skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » April 2, 1998

Faculty Senate Minutes

1998 No. 353
April 2, 1998
For All Faculty
President Maggie Niess called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM. There were no corrections to the March minutes.
Meeting Summary
  • Action Items: Category I Proposals for two study abroad programs and Standing Rules Revisions to Baccalaureate Core and Instructional Development and Technology Committees and University Honors College and Curriculum Councils. [Motion 98-537-01 through 03]
  • Committee Report: Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs
  • Discussion Item: Task Force on Post-Tenure Review
  • Special Reports: PASS Update and Intercollegiate Athletics
  • Old Business: None
  • New Business: None

Roll Call
Members Absent With Representation:
Burton, R. Robson; Collins, M. Dempsey; Hatch, P. Phillips; Pereira, K. Krane; and Wander, J. Riddington.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Bird, Bontrager, Campbell, Carson, Coblentz, Daniels, Delson, Field, Henthorne, Huber, Huyer, Jepson, Kerkvliet, Leong, Lowrie, Lunch, Lundy, McDaniel, Oriard, Righetti, Savonen, Schowalter, Sorte, Thies, Williams, and Yamada.

Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
M. Niess, President; R. Rose, President-elect; A. Wilcox, Immediate Past President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
M. Barnhart, L. Friedman, A. Hashimoto, R. Landau, L. Maughan, D. Nicodemus, S. Prelis, M. Sandlin, L. Schroeder, and C. Sproul.

Action Items

Category I Proposals

Len Friedman, Curriculum Council member, presented for approval two Category I Proposals recommended for approval by the Curriculum Council: Proposed NCSA Study Abroad Programs and a Study Abroad Proposal with the University of Arizona-Russian Program Affiliation. Friedman explained that the justification for the proposals was that the study abroad programs are extremely popular and often overbooked. The proposals will expand a very strong program to additional sites.

He noted that the program at the University of Arizona is well established and would probably add only a site in Moscow due to OSU's quarter-system calendar. The NCSA proposal would add sites in Macerata, Italy, Oviedo, Spain and Athens, Greece. There was no discussion on either proposal. Motion 98-537-01 to approve the additional sites in both programs passed by voice votes with no dissenting votes.

Standing Rules Revisions

President Niess explained that the revisions were the result of recommendations from the Task Force on Senate Membership to clarify the membership on six committees in view of the recent inclusion of particular faculty categories. The intent of the proposed revisions have been made to match faculty expertise with the committee responsibilities and to assure appropriate representation. Niess noted that the affected committees/councils and the Committee on Committees have agreed that the proposed Standing Rules best represent the composition needed for responding to the charges of the particular committees.

Laurel Maughan, Committee on Committees Chair, presented proposed Standing Rules revisions to the following committees: Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC), Curriculum Council, Instructional Development and Technology Committee, and University Honors College Council. She explained that the Task Force used two terms that are being incorporated into the revisions and that the preamble to the Standing Rules will be clarified to include the following, provided the revisions are approved:
For purposes of this document, Teaching Faculty are faculty who have teaching and/or advising responsibilities as described in Section II, Faculty Responsibilities, of the OSU Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. Regular Professorial Faculty are faculty who hold the rank of Professor, Associate Professor, or Assistant Professor and who are paid at least in part by state accounts but also including endowed faculty positions at Professorial ranks. Courtesy faculty (except ROTC faculty), visiting faculty, and adjunct faculty are not included.
The revisions to the Standing Rules are as follows (capitalized sections indicate additions; bracketed sections indicate deletions):

Baccalaureate Core Committee

The committee shall consist of seven REGULAR PROFESSORIAL Faculty and two Students.

Curriculum Council

The Council consists of nine TEACHING Faculty and two StudentS [members].

Instructional Development and Technology Committee

The Committee shall consist of six Faculty, AT LEAST FOUR OF WHOM MUST BE TEACHING FACULTY, [and] two StudentS [members], and the Director or Associate Director of the Communication Media Center, ex-officio, non-voting.

University Honors College Council

The Honors Council consists of at least six REGULAR PROFESSORIAL Faculty [members] and at least two HONORS COLLEGE Students[, the students appointed from among the Honors College students].

Senator Drexler, Business, questioned why the BCC is recommending Regular Professorial Faculty and the Curriculum Council is calling for Teaching Faculty. Maughan felt that the BCC tends to be more involved in the development of curriculum and the Curriculum Council would be more involved in the teaching of that curriculum.

Drexler proposed an amendment to change Teaching Faculty on the Curriculum Council to Regular Professorial Faculty; motion seconded. Len Friedman noted that at least one Curriculum Council member objected to this wording since it excludes non-tenured teaching faculty. In response to a question from Senator V. Farber, Liberal Arts, Niess indicated that an advisor who has no teaching responsibilities would be included in the "Teaching Faculty" category for purposes of these Standing Rules.

Motion 98-537-03 to approve the amendment requiring nine Regular Professorial Faculty on the Curriculum Council was defeated by hand vote.

Motion 98-537-02 on the main motion for revisions to all Standing Rules as presented, was approved by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs

Gordon Matzke, co-chair, reported on the status of the committee and provided a URL where faculty can view web courses:

They are currently working on a report consisting of concerns and questions received from the university community and anticipate a written report to the Senate in May. The report is being divided into topic areas based on 30 questions: the wisdom of off-site instruction; quality of instruction issues; resources and faculty workload; market and access issues; and administrative issues. One difficulty they are experiencing is providing alternative, or negative, points of view when appropriate.

In responding to a question from Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, regarding whether on-site exams should be given for off-site courses, Matzke indicated that there currently is no external examination, but the committee was not asked to determine whether there should be or not. Matzke felt that off-campus instruction was very much the same as on-campus with the instructor being in charge of how the class is administered.


Task Force on Post-Tenure Review

President Niess noted that OSU currently employs 2,187 people on education and general funds, 677 with indefinite tenure (31%), 174 on annual or tenure-track contracts (8%) and 1,336 are fixed-term (61%). Overall there are 4,118 faculty, 21% are tenured, 5% on annual or tenure-track contracts and 74% are fixed-term. She felt that this information is important given the increasing attack on the tenure system at colleges and universities. Public perception is that tenure allows faculty to draw a paycheck without fear of consequences; the university perspective is that the system provides faculty with academic freedom and pursuit of scholarship that leads to advancement of knowledge critical to the university. Periodic evaluations of all tenured faculty provide the protection of the system and are evidence of accountability. A Task Force on Post-Tenure Review was appointed by the Faculty Senate to review the current system and make recommendations to strengthen it; it is the intent that the recommendations be considered for approval at the May Senate meeting.

Ken Krane, Chair, explained that the task force mission was to look at the existing Periodic Review of Faculty System and compare it to other institutions; look at the current status of the relationship between tenure and academic freedom; provide guidance to OSU administrators in conducting the reviews; and to strengthen the system by incorporating opportunities for faculty development and enhancement of professional skills.

Krane noted that post-tenure review is mandated by OAR 580-21-140 which calls for a review of tenured faculty periodically and systematically. It also requires an institutional plan that includes a statement of the objectives, a designation of the person making the evaluation, a designation of the frequency of the evaluation, a description of the plan for relating post-tenure reviews to a reward system and to have a developmental process in place to handle cases where faculty are perceived to be performing less than satisfactory service. Krane pointed out that the OAR does not call for the dean or department head to perform the review, only that the reviewers be designated. It also does not require that reviews be on a specific interval, but does state that professors and tenured senior instructors shall be reviewed at least once every three years.

The task force conducted an informal survey of faculty and administrators to determine how the process is being implemented on campus. The results assisted the task force in compiling the following information.

Characteristics of the current OSU PROF System are: decentralized; highly variable in structure and mechanics; written reviews maintained in unit's personnel files; no systematic evidence of peer involvement; variable interval for intensive reviews (one or three years); and lack of remediation or career development plans. The consequences of a positive review include: merit salary; travel funds; laboratory space; seed money for research; recommendations for promotion; award nominations; and approval of sabbatical leave.

The characteristics of an effective PTR System include: acknowledgement of importance of tenure; clear statement of purpose and outcomes; identify and reward meritorious performance; help underachieving faculty fulfill potential; based on criteria determined at department level; clear appeal and grievance procedures; significant peer involvement; minimal time commitment by faculty; training for peer reviewers and department heads; drafting of professional development plan; identification of resources; clear statement of consequences of repeated negative reviews or failure to achieve goals of development plan; wide discussion by faculty; formative rather than summative; no link to budgets, downsizing; and regular monitoring and review of process.

Preliminary task force recommendations included: expand description of PROF System in the Faculty Handbook; develop written unit-level policies and procedures showing substantial faculty involvement; training for colleges and departments; submission of annual self-assessments; change current three-year cycle to five years; copies of departmental reviews to be forwarded to Dean; development plan for underperforming faculty; and process to be reviewed periodically by Senate. Krane noted that the task force is taking another look at the frequency since they learned that, during a recent accreditation, it was recommended that the U of O conduct reviews every three years.

In response to questions from Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, Krane stated that the purpose is not for OSU to follow the UofO in terms of review frequency but, if OSU goes through an accreditation, the frequency will need to be revised from five to three years as the UofO was instructed to do. As far as limitations on the types of questions that can be asked, Krane felt that a system of peer involvement makes it less likely for abuse. Daley expressed concern about the time involvement for more frequent reviews.

Senator Hale, Liberal Arts, questioned what happens at the end of the three year period if a faculty member's performance is still unsatisfactory. Krane responded that the task force didn't want to address that issue in the report since it is a philosophical rather than implementation document. They are planning to ask the Senate to endorse the final report in May and, presumably, the task force will be asked to draw up a set of model guidelines for the unit level with a set of potential consequences for repeated negative reviews and the failure to conform with a development plan.

Senator Rose, Forestry, questioned if the task force discussed yearly reviews and why self-assessments don't count as an evaluation. Krane felt that an annual review with extensive peer involvement would provide an intolerable additional amount of work for faculty. He also noted that most research or curriculum development projects operate on a slightly longer time scale than one year and felt that a three-year window revealed a better picture of their activities rather than looking intensively every year. Although the formal review would be every three years, the task force is recommending that some type of portfolio be submitted yearly to the department chair to act as an early warning system to bring attention to problem cases. Rose feared that legislators will not accept a three-year cycle. Krane noted that faculty set their own agendas, rather than administrators, and evaluations are based largely on the accomplishment of a research agenda set by the faculty member. Krane added that reviews do occur more frequently than every three years since faculty are reviewed every year for merit salary increases, they are reviewed every term by students, and are reviewed by peers when a manuscript is submitted for publication.

Senator Longerbeam, Student Affairs, stated that most in Student Affairs are currently reviewed annually. She indicated that the purpose is not just to improve negative performance, but to inspire and motivate through conversations with peers. She felt that the time element was the price to be paid for accountability.

Krane mentioned that another reason for peer involvement is that development plans for underperforming faculty are going to involve the assignment and identification of assets within the institution to assist the individual in improving their performance. If department/college resources will be diverted for underperforming faculty, when there aren't enough resources for overperforming faculty, it must be a collegial decision.


PASS Update

Robby Robson, Proficiency Based Admissions Standards System (PASS) Coordinator, explained current reform issues to put his position in context. The education reform in Oregon consists of four state certified systems: CIM and CAM are certificates of mastery awarded in the K-12 system; PREP is a community college placement system; and PASS is Oregon's response to the legislated K-12 education reform system. PASS consists of two elements: 1) admission of college-bound students who go through an educational system different from Oregon's and the need to interpret their data differently; and 2) past experience with difficulty in making valid judgements as to what kind of students are coming to OSU, and going elsewhere, on the basis of grades. There are also three levels to PASS: 1) admission system; 2) public policy; and 3) research project.

Beginning in the year 2001 and phasing in for the next four years, students will be admitted to college on the basis of "demonstrated proficiency in English, Science, Mathematics, Social Science, Visual and Performing Arts, and second languages." Robson noted that SAT's, and other standardized tests, will continue to be used for some time. The standards of proficiency are public, uniform and validated to ensure that current variations in grading between school districts doesn't occur. The data to be used includes standardized tests, such as those being developed for the CIM, oral proficiency interviews and student projects coming out of classes.

Issues that affect OSU directly include a five-point scale: 1B2 = working toward proficiency; 3 = proficient (basis for admission to the university); 4 = superior work; and 5 = work worthy to earn college credit. Levels four and five will not be awarded without verification and validation by faculty at the higher education level (similar to the current AP system).

Issues that PASS raises at OSU:
  • The policy is actually a framework that contains public mandates. OSU needs a concrete admission policy and this opportunity highlights issues such as where standards should be set and how underprepared students are dealt with.
  • Involvement in the standards for setting advanced placement.
  • Credit for prior work.
  • Need to respond to changed expectations for students coming to OSU.
  • Provides outreach opportunities. In the past, faculty have had no role in setting standards for students.
Robson encouraged faculty to contact him at or check the web site at He also referenced the PASS project site, with links to CIM and CAM, which can be found at:

Senator Landau, Science, expressed concern about whether K-12 teachers would be able to judge whether their students are meeting college level standards. Robson agreed that this is a valid concern, but noted that now there is no way to determine how students are being judged. Teachers will be required to undergo state-wide training in how to make judgements. No levels of four and five will be awarded without higher education input. Robson noted that these are standards for admission to college, not for high school graduation.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, felt that faculty don't understand how much they will have to change their instruction to accommodate the different kind of students who will be admitted as a result of CIM and CAM. Robson responded that discussions are underway to make expectations clearer.

Senator Rossignol, Health & Human Performance, questioned how PASS will affect incoming students from out of state. Robson responded that they will be admitted based on evaluations used for home schooled students and international students, who also won't have PASS proficiencies.

In response to Senator Fisk, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, Robson said that it would be possible for students to finish PASS requirements before graduating from high school, however, graduation from high school is not a requirement for admission.

Intercollegiate Athletics

Robert Frank, NCAA Representative, and Mitch Barnhart, Athletic Director, updated the Senate on athletic issues.

Frank reported that the CEO's at Division I institutions are concerned about student athlete welfare issues. In particular, the NCAA recently passed legislation allowing student athletes on full-ride to work during the school year. The legislation has been fine tuned and it appears that they will be allowed to earn up to $2000 in excess of their full-ride. He also noted that there have been efforts to unionize student athletes.

Frank referred to recent deaths nationwide resulting from wrestlers trying to lose weight, which has caught the attention of the NCAA. He reported that OSU Wrestling Coach Joe Wells works with the athletes to determine what their best weight is to avoid having a wrestler constantly struggle to make weight.

A major concern revolves around initial eligibility for student athletes. Since academic requirements have increased, graduation rates have increased, but the number of ineligible students has also increased. Frank reported that a class action suit has been filed on behalf of a number of student athletes by the trial lawyers for public justice challenging the NCAA's use of the standardized test score as a basis to determine eligibility.

Frank explained that a portion of the Athletic Department's increased costs can be attributed to measures to put OSU in compliance with Title IX gender equity requirements.

OSU graduation rates for all entering students in 1990/91 was 63%; for student athletes it was 61%. Graduation rates for student athletes who have exhausted their eligibility was 92%.

The conference has copyrighted "Conference of Champions." While three championships in a single year for any conference is considered notable, last year the PAC-10 won 14 championships out of a possible 32. The PAC-10 also considers themselves to be the strongest academic conference.

In Barnhart's opening remarks, he outlined five things that must be done: manage public relations; abide by the rules; graduate student athletes; manage fiscal resources, both revenue and expenses; and be competitive.

OSU has seven teams in the ranked in the top 25 in the country: both golf teams, both crew teams, wrestling, softball, and gymnastics.

Barnhart met with the athletes and discussed the following accountability issues with them:
academics - 1) showing up for class, removing caps, taking notes;
2) conduct -how they represent OSU while competing and socially;
3)gambling - not limited to student athletes;
4) competitiveness - accountable to the team and to OSU; and
5) opportunity - accountable to the opportunity they were afforded.

Barnhart's general comments indicated pride in the athletes Winter '98 cumulative GPA which was 2.8. Gymnasts led the individual teams with a 3.2 followed by Golf at 3.15 and football at 2.41. He felt that more value needs to be created in the Athletics Department and he plans to work with students, fans, donors and ticket holders to accomplish that goal. Expense reductions must occur, although there is little room to cut. The challenge is to increase revenue to become competitive. He felt that the staff is enthusiastic and working hard and noted that the department will be reorganized in May or June. The coaching staff has worked very hard, with very little, and desperately needs support. The athletes are also working hard and tired of the perception that they are not competitive. Barnhart feels that there is no competitiveness in Gill Coliseum and they will look at the facility in terms of increasing competitiveness.

The Athletic Advisory Committee will be expanded to broaden the base of support. Barnhart would like to see 12 faculty and 12 business people from around the state.

Senator Rose, Forestry, questioned how many Oregon athletes OSU loses to other schools each year. Barnhart acknowledged that we do lose some, but didn't know the number, and stated that you can't recruit them all. Among the things hurting recruitment is a substantial tuition increase. OSU is recruiting 66% of our athletes outside of Oregon and noted that the population base in the state is very small for Division IA athletes. He emphasized that the last few years OSU has been successful in the recruiting war to attract athletes away from some of the best institutions.

In response to Senator Landau, Science, asking if a prayer policy for athletic events had been established, Barnhart stated that coaches have been told they are not allowed to lead a prayer effort. However, student athletes do have the option of participating in prayer if it is self-initiated. Barnhart indicated that groups such as Athletes in Action may participate in a game, but will not be allowed to make testimony after the game.

Senator Krane (pro-tem), Science, questioned why the NCAA bestowed a monetary settlement and letter of apology on Jerry Tarkanian. Frank felt that the NCAA was convinced that they would lose in court.


Provost Arnold commended the Task Force on Post-Tenure Review for their work and the process they followed. He acknowledged that administrator reviews need to be done better than in the past. He also commented on an earlier question related to protection of an individual and noted that the existing Promotion and Tenure Guidelines refer to evaluation of performance in relation to what a faculty member was hired to do. He felt that this theme would carry forward to the process under consideration by the task force.

Arnold acknowledged comments made by Duncan Wyse yesterday at the Century Club regarding the two Board committees, Budget and Finance and Governance and Structure for OUS, in which Wyse feels there will be more change occurring in OUS than in the last 25 years. Clearly the budget model will change and the tuition will stay with the institution. There will also be differentiation of distribution of the state general fund dollars to identify difference in level and program costs (it won't be as complex as the existing BAS model), and peer review comparisons will continue. Results of the Governance and Structure Committees will include less involvement of detail by the Board. Discussion by the Board regarding a Board of Trustees for each institution, is now turning to a formal campus level advisory board
-- details are still being worked out.

The Board is continuing its plan to put in place a set of performance indicators for each institution which will include many student related issues, such as number, quality, diversity, graduation rates, etc. There will be a small component in the new budget model that will be based, in part, on a set of performance indicators and targets established for each institution.

There were no questions.


President Niess acknowledged that this year has been difficult and congratulated faculty for persevering and making it through.


There was no old business.


There was no new business.

Meeting adjourned at 5:18 PM.

Resepectfully submitted by:
Vickie Nunnemaker