The University of Oklahoma
(Norman campus)
Regular session - October 14, 2002 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site:
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The
Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Ed Cline, Chair.
PRESENT: Abraham, Baldwin, Beach, Bozorgi,
Bradford, Brady, Carnevale, Cline, Cuccia, Devenport, Dhall, Frech, Gensler,
Gottesman, Hanson, Hart, Hartel, Havlicek, Huseman, Knapp, London, Madland,
Magid, Maiden, McInerney, Milton, Morrissey, Ransom, Rupp-Serrano, Russell,
Scherman, Striz, Tarhule, Taylor, Thulasiraman, Wheeler, Whitely, Wieder,
Willinger, Wyckoff
ISA representatives: Lauterbach
UOSA representatives: McFayden
ABSENT: Davis, Ferreira, Fincke, Henderson,
Kauffman, Lee, Newman, Pender, Robertson, Rodriguez, Sievers, Vale
__________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Status of issues for 2002-03
Information Technology
newsletter
New senator
Senate Chair's Report:
Faculty wellness center
Social security numbers
Budget
Research compliance policy
Regents policy manual
Election, councils/committees/boards
Research compliance policy
Nepotism policy
Issues
__________________________________________________________________________
The
Senate Journal for the regular session of September 9, 2002 was approved.
The
status of issues
brought to the Faculty Senate for 2002-03 is attached.
Copies
of the fall 2002 Information Technology newsletter were distributed at the
Senate meeting. Additional copies are
available from Michelle Wiginton (325-9246, mwiginton@ou.edu).
Prof.
William Huseman (Modern Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics) was elected to
complete the 2001-04 term of Prof. Linda Zagzebski (Philosophy) on the Faculty
Senate, representing the College of Arts and Sciences.
President
Boren said the football stadium enhancements will include a faculty wellness
center. The center will be modest but
will include shower facilities and equipment.
Several
faculty members have expressed concern about the security of Social Security
numbers on I.D. cards. New I.D. numbers
are in place, and after the new PeopleSoft system goes online, we can start
getting new I.D. cards, probably after the first of next year. Social Security numbers are supposed to be
suppressed from grade sheets as well.
State
revenues for September were down, so the administration is anticipating some
further budget cuts. If the cut is
small enough, the administration will try handle it out of reserves. If it is not, then the first priority will
be to preserve the educational mission of the university.
The
research compliance policy and standards of conduct will be discussed at this
meeting and voted on next month. The
revisions are a collaboration of a task force chaired by Prof. Mike McInerney,
Compliance Director Cori Loomis, and Chief Counsel Joe Harroz. Compliance is important because if we do not
comply with the federal research standards, we will be shut down. Any suggestions about the proposals should
be sent to Professors Cline and McInerney.
It is important to have a policy that adheres to federal regulations but
imposes minimal impediments on people who perform human and/or animal research. One of the worries was that the hotline
would be too unregulated. Efforts have
been made to regulate it, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will get
quarterly reports to make sure things are handled fairly.
The
regents policy manual is being revised.
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will review three sections to see
if the revisions square with the Faculty Handbook. One policy being proposed that is in
conflict with the Faculty Handbook is that renewable term faculty would
have regular faculty status. This issue
will come up for consideration by the Faculty Senate at some point. Currently, the number of renewable term
faculty is capped at 10%.
Many
of the issues raised by faculty (Appendix I) deal with financial matters and
will be difficult to solve in the current climate. The Senate will do what it can.
Administrators and committee chairs will be asked to consider those
concerns.
The
Senate approved the following nominations of the Senate Committee on Committees
to fill vacancies on university and campus councils, committees and boards.
Academic Regulations Committee
To replace Anne Reynolds as of Jan. '03,
2000-03 term: S.
Lakshmivarahan (Computer Science)
Campus Disciplinary Council
To
replace Steve Gensler, 2001-03 term:
Don Bogan (Law)
Information Technology Council
To replace Bob Swisher, 2000-03 term:
Deborah Trytten (Computer Science)
To replace Ken
Fuchs, 2002-05 term: Fran Ayres
(Accounting)
Rita Lottinville Prize for Freshmen Committee
To replace Michael Flanigan, 2001-03 term: Ning Yu
(Modern Lang., Lit. & Ling.)
Shared Leave Committee
To replace Dolores Leffingwell, 2002-05 term:
Jan Caldwell (Zoology/OMNH)
The
documents referred to in the discussion below are at http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/compliance.htm. See also the comments made about research
compliance in the chair's report.
Prof.
Michael McInerney said the task force he chaired reviewed the policy approved
by the regents in January -- http://www.ouhsc.edu/compliance/ (Compliance Program) -- and
the implementation plan. The task force
had eight members, one from the HSC, one from Tulsa, and the rest from the
Norman campus. He said the faculty is
committed to the highest standards of ethics and conduct and will work to be in
compliance with all of the laws and regulations. He distributed a summary of the task force's deliberations. A lot of the concern had to do with training
and assistance. The Compliance Director
assured the group that her office will provide assistance to help faculty get
through the detailed regulations. The
policy and standards of conduct have been reworded. The Compliance Office has held training sessions and has made
some organizational changes.
Individuals have been appointed to provide expertise in animal research
and radiation safety. One big problem
has been that the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human research has been
overwhelmed with proposals. Steve
O’Geary has now been hired as the director of human research protection. Federal regulators recommended additional
IRBs for the Norman campus as well as additional expert personnel. In the interim, faculty will get special
pay, release time, or summer support to compensate for the extra workload. In several months, we should have a
well-staffed human research protection program on the Norman campus, which
should alleviate a lot of the problems people have had. The federal regulators have approved a
tiered review system that will provide for an exempt, expedited, and full board
review. Information about human
research proposals, including forms and sample letters, are explained on the
web site -- http://research.ou.edu/irb/default.asp --
and should expedite research, particularly research that deals with human
information from previous data sources.
The added cost of compliance and training will not come out of
department budgets or practice-related income of faculty physicians; it will be
provided by the university. The Norman
campus will have its own IRB and actually will have several in the future. One of the main concerns was the hotline
reporting. The hotline phone number has
to be in place because of federal mandate.
Anonymous reporting protects people who feel they cannot report
compliance problems through normal channels.
Faculty and staff will be told that complaints should be made through
normal channels where possible. There
was some concern about exit interviews, and those have been deleted. Several controls have been included to
prevent abuse. Legal Counsel, rather
than the Compliance Director, will institute any punitive measures, there will
be some faculty oversight, an advisory committee will review hot line reports,
and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will get a quarterly summary of the
hot line calls. A lot of the issues
deal with medical billing for patient care, which relates to the HSC and
Tulsa.
Ms.
Cori Loomis, Compliance Director, gave a brief background. In June 2000, the Office of Human Research
Protection (OHRP) issued a letter of deficiencies to the university because of
the Tulsa melanoma trial. President
Boren appointed a task force in June 2000 that made several recommendations,
one of which was to develop a fully-supported compliance program with a
compliance director. In January, the
regents adopted a skeleton program, and since then, input on that program has
been solicited from several groups.
This is a living document. As
the laws change and the organization changes, we will review the program. Some of the revisions make it a more
balanced program. Initially, it was
weighted toward health care activities.
The reason there is more guidance on health care is because the
government has issued more guidance in that area. More specificity has been added on human and animal research, and
that section was moved to the beginning of the document. The hotline message was reworded to clarify
that the phone number is only for complaints, concerns, or questions concerning
this program. Ms. Loomis said she did
not encourage the use of it at all because it is difficult to do an
investigation on an anonymous complaint.
The exit interviews were eliminated since they are hard to enforce and
had some of the same concerns as the hotline.
The goals were restated, given that the intention has always been to
provide assistance. The document had
been legally written and not very friendly.
The focus will be on training and education. Ms. Loomis said she appreciated the input of the task force. She pointed out that things that are not
working properly in the next year can be changed.
Prof.
Magid, referring to Prof. McInerney's summary, asked how much the
implementation of the compliance program would cost. Prof. McInerney said he was not sure. Part of the personnel changes will be a matter of changing the
responsibilities of some people, but several new people will be hired. Ms. Loomis said the IRB administrative
function will come under the compliance office umbrella, and the budgets of the
existing radiation and environmental health and safety will move to the compliance
office. The new money added to the
budget for the Norman campus will be about $153,000-$160,000. We will need to hire one or two people for
the IRB and also for environmental and radiation safety. Prof. Magid asked about the source of
funding. General Counsel Joe Harroz
said new dollars would have to be found somewhere. Our research has increased, but our support for research has not. The President and board understand that
individual departments cannot be asked for these dollars. The largest area impacted is billing and
coding at the HSC, and 99% of that is in the College of Medicine, which has
some funding already available. Prof.
McInerney suggested that some of the additional money could come out of
indirect costs from research grants.
Noting
that the policies of the IRB were not included in the program, Prof. Cuccia
asked how concerns with the IRB would be addressed. Mr. Harroz said the biggest problem in the Tulsa situation had to
do with procedures that were not defined by the IRB. The proposed plan indicates that concerns could be handled by the
compliance officer or through the hot line.
Prof. Cuccia said his question was about the interpretation by the IRB
of what is human subject research. In
the College of Business, the faculty does a lot of research with databases and
has been frustrated with how the IRB is interpreting policy. Mr. Harroz said that concern could be
addressed by the compliance officer, legal counsel, president or provost. He said the IRB committees are working night
and day. Prof. McInerney said Steve
O’Geary could also help. Prof. Laurette
Taylor, chair of Norman campus IRB, said no one from Business had talked with
her about this problem. The IRB has
tried to establish some guidelines and works very closely with Prof. Pat
Daugherty, Marketing Director in Business, to respond to any issues. Prof. Cuccia said his point was that we
needed to clarify whether research involving publicly held data involves human
subjects and thus requires IRB approval.
Prof. McInerney explained that the new web site had a lot of
information, such as what needs to be submitted to the IRB and the levels of
review. Prof. Taylor added that
research involving publicly accessible data that does not identify individuals
does not have to go through the IRB.
She recommended that the group of concerned faculty meet with the
IRB. Some problems are easy to resolve
if the IRB is given an opportunity. Ms.
Loomis commented that the IRB had recently undergone some intensive
training. Last month, representative
from the OHRP met with the Norman board to answer questions and confirmed that
the board was interpreting the regulations correctly. Mr. Harroz said there were efforts to streamline the IRB’s review
of applications. Prof. McInerney
encouraged people working with databases to look at the web site because it has
information about the kinds of reviews.
Prof. Cuccia pointed out that exempt does not really mean exempt from
review. Prof. Taylor said the IRB added
some clarifying language in the policies to address some of the issues that had
arisen. For example, when databases are
considered to be public domain, the IRB has no further role. She recommended that the anyone with
concerns or questions should submit a proposal for the IRB to consider. Prof. Cline said it was important to open
the lines of communication.
Chief
Counsel Joe Harroz explained that a couple of audits revealed some problems
with the nepotism policy. One of the
main changes being
proposed is that approval for hires needs to be granted ahead of time
instead of after the fact to make sure there is no preferential treatment. A provision was included so that someone
could be hired in special cases prior to board approval. Other changes were added to accommodate
concerns that have arisen. A lot of the
revisions simply make the language consistent.
Prof.
Taylor asked whether waivers would have to be granted for spouses to be on
Committee A, even when they are excused from all decisions about their
spouses. Mr. Harroz said a waiver was
necessary, but it did not have to go to the board of regents. It could be handled internally. The key is to have a plan in place to make
sure there is no perception of impropriety.
Prof. Cline said it was a simple plan in which a spouse would recuse
himself or herself from discussion of his or her spouse. Prof. Taylor asked whether a waiver had to
be requested each time if a department had a policy in place. Mr. Harroz said the plan was to make it as
convenient as possible and have some boiler plate language that a Committee A
member could sign. The real issue is to
prevent abuses. Having a good plan in
place gives everybody protection.
The
motion to approve the revised policy was approved on a voice vote. Mr. Harroz thanked everyone who had worked
on the nepotism and compliance policies.
He said all of the faculty had been incredibly helpful and he appreciated
their time and effort. Prof. Cline
remarked that the legal office had been very cooperative and respectful of
faculty concerns.
Prof.
Madland said she thought something needed to be done about the housekeeping and
maintenance of existing buildings.
Prof. McInerney noted that a subcommittee dealt with those issues as
they related to research. Prof. Madland
said she was referring to problems like heating and roofing. Prof. Cline said the Campus Planning Council
could address that issue, but it has not been meeting. He offered to meet with Mike Moorman,
Architectural & Engineering Services Director, to discuss some of the
problems.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will
be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, November 11, 2002, in Jacobson Faculty Hall
102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Valerie Watts Secretary