Faculty Senate

Members Absent Without Representation:
Bontrager, Chambers, Cheeke, Cowles, deGeus, Elwood, Farnsworth, Franklin, Gomez, Gregerson, Heidel, Henthorne, Hooker, Huyer, Jepson, Jones, Kerkvliet, Mix, Randhawa, Righetti, Savage, and Savonen

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
M. Niess, President; K. Williamson, President-Elect; A. Wilcox, Immediate Past President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; Ex-officios: R. Arnold, P. Lee, and J.A. Torres; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administra tive Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
J. Corbett, S. Francis, Z. Holmes, D. Johnson, R. Landau, L. Pribyl, and K. Steele

Ken Williamson was installed as President-Elect by President Niess who publicly thanked him for volunteering over the summer to take on some of the President-Elect duties prior to his election.


SPECIAL REPORT

President Paul Risser

President Risser felt that all areas of the university were running well and noted several OSU accomplish ments:

• Contributions to the foundation, primarily endowed funds, in the last year totalled $40 million compared to $29 million the previous year.
  
• Enrollment has been spectacular with the largest freshman class in 10 years and the largest one- year increase in 29 years.
  
• There are 65 sections of Odyssey courses being taught by outstanding researchers and volunteers.
  
• The exceptional SOAP and Connect ‘98 programs.
  
• Extension programs across the state are run largely by about 30,000 volunteers.
  

Risser then spoke about areas where accomplishments are in progress:

1) Gifts & Donations – In an effort to more effectively align all development, gift and fundraising activities, all these operations are being moved to the Foundation. Currently a CEO search is underway. The search committee consists of four members from the university and four from the Foundation.

2) Library Funding – Due to the Library's organizational structure within Information Services, they were being required to repay more of the debt than they actually incurred. Dr. Risser announced that, after a review by a Senate task force, the Library will not be required to repay any more debt than they incurred; their debt will be repaid over a six-year period. The Library budget will be increased at least 2% over the next two biennias.

He asked the Senate to work with the Provost, and perhaps the University Librarian and Dean's, to identify a group to think about the future of the Library since reinvesting in the established pattern may not be in OSU's best interest.

Risser noted that about $240,000 was held back to add class sections and laboratories to accommodate the increased enrollment. He acknowledged that "faculty are simply having to work harder."

The short-term budgetary solution is to request additional funds from the Legislative Emergency Board in November. He noted that the groundwork is being laid and felt optimistic that the request will be granted to receive additional funds based on tuition.

The long-term solution concerns the funding formula from the state. The State Board has been working on revising the funding formula to focus on enrollment in the current year (rather than focusing on previous years under the BAS model) and funding is based on enrollment at each institution. The formula consists of two parts: 1) student driven -- numbers of students, kinds of subjects, class standing per student and cost within discipline; and 2) program parts -- funds programs such as Extension, Forest Research Laboratory and research. Under the research component, the state will provide an additional 4% to the university for research that faculty attract to OSU. An additional category is performance funding based on a set of criteria for each university. There are also special initiatives for areas such as Engineering and technology.

The document "The New Oregon University System Funding Model: Opportunities for Oregon State Univer sity" was available at the meeting. Dr. Risser asked all faculty to read and think about the document that des cribes the essence of the new funding model and describes the implications of the new formula.

An additional document, "Performance Goals and Objectives for Oregon State University and the President of Oregon State University" was also available. Risser noted that this is not a mission statement for the University but a statement about how OSU relates to the state system. He suggested that the Senate may want to appoint a body to study this document and, perhaps, make recommendations.

Risser felt that the opportunities for OSU are absolutely enormous and that OSU has built an enviable record in the last two years. He noted that, although he wants things to proceed at a fast pace, it is acceptable to tell him that a slower pace needs to be observed.

Senator Hale, Liberal Arts, questioned the change in the funding process. Risser responded that initially the discussion focused on all students being funded the same, but classes are actually differentiated by level and cost of education. He stressed that the new formula is based, in part, on what peer institutions in other states are spending, which is frequently higher than our spending.

In response to Senator Giovannoni, Science, Risser indicated that student tuition waivers will have to be paid by each institution.

Responding to Senator DeKock, Science, Risser stated that the internal allocation has not yet been determined. He noted that an internal group consisting of Maggie Niess, Paul Farber, Brent Dalrymple, Fred Horne, Mark McCambridge and Andy Hashimoto have been meeting to discuss this issue.

Following Liberal Arts Senator Lunch's comments about the possibility of not fully funding the model, Senator Tate, Science, questioned whether fully funding the new model will be adequate. Risser responded that fully funding the model ($115 million) puts the state very close to the average in Western states.

Senator Matzke, Science, questioned whether a potential source of funding would be to reduce the Chancellor's Office. Risser noted that there is a reduction in the funds handled by that office since the money will go directly to institutions. An additional question under consideration is whether each institution should have its own board which could mean that some responsibilities handled by the Chancellor's Office or State Board may then be handled by individual institutions. He felt that the new formula puts each institution on a more independent basis, thereby possibly reducing the need for Chancellor's Office staff.


ACTION ITEMS

Assessment of Teaching Task Force Report

President Niess reminded Senators that the report and recommendations were discussed at the June meeting and were on the agenda for approval. If approved, the report and recommendations will be forwarded to the Provost for implementation of the recommendations. Niess noted that Recommenda tion #6 has already been charged to the Advancement of Teaching Committee for implementation.

ZoeAnn Holmes, Task Force member, briefly described the process used by the task force to arrive at the final report. She reviewed the three criteria the Task Force was asked to address:
1) Evaluate and critique the efficacy of the university-wide Student Assessment of Teaching instrument and, if appropriate, propose a revision or replacement of this form.
2) Assess the effectiveness of the peer assessment of teaching procedures and, if appropriate, propose assessment procedure(s) that may be utilized to achieve a valid evaluation of faculty teaching effectiveness by peers.
3) Recommend processes for both student assessment of teaching and peer assessment of teaching that consider recommendations for working with faculty to enhance their teaching.

Following are the recommendations proposed for approval:

1) Student assessment of teaching should be conducted in each class every term.

2) For evaluative processes (P&T and other personnel matters requiring evaluation), each college should design a minimum set of survey questions for student assessment of teaching that will be used by all teaching faculty in the college; each department should add questions to the college set to assist in evaluations at the department level.

3) Each college should design a minimum set of peer review guidelines to be used for evaluative purposes. Each department should extend these guidelines to meet departmental specifics. Individual faculty members should further clarify with their peers the criteria to be used in the specific peer review.

4) Each college should develop a process for the assessment and evaluation of teaching that utilizes and integrates both student assessment and peer assessment. This process should be clearly described to the faculty and submitted to the Provost who, in consultation with the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Advancement of Teaching Committee, approves the process as supporting both P&T and the enhancement of teaching.

5) The Provost should establish a minimum of a .5 FTE faculty position (with support personnel) as Coordinator of Teaching and Learning. The coordinator should be a faculty member with the widest pos sible successful teaching experience in a breadth of courses offered at OSU: services courses (such as Baccalaureate Core Courses), undergraduate and graduate teaching, etc. The coordinator should assist the various colleges and committees in focusing on questions surrounding the appropriate organizational support for faculty in on-going professional development for the enhancement of teaching and learning.

After two years, the Coordinator should work with the Advancement of Teaching Committee to conduct an evaluation of the teaching/learning processes at OSU and make recommendations for the advancement of OSU's commitment to the support of enhancing teaching and learning.

6) The Advancement of Teaching Committee of the Faculty Senate will develop a series of forums that should actively engage all OSU faculty in a discussion of the question: "What is effective teaching?"

Senator Manogue, Science, felt that Recommendation #3 is unclear about who actually decides what criteria will be used. Holmes responded that individual faculty members need to provide their course syllabuses and outlines to indicate how the guidelines relate to the course of their teaching. This was included as a result of the concern that faculty had no input. Niess added that, since the faculty member knows the course specifics and what they most need help with from their peers, this allows the faculty member to have some say in what is reviewed.

Senator Wrolstad, Agricultural Sciences, questioned the rights of faculty versus the peer review. Holmes responded that the faculty member has the right to refuse, at their own risk, to submit their syllabus, if requested. It's hoped that the department sets minimal requirements and leaves room for flexibility to allow the faculty member to provide information needed to evaluate the faculty member.

In response to Senator Morris, Science, Holmes stated that the task force does have procedures on file from other universities and is available on the web at http://osu.orst.edu/dept/fs/tat/index.html.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, stated this his college instituted recommendations 3 and 4 over four years ago and noted that it is a completely open process and works well. He supported the recommendations presented.

Senator Landau, Science, was concerned that student evaluations sometimes distort what actually occurs in the classroom and questioned if this issue had been addressed. Niess responded that there was a great deal of discussion on this issue. She noted his concern is why recommendation #4 allows flexibility and leaves the process up to the college. Landau encouraged student input, but felt that the input should be directed toward the instructor.

Senator Thies, Science, questioned why evaluations are not made public. Holmes stated that it is the understanding of the task force that the legislature prohibits the evaluation from being released to the public.

Motion 98-541-01 to accept the report and recommendations and send forward to the Provost for consideration and implementation passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


DISCUSSION ITEMS

Information Services Task Force Recommendations

President Niess explained that the task force was charged to analyze the causes of the Information Services (IS) budget deficit and make recommendations for preventing future budget deficits. She emphasized that their work has provided a tremendous service to OSU through their inquiries which provided them with a thorough understanding of the events. In addition to recognizing the task force members, she expressed appreciation to the administration for working with and responding to the task force. Niess noted that the report will be accepted following discussion, although motions or resolutions may be in order.

Tony Wilcox, Information Services Task Force Chair, briefly summarized the report and expressed a debt of gratitude to the task force members: Gary Beach, John Block and Bruce Sorte.

The task force received the following charge:

• Analyze the causes of the Information Services budget deficit.
• Analyze where the budget deficits had occurred, i.e., in which accounts.
• Relate the budget deficit reduction plan to the Information Services units responsible for the overspending.
• Offer recommendations for preventing future budget deficits in Information Services, in particu lar, and other units on campus, in general.

Several key factors that led to the deficit were discovered and are outlined in detail in the report:

• Conversion to FIS
• IS units simultaneously undergoing restructuring
• Lack of budgetary oversight
• University-wide budgeting challenges
• Institutional demands on IS

Their analysis was that an untimely convergence of multiple factors created circumstances that over whelmed their ability to manage their budgets.

The deficit was $2.1 million at the end of 1996, but was treated as a $1 million deficit due to an advanced purchase. At the end of FY 1997, the deficit had risen to $5.4 million according to task force findings.

The task force assigned responsibility for the deficit to:

* IS for its failure to integrate its financial management with its revised organizational structure and for failing to recognize that help was needed in the business office.

* The University for deficiencies in budgetary oversight and a failure to assume a greater responsibility for financial management when the deficit was first known.

The IS Task Force recommended that the following be implemented during the 1998-99 fiscal year:

1. Improve the fiscal practices of academic and administrative units of OSU by implementing the policies and procedures listed in the previous section.
2. Ensure that quarterly budget meetings of the President's Cabinet and the Deans continue. When problems are identified at these meetings, all participants should work collaboratively to review the specific issues, and the administrative or academic unit with budget difficulties should make commitments that will improve their budget situation.
3. Reinstate and continue the monthly Budget Status-At-A-Glance reports produced by the Office of Budgets & Planning for review by the President's Cabinet.
4. Develop and distribute monthly and quarterly budget reports in two forms: