Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Minutes

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President Jeff Hale on June 9, 2005 at 3:02 PM in the LaSells Stewart Center.

Meeting Summary

• Action Items: Consideration of Degree Candidates; Category I Proposals - Creation of the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Sciences and Proposal to Terminate the Plant Physiology Graduate Program at Oregon State University; and Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics membership [Motion 05-605-01 through 05]
  
• Discussion Item: Proposed Consensual Relationships Policy
  
• Special Report: Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
  
• Committee Report: Task Force on Scholarly Communications
  

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 4,281 students who were candidates for 4,416 degrees (this exceeds 2004, so a new record was set) which included: 3,385 Bachelors, 774 Masters, 156 Doctors and 99 Professional degrees. There were 125 students who were candidates for two degrees and 5 students who were candidates for three degrees.

The Class of 2005, OSU's 136th graduating class, had 986 seniors who qualified for Academic Distinction and included 450 'cum laude' (gpa 3.50-3.69), 304 'magna cum laude' (gpa 3.70-3.84), and 232 'summa cum laude' (gpa 3.85 and above).

Motion 05-605-01 to approve the proposed list of degree candidates and honors passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Category I Proposals

Kate Hunter-Zaworski, Curriculum Council Co-chair, presented two Category I Proposals:

• Creation of the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Sciences which proposed to merge Exercise and Sport Science and Nutrition and Food Management. The proposed department would highlight community nutrition. Motion 05-605-02 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
• Proposal to Terminate the Plant Physiology Graduate Program - The program has not been active since 1995. Motion 05-605-03 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
  

Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) Membership

Information regarding the CIOA document was distributed in the May 2005 Faculty Senate agenda and Senators were asked to share the document broadly with constituents. The document attempts to improve relationships between academics and athletics. Motion 05-605-04 to approve OSU Faculty Senate membership in COIA passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

DISCUSSION ITEM

Proposed Consensual Relationships Policy

Angelo Gomez, Affirmative Action Director, presented a Draft Outline of a Proposed Consensual Relationships Policy.   Gomez clarified that it was not an actual policy, rather an outline of policy provisions. He explained that the Chancellor's Office requested all OUS institutions to review their sexual harassment policy, complaint procedures, and consensual relationships policy.

It was determined that the present consensual relationships policy is weak and should be strengthened. The current policy consists of a warning, but does not prohibit any relationship nor require any affirmative action involvement. At a minimum, if there is a situation of a romantic relationship combined with professional responsibilities, there should be disclosure to an immediate supervisor and a requirement that alternative arrangements be made to eliminate conflict and to mitigate potential adverse effects on third parties. Gomez noted that, in his opinion, OSU should consider whether to prohibit the combination of romantic, consensual relationships and professional relationships in particular circumstances.

Proposed definition of a consensual relationship: Two individuals involved by mutual consent in a romantic, physically intimate and/or sexual relationship - this would include partners and spouses. Proposed requirements: if you have a supervisory, decision-making, oversight, evaluative or academic responsibilities for someone with whom you have a consensual relationship, you would need to report to an immediate supervisor. Steps to follow - report the relationship and cooperate with supervisors- efforts to make alternative arrangements, which could include transfer of the employee, transfer of responsibilities for the employee to another individual, or add an additional layer of oversight. Further suggested requirements would include: an individual who is offered a position or responsibilities that would include supervision or evaluation of an employee over whom they are in a consensual relationship would have the same obligations to report the relationship. Possible prohibitions to consider: a faculty member exercising academic responsibility over a student with whom they have a consensual relationship or consensual relationships when effective alternate arrangements realistically can not be made.

As far as guidance and consultation, Gomez felt there were perhaps others, besides his office, that could provide this service. In addition to the previously mentioned steps to follow, Gomez suggested that it be made explicit that the immediate supervisor has the responsibility to take care of the situation and make the requirements known. The supervisor shall treat the situation confidentially and consult with the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and International Programs or the Director of the Office of Human Resources. Gomez also felt it should be made explicit that the Supervisor has a requirement to eliminate conflicts and mitigate, to the extent possible, adverse effects on third parties and how they accomplish that requirement.

Prior to one accepting supervisory or evaluative responsibility over an individual with whom one has a consensual relationship, the same obligations would apply and the hiring supervisor is the one to whom information would be revealed and who would make alternate arrangements and reduce impact on third parties. Disclosure would need to be made prior to accepting the position.

Situations to consider prohibiting:

1. An employee from exercising academic responsibility for a student with whom they are in a consensual relationship.
2. When alternative arrangements can't be made.
3. If all responsibilities of an individual in a consensual relationship can't be moved or transferred, one should not be exercising authority over them in cases of performance evaluations, salary decisions, promotion and tenure decisions or decisions regarding continuation of employment.

The supervisor's responsibilities must be clearly stated when a situation needs to be dealt with - if an individual(s) fails to comply, sanctions could be imposed.

Senator Roberts, Liberal Arts, noted two logical contradictions:

1. If the relationship is consensual, why is it prohibited? Gomez responded that the relationship is not being prohibited, it's combining the professional responsibilities with the consensual relationship.
2. Does the phrase 'academic supervisory capacity' extend to the chair if the chair is not teaching? Gomez responded that the phrase refers to the direct supervisory or evaluative responsibility. He noted there are nuances that are needed to leave room for judgment which is why there is a requirement to seek guidance and consultation to address this type of situation.

Senator Roberts questioned at what point is a relationship a relationship? She gave an example of a situation that gradually eases into an intimate relationship. Gomez responded this is an issue where one must exercise judgment and seek guidance to determine whether or not there is a relationship. Roberts indicated she would include language to include anything that could be understood to be a relationship.

Senator Doescher, Forestry, noted that the values of the immediate supervisor (i.e., religious ideals) may be in conflict with the student and suggested that there be another person the student could turn to if the student may fear retribution from the supervisor. Gomez suggested the individual could report to someone who is in a line of responsibility.

Senator Pence, Engineering, felt the draft was a good first step and noted the need to clearly separate the supervisory role with students, as well as be clear that it applies to both graduate and undergraduate students.

Caldwell for Senator Iltis, Liberal Arts, noted that there is a line between harassment and consensual relationships, but they can be gradually linked and both need to be addressed. It needs to be clearly stated that the supervisor shall immediately contact someone and report the harassment situation.

Senator Ciuffetti, Agricultural Sciences, didn't think that the document should include harassment issues, for which policies are in place, since this is a consensual relationship policy.

Senator Henderson, Liberal Arts, preferred more explicit wording for supervisory relationships and suggested the need to more clearly state what is not allowed in a faculty/student relationship. Gomez felt that the policy would need to be supplemented by a question and answer section.

Beth Reitveld, Student Affairs, noted that a consensual relationship can turn into sexual harassment. She expressed the hope that, when the final policy is written, other relationships can be spelled out, i.e., RA and residents, coaches and athletes, etc., since they also represent supervisory situations.

Senator Henderson, Liberal Arts, questioned whether failure to comply applies to those in the relationship as well as the supervisor; Gomez responded affirmatively.

Next Steps - Gomez envisions a proposal coming back to the Faculty Senate in the fall after having the policy reviewed by a large number of people in the university community, including students and ASOSU. During the final stage, it will go to President Ray and the University Cabinet. Senator Pence suggested that both undergraduate and graduate students be involved on the committee drafting the policy.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

OSU senior IFS Senator Mina Carson reported on the main issues discussed at the June IFS meeting:

1. Ethics Policy - IFS forwarded a proposed OUS Ethics Policy for the Governor's review; he has requested that more work be done on the policy.
2. Vacation Leave Donation - OSU IFS Senators requested that IFS endorse the concept of faculty donating vacation leave to another faculty members' sick leave account when all leave has been exhausted and there is a situation that requires additional sick leave. IFS endorsed having OSU continue work on this issue and investigate the possibility of changing the relevant OAR.
3. Lobbying - Representative Greg Smith suggested that faculty and faculty advocates need to be talking to people who have power in the legislature. IFS is working on a plan to meet with Senators and Representatives who chair committees and have higher education-related duties. IFS will also talk with OSBHE members, the Chancellor and lobbyists.
4. Education Plan - The Governor is interested in a pre K-20 education plan. He asked IFS to be involved in the joint board meetings planning processes.

Task Force on Scholarly Communication

Pat Wheeler, task force chair, thanked the members for their hard work on the during the past year and on the final report.  The charge to the group was to:

1. Determine current practices that impede an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication;
2. Determine actions that OSU faculty members can take to contribute to an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication;
3. Determine a few of these actions that are likely to have the greatest positive impact towards creation of an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication; and
4. Propose a framework for communicating these findings to the OSU faculty.

Recommendations that faculty members can take to contribute to an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication include:

1. Urge faculty with decision-making authority for professional societies to maintain control of journal pricing and access policies for those journals.
2. Faculty as authors should choose the outlet for their publication with an awareness of fair pricing and open access.
3. Faculty as participants in the peer review system should support non-profit society publications and open access publications and should refuse to review for high priced commercial journals. (The cost of commercial journals tends to be two to five times higher than society journals.)

Wheeler provided the definition of open access - The narrow definition is when the author pays all costs for publication. The current price range is $2,500 per article. The broader definition, which was used by the task force, is affordable pricing and broad distribution for both print and electronic distribution of journals. Important that the price of the journals reflect the cost of production and be distributed in a reasonable way among libraries, society members and page charges. She noted that they are not urging everyone to move to an author pays model, but they are urging that some pressure be put on all journals, whether commercial or professional society, to maintain reasonable pricing so that journal articles are available to institutions and faculty members.

The task force is proposing a framework for communicating these findings to OSU faculty; their suggestions follow:

1. Continue the task force work with a rotating membership.
2. Educate faculty members regarding the Libraries cost of journals and accessibility within their fields. This is proposed to be accomplished through a unit by unit approach.
3. Education of OSU faculty serving as editors through an annual scholarly communication meeting. There are about 15 OSU editors-in-chief of journals and they felt it was important for them to have a network to communicate about problems and share ideas on how to help control pricing and access to sponsoring journals.
4. Publish articles in OSU THIS WEEK on the cost of journals, open access issues, creation of an OSU institutional repository for articles published by OSU faculty, and impact factors.
5. Organize an OSU Forum on publication practices in the next year.
6. Faculty Senate passage of the following resolution on Open Access.

Resolution proposed by the Scholarly Communications Task Force

To promote the sustained availability of scholarly publications through broad distribution and affordable access to print and electronic versions of scholarly publications, the Faculty Senate's Scholarly Communications Task Force urges the Faculty Senate to endorse the following resolution:

Whereas, OSU is a significant research institution with a compelling reason for broadly communicating its scholarship; and

Whereas, The OSU Faculty Senate is empowered by University statutes to work for the advancement of academic freedom... [and to] initiate and review policies that govern the University's relations with outside agencies associated with research, instruction, and related purposes; and

Whereas, The principle of open access to scholarly research is increasingly being adopted and pursued by universities and in the scholarly community at large; and

Whereas, Technological, legal and economic barriers continue to be erected to obstruct or to limit open access; and

Whereas, The availability of scholarly publications ought to reflect the conditions of cooperative endeavor and common resources under which scholarly work is produced; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate supports the principle of open access to scholarly research;

• That the Senate urges the University to advance new models for scholarly publishing and electronic dissemination of scholarly works that will promote open access, helping to reshape the marketplace in which scholarly ideas circulate, in a way that is consistent with standards of peer review and scholarly excellence;
• That the Senate urges the University to monitor and resist efforts to impose digital rights management regimes and technologies that obstruct or limit open access, except as necessary to secure rights of privacy; and
• That the Senate urges the scholars of Oregon State University to play a part in these open-access and affordable-access endeavors in their various capacities as authors, readers, editors, referees, and members of scientific boards and learned associations, (a) by encouraging and collaborating with publishers' efforts to advance open access, (b) by retaining intellectual property rights in their own work where this will help it become more widely available, and (c) by remaining alert to efforts by publishers to impose barriers on access to the fruits of scholarly research.

Motion seconded to approve the resolution.

Senator Pence questioned whether they have thought of funding issues. When it comes to funding, faculty are asked about their publication record and where the faculty member is publishing. When one is competing for funding against faculty who are publishing in international journals, and OSU faculty are being encouraged to publish in an obscure journal, the quality of work will be questioned if this is not a national movement.

Wheeler is not recommending publishing in obscure journals, but to look into the journals that are available taking into account the cost, impact factors and to make a wise decision. If there are equally ranked journals that are commercial publishing vs. scholarly societies, the difference in price ratio is about one to five. She recognized that faculty in some fields don't have much of a choice in where they publish. The task force is urging that faculty become aware of journal differences in their field including cost and access through electronic availability.

Senator Mallory-Smith, Agricultural Sciences, noted that NIH has come out in support of open access; however, after review, her society has come out against open access due to associated costs. Wheeler responded that open access, as referred to in the resolution, is one model - she means open and affordable access. Wheeler explained there are two types of open access: 1) author pays $2,500 per article; and 2) articles are free after a 6-12 month period.

Senator Barker, Liberal Arts, didn't feel the resolution was a commandment, rather she felt this was an important symbolic statement against corporate takeover of academic production. She felt this was a suggestion about a trend in the privatization of academic publications.

Senator Oriard, Liberal Arts, questioned whether there were certain fields where this is a problem. Wheeler responded that some of the sciences are a huge problem, as well as COAS.

Senator Ho, Science, doesn't see an issue of educating faculty in terms of cost to the library. The rest are suggestions and not a requirement.

Motion 05-605-05 to approve passed by voice vote with one dissenting vote. President hale noted that the task force will continue during the next year and thanked the members for their work.

DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST




Provost Randhawa's report contained the following:

Budget - The higher education budget will be discussed by the House and Senate next week; the Capital Construction budget will be discussed the following week. OSU administrators are currently working on the 2005-06 budget and he hopes to have a better idea after next week. A compromise solution for the $34 million proposed tuition freeze is to have about 2.5% per year for tuition increases and buy out the remainder of the tuition increase, put some money into the Oregon Opportunity Grant, and put about $30 million in enrollment growth.

There are a number of projects being worked on over the summer and Provost Randhawa hopes to report on them in the fall.

1. Rebasing budgets for campus - The Provost has committed to President Ray that, by December, a conversation will occur and a decision will be made regarding rebasing budgets for the next fiscal year.
2. Transparency of budgets at the college level - The University Budget Committee created a template for use at the college level that will eventually be on the web.
3. Tuition and fees transparency - Hopes to have transparency on the web for students and parents regarding tuition and fees and what one could expect to pay.
4. Tenure relinquishment - Randhawa provided the following background: It has been an institutional practice for quite some time; although discretionary, it has been used fairly broadly at OSU but certainly not consistently. A faculty member could relinquish tenure and receive a 6% salary adjustment for up to three years, and be eligible for a 1039-hour appointment, if needed by the unit. The program was suspended last year due to the political climate. At the time of suspension there were six faculty who had submitted requests for tenure relinquishments that have not yet been honored. The Provost's question to Senators was, "Does the program make sense for OSU at this time?" The program has been used as a planning tool for units and individuals for many years, and it has increased the retirement benefits formula for number of years in service times a percentage of the last three years salary. The program has not been used much in the last 4-5 years due to PERS calculations; however, given limited resources, the amount going toward tenure relinquishment could be used toward salary increases. At one time this program was c osting OSU $250-300,000 per year. Provost Randhawa has discussed this issue with the Provost's Council and Faculty Senate Executive Committee. He noted the need to weigh the pros and cons and come to a decision that makes the best sense for OSU at this time.

Senator Coblentz, Agricultural Sciences, felt this was a perceptual problem and struck him as odd that the University doesn't want to give faculty a 6% salary increase. He feels it would be disingenuous to discontinue the program.

Senator Bowman, Health and Human Sciences, felt it was unfair to disallow those who have already submitted their tenure relinquishment requests.

Provost Randhawa requested that Senators mail their thoughts to him regarding tenure relinquishment.

DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT




President Hale’s report contained the following:

• Cascades Campus - He met with faculty in Bend who expressed concerns about improving communication, salaries, student credit hours, Faculty Senate representation, and new program opportunities. Hale made a commitment that the Faculty Senate President will visit Bend once per quarter and that the Cascades Campus CEO will be asked to address the Faculty Senate yearly.
  
• Committee Volunteer Opportunities - Hale noted that, of the 3,191 OSU faculty, 213 volunteered for university or Faculty Senate committees; the break-down was: 9 Faculty Research Assistants, 13 Instructor/Lecturer; 28 Assistant Professors; 43 Associate Professors; 23 Professors; 3 emeritus faculty; and 94 were Professional Faculty. Additional demographic information will be shared when available. Hale listed the available Faculty Senate committee vacancies and asked faculty to contact the Faculty Senate Office if interested.



NEW BUSINESS




There was no new business.

Roll Call

Members Present:
Agricultural Sciences: Anderson, Coblentz, Edge, Engel, Herring, Huddleston, Mallory-Smith, Meink, A. Bakalinski for Penner, Savage, Selker, and Thompson.
Associated Faculty: Barr, Beach, Corbett, T. Preddy for Dorbolo, Eklund, Elmshaeuser, Gillies, Hughes, Miles, Ratchford, Rosenberg, Ross, Sheffold, Templeton, Yahnke.
Business: Coakley, LeMay, Wong, Wu, Yang.
Education: Pehrsson and White.
Engineering: Bose, Hunter-Zaworski, Levien, McVicker, J. Hall for Mosley, Pence.
Extension: None present.
Forestry:  Admiral, Clauson, Doescher, Erickson, Puettman, C. Patterson for Reuter, Tynon.
Health & Human Sciences: Asbell, Bowman, Cluskey, Grobe, Harter, Ho, Widrick, Wilcox.
Liberal Arts: Anderson, Barker, Brayman Hackel, Carson, Ede, J. Maul for Folts, Henderson, G. Caldwell for Iltis, Lunch, Oriard, Roberts.
Library: B. Parks for McMillen.
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Benoit-Bird, Prahl, Wheatcroft.
Pharmacy: Muhmad.
ROTC: Klink.
Science: Giebultowicz, Ho, Lee, Mason, Matzke, McCune, A. Wolf for McLeod, Smythe.
Student Affairs: C. Muria for Bentley-Townlin, Empey, Hoogesteger, Schwab, Tsuneyoshi, Winter.
Veterinary Medicine: Bird.

Members Absent:
Agricultural Sciences: Bolte, Brewer, Cassidy, A. Duncan, Fanno, Gregory, Jepson, Weber.
Associated Faculty: Arthenayake, Christie, Dempsey, Landis, Perrone, Rosenberg.
Business: None absent.
Education: None absent.
Engineering: Lee, Lundy, Quinn, Sillars.
Extension: Bondi, Butler, Carr, Filley, Hathaway.
Forestry: None absent..
Health & Human Sciences: None absent.
Liberal Arts: Farber, Gross, Kingston, Krause, Melton, Shaw.
Library: None absent.
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Duncan, Levine, Torres.
Pharmacy: Ishmael.
ROTC: None absent.
Science: Barofsky, Brown, Evans, Horne, Jansen, Jones, Kimerling, Parks, Remcho, Ruben, Spatafora, Taylor.
Student Affairs: Etherton.
Veterinary Medicine: Jennings.

Guests Present:
B. Avery, B. Balz, M. Boock, J. Davis, M. Ingram, D. Lochran, M. McCambridge, B .Rietveld, R. Sanderson, G. Shellhammer, P. Wheeler.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-officios and Staff Present::
J. Hale, Senate President; Bill Boggess, President-Elect; S. Coakley , Immediate Past Senate President; Parliamentarian; Ex-officios: R. Iltis for G. Beachley, S. Randhawa, and J. Trujillo; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM.

Respectfully submitted:
Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Staff