The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President Bill Boggess on February 9, 2006 at 3:01 PM in the LaSells Stewart Center.
Category I Proposals
Mary Cluskey, Curriculum Council co-chair, presented the following proposals which can be found online at http://oregonstate.edu/ap/curriculum/cat1sweb/index.htm. Cluskey explained that: the Curriculum Council has approved all of the proposals; at the request of the Executive Committee, some of the proposals have associated minors that are included for approval, but may not appear on the agenda; name changes would be in effect spring term; and current students have the option of choosing the current or new name.
Category I Proposals
Cluskey explained that the rationale is that that name better reflects the mission and focus of the degree, that including the word 'Forestry' is restrictive due to their broader focus, and that the majority of graduates function in some level of management. Motion 06-610-01 to approve the proposal was moved, seconded and passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes and no discussion.
Cluskey noted that the minor was not included on the agenda. The rationale is that the name better reflects the current and planned foci in the department and is a more suitable department name. She noted that the department name was previously changed in 1999 to correspond to a B.S. degree name, but the degree is no longer offered in this department.
In response to Senator Coblentz, Agricultural Sciences, felt that a name was being reinvented and he questioned if another name change could be expected in a few years, President Boggess noted that the previous name change was tied to an undergraduate major, which still exists, that was shifted to the College of Engineering. The name change is consistent with the department creating a new undergraduate major, and will reduce the confusion of having a major and department with the same name but not associated.
Wayne Huber, Engineering, felt that they are not reinventing themselves, but the name change better reflects what they are doing and will attract more students.
Senator Spitz, Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, questioned the budget figures. John Bolte, Bioengineering department head, responded that the budget numbers represented a ballpark guess and included incidentals for which they don't know the exact cost, such as stationery and website costs.
Motion 06-610-02 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Cluskey explained that the current name is not a good reflection of the scope of the program or the graduate's professional opportunities and the name change would put this certificate in better alignment with the MPH and PhD in Public Health. Motion 06-610-03 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes or discussion.
Cluskey explained that this proposal has the same rationale as the proposal immediately preceding. She noted the proposal had been amended to include a minor that was not on the agenda. Motion 06-610-04 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes or discussion.
Cluskey noted the proposal had been amended to include a minor that was not on the agenda. She explained that the name change reflects evolution since it previously focused on school health and educational methods while 'Health Promotion' indicates an emphasis on community health and the social and behavioral strategies relevant to promoting health and preventing premature death and disease. Motion 06-610-05 to approve the proposal passed by voice vote with no discussion or dissenting votes.
OSU Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct
Larry Curtis presented for discussion the OSU Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct; formal review and adoption will take place at a future meeting. Curtis reported that the committee, commissioned by the Research Office, began meeting in January 2005 and consisted of Leslie Burns, Larry Curtis, Caroline Kerl, Peggy Lowry, and Mike Quinn. The existing document on scientific misconduct was used as a starting point for the revised document. Curtis encouraged faculty to email concerns related to the document to him for review by the committee.
The rationale for a scientific misconduct procedures document is that federal granting agencies require it and new agency guidance made the existing procedures outdated. The committee tried to draft the OSU guidelines in a generic way to meet moderately variable requirements for various agencies. The timeline is about 240 days from the time the allegation is made to sanctions being imposed.
Curtis explained the current definition of research misconduct - fabrication of data (making up results), falsification of data (manipulating results), or plagiarism (appropriation of another's work). He noted that disputes over authorship do not usually fit these categories and are handled via different procedures. Federal agencies are concerned with the data and not with authorship.
Senator Friedman, Health and Human Sciences, questioned whether there is protection for the individual making the allegation. Curtis responded there is protection and confidentiality for both the individual placing the allegation and the accused to the extent possible. Curtis did not feel there was a possibility of reprisal and noted there is no requirement to report the complainant's name.
Wayne Huber, Engineering, referred to mention of a Collaborative Research Projects Policy attached document regarding authorship disputes. Curtis responded that it will be a separate document, but XXXXXXX it is not yet ready for review and noted that the guidelines include agreements before collaboration begins. He felt that this issue will be taken up with another group.
Senator Jovanovich, Engineering, suggested that a panel of peers be made more prominent in the document. Curtis explained that the committee agreed that if the complaint goes from the inquiry phase to the convening committee, there will be a panel of faculty convened to review the allegations. The document will be reviewed to determine if this step is not clear and corrections will be made, if necessary.
Senator Jovanovich, Engineering, suggested that a panel of peers be made more prominent in the document. Curtis explained that the committee agreed that if the complaint goes from the inquiry phase to the convening committee, there will be a panel of faculty convened to review the allegations. The document will be reviewed to determine if this step is not clear and corrections will be made, if necessary.
Senator Flahive, Science, questioned confidentiality for the complainant. Curtis corrected himself and stated that the complainant will not need to know.
Facilities Services Customer Services Survey Overview
Stella Coakley (2004 Faculty Senate President) presented an overview of the Facilities Services Customer Services Survey conducted by the Faculty Senate Office in summer 2005. Vincent Martorello (Interim Director of Facilities Services; Associate Director, University Planning; and Transit & Parking Services Manager) presented a summary of the follow-up that has occurred and that is planned for in the immediate future. Results of the 12-question survey can be found at http://oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/ agen/2006/fssurvey.pdf. There were 321 individuals who responded to the Survey which was made available on the web from July-August, 2005.
Coakley shared the following:
Martorello viewed the survey as a good thing and was pleased with the feedback. Get list from VM
They now have the basis of the groups of categories.
An employee survey will be distributed soon.
Looking at staffing - completing a needs assessment to identify where they are lacking in skills and staffing.
All information will be reviewed and assessed and will formulate a business plan to better address - Martorello is willing to return to the Senate and review results.
Now are reviewing the custodial contarct and letting at better ways to... For complete restructuring for projects internally actively realigning to campus as a customer service unit.
Recognizes there is a big task ahead.
Martorello offered to come back at any time and provide transparency of what Facilities Services is doing as an organization.
An individual addressed the issue of Cordley Hall losing power again. Martorello stated that Facilities Services shares the same type of frustration and noted that the current power grid needs a lot of work. System failures occur off-campus which affects buildings on campus. They are currently working with Risk Management who is engaging with PP&L. Options are currently being reviewed regarding upgrading of facilities. To be free of outages would require a$2-3 million investment. Faculty should contact Martorello or Bill Morris regarding amount of losses.
Senator Spatafora, Science??, stated that power outages are hampering high end computing and science needed today. He questioned who will be paying for students tuition, stipends, benefits and loss of wages because students cannot graduate due to lost experiments resulting from the power outages. OSU needs to provide infrastructure or risk losing millions of dollars in funding.
Senator Dreher, Agricultural Sciences, recognized this issue needs tireless attention, but felt that it would be helpful if Facilities Services would take ownership. Martorello responded how are we effectively managing projects and do not have enough staffing, when emergencies occur a project ?? has to be pulled. Try to provide a reasonable amount of time, but are reevaluating resources. Dreher suggested revisiting outsourcing with the preference of using Facilities Services.
Senator Frietag, Forestry, addressed the lack of staffing by noting that the UW has 19 staff in Environmental Health and Safety vs. 7 at OSU.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate
Larry Curtis, IFS Senator, provided a brief recap of the December and February Interinstitutional Faculty Senate meetings.
Provost Randhawa's report included the following:
The report can be found at oregonstate.edu/leadership/provost/office/initiatives.html; Randhawa welcomes input.
Key recommendations included:
President Bill Boggess outlined positions the Faculty Senate has taken related to the Forestry issue:
Coblentz, Agricultural Sciences, stated that faculty rights were addressed in the joint statement, but there was no mention of student rights and it was a student who has attacked. Boggess indicated the point was well taken. Randhawa noted he has been working with Dean Francis related to the perception of how other students are handled and he has been working with the involved student.
Senator Doescher, Forestry, thanked Boggess and Randhawa for releasing the joint statement. He felt it was important for the Faculty Senate to know that the vast majority in the College of Forestry support the principles in the statement. A lot of debate about how the
Senator Gregory, Agricultural Sciences, suggested the possible need to have a discussion with those who work with the University (i.e., federal agencies) to reinforce to them that attempts to coerce or intimidate will not be tolerated.
Boggess noted that being relevant often means there is potential for controversy. His observation is that when science and policy become too intertwined... Science operates on a different time frame than policy.
Senator Gregory felt it was important to distinguish science from setting policy - will be closely associated.
Senator Iltis, Liberal Arts, noted that the Faculty Handbook states very clearly... He believes it is necessary for the Faculty Senate as a whole...
Senator Wilcox, Health and Human Sciences, felt that the letter from Dean Salwasser was well considered. At the end it... to reasserting core values. This is something that we could control. Not hearing if there was a proper analysis of what occurred. Was it properly dealt with- is appropriate to focus on academic freedom, but may not fully appreciate the dynamics. He questioned why the dean wrote a critique on the paper and asked if it would be appropriate to have the two sides presented. Randhawa responded that he has had conversations with Salwasser in terms of his handling of the situation and the motives of those who write the letter. Requires work in the college. Invite Salwasswer to talk about what was learned and how to deal with it. Might be worth considering. Having a forum to determine the learning and long-term impact on the college.
Senator Iltis moved the following resolution, which was seconded:
Whereas the Oregon State University Faculty Handbook "Statement of Faculty Responsibilities" expresses that members of the university community:
"Respect and defend the right of free inquiry of fellow faculty members,"
"Encourage free pursuit of learning and free inquiry in students,"
"Seek and state the truth as he or she sees it,"
"Exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge to diverse audiences on and off campus,"
"Exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge to diverse audiences on and off campus,"
"Show due respect for the rights of others to hold and express their opinions,"
The Faculty Senate of Oregon State University stands resolved that the actions taken by faculty members of this university that attempted to interfere with the publication of Mr. Dan Donato's research in Science violated both the spirit and the letter of the "Statement of Faculty Responsibilities."
There was a friendly amendment to the resolution to add (et al.) following 'Dan Donato's' to indicate there were other authors; amendment accepted. Motion 06-610-06 to approve the above resolution, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
Roll Call
Members Present:
Agricultural Sciences: Anderson, Bolte, Brewer, Coblentz, Curtis, Dreher, Engel, Gregory, Huddleston,
Mallory-Smith, Meink, Penner, Sorte, Thompson
Associated Faculty: Arthenayake, Dempsey, Elmshaeuser, Fernandez, Greydanus, Hughes, Larkin, Miles,
Minear, Oldfield, Ross
Business: Banyi, LeMay, Raja, Wu, Yang
Education: Ward, White
Engineering: Bose, Huber, Hunter-Zaworski, Jovanovic, Lundy, Momsen, Sillars
Extension: Carr, Galloway, Godwin
Forestry: Brunner, Clauson, Doescher, Freitag, Puettman, Reuter, Sexton
Health & Human Sciences: Acock, Asbell, Bowman, Braverman, Friedman, Grobe, Ho, Wilcox
Liberal Arts: Brayman Hackel, Carson, Edwards, Folts, Helle, Iltis, Kingston, Lunch, Melton,
Roberts, Shaw
Library: McMillen
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Skyllingstad, Spitz, Wheatcroft
Pharmacy: Muhmad, Stevens
ROTC: Klink
Science: Flahive, Giebultowicz, Gitelman, Ho, Mason, Matzke, McCune, McLeod, Parks, Rajagopal, Spatafora
Student Affairs: Etherton, Hoogesteger, Langford, Larson, Tsuneyoshi, Winter
Veterinary Medicine: Estill, Jennings, Mosley
Members Absent:
Agricultural Sciences: Cassidy, A. Duncan, Edge, Jepson, Savage,
Weber
Associated Faculty: Barr, Beach, Dorbolo, Eklund, Gillies, Gomez,
Rosenberg, Ross
Business: None
Education: None
Engineering: Lee, Levien, Pence
Extension: Butler, Hathaway
Forestry: None
Health & Human Sciences:
Liberal Arts: Anderson, Barker, Farber, Henderson, Oriard, Valls
Library: None
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Benoit-Bird, Duncan, Torres
Pharmacy: Nauman
ROTC: None
Science: Barofsky, Brown, Grunder, Jansen, Jones, Kimerling, Lajtha,
Smythe, Taylor
Student Affairs: Schwab
Veterinary Medicine: None
Guests Present:
Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-officios and Staff Present::
Tracy Bentley-Townlin, Bill Boggess, Jeff Hale, Mike Quinn
The meeting was adjourned at 4:56 PM.
Respectfully submitted:
Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Staff
