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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » November 4, 1999

Faculty Senate Minutes

1999 No. 551
November 4, 1999

For All Faculty

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on November 4, 1999, at 3:02 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Kenneth Williamson. There were no corrections to the minutes of October 1999.

Meeting Summary

– Action Items: Apportionment Report; Slate of Nominees; Ballot Counting Committee; Category I Proposal to Establish Two Departments in the College of Pharmacy; and a PEBB Resolution [Motion 99–551–01 through 04]
– Special Report: Graduate School Review, B. Rettig
– Discussion Item: OSU Budget, R. Specter
– New Business: Access to Senator e-mail List [Motion 99–551–05]

Roll Call

Members Absent With Representation:
Avery, L. Maughan; Brooks, M.A. Seville; Caughey, L. Burns; Hooker, Larry Rosenkoetter; Koenig, P-H Hsieh; P. Lee, E. Luttrull; Sanford, J. Schuster; and Sproul, S. Crust.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Arp, Azarenko, Bliss, Breen, Budd, Burke, Carson, Christensen, Crateau, Farber, J. Field, K. Field, Gregerson, Gross, Hemphill, Henthorne, Huyer, Jepson, Kerkvliet, Krause, Lajtha, Lundin, McDaniel, Nelson, Neumann, Peters, Plaza, Reed, Righetti, Rosenberger, Strik, Thompson, Trehu, White, and Wrolstad.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
K. Williamson, President; G. Matzke, President-Elect; M. Niess, Immediate Past President; C. DeKock, IFS Representative; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
G. Beach, S. Bloomer, I. Delson, D. Erickson, W. Kradjin, T. White, T. Wilcox, and S. Woods.


Approval of 2000 Apportionment Table

OSU Faculty FTE in the ranks of Instructor or above, including Professional Faculty, Research Associates, and all Faculty Research Assistants as of November 3, 1999, together with student credit hours apportioned to individual units, resulted in 2,525.77 FTE/Senator and 17,672.64 SCH/Senator. (Apportionment is based on 75% FTE and 25% SCH with a cap of 132 Senators.)

Senator Landau, Science, moved to accept the Apportionment Table; motion seconded. Motion 99-551-01 to approve the 2000 Apportionment Table passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Nominations and Elections

Maggie Niess, Bylaws and Nominations Chair, presented the slate of nominees for elected positions:

President–Elect – Robert Burton (Professor, Mathematics) and Henry Sayre (Professor, Art)

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Representative – Laurel Maughan, (Associate Professor, Valley Library) and Bruce Sorte, (Professional Faculty, College of Agricultural Sciences)

Executive Committee – Paul Biwan (Professional Faculty, Human Resources); Stella Coakley (Professor, Botany & Plant Pathology); Vicki Collins (Associate Professor, English/WIC); Jack Drexler (Associate Professor, College of Business); Tom Plant (Associate Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering); Ann Rossignol (Professor, Public Health); and Richard Thies, (Professor, College of Science).

There were no nominees from the floor for the first two positions. Senator Landau, Science, nominated Jennifer Cornell (Assistant Professor, English) and Senator Tate (Science) nominated Rubin Landau (Professor, Physics) from the floor for the Executive Committee. Both Cornell and Landau agreed to have their names placed on the ballot. The nominations for each category were declared closed.

Niess explained that the Executive Committee discussed a voter's pamphlet, but decided that questions would be elicited from faculty to be asked of the President-Elect and IFS candidates. Two questions will be selected for each group to respond to; the responses will be posted on the Faculty Senate web site.

Niess reminded Senators to review the attendance summaries located at attend99. htm to determine representation by Senators eligible for re-election.

Ballot Counting Committee

Senators Kent Daniels, Rubin Landau, and Sylvia Yamada, volunteered to assist in counting President-Elect and Interinstitutional Faculty Senate representative ballots on December 1.

Category I Proposal to Establish Two Departments in the College of Pharmacy

Irma Delson, Curriculum Council member, presented the Category I proposal and explained that the proposal would decentralize the college and develop two departments each with its own chairs. The current structure consists of a dean, three assistant deans and no department heads while the proposal allows for a dean, one assistant dean and department chairs in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Pharmacy Practice.

The justification for the proposal contained several components: to acknowledge the increasing size and diversity of the college; to reflect the administrative philosophy of the new dean; to effectively implement the new professional program; to address anticipated expansion; to give necessary attention to Pharmacy Practice faculty and students at the OHSU site; and to support the changes in the duties of dean. The primary functions of each department would be teaching, research and service. The general objectives of each department are identical, but the specific objectives reflect their different academic foci.

Delson noted there were letters of support from OHSU and OSU's College of Health and Human Performance and Public Health Department. The proposal received unanimous approval from the Curriculum Council.

Senator Frank, Liberal Arts, moved to approve the proposal, which was seconded.

President-Elect Matzke questioned where faculty would reside. Dean Kradjin responded that there will be faculty at both the OSU and OHSU sites.

Motion 99-551-02 to establish two departments in the College of Pharmacy was approved by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

PEBB Resolution

On behalf of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, President Williamson presented the following resolution in support of developing an OUS specific health care benefit governance arrangement:

Whereas, The creation of a unified Public Employment Benefits Board (PEBB) has altered the faculty benefits offered as compensation for service to Oregon State University;
Whereas, The planning of benefit packages under PEBB has largely ignored the frequently expressed critical needs of the faculty of this university;
Whereas, The current PEBB benefit system contains a structure of subsidies that discriminates against faculty-preferred benefit options (as revealed in PEBB surveys);
Whereas, The PEBB administered benefits represent a substantial reduction in benefits and an increase in costs for most faculty;
Whereas, Faculty as a group represent a relatively low cost pool of beneficiaries;
Whereas, The originating legislation (SB 271) said the System "...may elect, at the discretion of the State Board of Higher Education, to provide alternative benefits plans to its employees, should the same level of benefits be available at a lower cost..."; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Faculty Senate of Oregon State University approve a petition to request that the Board of the Oregon University System work with due haste to develop and implement a plan to separate faculty health care benefits from PEBB control by developing a system of benefits governance that is more responsive to faculty concerns and more cost effective in meeting faculty health care needs.

Williamson provided background for the resolution: during the past two years Faculty Senate leaders attended PEBB-led meetings and noticed that PEBB was heading toward HMO-type benefits; PEBB received input, including an overwhelming number of questionnaires, from OSU indicating that HMO's were not the choice of faculty, but this input was met with no results; health care costs have dramatically gone up; options preferred by faculty were eliminated or reduced; and faculty are basically dissatisfied with the direction of PEBB.

Senator Frank questioned if other institutions have discussed this issue. Williamson indicated there has been discussion at the OUS level and institutions seem to be in favor of the proposed direction.

Senator Longerbeam, Student Affairs, expressed concern on behalf of staff since staff and faculty have joined together, which creates a larger risk pool, but may also increase staff rates if OUS splits off from PEBB.

Senator Thies, Science, felt it was discriminatory to subsidize the HMO plans only. Senator Daniels, Associated, felt there was an obvious bias against Blue Cross.

IFS Representative DeKock was the only one who indicated he was happy with the health benefits plan.

Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, expressed concern about the possibility of legal action against public institutions in relation to HMO subsidies.

Williamson noted that, within two years, opt-out and cash back will not be a PEBB option and the loss of the opt-out, cash back option could mean as much as $400 per month for a couple both employed at OSU. Vice President Specter added that opt-out and cash back were only retained this year due to the efforts on behalf of OUS representatives. Specter also expressed concern that plan costs have increased significantly and noted that PEBB cannot maintain the level of benefits at the same cost as in prior years.

Senator Morris, Science, questioned what the Executive Committee envisions happening as a result of this resolution. Williamson indicated that the purpose is to help the administration in their efforts to either get a better deal with PEBB or to break away from PEBB. This can be seen as a show of support for the administration's efforts.

Senator Landau was disturbed about the PEBB situation and doesn't want to see benefits deteriorate in the same direction as salaries.

Senator Cornell, Liberal Arts, was concerned that faculty may get adequate health benefits at the expense of classified staff and students.

Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, noted that this resolution may help get the attention of the PEBB Board to make them realize they are public officials and are responsible for individual's health care

Senator Coakley, Science, pointed out that whatever health plan faculty work for would also benefit the classified staff since all in OUS would be eligible for the plan.

President-Elect Matzke mentioned that SB271 states ‘employees,’ which would include classified staff, but noted that the Faculty Senate can only speak for the faculty since classified are unionized. He then moved the question; motion seconded. Motion 99-551-04 to move the question passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Motion 99-551-03 to approve the PEBB resolution as written passed by voice vote with some dissenting votes.


Graduate School Review

While introducing Bruce Rettig, Graduate School Review Committee Chair, President Williamson noted that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee requested that administration perform a review prior to hiring a dean.

Rettig explained that information regarding the review can be found at:

The committee charges include: assessing the Graduate School and its function and reaching out for input from stakeholders.

Committee members are: Dan Arp, Chris Bell, Leslie Burns, Lisa Ede, Erik Fritzell, Dana Hicks, Jo-Ann Leong, Kinsey Green, Mary Prucha, and Tony Wilcox.

Rettig reported that the Graduate School recently developed a Strategic Plan which can be found at: Dept/grad_school/intro/ mission.htm. Past President Niess questioned whether the Strategic Plan was new and to what extent were faculty involved in its creation. Rettig indicated that the document was created since Interim Dean Francis was appointed and that it explains activities and functions of the Graduate School, as well as providing a basis for assessment. He could not provide an answer as to the extent of faculty input. He did note that the term ‘Strategic Plan’ may not be accurate.

Senator Collins, Liberal Arts, questioned whether this was the right time to start making changes in the Graduate School while the review committee is in the process of evaluation. Rettig explained that the committee has discussed this issue, but are not preoccupied with it.

Senator Prucha, Associated, reported that Dean Francis put the Strategic Plan together in an effort of engaging the Graduate School and laying out what the goals were for the year. The unit also felt that the document would provide background for the review team.

In response to Senator Rossignol, Health and Human Performance, questioning the time frame, Rettig indicated that a draft report should be ready in December.

Senator Witters, Agricultural Sciences, asked whether the scope of the review committee's charge is internal or external. Rettig responded that committee members are meeting with faculty at other institutions. There is a preference to understand better how graduate schools at peer institutions operate.

Rettig noted that the committee encourages input and feedback.


OSU Budget

Rob Specter, Vice President of Finance and Administration, outlined OSU's budget allocation.

Specter noted that the budget process began by moving toward an enrollment driven, goal oriented allocation model. Due to numerous challenges, including decimated unit budgets, it became difficult to implement the budget and a transitory approach was developed. The university will move toward full model implementation in as few years as possible. He felt that the process was very participatory since there were committees developing the budget principles and allocation approaches. Faculty Senate committees, deans, and the President's Cabinet were also involved in decision making.

He reported that OSU is receiving almost $13 million more this year than last which fueled tremendous expectations that needed to be countered by how far OSU had fallen in terms of resources against obligations. Specter noted that the budget allocation decision was student and faculty centered.

Specter distributed hand-outs outlining the following budget figures. The breakdown for the proposed FY 2000 revenue of $164,068,700 includes:
General Fund - $83,992,988
Tuition - $55,295,612
Total Other Resources: $24,780,100

The breakdown for the proposed FY 2000 operating budget totaling $164,350,000 includes:
Continuing Services Level Base Budget - $152,900,000
Univ. Education & General Allocation - $3,293,100
Academic Units Allocation - $5,131,300
Student Services, Recruitment & Retention - $1,384,500
Institutional Support - $4,641,100

Faculty salary increases are budgeted at $850,000 and include a 2% increase in January 2000 and 2.5% in January 2001. As indicated previously, the $2,000,000 incremental investment in Athletics is included in Institutional Support. There is also a contingency holdback of 2% across the board for a total of $3,281,300.

Specter noted that the approximately $965,000 from the fire settlement of the former Printing and Mailing Services building will go into the budget stabilization reserve. He also mentioned that there is an opportunity to receive additional general funds for increased enrollment since OSU has already exceeded the May 1999 enrollment projections.

Senator Rossignol inquired about budgeted funds to accommodate disabled individuals. Specter responded that in addition to the $28,000 budgeted, there are capital funds to assist with maintenance and small projects. An additional $28 million from the Chancellor's Office has not been fully distributed among OUS institutions for capital projects.

Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, questioned why federal government allocations are missing from the budget. Specter stated that state-wide public service units are budgeted separately from the budget process are not represented in this budget, nor are direct costs and auxiliary enterprises represented.

Senator Lee, Science, questioned what was anticipated for future years budgeting. Specter noted that the unusual distribution of funds (50/50 this biennium compared to 1/3 and 2/3 in previous years) is cause to be concerned that there are sufficient funds for the second year. He reiterated that the university has more obligations in the long term than can be handled and the institution is over-extended. He commented that an institutional strategic program review would begin in November to result in a more accurately aligned budget.

IFS representative DeKock questioned how much money the Foundation (budgeted at $800,000) generates for OSU and if good plans are in place for a real campaign. Specter didn't know how much money comes to the university, but stated that the Foundation's assets are in the $400 million neighborhood. He did note that the Foundation is in the process of being restructured and discussions are beginning which should result in a greater degree of alignment between OSU and the Foundation.


– University Awards -- Materials have been sent to Deans, Directors, and Department Heads/Chairs containing information for the OSU Distinguished Service Award and the following awards:

Richard M. Bressler Senior Faculty Teaching
D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service
OSU Alumni Association Distinguished Professor
OSU Extended Education Faculty Achievement
OSU Faculty Teaching Excellence
Outstanding Faculty Research Assistant
Dar Reese Excellence in Advising
Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor
A cover letter, guidelines for preparing nomination packets, and criteria for each award can be found at All nomination materials for the above awards must be submitted to the Faculty Recognition and Awards Committee, c/o Faculty Senate Office, 107 Social Science Hall, Corvallis OR 97331-6203 by March 6, 2000; February 5 for the OSU Distinguished Service Award. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact Laura Connolly, at 737-3025 or – Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Recap – The October IFS minutes were sent to Senators via e-mail and can be found at:
– Senator Representation Summary for 1998/99 – A summary of Senator attendance by both apportionment unit and individual senator for academic year 1998/99 can be found at: attend99.htm. Faculty members are invited to view both reports, particularly the individual reports, if a Senator is eligible to be re-elected to the Faculty Senate or is a candidate for elected office to determine the representation received from Senators during the past year. Please note that the Bylaws state, "In the event of a Senator's absence, without providing a substitute, for three meetings during one year, the position will be declared vacant by the apportionment unit and filled by the nominee with the next highest number of votes at the most recent election."

– Instructions for Nomination and Election of Faculty Senators – Upon receipt of all materials, the Faculty Senate Office annually transmits Senatorial nomination and election instructions to Heads of all voting units; a sample letter can be found at: http://osu.orst. edu/dept/senate/instruc.htm

– Student Appointments to Faculty Senate Committees/Councils – Students are important members of many Faculty Senate committees and councils and there are currently vacancies in several areas. Help would be appreciated in identifying students who are interested in serving on the following committees and councils. Students may be approached individually, or announcements may be made during class sessions. Anyone interested in serving should be referred to the Faculty Senate Office, 737-4344, for additional information.

Academic Regulations Committee
Academic Requirements Committee
Academic Standing Committee
Advancement of Teaching Committee
Baccalaureate Core Committee
Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee
Computing Resources Committee
Graduate Council
Library Committee
Student Recognition and Awards Committee


President Williamson's report included mostly budget related items:

– President Risser will discuss changes in the Post-Tenure Review Guidelines at the December Senate meeting.

– The Faculty Senate leadership participated in the budget process and tried to convey faculty concerns to administration. He thanked university administrators for listening.

– The fact that a reduction in current service levels as a contingency holdback was required to fund services to new students and other budgetary needs was a surprise to almost all involved, including Faculty Senate leadership. In addition to deferred maintenance, the hold back will be used to sustain university programs and services. OSU must also respond to external forces in the forms of legislative mandates, the Chancellor's Office, and accreditation boards. Increased growth has not generated the increased revenue that was expected. Decisions have been made to fund programs that have a potential for high returns but are very expensive. Finally, programs now funded through partnerships cannot be reasonably rejected.

– Some aspects of the budget process are positive and should be encouraged in future budget effort: 1) The budget process was opened up to allow significant input; 2) Colleges that achieved increased enrollment have been rewarded; and 3) The short-term effects of increased enrollment were at least partially accommodated through access funds that will become part of departments' base budgets.

– The entire budget process has painfully exposed the fact that the university is over-committed. Williamson believes that the realization is that OSU will now become better primarily by increased focus and greater efficiency. The administration has committed to a strategic planning effort.

– The future of OSU will largely depend on us. Future budgets are going to a require significant change of OSU. One of the biggest Faculty Senate challenges for the coming year is to make sure that OSU's faculty become meaningful contributors to the direction of that change.

Past President Tony Wilcox questioned if there was an amount or percentage set aside for faculty salaries. Williamson responded that $11 million was set aside for faculty salaries with $9 million going toward benefits which left $2 million for the system. The salary increase was deferred from July 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000 which saved about $1 million. He noted that the Executive Committee will present a recommendation to create a task force to study faculty salaries.

In response to Senator Sayre, Liberal Arts, questioning what the $9 million was going toward, Williamson stated that it was for PEBB increases.


Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, requested access to the Faculty Senate e-mail list to facilitate discussions between Senate meetings. He moved to allow all Faculty Senators to have access to the Faculty Senate e-mail list; motion seconded. Senator Burton reminded the Senate that motions presented under New Business are to be considered at the next meeting. Senator Daley agreed to defer his motion. Motion 99-551-05 will be on the December agenda.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:17 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant