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.
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 ProposalsKate Hunter-Zaworski, Curriculum Council Co-chair, presented two Category I Proposals:
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.
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:
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:
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.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
OSU senior IFS Senator Mina Carson reported on the main issues discussed at the June IFS meeting:
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:
Recommendations that faculty members can take to contribute to an open and sustainable system of scholarly communication include:
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:
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;
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.
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.
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.
President Hale’s report contained the following:
There was no new business.
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.
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.
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.
ROTC: None absent.
Science: Barofsky, Brown, Evans, Horne, Jansen, Jones, Kimerling, Parks, Remcho, Ruben, Spatafora, Taylor.
Student Affairs: Etherton.
Veterinary Medicine: Jennings.
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.
Faculty Senate Staff