For All Faculty|
President Maggie Niess called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM. There were no
corrections to the March minutes.
- 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
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
Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
M. Niess, President; R. Rose, President-elect; A. Wilcox, Immediate Past
President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate
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.
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.
The Council consists of nine TEACHING Faculty and two StudentS
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,
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
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
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.
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:
Robson encouraged faculty to contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or check the
web site at
http://osu.orst.edu/admin/edreform. He also referenced the PASS
project site, with links to CIM and CAM, which can be found at:
- 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
- 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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
REPORT FROM AND DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST
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
There were no questions.
REPORT FROM AND DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT
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: