The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President Paul Doescher on April 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM in the LaSells Stewart Center.
Women’s Advancement and Gender Equity (WAGE)
Donna Champeau, WAGE Director, explained the role and activities of the WAGE office. She noted that a challenge of the office is to collaborate well with other units, including Community and Diversity, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, Women’s Center, international community, and Athletics. The PowerPoint used by Champeau outlines her presentation..
Below are some of the points made during the presentation:
Future directions for the office include:
Integrated Marketing Communications
Luanne Lawrence, University Advancement (UA), presented the Powered by Orange marketing campaign created by Lipman Hearne. Lawrence referred to the following websites during her presentation: Integrated Marketing Communications and the Powered by Orange. Lawrence’s report included the following information:
Ray Brooke, Business, questioned how the campaign connects with Athletics. Lawrence responded that Athletics has a seamless marketing attachment to the academic side; their campaign is ‘I Am Orange.’
Leslie Burns, Faculty Senate President-Elect, questioned how the words relate to Powered by Orange. Lawrence responded that Powered by Orange is a personal branding campaign, for example, “I am Powered by Orange” translates to “I am mindful” or “I am authentic.”
Joanne Sorte, OSU Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Senior Senator, presented a recap of the April IFS meeting that included the following:
Proposed Revisions to the Promotion and Tenure College Review and Recommendation
Jim Liburdy, Promotion and Tenure Committee Chair, presented for discussion revisions to the College Review and Recommendation section of the Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. The purpose of the presentation was to gather additional feedback for consideration by the Committee. It is anticipated that the proposal will be voted on in May.
Liburdy noted the current three levels of review include unit, college and university with each level providing information to the next level. The Committee looked at the process, including uniformity, availability of diverse information, and the balance of information (whether coming from faculty or administration), and is proposing revisions necessary to achieve the desired balance. The goal is to provide the Provost a balanced and diverse level and breadth of information to be used for an adequate assessment of P&T as well as providing flexibility within individual units.
Because college level committees vary from college to college, the Committee is proposing a unit level committee elected by faculty; a unit supervisor provides their recommendation to the college after reviewing materials from the unit level committee; and, not covered in the proposal, is the dean level review, which typically involves a committee. The P&T Committee feels that this process would provide a balanced set of opinions that would be forwarded to the University Promotion and Tenure Committee for consideration and a final recommendation. A restriction proposed by the Committee is that the faculty committee would be elected by faculty within individual units which changes the guidelines to be more specific about the way in which the committee is determined.
Senator Jansen, Science, felt that a unit level committee was unnecessary. Liburdy responded the proposal would determine how the review process goes forward and how the evaluators are selected.
Senator Bailey, Forestry, questioned whether there was any consideration of eliminating the college level review. Liburdy responded that the college level review is still there, but the proposal is designed to add diversity and balance of input to assist the Provost in determining whether issues are viewed differently by faculty and administrators.
Senator Magana, Engineering, felt that due to a lack of uniformity, some colleges have a track record of appointing committees that result in abuse; he felt the proposal would provide an element of justice and fairness and will minimize abuse.
Senator Gable, Science, expressed serious concerns and felt this was another way of diluting the impact of the departmental recommendation.
Senator Leavengood, Forestry, felt that the wording in the second sentence of the second paragraph should be clarified; he felt it wasn’t clear whether it’s a review of faculty member’s performance or if the committee is voting on a P&T decision. Liburdy responded that these levels provide recommendations not decisions. Leavengood felt that the word ‘accurately’ in the second sentence of the third paragraph raised concerns and questioned whether it implies correctly assessing performance. He suggested alternate wording, such as ‘fairly,’ ‘effectively,’ ‘reasonably,’ or ‘fully.’
Senator Trujillo, Liberal Arts, reminded Senators that a collaborative group was established several years ago that made specific recommendations regarding consistency of the process. He urged the Committee to contact Anne Gillies for a copy of the report.
Senator Wilcox, Health and Human Sciences, supported the principle of faculty elected at the college level, but hasn’t seen recommendations for the department level. He didn’t feel it was feasible to expect that tenure level faculty can be elected from every unit. Liburdy responded that the department level is being addressed and a draft is being created. The Committee is first gathering feedback regarding the college level, then will move forward with department level recommendations.
Senator Dreher, Science, felt that most faculty need several years experience to contribute and adequately review dossiers. The committee composition in the College of Science is typically chairs with a few faculty; he felt that chairs have the experience to adequately review dossiers. Liburdy responded that chairs and heads have an opportunity for input at several levels. As far as being knowledgeable, the committee would be elected and one criteria for effectiveness is addressed in the 2nd paragraph where it states that “The size of the committee shall be decided within the college to provide fair and equitable faculty representation based on the diversity within the college.” Liburdy felt that the recommendation is written to allow college variations while also allowing diversity.
Immediate Past President Ciuffetti noted that the report to which Trujillo referred has been revised during the past year, and will be presented to the EC for discussion when finalized. Trujillo felt that some of the recommendations would be pertinent to the P&T Committee.
Senators were encouraged to contact Liburdy with additional comments.
Budget and Tuition Update Based on Legislative Actions
Jock Mills, Government Relations Director, and Mark McCambridge, Vice President for Finance and Administration, discussed budget issues and the current direction of the legislature.
Mills noted that Oregon voters have provided legislators very little flexibility due to mandated spending. He explained that a projected 30% cut would result in an OUS budget of $674 million which is equivalent to 1999 levels (not adjusted for inflation). Additional resources available to legislators are $700 million in the Education Stability Fund that could be applied to K-20 and community colleges and included in that amount is a Rainy Day Fund. Using these funds requires approval by two-thirds of the legislature action; legislators are leery about spending these funds because it is one-time money. There is also about $900 million in federal stimulus funds, some of which may be directed to higher education.
Mills explained that legislative budget hearings will occur April 16-28 and the role of faculty can be helpful, but legislators interpret faculty as not doing their job if they are in Salem. Mills suggested that faculty communicate with legislators on behalf of students so it doesn’t appear to be self-serving. Because students are encouraged to participate in public hearings, faculty were encouraged to allow students to participate. There is an effort to secure funds at sustainable levels. There will be a forecast in late April following the hearings, and legislators will try to make decisions. There is a lot of anger and angst in Salem.
Mark McCambridge reported that the Provost has initiated a group to advise him on parameters with which cuts will be dealt. There is a clause allowing the governor of any state to waive cuts below 20%. An anticipated 30% OSU cut for the biennium is about $75 million, which would include a proposed tuition increase (9.6% increase for in-state students and 4% for all other students) and applying half of the student credit hours for each credit hour presently in the plateau, resulting in an approximately 25% tuition increase for 15 credit hours. Additionally, to make up the remaining $75 million, $25 million would result in a 4.6% salary reduction. The remaining $20 million in recurring costs will need to come out of existing budgets - $8 million for first year and $12 million in cuts in the second year of the biennium. The group, whose membership consists of Leslie Burns, Paul Doescher, Nancy Heiligman, Ryan Mann, Larry Roper, and Becky Warner, hopes to have recommendations to Provost Randhawa by late April.
There has been much discussion about whether the anticipated cuts will be reduced later in the year. McCambridge and Randhawa are concerned that some decisions may need to be made during the summer, but attempts will be made to have as many decisions as possible determined by the end of the term.
Senator Jansen, Science, expressed concerned about the 2011-2013 biennium and questioned whether OSU is planning for it? McCambridge also expressed concern, but noted there are many unknowns such as PERS, PEBB, etc. He believes that this is a four-year problem.
Senator Alexis, Science, questioned whether major restructuring should continue, i.e. Business Centers, given the economic volatility. McCambridge responded that he believes strongly that the Business Centers will result in significant savings and OSU will continue to move forward with them.
Senator Pence, Engineering, referred to INTO and questioned whether there are enough students to assist with the budget situation. McCambridge responded that we are two years away from a real financial impact from INTO. It’s expected that 170 students will be accepted into the pathway this fall. The goal is to complete he dorm for INTO students in 2011. He also noted there is help in the short term because international applications are up by 100.
Senator Bose, Engineering, questioned how much money will be saved from the Business Centers. McCambridge responded that it was too early to determine the savings; the estimation is that 40 FTE will be redirected to other activities. He believes that savings will be realized two years from now.
Jansen noted that the final fall course lists need to be turned in soon and asked what advise administration has; McCambridge’s response was to serve the students.
President Paul Doescher’s report included the following items:
There was no new business
Agricultural Sciences: Anderson, Braunworth, Dreher, Field, Mallory-Smith, Perry, Putnum
Associated Faculty: T. Withrow-Robinson (v. Averill), Barr, Brubaker-Cole, Bruce, Dorbolo, S. Grey (v. Hemmer), Hoff, Leslie, Nishihara, Perrone, Pierson-Charlton, Pribyl, Rogers, Ross
Business: J. Moore (v. Caplan), Lykins, C. Kolstad (v. Marshall), Neubam, M. LeMay (v. Simpson)
Education: Frost, O’Malley
Engineering: Bay, Bell, Bose, Hunter-Zaworski, Magana, Pence, Plant, Porter, Semprini
Forestry: Bailey, Huso, Leavengood, Vandetta, Zahler
Health & Human Sciences: Cardinal, Gunter, Jones, Mahana, McAlexander, Wilcox
Liberal Arts: Cytrynbaum, K. Ahearn (v. Helle) Tilt, Trujillo, B. McGough (v. Warner)
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Davis, Lerczak, Spitz, Ungerer
Pharmacy: Cui, Proteau
ROTC: none present
Science: Alexis, Blair, Flahive, Gable, Haggerty, Hsu, Jansen, Lesser, McIntyre, Parks, Remcho, Thomann, Trempy
Student Affairs: Davis-White Eyes, Stroup, Thomas, J. Gana (v. Vina), Yamamoto
Veterinary Medicine: Bird, Heidel, Valentine
Agricultural Sciences: Arp, Azarenko, Bolte, Cassidy, Curtis, Gamroth, Hartley, Herring, Jepson, Parke, Pereira, Rao, Sears, Selker
Associated Faculty: Dempsey, Eklund, Gaines, Gillies, Halischak, Martorello, Ott
Business: none absent
Education: none absent
Extension: Angima, Bondi, McGrath, Tuck
Health & Human Sciences: Hofer, Hooker, Porter
Liberal Arts: Bernell, Chappell, Chavarria, Clough, Daugherty, Gross, Hale, Henderson, Orosco, Plaza, Steel
Library: none absent
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Allan
Science: Bruslind, Edwards, Faridani, Fowler, Rajagopal, Taylor
Student Affairs: Alexander
Guests Present: R. Brooks, N. Heiligman, M. Kanury, K. Kuo, J. Liburdy, B. Lunch, M. McCambridge K. Peterson, M. Sandlin
Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-officios and Staff:
Officers: L. Burns, President-Elect; L. Ciuffetti, Immediate Past President; P. Doescher, President
Ex-officio Voting Members: S. Gregory, J. Sorte
Ex-officio Non-voting Members: M. Beachley, Parliamentarian
Staff: V. Nunnemaker
The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 PM.Respectfully submitted: