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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » June 1, 2000

Faculty Senate Minutes

2000 No. 558
June 1, 2000
 

For All Faculty

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on June 1, 2000, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Gordon Matzke. There were no corrections to the minutes of May 2000.


Meeting Summary

– Action Items: Consideration of Degree Candidates; Standing Rules changes to the Academic Advising Committee, Curriculum Council and Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee; AR 7 Proposed Change; Difference, Power and Discrimination Recommendations; Faculty Panels for Hearing Committee Election [Motion 00-558-01 through 10]
– Special Report: Issue Group on Faculty Compensation, R. Landau and N. Rosenberger
– Committee Report: Computing Resources Committee, J. Schindler
– New Business: None


Roll Call

Members Absent With Representation:
Anderson, D. Allen; Cardinal, R. Michael; Cornell, R. Wess; Drexler, C. Cogliser; Henthorne, G. Alegado; Jimmerson, P. Montagne; Krause, J. Trujillo; Nishihara, A. Akyeampong; Plant, A. Wallace; Plaza, E. Gonzales-Berry; Sanchez, D. Pehrsson; and K. White, C. Neumann.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Abbott, Arp, Baggott, Barth, Beatty, Bliss, Braker, Breen, Brooks, Bruce, Carson, Cloughesy, Collier, Cook, DeCarolis, deGeus, Esbensen, Green, Gregory, Hamm, Horne, Jepson, Johnson, Kerkvliet, Koenig, Ladd, P. Lee, Lowrie, Mallory-Smith, Merickel, Mix, Nelson, Raja, Reed, Sproul, Stang, Strik, Tesch, Trehu, Tynon, J. White, Winner, and Yim.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
G. Matzke, President; H. Sayre, President-Elect; K. Williamson, Immediate Past President; Ex-officios: S. Coakley and P. Risser; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.

Guests of the Senate:
B. Balz, G. Beach, L. Burns, L. Friedman, J. Kerkvliet, R. Rathja, and J. Reeb.


ACTION ITEMS

Consideration of Degree Candidates

Barbara Balz, Registrar, recommended for approval the proposed lists of degree candidates and honors subject to final confirmation of all degree requirements. There were 3,427 students who were candidates for 3,535 degrees which included: 2,736 Bachelors, 598 Masters, 160 Doctors and 41 Professional Doctor degrees. There were also 104 students who were candidates for two degrees and two students who were candidates for three degrees.

The Class of 2000, OSU's 131st graduating class, had 576 seniors who qualified for Academic Distinction and included 295 ‘cum laude’ (gpa 3.50-3.69), 147 ‘magna cum laude’ (gpa 3.70-3.84), and 134 ‘summa cum laude’ (gpa 3.85 and above).

Motion 00-558-01 to approve the proposed list of degree candidates and honors passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


Standing Rules Changes

Jim Reeb, Committee on Committees Chair, presented proposed Standing Rules changes to the Academic Advising Committee, Curriculum Council and Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee.

Note: Proposed additions are in bold; proposed deletions are in brackets

Academic Advising Council

The Academic Advising Council furnishes support and information to those units on campus that provide academic advising for students and makes policy and procedure recommendations to the Faculty Senate for consideration.
The Council shall be composed of a Head Advisor or designated representative from each academic college, [and] one or more representatives from each service unit involved in advising students, and a student representative. Each of the academic colleges and the service units represented shall have one vote on the council.
There was no discussion on motion 00-558-02 which passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Curriculum Council

The Council consists of nine Faculty and two Student members. In addition, the following are to be members: A member of the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee, appointed by its chair, serves as a liaison member, non-voting. The Director of Undergraduate Academic Programs, ex-officio, non-voting, serves as the Council's Executive Secretary. Three Information Services faculty members, non-voting, are appointed annually by the Associate Provost for Information Services; one represents the library, one represents distance education, and one represents instructional technology. The Catalog Coordinator and Coordinator of Assessment and Academic Programs shall also serve as [an] ex-officio, non-voting members.

After confirming that the individual currently serving in the position proposed to be added is Gary Beach, motion 00-558-03 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee

The Faculty Economic Welfare and Retirement Committee formulates statements of policy and advises on matters of salaries, [deferred compensation] and Tax Deferred [Annuity] Investment programs, retirement programs, retirement benefits, insurance, and other programs which affect the economic benefits of both active and retired faculty. It shall make information related to retirement and retirement options available to the faculty. When appropriate, recommendations and findings are made to the Faculty Senate. The Committee shall also formulate recommendations to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for possible submission to the Legislature for amendments to the retirement system.
The Committee consists of nine [members] Faculty; two or three shall be retired faculty. In addition, the OSU [Staff] Employee Benefits Manager shall be an ex-officio, non-voting member.

Senator Schuster, Associated, proposed an amendment to include at least one professional faculty in the composition; motion 00-558-04 was seconded. The amended version would read "The Committee consists of nine Faculty, including at least one Professional Faculty member..."

Motion 00-558-05, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


Academic Regulation 7 Proposed Changes

Joe Kerkvliet, Academic Regulations Chair, presented the following proposed changes to AR 7 (bolded sections indicate proposed deletions):

AR 7. Maximum and Minimum Registration

a. The minimum number of credits for which a full-time undergraduate student may register is 12, and the maximum is 19, regardless of the method of grading used for the classes selected. (In determining the load for students not normally held responsible for physical education, the credits in activity courses in physical education will be disregarded.) The maximum may be extended:

a.2) Over 24 credits by petition approved by a student's adviser and college dean (or head adviser) and the Academic Requirements Committee and filed with the Registrar.

There was no discussion on the proposed changes. Motion 00-558-06 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.


Difference, Power and Discrimination Recommendations

Alexis Walker, Difference, Power and Discrimination (DPD) Task Force Chair, presented for approval recommendations and proposed changes to the DPD Criteria and Rationale for the DPD requirement in the Baccalaureate Core. Walker noted that the committee has been meeting almost weekly since August 1999. In addition to Walker, the Task Force membership included: Leslie Burns, Robert Burton, Erlinda Gonzales Berry, John Lee, Janet Nishihara, Dwaine Plaza, Susan Shaw, and Ken Williamson; and students Janet Armentor, John Hollan, and Kezia Willingham.

The DPD report, containing the recommendations, is available on the web at: http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/DPD.report.htm

The Task Force expended considerable effort to formulate language that represents the purpose of the DPD academic requirement consistent with its history and the university's mission. The drafts were widely circulated and modified in response to feedback received.

Recommendations

Whereas, The U.S. has become an increasingly multicultural society; and

Whereas, The Difference, Power, and Discrimination Program (DPD) and the DPD academic requirement further the mission, goals, and values of OSU; and

Whereas, The DPD requirement engages students in the intellectual examination of the complexity of the structures, systems, and ideologies that sustain discrimination and the unequal distribution of power and resources in the U.S.; and

Whereas, The uniqueness of the DPD Program and the DPD academic requirement in the baccalaureate core places OSU in a leadership position in addressing issues of diversity; and

Whereas, The DPD program and the DPD academic requirement help OSU to achieve a climate that values diversity; and

Whereas, There is a need for more DPD courses, particularly outside of the College of Liberal Arts; therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Faculty Senate of Oregon State University

1. Reaffirm its commitment to both the academic requirement in the OSU Baccalaureate Core and the associated Difference, Power, and Discrimination (DPD) Program;

2. Approve the revised criteria and rationale for the Baccalaureate Core Academic Requirement; and

3. Establish the DPD Baccalaureate Core academic requirement as a separate category within the Baccalaureate Core, including both lower- and upper-division courses, with approximately half at each level.

The DPD Requirement in the Baccalaureate Core

We recommend that the following revised criteria and rationale be approved.

Criteria. Difference, Power, and Discrimination courses shall:

1. be at least three credits;

2. emphasize elements of critical thinking;

3. have as their central focus the study of the unequal distribution of power within the framework of particular disciplines and course content;

4. focus primarily on the United States, although global contexts are encouraged;

5. provide illustrations of ways in which structural, institutional, and ideological discrimination arise from socially defined meanings attributed to difference;

6. provide historical and contemporary examples of difference, power, and discrimination across cultural, economic, social, and political institutions in the United States;

7. provide illustrations of ways in which the interactions of social categories, such as race, ethnicity, social class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and age, are related to difference, power, and discrimination in the United States;

8. provide a multidisciplinary perspective on issues of difference, power, and discrimination;

9. incorporate interactive learning activities (e.g., ungraded, in-class writing exercise; classroom discussion; peer-review of written material; web-based discussion group); and

10. be regularly numbered departmental offerings rather than x99 or blanket number courses.

Rationale. The unequal distribution of social, economic, and political power in the United States and in other countries is sustained through a variety of individual beliefs and institutional practices. These beliefs and practices have tended to obscure the origins and operations of social discrimination such that this unequal power distribution is often viewed as the natural order. The DPD requirement engages students in the intellectual examination of the complexity of the structures, systems, and ideologies that sustain discrimination and the unequal distribution of power and resources in society. Such examination will enhance meaningful democratic participation in our diverse university community and our increasingly multicultural U.S. society.

Senator Daniels, Associated, appreciated the work of the Task Force but expressed concern about the wording in Criteria #4, "focus primarily on the United States..." Walker responded that the Task Force felt that the U.S. focus serves the mission of the DPD requirement and the needs of students, and noted that Criterion #6 specifically requires historical examination. She explained that it is probably not possible to teach a DPD course that doesn't consider what occurs in other cultures.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, felt that Criteria #4 was acceptable since it encourages global context, but moved to amend Criteria #6 and #7 to remove "in the United States" in both to clarify the intent for those in the future who did not take part in the discussion. Motion 00-558-07 was seconded. Walker noted that the DPD Director is an ex-officio member of the Baccalaureate Core Committee and would be available to make sure that every element of the Criteria is adhered to in all courses.

Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, spoke in opposition to the amendment and noted that particularly undergraduate students like to think that this is a problem for people in other countries. The United States references were included to reflect the attitudes of students.

Senators Kesler and Shaw, Liberal Arts, opposed the amendment and echoed Lunch's comments. Kesler emphasized that the Criteria does not eliminate an international or historical focus. He felt that the entire proposal would be circumvented if the amendment is approved. Shaw noted the importance of focusing on the U.S. is to have students realize that this is about them.

Senator Gardner, Science, felt that the intent of the wording was good, but had a problem with the actual wording. He felt it needed to say that it is relative to the students' contemporary life, but not be worded "in the United States."

Senator Landau, Science, supported the amendment and felt that #6 and #7 were overly restrictive.

Senator Thies, Science, felt it was important to distinguish DPD from the Cultural Diversity requirement and keeping "in the United States" does that.

Senator Tolar Burton, Liberal Arts, opposed the amendment because the Criteria are used by faculty designing and evaluating courses.

Motion 00-558-07 to remove "in the United States" in both Criteria #6 and #7 was defeated with 19 in favor following a divided vote.

Senator Landau moved to replace Criteria #4 with "Have clear-cut relevance to and draw attention to activies in the United States." Motion 00-558-08 was seconded.

Senator Thies spoke in opposition of the amendment.

Senator Lee, Liberal Arts, explained that the original wording allows one could teach a course about the Holocaust and tie it into anti-semitism in the U.S.

Senator Gardner expressed concern that a future administrator will say that a course on the Holocaust is not appropriate based on the original wording.

Senator Williamson argued that such a course could be proposed and would not be rejected.

Motion 00-558-08 to replace Criteria #4 with "Have clear-cut relevance to and draw attention to activies in the United States." was defeated with several votes in support.

Senator Burton called for the question, which was seconded. Motion 00-558-09 to end discussion on the main motion passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Motion 00-558-10 to approve the DPD recommendations, Criteria and Rationale passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote.


Faculty Panels for Hearing Committee Election

President Matzke 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 (in the order they would be called to serve): Sonia R. Anderson, James Leklem, Annie Qu, Martin Hellickson, Donald F. Parker, Jennifer L. Kuzeppa, William Chadwick, Gary L. Kiemnec, Sandra S. Ridlington, Gopinath Munisamy, Brian L. Arbogast, Patricia E. Aune, Donetta A. Sheffold, Linda N. Cameron, Paul E. Montagne, Rosemary Weidman, George Clough, Marit Legler, Joseph E. Majeski, Ann McLaughlin, and Tudy M. Seistrup.


SPECIAL REPORT

Issue Group on Faculty Compensation

Rubin Landau and Nancy Rosenberger, committee members, presented the final report and recommendations from the Issue Group on Faculty Compensation. The report can be found on the web at: http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/issue.final.htm

The Issue Group on Faculty Compensation requested in their cover letter that:

The OSU Administration make a commitment to put faculty salary increases as a top priority;

A plan for implementation of these suggestions be completed by the OSU Administration and reported to the Faculty by November, 1, 2000;

A plan for monitoring progress of implementation be developed by the Faculty Senate; and

A hard copy of this cover letter and report be jointly distributed to all faculty members by the OSU Administration and Faculty Senate prior to June 15, 2000.

Rosenberger felt that administration has not given priority to faculty salaries. She feels that faculty have not complained in the past because they felt hopeless and powerless. She noted that the following petition was available outside and is being circulated on campus:

We, teaching and professional faculty at Oregon State University, are tired of OSU permanently being below average in faculty compensation when compared to our peer universities. It is inexcusable, given the biggest budget increase in a decade, that OSU salary increases are below that of inflation, as well as two to seven times below that of other public universities in the state.

We enjoin the OSU administration to commit to placing and maintaining faculty salaries in the highest group of budget priorities.

In the strongest possible terms, we request that you implement the plan for annual salary increases calculated by the Issue Group on Faculty Compensation. We request that at least the basic principles of implementation be reported to the Faculty Senate by November 2000. To avoid further degradation of the quality of the faculty and, correspondingly, of education at OSU, we need to reach salary parity with our peer institutions within six years. The longer you wait, the more harm is done and the more difficult it becomes to solve this problem in a collegial manner.

Landau provided comparative faculty salaries from other institutions and noted that faculty should always receive salary increases above the inflation rate. He observed that OSU is the only OUS institution to receive a 2-2.5% increase – all other OUS institutions are reportedly receiving higher increases, even though it was initially reported by the Provost's that all OUS institutions would receive the same increase.

Landau indicated that the report states that sources of funding should be dedicated to faculty salaries through reallocation of: a fraction of both administrative discretionary funds and funds coming to the University as a result of enrollment growth; a portion of increased auxiliary enterprises; savings realized through possible downsizing; foundation money raised for things such as lab equipment and travel; lowering FTE of consenting faculty; returned overhead; and using instructors and teaching assistants in place of regular faculty where no harm would be done.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, felt the issue was problematic when reading that the legislature felt that part of the increased higher education funding was going to faculty salaries, when it actually didn't.

Senator Shor, Engineering, noted that 10 of 25 faculty in her area left in the last two years due to low salaries.

Senator King, Business, indicated an interest in seeing precise figures for salaries and administrative increases.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Computing Resources Committee

Jay Schindler, Computing Resources Committee member, made preliminary recommendations about allocation of information technology resources at OSU. He noted that funding, as it stands now, is not adequate to meet OSU's current and growing information infrastructure needs.

The complete recommendations can be found on the web at http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/crc.rec.0600.htm and include:

1) Funding information technology at OSU so every faculty member has a base level of support;
2) Determining how support can be provided at an institutional level; and
3) Lobbying the legislature for infrastructure support.

The CRC is initiating meetings with faculty and staff to look at a variety of issues. They recently hosted a meeting to explore issues related to E-commerce at OSU, including ethical and financial issues.

Senator Samuelson, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, suggested that technical people be involved to determine infrastructure needs.


INFORMATION ITEMS

– Annual committee/council reports submitted by Faculty Senate chairs are due July 15.


REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

President Matzke's report included the following items:

– Apparel and Footwear Industry – Vice President Rob Specter is forming a group to review this issue; Matzke noted that no decision will be made this summer. Senator Daniels, Associated, questioned whether the group has been formed and what will be the role of the Faculty Senate and students. Matzke responded that the strategy and kinds of people to serve on the group has been discussed, but not by the Faculty Senate. Leslie Burns, Undergraduate Academic Programs, stated that the group has been formed and is chaired by Sandie Franklin.

– Sports Cage Issue – In response to budget-driven issues, a decision was made to discontinue issuing athletic clothing in Langton Hall and the Women's Building sports cages, rather than closing the cages altogether, as some have been led to believe. Matzke noted that towels and lockers will continue to be available in the cages 14 hours per day. He noted that there is a proposal on the Provost's desk requesting support for sports from central administration, but no decision has been made. Matzke noted that it costs about $80,000 per year to have two union employees staff the cages.

Senator Sorte, Agricultural Sciences, felt that there are alternatives available and there is a need for better communications. An individual from Science felt that there was a lack of communication and no attempt to find a solution.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business.


Meeting was adjourned at 4:47.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Staff