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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » December 3, 1998

Faculty Senate Minutes

1998 No. 543
December 3, 1998
 

For All Faculty

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President Maggie Niess on December 3, 1998, at 3:05 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center. The October and November minutes were declared approved.


Meeting Summary

– Committee Report: Senate Election Results
– Action Items: Baha'i Institute of Higher Education Resolution; Category I Proposals: Off-Campus Delivery of a Baccalaureate Degree in General Agriculture, Extending the Liberal Studies degree program to Chemeketa Community College, and Masters in Business Information Systems (M.B.I.S.); Executive Committee Election; Post- Tenure Review Guidelines; and OSBHE Faculty Member Resolution [Motion 98–543–01 through 15]
– Discussion Item: Student Affairs Task Force on Greek Life (Larry Roper)
– Old Business: None
– New Business: None


Roll Call

Members Absent With Representation:
Denning, J. Coakley; Hardin, J. Ridlington; Hoogesteger, M. Gorski; Pereira, A. Faridani; Sandstrom, I. Kleinsorge; Sanford, D. Plaza; and Seville, D. Hermann.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Biwan, Bontrager, Brodie, Carson, Chambers, Champeau, Cheeke, Cowles, Elwood, P. Farber, J. Field, Folts, Foster, Frank, Gross, Grunder, Hale, Huyer, Jepson, Kerkvliet, Kiem, Lajtha, Levine, Maas-Hebner, Neumann, Primak, Righetti, Rosenberger, Savage, and Stephenson.

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 Administrative Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
L. Burns, L. Cole, W. Fanno, A. Hashimoto, D. Johnson, K. Krane, R. Landau, L. Maughan, D. Nicodemus, J. Rutledge and J. Schuster.


COMMITTEE REPORT

Faculty Senate Election Results
Tony Wilcox, Ballot Counting Committee Chair, thanked those who agreed to candidacy and reported that Gordon Matzke (Professor -- Geosciences) was elected President-Elect and Gary Tiedeman (Professor -- Sociology) was elected as the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate representative.


ACTION ITEMS

Baha'i Institute of Higher Education Resolution
Senator Manogue, Science, presented the following resolution:

The Faculty Senate of Oregon State University wishes to express its strong concern over the recent shutdown of the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education by the Iranian Government, accompanied by the arrest of some faculty members and the confiscation of academic books, exam records and education equipment in private homes.

This action amounts to denying students who are already excluded from public universities any right to learn, even if it is done in private. It violates both the International Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Iran is a party.

It is the highest aspiration of Oregon State University to free people's minds from ignorance, prejudice, and provincialism and to stimulate a lasting attitude of inquiry. We strongly urge the Iranian Government to implement Article 13 of the above mentioned covenant, which states that "higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity."

Manogue explained that the Institute is not an underground university; that Baha'i's have been jailed for their affiliation with the Institute; that there is an attempt to eliminate the Baha'i culture in Iran; and that Baha'i's are not being allowed to pursue higher education in private homes.

Motion 98-543-01 to accept the resolution passed by voice vote with some dissenting votes.


Category I Proposals
Bob Burton, Curriculum Council Chair, presented three Category I proposals:

a) Off-Campus Delivery of a Baccalaureate Degree in General Agriculture – Burton reported that courses would be offered by OSU at Treasure Valley Community College, Blue Mountain Community College and extended to other sites as partnerships are developed. Students could register and attend class at any of the institutions and the tuition would stay at the institution where the student registered. An extensive review is scheduled for three years after implementation.

There was no discussion. Motion 98-543-02 to approve the Off-Campus Delivery of a Baccalaureate Degree in General Agriculture passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

b) Extending the Liberal Studies degree program to Chemeketa Community College – This program has been delivered off-campus since 1984 to five other sites. This proposal also indicated that it could be extended to other community colleges in the state as partnerships are developed. There was no discussion. Motion 98-543-03 to approve Extending the Liberal Studies degree program to Chemeketa Community College passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

c) Masters in Business Information Systems (M.B.I.S.) Program – The M.B.I.S. is OSU's response to Senate Bill 487 passed by the 1997 Oregon legislature increasing the education requirements for Certified Public Accountant candidates sitting for the Uniform CPA Exam. The program expects to first enroll students Fall Term 2000. There was no discussion. Motion 98-543-04 to approve the Masters in Business Information Systems (M.B.I.S.) Program passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


Executive Committee Election
Executive Committee candidates were: Gary Beach, Robert Burton, Stella Coakley, Jack Drexler, Sandie Franklin, Pam Henderson, Debbie Jimmerson, William Lunch, Mark McCambridge, Tom Plant, Bruce Sorte, and Dick Thies.

Ballots were distributed and counted during the meeting. Those elected to two-years terms were: Robert Burton (Professor and Associate Chair -- Mathematics), William Lunch (Professor -- Political Science), and Bruce Sorte (Professional Faculty -- Business & Personnel Officer, College of Agricultural Sciences). Those elected to one-year terms were: Stella Coakley (Professor and Chair – Botany & Plant Pathology) and Dick Thies (Professor and Associate Dean, College of Science).

President Niess thanked the following Executive Committee members for their service: Bruce Coblentz, Irma Delson, James Foster, Larry Griggs and Gordon Matzke.


Post-Tenure Review Guidelines
Ken Krane, Task Force on Post-Tenure Review Chair, reported that he had met with the OSU AAUP Executive Board and received comments from them regarding the guidelines that were postponed from the November meeting. He noted that the first section of the guidelines will be incorporated into the Faculty Handbook and the second portion will be distributed to departments by the Provost's Office. Krane then reviewed the rationale for changes in the guidelines.

AAUP prepared alternate wording to the guidelines (below) that were available at the meeting. Rubin Landau, representing AAUP, felt that the process doesn't need to exist since faculty should not have to prove competency and considered this an attack against tenure.

1. In the event of repeated unsatisfactory reviews and failure to achieve the goals of an agreed-upon development plan, the peer committee (in consultation with the unit head) may explore other mutually agreeable possibilities, such as redistribution of effort within the unit or separation to another unit. If these are not practicable, or if no other solution acceptable to the parties can be found, then a different faculty committee elected for that purpose at the level of the college or corresponding academic unit above that which originated the recommendation, should review the findings of the unit-level committee. The administration should not consider sanctions until after this second review.

The standard for dismissal or severe sanction remains that of adequate cause. The mere fact of successive negative reviews does not diminish in any way the obligation of the institution to show such cause for dismissal in a separate forum before an appropriately constituted hearing body convened for that purpose. The administration is still required to bear the burden of proof and demonstrate not only that the negative evaluations rest on fact, but that the facts rise to the level of adequate cause for dismissal. [This section was proposed to replace the last two paragraphs of ‘Consequences of the Five-Year Review’ on pages 3 and 4 of the Guidelines.]

2. In order for the faculty member to have a fair chance to successfully meet the requirements of their position description, the description should be mutually agreeable to faculty and unit head, and should be in effect for a time period appropriate for the discipline. [This section was proposed to replace the last sentence of the first paragraph of ‘Annual Review’ section on page 2 of the Guidelines.]

3.The Faculty Senate will periodically review the effectiveness of the post-tenure review process. [This section was proposed to replace the language in ‘Review of the Post-Tenure Review Process' on page 4 of the Guidelines.]

In response to the AAUP recommendation #3 regarding evaluation of the process, Krane felt this section was inappropriate to place in the Faculty Handbook and noted this issue was addressed in the report adopted by the Senate in June. Duane Johnson, Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair, reported that commonly asked promotion and tenure questions will be placed in the Handbook.

Senator Shore, Engineering, had concerns about references to position descriptions in the document since she wasn't aware of position descriptions in Engineering. After further discussion focusing on position descriptions, it was determined by a show of hands that about one-third were not aware of position descriptions existing for their job.

Senator Burton, Science, proposed an amendment to revise the last paragraph under ‘Five-year Reviews:’ that was seconded. The amendment read as follows:

If a faculty member so requests, at any time during the five-year interval between regularly scheduled peer committee reviews, a faculty member may request a peer committee review will take place if it is considered to be beneficial to the professional development of the faculty member.

The question was called for to close debate; motion 98-543-07 passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote. After discussion, motion 98-543-06 consisting of the above amendment was approved by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Senator Tiedeman, Liberal Arts, moved substitution of the text as provided by AAUP and requested it be divided into three sections.

{Several amendments were made to the proposed AAUP language, with discussion both in favor and opposition, but were not recorded in full in the Recording Secretary's minutes and the tape recording failed to copy. None of the AAUP language was approved to be placed in the document.}

A motion was made and seconded to amend the Guideline document by deleting the last paragraph on page three and the first paragraph on page four in the ‘Consequences of the Five-year Review’ section and inserting the AAUP language in #1 above; motion seconded. Motion 98-543-08 to amend the guidelines by inserting AAUP's first recommendation was defeated by voice vote with no votes in favor.

Motion 98-543-09 to amend the Guidelines to delete the last sentence of the first paragraph under ‘Annual Reviews:’ and insert AAUP's second recommendation was defeated by voice vote with several votes in favor.

Motion 98-543-10 to amend the Guidelines to insert AAUP's third recommendation by replacing the section under ‘Review of the Post-Tenure Review Process’ was defeated by voice vote with several votes in favor.

In response to a question from the floor asking if the Guidelines apply to administrators, Krane indicated that all faculty would be reviewed.

Senator Sayre moved to add the word "standing" in the second sentence of the third paragraph under ‘Consequences of the Five-Year Review’ and delete the last part of the sentence. The amended sentence read:

Any recommendation for sanctions made by the academic unit must be reviewed by a standing faculty committee elected for that purpose at the level of the college or corresponding academic unit above that which originated the recommendation; if the originating academic unit is a college, the Provost shall arrange for the election of a suitable faculty review committee.

Senator Brooks, Business, felt the proposed amendment was appropriate. Senator Morris, Science, was opposed to the amendment and felt that the level of detail is best spelled out by the unit. Senator Matzke, Science, felt units should identify faculty committees before they were needed.

Motion 98-543-11 to amend the document as described above passed by voice vote with several dissenting votes.

Senator Manogue moved to amend the same paragraph by moving the amended sentence to the beginning of the paragraph prior to the portion describing sanctions; motion seconded.

Senators Sayre and Shor spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment.

The question was called for to end debate; motion 98-543-13 passed by voice vote with dissenting votes.

Motion 98-543-12 to approve the proposed amendment was defeated by voice vote with some votes in favor.

Senator Tiedeman questioned who performs the peer review of the peer review members during annual reviews. Krane responded that, in Physics, the review member steps aside during their own review.

A proxy from Science expressed concern over a number of issues:
* Felt that the section relating to tenure on page 1 is too weak.
* Felt that the system gives too much power to the department chair.
* It should be spelled out who will vote when electing faculty to the standing committee.
* Position descriptions should be spelled out before voting.
* Yearly reviews may prove to be an overload to department heads.

In response to the above concerns, Krane explained that this document is not meant to be a defense of tenure and it gives less power to department heads than the current process. Each unit should determine who will be eligible to vote in the election of the standing faculty committee. He emphasized that all faculty are required to have a position description.

Senator Jones, Extension, indicated that her faculty are concerned about the annual peer review given the various geographic districts for Extension. She felt this would add to the workload since Extension already has annual reviews and they don't want duplication of tenure. In response, Senator Morris pointed out that the document says peer reviews are encouraged.

Senator Matzke called for the question. Motion 98-543- 14 to close debate on the proposed Guidelines passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Motion 98-543-05 to approve the Guidelines, as amended, passed by voice vote.

Senator Gardner, Science, called for a Sense of the Senate vote: That the mechanism for reaching consensus between the faculty member and the unit head be clarified and that the grievance procedures be clarified in case a consensus is not reached. Motion 98-543-15 passed by voice vote. President Niess will prepare a letter to be sent to the Promotion and Tenure Committee to this effect.


OSBHE Faculty Member Resolution
Tony Wilcox, Bylaws and Nominations Chair, explained that the Governor is considering a faculty position on the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE) in June of 1999. This position would be a two-year term rather than four years for other Board members.

Wilcox noted that the OSU Faculty Senate received a request from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) to endorse the nominating process developed by IFS and the Association of Oregon Faculties (AOF) for nominating faculty members to the Governor for appointment to the OSBHE. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee (EC), in turn, charged the Bylaws and Nominations Committee to review the process and forward a recommendation to the EC. After careful consideration of the suggested process, the Committee is recommending the following amended nomination process:
1. Engage institution Faculty Senates in identifying qualified and willing candidates for the position. Have each institution forward its nominations to a Nominating Committee through their IFS Senator by January 15, 1999.
2. A Nominating Committee consisting of faculty from the IFS will select no more than 3 names to submit to the Governor.
3. These names will be shared with each Faculty Senate for endorsement prior to submission to the Governor.
4. The finalists' applications will be sent to the Governor.

In addition to the nomination process, IFS also requested that a call for nominations on each campus be initiated for faculty qualified and willing to serve on the Board.

Laurel Maughan, AAUP State President, expressed frustration that AAUP has been left out of the process and that this position would not be possible if it weren't for the efforts of AAUP. Senator DeKock, Science, agreed that, without the work of AAUP and AOF, this issue would not be before the Senate. He also noted that it is difficult to get all three groups to work together, given their respective agendas, and called for all to be engaged. DeKock felt that IFS needs to revisit this issue and clarify who should be involved. He also stated that the letter from IFS President Kemble Yates did not accurately reflect action taken by the IFS.

DeKock moved to postpone approval of the nomination process until January so IFS can clarify their recommenda tion (IFS meets in December); motion seconded. Motion 98-543-16 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


DISCUSSION ITEM

Student Affairs Task Force on Greek Life
Larry Roper, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, recapped the Task Force's final report and recommendations.

In response to Senator Delson, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, questioning the level of support received from national organizations, Roper reported that very little support has been received and there have been no campus- based conversations.


INFORMATION ITEMS

– New Senator Orientation: New Senator Orientation will be held January 7, 1999.

– University Awards: A summary of the following awards was included in the Senate agenda. Nomination materials must be submitted to the Faculty Recognition and Awards Committee c/o Faculty Senate Office. The deadline for the OSU Distinguished Service Award is February 5, 1999; the deadline for all other awards is March 5.

OSU Distinguished Service
OSU Alumni Association Distinguished Professor
Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor
Dar Reese Excellence in Advising
Richard M. Bressler Senior Faculty Teaching
OSU Outstanding Faculty Research Assistant
OSU Faculty Teaching Excellence
Extended Education Faculty Achievement
D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service

– Student Appointments to Faculty Senate Committees: Faculty are asked to help identify students interested in serving on the following Senate committees:

Academic Regulations Committee
Academic Requirements Committee
Academic Standing Committee
Advancement of Teaching Committee
Baccalaureate Core Committee
Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee
Committee on Committees
Instructional Development & Technology Committee
Library Committee
Student Recognition & Awards Committee
Undergraduate Admissions Committee

– Faculty Senate Handbook Return: Retiring Senators are asked to return their Faculty Senate Handbooks to be updated and redistributed to new Senators.

– 1999 Distinguished Professor Nominations: The deadline for nominating outstanding faculty members for the "Distinguished Professor" honor is January 29. Nominations are to be submitted to Paul Farber in History. A copy of the criteria may be obtained from Nancy Hoffman at 737-0733.


REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST

While introducing Provost Arnold, President Niess noted that the Executive Committee recently participated in a review for the Provost and she wanted Senators to hear a portion of their response:

"...Provost Arnold continues to serve in this position with distinction. He is able to bridge the gap between the President and the faculty. From our perspective, he has been helping the campus understand the issues and concerns affecting higher education and Oregon State University in particular. We feel that Provost Arnold is under-appreciated. He has held OSU together through very tough times."
Niess then publicly expressed her appreciation to Provost Arnold for his help and support throughout the past year and for his careful, exceptionally well-prepared, responses at Senate meetings. Her comments were followed by a round of applause.

Provost Arnold congratulated the newly elected officers, Senators and Executive Committee members and thanked those retiring.

He reported that the intent is for the funding request to be presented to and considered by the Emergency Board at their January meeting.

The Governor's budget recommendations have been made and forwarded to the State Board. The recommendations for $73 million include the following: $44.7 million to implement the new budget model; $15.3 million to fund the tuition freeze for resident undergraduates; $8 million for enrollment growth targeted to high demand areas such as engineering and teacher training; and $5 million for faculty recruitment and retention. The Senate leadership also developed recommendations prior to the last election with a larger figure for higher education, including $80 million for budget implementation. Arnold noted that the assumptions used for available revenue differed between the two recommendations and that the Governor's assumptions are based on more recent revenue projections. He reminded Senators that the final figures depend on what happens in the legislative session and with enrollment.

The OSU Budget Work Group is continuing to meet and Budget Allocation Guidelines were available at the Senate meeting.

Past President Wilcox noted that Caroline Kerl, Legal Officer, stated that access to the Student Assessment of Teaching is confidential information and questioned whether this was subject to internal actions. Arnold stated that the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR's) define this information as being treated confidentially to the faculty member, unit administrator and others who may need to know for purposes of Promotion and Tenure decisions. To change the policy would require a change in the OAR's. He noted there is the option of students initiating their own secondary process where they provide input that can be published.


REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

President Niess explained that, since the December meeting marked the end of the 1998 Senate session, the two Category I proposals tabled in January will disappear. She noted that units have worked very hard to develop program specifics requested by the Senate and progress on the proposals has been made. The proposals will reappear before the Senate in 1999.

Since December was her last meeting, Niess thanked Senators for their patience while she was trying to learn Robert's Rules of Order.


OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.


NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business.

President Niess declared the session adjourned at 5:53 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant