The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on June 7, 2001, at 3:04 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Henry Sayre. There were no corrections to the minutes of May 2001.
– Action Items: Consideration of Degree Candidates; Standing Rules Revisions - Computing Resources Committee; Category I Proposal - Bioengineering; and PEBB Motions [Motion 01–567–01 through 08]
– Special Reports: Budget and Intellectual Property Policy and Distance Education
– Committee Reports: Advancement of Teaching and Computing Resources
– New Business: Library Materials [Motion 01–567–09 through 10]
Members Absent Without Representation:
Abbott, Ahearn, Ahern, Armstrong, Arp, Baggott, Beatty, Bliss, Bogley, Bontrager, Bottomley, Braker, Brooks, Bruce, Burt, Ciuffetti, Coakley, Collier, De- Carolis, Downing, Gregory, Hamm, Horne, Huddleston, Jones, P. Lee, Mundt, Pearson, Pegau, Plant, Reyes, Schuster, Schwab, Selker, Shaw, Smythe, Stang, Strik, Tesch, Thies, Trehu, Tynon, Wallace, and Winner.
Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-Officios and Staff Present:
H. Sayre, President; N. Rosenberger, President-Elect; G. Matzke, Immediate Past President; Ex-officios - T. White, J. Geddes; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff. H. Sayre, President; N. Rosenberger, President-Elect; G. Matzke, Immediate Past President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; Ex-Officios - J. Roach and T. White; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.
Guests of the Senate:
G. Beach, M. Bothwell, F. Conway, H. Egna, S. Francis, K. Krane, H. van der Mars, J. McGuire, R. Michael, J. Mills, C. Pederson, and R. Schwartz.
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 3,397 students who were candidates for 3,479 degrees which included: 2,676 Bachelors, 598 Masters, 171 Doctors and 34 Professional Doctor degrees. There were also 82 students who were candidates for two degrees.
The Class of 2001, OSU's 132nd graduating class, had 664 seniors who qualified for Academic Distinction and included 329 ‘cum laude’ (gpa 3.50-3.69), 184 ‘magna cum laude’ (gpa 3.70-3.84), and 151 ‘summa cum laude’ gpa 3.85 and above).
Motion 01-567-01 to approve the proposed list of degree candidates and honors passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Category I Proposal - Bioengineering
Robert Burton, Curriculum Council ex-officio, presented the Proposal for the Initiation of New Instructional Programs leading to M.S. and Ph.D. Degree in Bioengineering.
Motion 01-567-03 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote.
Robert Schwartz, Faculty Economic Welfare Committee member, presented three motions related to PEBB. The first two motions are endorsed by both the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the FEW&RC; the third motion is endorsed by the FEW&RC, but not by the Executive Committee. Schwartz noted that OUS has requested to pull out of PEBB, but will not be allowed to do so since the governor is in opposition; a different administration may allow this to occur in the future.
(1) The OSU Faculty Senate urges OUS to continue exploring the possibility of becoming independent from PEBB in order to obtain the best benefit package for the least cost.
Motion 01-567-04 to approve the first PEBB motion passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
(2) The OSU Faculty Senate urges the OSU administration to continue to seek ways to preserve the incentives created by the cash back options of PEBB insurance plans. Motion 01-567-05.
(3) The Faculty Senate of Oregon State University urges the OSU and OUS administrations to continue the single rate contribution to health care benefits regardless of family status. Motion 01-567-06.
Senator Delson, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, noted that she now contributes toward her health benefits, as do other faculty; cash back is not an option for all. She feels that this is an opportunity to decide what kind of community OSU wants to be in terms of allocating resources; do faculty want to create a more polarized community or take into consideration the needs of others? Schwartz responded that the FEW&RC may not disagree with subsidizing those in need, but going to tiers would create inequities. Senator Landau, Science, felt that was more important to have faculty working than to receive cash back.
Senator Gross, Liberal Arts, questioned the separation of compensation from insurance costs and asked what was meant by preserving the incentives created. Schwartz explained that the $470 allocated for health benefits is part of the overall compensation. The FEW&RC feels that the legislature knows exactly what faculty are getting paid, and benefits are included. There is no way to think about cash back, insurance, etc., as total compensation. President Sayre noted that cash back encourages faculty to seek lower cost plans and to take better care of themselves so they continue to receive the cash back. If the cash back is not an option, all faculty will opt for the more expensive health plans.
Matzke called for the question on the second motion, which was seconded. Motion 01-567-07 to close debate on the second motion passed by voice vote.
Motion 01-567-05 to approve the second PEBB motion passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Matzke didn't see the rationale behind the third motion because the facts are not known.
Robert Michael, FEW&RC member, recommended passage of the third motion to give OSU and OUS time to study the issue. He felt that if PEBB is allowed to force OUS to accept tiers, there will be subsidies.
Senator Oye, Associated, felt it was unwise to vote for or against the motion in the absence of necessary information. He felt it should be tabled since it could have wide-reaching consequences.
Matzke called for the question on the third motion, which was seconded. Motion 01-567-08 to close debate on the second motion passed by voice vote.
Motion 01-567-08 to approve the third PEBB motion failed by hand vote with 31 in favor and 35 opposed.
Sayre felt that there may opportunities in the future to make additional recommendations.
Senator Oriard, Liberal Arts, urged the Executive Committee to carefully convey the debate surrounding the third motion.
Jock Mills, Director of Government Relations, presented a prognosis as the 2001 Legislative Session comes to an end.
It appears that the legislature is in agreement to raise tuition 4% per year with an additional $25 million in tuition revenues going into higher education funding. It also appears that an additional $20 million above what the governor proposed may be going back to general education expenditures for higher education.
The policy option packages are shaping up as follows: Engineering, $20 million; OSU-Cascades Campus, $7.2 million; enrollment growth, $17 million; small school support, $8 million; and statewide public service programs, $7.5 million. Mills noted that legislators want an additional $12.5 million for the statewide program. Republicans are looking at $19.3 million more for targeted programs: $2.8 for Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy; $10 million for research; and $6 million for campus public services. The governor is also looking for an additional $23 million for the resource allocation model.
Mills explained that the following items are still in play - Engineering initiatives; a student proposal to use $9 million in general funds to reduce tuition to 2.5% plus 2.5% per year, which would mean less for educational support - this would be a no win proposal; a proposal to shift $12 million in tuition and fee waivers to the Oregon Student Assistance Commission, which would then go to private institutions; Veterinary Medicine is still vying for $6-8 million; OUS energy costs; PEBB costs; and salary funding.
Other possible funding sources include - $100 million from the tobacco trust fund; federal tax realignment; $20 million in general funds resulting from President Bush's tax cut; and a $40 million ending fund balance.
The bad news regarding lost funding includes: $12.7 million in salary increases from the last legislative session - legislators thinks that faculty are over paid; $5.3 million eliminated from OUS central services; and $5.4 million for inflation.
OSU capital budget priorities (bonding requirements) include: 1) Engineering, $35 million ($20 million already raised); 2) Snell, $5.6 million; and 3) Linus Pauling Institute, $1 million.
Mills felt that OSU is doing well in the legislature compared to other universities in the state, but not in the nation; however, we're not doing well compared to the successes of two years ago. He indicated that no agency, other than K-12, is benefitting from this legislative session.
Senator Landau, Science, questioned the projected total of the current service levels. Mills felt that the co-chairs budget is between $825-835 million, while the governor is budgeting about $813 million.
Mills estimated that the legislative session will conclude around July 4th.
Intellectual Property Policy and Distance Education
President Sayre explained that this agenda item is very complex and interesting, but will not be discussed in June since many members of the committee feel that the report does not support their views. Those dissatisfied with the report have been asked to prepare a document representing their point of view and both reports will be presented in the fall.
Advancement of Teaching Committee
Hans van der Mars, Advancement of Teaching Committee Chair, reported on ongoing efforts aimed at changing the Student Assessment of Teaching instrument. Preliminary information used in preparing the recommendations can be found on the web at: http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/aot.evaldraft.htm. This website is linked to a University of Washington website that offers access to the proposed assessment forms.
van der Mars explained that the Committee was asked last spring to create a diversity question to add to the instrument and Past President Matzke also asked them to explore the possibility of creating a new evaluation instrument. A web survey regarding the usefulness of the current instrument generated lukewarm to poor responses indicating that the current form does not fulfill the need. Faculty have indicated that the questions on the instrument are not terribly useful nor does it give feedback on how to possibly improve teaching.
The goal of the Committee is to make the assessment of teaching instrument more purposeful from the institutional perspective for the purpose of tenure, promotion, and related issues, as well as to help instructors become better at teaching.
Specific objectives of the committee for this year and next include: 1) design or select a new assessment of teaching instrument and make a specific recommendation to the Executive Committee; 2) improve consistency across the campus in regard to how results of assessment of teaching are used; and 3) improve the process by which assessment is administered.
Their review of the process so far has determined that departments are using the formal bubble sheet. van der Mars commended Forestry and the University Honors College for creating additional forms to assist in the assessment process. The current investment to print the bubble sheets is $12,000 per year.
Activities of the Committee have included reviewing assessment instruments from various institutions around the country; discussing their findings with the Dean's Council and President's Cabinet; and meeting with about 16 departments across campus.
The University of Washington was found to have a fairly sophisticated program in place and is quite attractive since it offers several options: 1) 11 different forms for different types of classes for instructors to select from; 2) they are willing to print different forms for other campuses and currently contracts with over 30 institutions; 3) the output from the form can be separated in terms of what information goes to the department for institutional purposes and what is dedicated to professional development; and 4) the instruments have been validated and found to be fairly consistent across the board. UW is currently creating a distance learning assessment instrument as well as developing an instrument that looks at diversity beyond the classroom. van der Mars noted that the Committee could not find any instrument that addresses the question of diversity in regard to classroom assessment.
During meetings across campus, the Committee found several issues to be addressed by both the Committee and OSU administration: 1) is it necessary for every course to be assessed each time it is taught?; 2) the UW form length raised concerns since there are between 25-30 questions compared to OSU's current 12 questions; 3) who has access to the written comments? - currently OUS policy allows only written comments signed by students to be accessed by administrators, but there seems to be discrepancies among departments as to how the information is being used; will the same form be used for all units?; 4) student access to assessment results; and 5) look at options of contracting with UW for the print and scan forms, taking into account the cost analysis and realizing there would be an additional investment. van der Mars spoke with Sabah Randhawa, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, who felt that the initial estimates indicate that the increase would be well worth the effort.
The Committee hopes to make a more formal recommendation during the coming academic year to move to the flexible UW model since it is more effective and viable in dealing with assessment of teaching.
In response to Senator Langford, Liberal Arts, questioning the additional cost, van der Mars indicated the total would be about $46,000 to evaluate every course each quarter.
Computing Resources Committee
Bill Uzgalis, Computing Resources Committee Chair, presented five committee recommendations resulting, in part, from the feeling that administration made the decision to purchase Blackboard without sufficient consultation with the intended users:
1) Recommended development of a university impact plan to determine what purchases are needed and if the proposed purchase will meet specific needs. The Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate endorse the plan and urge central administration and Information Services to develop such a plan. The Committee currently has an outline for a plan and hopes to further develop the plan in the coming year.
2) Urged the Faculty Senate to endorse the work of the Provost's Portal Implementation Committee which is intended to increase faculty participation in the Blackboard implementation.
3) Requested that the Faculty Senate urge Information Services to complete the mandated five-year plan and that the Computing Resources Committee monitor the plan.
4) Requested that their membership be increased by three teaching faculty.
5) Requested that the Faculty Senate establish a Distance and Continuing Education Committee whose charge is to discuss faculty issues related to distance and continuing education. Faculty issues include: the role and number of adjuncts; the way in which classes are integrated into regular faculty workloads; who will decide limits and by whom courses will be taught; faculty intellectual property rights, etc. Uzgalis urged faculty to become involved in these discussions.
President Sayre noted that the recommendations will be discussed by the Executive Committee and action will likely be taken in the fall. Sayre commended the Computing Resources Committee for their efforts on behalf of the faculty.
– Annual Reports – Annual committee/council reports submitted by Faculty Senate chairs are due July 15 to allow committees/councils to fully report their activities through June 30. Annual reports will be published on the Faculty Senate web site at: http://osu.orst.edu/dept/senate/comm.htm
– Vacancies – Please notify the Faculty Senate Office if a sabbatic or leave will prevent you from completing your term as either a Senator or Faculty Senate committee/council member. If you are gone more than one term, exclusive of summer term, a replacement is required. This information will assist the Faculty Senate in identifying a replacement
Provost White's report included the following items:
He expressed appreciation to the faculty for their continuing efforts at the end of the academic year. He encouraged faculty to stop to reflect on the achievements of students and all that faculty do to assist the students in achieving their goals.
College of Science – A plan was recently released to create a better future for the College of Science which includes a combination of restructuring the debt; commendation of what faculty are doing; an investment from the Provost's Office; and an opportunity to create a partnership with individuals outside the University.
– College of Science Dean – A refined list is being developed for campus interviews in June and July; Roy Arnold is chairing the search.
– College of Health and Human Performance and Family and Consumer Science Dean – A refined search list has been developed with interviews probably in June and July; Wayne Kradjan is chairing the search.
– College of Business Dean – There are two candidates on campus the week of June 4; there will likely be an interim dean prior to the hire.
– School of Education – Leadership will be sought this summer with Wayne Haverson staying in place as chair. Kay Schaffer will chair the search committee.
– Graduate School Dean – The position will be advertised in the national press; Thayne Dutson is chairing the search.
– Vice Provost for Research – There will be an interim appointment; the search committee members have been identified; Hal Salwasser is chairing the search.
President Sayre spoke about the budget situation and noted that OSU actually has more money than before when tuition and the Engineering initiative are added in. However, costs have risen approximately $14 million above the allocation. A 2.5% increase in faculty salaries, which equals about $2.5 million, would add to this shortfall. He urged all faculty to think about the self-cannibalization situation to fund faculty salaries. An additional expense is the PEBB issue, which is about $1.8 million. The PEBB cost does not take into account the $4 million loss of cash-back on the OSU campus which equals about a 4% decrease in compensation. He urged faculty to think about these issues and let him or Executive Committee members know their thoughts.
On a brighter note, Sayre noted that, thanks to efforts of the Faculty Economic Welfare & Retirement Committee over the past two years, when faculty were promoted and tenured this year they received a 10% salary increase. Sayre particularly thanked Steve Davis, Faculty Economic Welfare & Retirement Committee Chair, for his leadership in helping to secure faculty salary increases.
Senator Lee, Science, questioned the reality of a financial firewall between the OSU-Cascades Campus and the main campus. Sayre indicated he was dedicated to having the $7.2 million dedicated for the Cascades Campus stay in Bend, except for searches and the cost of evaluating faculty. He noted that the cost of searches for OSU-Cascades Campus should be borne by that campus and felt there should be no other budgetary relationship between the two campuses. He anticipated that Cascades Campus would be self-supporting with RAM and tuition.
Senator Wrolstad, Agricultural Sciences, moved that the Faculty Senate recommend that the Valley Library implement a system requiring individuals checking out materials to indicate whether they either give or withhold permission to disclose their name and a contact to another authorized person who urgently needs to access the resource material. Motion 01-567-09 was seconded.
Heidi Brayman Hackel, Liberal Arts, suggested that the motion be referred to the Library Committee so it can be discussed with Library staff to determine if there are issues that need to be taken into consideration.
Senator Niess, Science, moved that this issue be held over until the next session; motion seconded. Motion 01-567-10 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM.
Faculty Senate Staff