in the tuition pool. He noted that faculty will also teach courses on campus, not just for the Business-One program.
Senator Gamble questioned the meaning of offering degrees at a site. Provost Arnold responded that students take lower division courses from the community college and take upper division courses at the community college location via distance education from OSU.
Senator Dodrill, Agricultural Sciences, questioned the lack of reference to evaluation of program content delivery or cost effectiveness. DeYoung responded that there is a peer review committee within the College to address the course content and curriculum; course effectiveness will require the same type of evaluation as is now done by students; and cost effectiveness will require looking at the number of students over time versus the cost of delivery. Provost Arnold reminded Senators that the State Board will require a review of this program in five years, as with all new programs.
Motion 97-532-03 to approve the College of Business Category I proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
The following annual reports were included in the agenda:
- Academic Regulations Committee
- Academic Requirements Committee
- Academic Standing Committee
- Administrative Appointments Committee
- Advancement of Teaching Committee
- Baccalaureate Core Committee
- Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee
- Bylaws and Nominations Committee
- Committee on Committees
- Curriculum Council
- Faculty Economic Welfare Committee
- Faculty Grievance Committee
- Faculty Mediation Committee
- Faculty Recognition and Awards Committee
- Faculty Status Committee
- Graduate Admissions Committee
- Graduate Council
- Instructional Development and Technology Committee
- Research Council
- Undergraduate Admissions Committee
- University Honors Council
REPORTS FROM THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
- Faculty Senate Elections - Ken Krane, Bylaws and Nominations Chair, is accepting recommendations for President-elect, Executive Committee members, and IFS representative. Nominations are due October 9.
- Faculty Senate Committee/Council Chair Meeting - October 16 from 3:00-5:00 in MU 207.
President Wilcox reported on the following item:
A recent OSU THIS WEEK article indicated that the Executive Committee (EC) had approved the Informa-tion Services budget plan when, in fact, the EC has received the plan and will provide input within the next few weeks after review by the Library, Budgets and Fiscal Planning and Instructional Development and Technology Commit-tees. Curt Pederson, Associate Provost for Information Services, will report to the Senate in November.
There was no new business.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant