Members Absent With Representation:
Hatch, P. Phillips; Lowrie, D. Johnson; Pereira, R. Robson; Tate, R. Landau; and van der Mars, J. Widrick
Members Absent Without Representation:
Bruce, Carson, Champeau, Coakley, Cowles, Daley, Elwood, J. Field, K. Field, Henthorne, Hooker, Huyer, Isensee, Jepson, Jimmerson, Kerkvliet, Lajtha, Leong, Levine, McDaniel, Mix, Morris, Peters, Powelson, Proteau, Randhawa, Righetti, Riven, Rodriguez, Sanford, Seville, and Williams
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:
L. Burns, S. Esbensen, S. Francis, A. Hashimoto, D. Johnson, B. Mate, M. Mate, L. Maughan, P. Muir, D. Nicodemus, J. Root, R. Schori, J. Schuster, B. Strohmeyer, and J. Tanaka
Resolution for L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart
Following a reception held immediately preceding the Senate meeting, President Niess noted the Stewart's would receive a journal containing expressions of gratitude from faculty and a framed copy of the following resolution in recognition of L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart's support of OSU faculty development, which was approved by the Senate with no dissenting votes:
Whereas L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart are long term stalwart supporters of Oregon State University; and
whereas among the forms their support has taken is
the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart Faculty Development Award, funded in 1975; and
whereas since 1975 the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart
Faculty Development Endowment has disbursed in excess of $528,000 to support faculty development; and
whereas since 1975 over 330 awards have been given to 265 faculty across Oregon State University in support of diverse forms of professional development; and
whereas the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart Faculty Development Endowment is material evidence of its benefactors' generosity and commitment to faculty excellence; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate at Oregon State University honors L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart for realizing
that faculty development is essential to educational excellence and the quality of students' experience, and for
their contribution to faculty development, and expresses warm appreciation to the Stewart's for their ongoing
commitment to higher education in Oregon.
President Niess also presented L.L. Stewart with a plaque bearing this inscription:
Presented in recognition of Loren L. and Elizabeth Stewart by the OSU Faculty Senate May 7, 1998 in warm
appreciation for their generous and stalwart support of Oregon State University faculty development.
Mr. Stewart noted that he felt very pleased and humble to be able to support faculty and expressed appreciation for the
honor bestowed upon him. He also encouraged faculty to continue to apply for development funds.
Standing Rules Revisions
Laurel Maughan, Committee on Committees Chair, presented recommended revisions to the following Standing
Rules for approval by the Faculty Senate; in most cases, only the sections containing the proposed revisions are
printed. All recommendations have been approved by the committees involved.
She noted that the proposed changes in committee composition to the Academic Regulations and Advancement
of Teaching Committees are a result of recommendations made by the Senate Membership Task Force, as presented
in their report last fall.
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.
The recommended changes to the Administrative Appointments Committee would simplify the procedures and still
provide an indication of the level of responsibility that this committee should have.
Approval of the changes to the Undergraduate Admissions Committee would clarify the role of the committee in
terms of the existing admissions policy.
The proposed revisions are provided below (highlighted sections indicate additions; strike-throughs indicate
ACADEMIC REGULATIONS COMMITTEE
The Committee consists of five Faculty
and three Student members and the registrar, ex-officio,
ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING COMMITTEE
The Committee consists of five Faculty
and three Student members, one of whom must be a
graduate student and one of whom must be an undergraduate student, and the Provost and Executive Vice
President ex-officio, non-voting , or designee, ex-officio, non-voting.
There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Academic Regulations Committee or Advancement
of Teaching Committee; motion 98-538-01 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE
In addition to newly created administrative positions, the following positions are to include involvement on the part of the Administrative Appointments Committee:
A. General Administration:
Provost and Executive Vice President; Chief Business Officer; Vice Provost for Research & International Programs; Vice Provost for Student Affairs; Chief Institutional Advancement Officer; Associate Provosts; Dean of the Graduate School; Dean of International Education; Dean of Research; Dean of Students;
Registrar; Director of Admissions; Director of Agricultural Experiment Station; Director of Computing Services; Director of the Office of Continuing Higher Education and Summer Term; Dean of Extended Education
and Director of Extension Service; Director of Libraries; and Director of Sea Grant College Program.
College and Deans: Deans of Agricultural Sciences, Business, Engineering,
Forestry, Health & Human Performance, Home Economics and Education, Liberal Arts, Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences, Pharmacy, Science, and Veterinary Medicine.
The Administrative Appointments Committee consists of nine Faculty
members appointed by the Faculty
Senate's Executive Committee.
There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Administrative Appointments Committee; motion
98-538-02 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE
The Undergraduate Admissions Committee
passes on any potential undergraduate applicant , not meeting the stated admission requirements as established by the Oregon State Board of
Higher Education and who requests consideration by the Committee. Previous academic experience, test
scores, recommendations, and other criteria are reviewed in the process of determining which requests for exemptions should be approved. The Committee consists of seven faculty members,
one student , and one person selected at-large. Of the seven faculty members, there shall be five
from the teaching faculty, one college head advisor, and one representative from International Education. All
members should be available to serve during the summer since most of the committee activity, in fact, takes
place during the summer. In addition, a representative from the Admission s Office should be granted discussion and voting rights for deliberation on student appeals.
There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Undergraduate Admissions Committee; motion 98-538-03 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Task Force on Post-Tenure Review
President Niess noted that agenda materials identified two additional issues that were not included in the Senate's
charge to the Task Force: 1) An effective system of evaluating administrators, as well as faculty; and 2) A minimum
campus-wide program for the improvement of teaching as well as a commitment of resources to support scholarly
Michael Oriard, task force committee member, presented recommendations from the report and noted that the
substantive changes from the draft report presented at the April Senate meeting were the clarification of review
frequency and responsible parties. He mentioned that the task force's concern was to balance accountability with
a need to not overburden faculty participating in the review.
Oriard stated that, if the recommendations are approved, two subcommittees will meet to draft language for the
Faculty Handbook and to develop model guidelines to assist departments.
The nine recommendations are as follows:
1. The description of the PROF system in the Faculty Handbook should be expanded to include a stronger justification for the process and a detailed description of the consequences of satisfactory and unsatisfactory reviews
2. The Provost should call for the development of written unit-level policies and procedures for implementing the PROF system. Faculty input must occur in the development of these policies and procedures.
3. The Provost's office should provide training for colleges and departments in conducting and administering the review process.
4. Heads of academic units (usually the department head or chair, but possibly the dean in colleges with no departments or the staff leader in off-campus extension offices) shall be responsible for conducting an annual review of all faculty in their units. As in the present PROF system, the unit head will provide a written evaluation to the faculty member, who may attach a rebuttal or explanation. Peer involvement in this process is strongly encouraged; for example, a committee of peers could review the dossiers and written reviews with the unit head to ensure fairness, balance, and conformity with the unit's mission.
5. At intervals of no longer than five years, in addition to the annual review by the unit head, each tenured faculty member will be reviewed by a peer committee of faculty from the academic unit. (A promotion or tenure review that leads to a full peer evaluation at the unit level will satisfy this requirement.) Where appropriate, faculty members from outside the unit may be included on the peer committee. Written evaluations from the peer committee and the unit head will be provided to the faculty member, who may attach comments, explanations, or rebuttal.
6. At any time during the five-year interval between regularly scheduled peer committee reviews, a faculty member or the unit head may request a peer committee review if either deems it beneficial to the professional development of the faculty member.
7. Copies of all reviews will be forwarded by the unit head to the Dean of the College or to the appropriate academic supervisor.
8. Should the peer committee conclude that a faculty member's record is less than satisfactory in teaching, scholarship, or service, a professional development plan will be drafted by the peer committee, the unit head, and the faculty member under review. This plan should include definite steps to be taken to remedy the specific perceived deficiencies. A timetable of no longer than three years should be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan, with annual monitoring to measure progress. The plan must specify the resources to be made available to accomplish the goals. The institution's PROF guidelines will specify the consequences of repeated negative reviews or failure to complete the goals of the development plan.
9. The Faculty Senate will periodically review the effectiveness of the PROF process.
In response to Senator Matzke, Science, questioning what the next step would be following approval, Oriard stated
that the recommendations would go to the Provost for action, the two subcommittees would develop language and,
presumably, the Provost would hold training sessions to assist in implementing the recommendations.
One person in the audience expressed a concern of allocating resources to a faculty member who is
underperforming. Oriard indicated that there are probably not many who are underperforming. He also noted that
tenure is a commitment to the promise of long-term contributions and achievements and there is an assumption
that this is potentially a productive faculty member who should be given an opportunity to regain their productive
levels. He also agreed that resources are an issue and dependent on those resources available within units.
Senator Frank, Liberal Arts, questioned what happens to the faculty member if nothing changes after three years
as recommended in #8. Oriard stated that the document indicates that termination is possible.
Senator Hathaway, Extension, proposed the following as friendly amendments to recommendation #4: change
"staff leader" to "staff chair" and capitalize "Extension."
Motion 98-538-04 to approve the Faculty Senate Task Force on Post-Tenure Review recommendations, including
the friendly amendments pertaining to #4, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
President Niess thanked the task force members for their efforts and noted that the intent was to come back in June with the proposed Faculty Handbook and guidelines language.
Academic Regulations Revisions
Marshall English, Academic Regulations Committee Chair, presented proposed revisions to Academic Regulation
2 which deals with transfer of community college credit, in particular vocational-technical credit transfers. He noted
that Leslie Burns, Undergraduate Programs Director, requested the revisions which have been revised and ratified
by his committee and reviewed by the Academic Requirements Committee and the Curriculum Council.
In summary, the primary impacts of the proposed revisions would be to: 1) reduce the number of vocational-technical credits that can be transferred, bringing that number into line with other key campuses (UO and PSU);
2) eliminate uncertainty about what transfer credits a student will receive and when they will receive them; 3)
establish a policy for articulation agreements currently in use; and 4) shift responsibility for oversight of Articulation
Agreements from the Academic Requirements Committee to the Curriculum Council.
The proposed revisions are provided below (highlighted sections indicate additions; strike-throughs indicate
2. Credit From A Two-Year Institution (Undergraduate Students)
a. College Transfer Credits: Oregon State University accepts for credit toward a baccalaureate degree all
college transfer work completed
in an Oregon or other accredited community college up to 108 lower-division credits. A student who has completed 108 lower division credits must obtain approval of a petition in
advance before completing additional lower division work at a two-year institution if credit for such additional
work is to count toward graduation. Transfer credits and grades are not used in calculating the OSU cumulative
GPA. Students who hold the Associate of Arts or other transfer degrees or who have 90 or
more credits accepted in transfer will be granted junior standing.1 Students who have received Associate of
Arts degrees from Oregon community colleges will be considered to have met the Perspectives
and Skills (except WIC) areas of the Baccalaureate Core. They must complete the upper division Synthesis areas
of the Core. Students transferring from approved institutions of higher education ordinarily will be given Baccalaureate Core credit in the Perspectives and Skills areas on a course-by-course basis for work that is judged to be equivalent in content. They must complete upper division Synthesis
b. Block Transfer of Vocational-Technical Credits: Block transfer of vocational-technical credit from accredited
or state approved community colleges into specific departmental programs2 at Oregon State University may be
awarded up to 45 credits on the basis of proficiences, work experience, and/or technical courses as determined
by the appropriate department, but without assignment of grade. Such credits will apply to the agreed upon
transfer program only, and the credit will not be granted until completion of the program by the student, and
these credits will not be used to classify students. The 45 credits, or portion thereof, transferred will count as
part of the 108 credits defined in paragraph 2a above.
c. Transfer of
Equivalent Vocational-Technical Course Credits Lower division
credit for specific vocational-technical community college courses may be awarded for
equivalent OSU course work when equivalency is validated by
the OSU department offering the equivalent course work. Community college
course work is not equated to upper division OSU course work. Equivalent redit will be awarded only upon the
recommendation of the appropriate department and college, and approval by the Academic Requirements
Committee. If the
vocational-technical community college course and the equivalent OSU course vary in credits, the number of
course credits that may be granted will be the lesser of the two. These course credits will count as part of the
108 credits defined in paragraph 2a above. OSU departments offering courses which have been identified as equivalent to designated
community college vocational-technical courses shall review the equivalency annually and forward a
dated list of the equivalent community college courses to the Academic Requirements Committee
d. Transfer of Nonequivalent Vocational-Technical Course Credits: In cases where paragraph 2b above is not
applicable, up to 24 credits of lower division credit for specific vocational-technical community college courses
may be awarded (but without assignment of grade) for nonequivalent OSU course work when the proficiencies,
training, or experiences gained by the student are recognized by the appropriate OSU department or college.
Credit will be awarded only upon the recommendation of the appropriate department and college, and approval
of the Academic Requirements Committee. No more credit will be offered by OSU than was offered by the
community college for the course involved in a given transfer. The course prefix and number to be used in
awarding of such credit is VocT 100. The 24 credits, or portion thereof, awarded will count as part of the 108
credits defined in paragraph 2a above. The credit will not be granted until completion of the student's program,
and these credits will not be used to classify students. In the event the student transfers into another OSU
department, the new department will reevaluate the appropriateness of such vocational-technical training or
experience. This provision may not be used in combination with paragraph 2b above.
Senator Henderson, Forestry, noted that sometimes several community college courses are equivalent to one OSU
credit. Leslie Burns noted that this concern is defined in the Articulation Agreement.
Senator Thies, Science, felt that the wording in Section C of the revision "Community college work is not equated
to upper division OSU course work." could be confusing. The sentence by itself is untrue, but is true when applied
to vocational-technical courses. Thies moved to amend Section C to read, "Vocational Technical community college
work will not be equated to upper division OSU course work." Motion 98-538-06 to approve the amendment
passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes. Senator Oriard proposed a friendly amendment to the approved
amendment to correct the grammar and place "vocational-technical" after "community college." The friendly
amendment passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
In response to Senator Frank questioning if the proposed revisions were discussed with community colleges, Burns
indicated a number of community college liaisons were consulted and they fully support the revisions which would
make it easier for them to explain to students which courses will transfer to OSU.
Motion 98-538-05 to approve the proposed revisions to AR 2, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Faculty Panels for Hearing Committees
President Niess explained that the Board's Administrative Rules define criteria and procedures for the imposition
of sanctions for cause, including terminations of appointment (OAR 580-21-320 through 580-21-375). If such a
sanction is to be imposed, the faculty member is entitled to a formal hearing of charges by a hearing committee
to be selected from a faculty panel which has been duly established.
Faculty Panels for Hearing Committees are elected on even numbered years. Nominees for each new panel were
randomly selected and ballots were distributed to Senators at the meeting. Those elected to Panel B were: Cheryl
Jordan, Paul Doescher, Daniel Arp, Barbara Moon, William Warren, Jr., Neil Christensen, Ronald Guenther, Jeffrey
Hale, Joseph Karchesy and Dwight Bushnell. Alternates include: Anne Christie, Jill Schuster, Lucy Shiao-Ling Yu,
Donald Armstrong, Willie Rochefort, Jack Bailes, Zinovy Reichstein, Philip Watson, Nancy Wortman and William
Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs
While introducing Bob Burton, Ad Hoc Committee co-chair, President Niess expressed appreciation to the committee
for their efforts. Burton thanked everyone who helped prepare the final report, which was printed in the May Senate
Burton recapped the creation of the ad hoc committee by explaining that, last January, the Curriculum Council sought
approval from the Senate for undergraduate proposals for Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources. The proposals
were tabled since, as presented, they weren't sufficiently developed at the faculty level and there was concern and
confusion expressed about distance education as a whole. The proposals are currently being developed in detail before
resubmission to the Senate.
The committee members and co-chairs Burton and Gordon Matzke tried to develop a report on off-site degree programs
that was factual rather than editorial. They solicited questions from the faculty and attempted to find answers to those
questions. Burton noted they would have preferred to have had broader student input and more systematic avenues of
input from faculty who are teaching distance courses.
Senator Landau (pro-tem), Science, expressed several concerns: there is a feeling that money is being taken away from
traditional education; it takes more money and time to develop distance courses than traditional courses; 6070% of
students enrolled in distance courses are also enrolled in traditional courses; and the more web information available to
students, the greater the demand on faculty to help guide them through the materials.
Thies felt that a major issue is that there are a lot of required degree courses that are not available off-site. Burton
indicated that the Environmental Sciences degree is close to having most of the courses available off-site; although he
acknowledged that some off-site degree programs may not be able to accomplish all requirements off-site. He felt that
the distinction between on and off-site will continue to blend.
Sandy Woods, OSU Statewide, noted that over $500,000 was requested for course development out of an available
$200,000 fund for 1997/98. Courses targeted to receive funds were those that would support statewide degree programs
and additional money is expected for next year. Sally Francis, Home Economics and Education, questioned the source
of the $200,000 funding. Woods stated that the Provost provided the start-up funds for this year; it's not clear if these
development funds will be recurring. The funds were disbursed with the assistance of a Distance Degree Program
Council, consisting of program leaders and the Deans. She hopes to have a general RFP process when the budget is
Burton noted that this is an evolving process since the Council referred to by Woods is somewhat ad hoc and there are
discussions underway to formalize the Council and to determine the best role for faculty governance and the Faculty
Senator Matzke expressed the opinion that using a general RFP is a lousy idea. He felt that OSU will make a big mistake
if items associated with distance education courses are randomly funded. Instead, it should be made clear what the
objectives are and in what sequence they will be achieved for particular degrees so that funds can be targeted.
President Niess encouraged Senators to share the report with their colleagues.
-- A recap of the April Interinstitutional Faculty Senate meeting was sent to Senators via e-mail.
-- In 1996 there were no Sr/Faculty Research Assistants or Associates serving on Faculty Senate committees. In
1997/98 there were 24 Sr/Faculty Research Assistants and Professional Faculty serving on Faculty Senate committees.
Provost Arnold's report included the following items:
Expressed appreciation for the thorough work by the members of the Task Force on Post-Tenure Review and
the Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs.
A commitment was made by the President's Cabinet to make certain that an annual review process be initiated for all members of the Cabinet and that evaluations be performed for all who report to each cabinet member.
Effective immediately, Sandy Woods has been appointed as interim Distance and Extended Education Dean to replace Gretchen Schuette who resigned. Woods will be meeting with the academic deans in this role. There will be a national search for this position.
Jon Root will continue in his role as the Director of Distance Education.
Barbara Moon was named to a permanent position as Director of the Office of Continuing Higher Education, after serving in an interim basis for three years.
Budget Observations -- Provost Arnold felt it was safe to say that: 1) budgets at unit levels will be no worse than
1997/98 levels; 2) increased tuition from the additional enrollment will be reflected in the budget allocation for
1998/99, although the amount of the matching state funds is not known -- at the tuition level, an enrollment
reserve is anticipated to respond to critical high demand areas; and 3) a significant increase in additional resources
can be expected a year from now. A group will be formed to help determine how the additional funds will be distributed and to look critically at investments that possibly could be eliminated.
Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, referred to media reports about the budget and asked how OSU will fare under the
initially discussed budget model and how the deficit will be addressed under the new budget model. Arnold
reiterated that media reports do not necessarily reflect the most current information available. He explained that
the Board has adopted the position that: tuition will stay with the institution; the model must differentiate costs
of programs as general fund money is distributed; and to bring as much as possible into a model that will express
costs on a cost per student basis. Arnold stated that OSU tried to be as conservative as possible about the
revenues for next year. He also noted that OSU's enrollment has responded strongly and that needs to be
recognized in the budget process.
Senator Rose, Forestry, questioned how faculty salaries will be affected if enrollment is improved. Arnold responded
that, for this biennium, the faculty and staff salary resources were set at the beginning of the biennium. If the
overall strategy to build a budget model that contains educational, research and outreach opportunities is achieved,
it could include a faculty salary component. It will have to be approved by the legislature and would include
President Niess' report included the following items:
Faculty have worked hard to increase enrollment, as evidenced by 500 additional students expected for 1998/99.
Appreciation to faculty for turning out to honor L.L. Stewart for his contribution to faculty development.
She assured Senators that faculty input is being seriously taken into consideration by administration to assist them in the decision making process. She also felt that administration was working hard to respond to faculty.
She noted that this has been a roller coaster year and there is possibly another tough year ahead; it is imperative
to take control of the roller coaster. Niess urged faculty to focus both on the university as a whole as well as
individual units. She also encouraged faculty to focus on the future of OSU with a vision of providing a first-class education for a diverse student population while advancing the knowledge that supports the health and
wealth of Oregon and the nation as the 21st century approaches. She felt that a difference can be made if
everyone works together.
Beth Strohmeyer, Faculty Recognition and Awards Chair, presented nominees for the Distinguished Service Award
and D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award. There was no discussion on the nominees. After reopening the
meeting to the public, both nominees were approved via written ballot.
There was no old business.
There was no new business.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:22 PM.
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant