The University of Oklahoma
(Norman campus)
Regular session - January 13, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
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, Davis, Devenport, Ferreira, Fincke,
Frech, Gensler, Gottesman, Hanson, Hart, Hartel, Havlicek, Henderson, Huseman,
Kauffman, Knapp, Lee, London, Magid, Maiden, McInerney, Milton, Newman, Pender,
Ransom, Robertson, Rodriguez, Rupp-Serrano, Russell, Scherman, Sievers, Striz,
Tarhule, Taylor, Vale, Wieder, Willinger, Wyckoff
ISA representatives: Neal, Lauterbach
ABSENT: Dhall, Madland, Morrissey, Thulasiraman,
Watts, Wheeler, Whitely
__________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcement: Spring 2003 schedule of Faculty
Senate meetings
Senate Chair's Report: budget
Computer policies -- Security, Acceptable Use
Faculty Compensation Committee report --
Budget Cuts
__________________________________________________________________________
The
Senate Journal for the regular session of December 9, 2002 was approved.
The
regular meetings of the Faculty Senate for spring 2003 will be held at 3:30
p.m. in Jacobson 102 on the following Mondays:
January 13, February 10, March 10, April 14, and May 5.
Prof.
Cline welcomed the guests who would be commenting on the issues under
discussion at this meeting. He said one
item of business was the financial crisis and the Faculty Compensation
Committee recommendations on what to do in the event of furloughs and other
financial disasters. Relevant to the
recommendations, Prof. Cline asked Provost Mergler before the meeting about the
number of open searches and was told that there were 22 on the Norman campus
and six on the Tulsa campus.
The
proposed computer policies on security and acceptable use were originally
brought to the Senate in November.
Prof. Cline explained that the latest versions of the policies (attached)
had been approved by the Information Technology Council (ITC). He invited Chief Counsel Joe Harroz and ITC
Chair Deborah Trytten to the meeting to make comments. In the Acceptable Use document, reference is
made to a policy on password sharing, but that policy is not included in the
document. Prof. Cline thanked all the
people involved in creating these policies.
Mr.
Harroz noted that the policies were labeled interim for two reasons. The university needed a policy as soon as
possible to protect the computer system and individuals. Also, some areas will need to be looked at
again. The idea is to have the policies
in place for awhile and revise them as needed.
Mr. Harroz said he had discussed these policies with Prof. Trytten as
well as a number of deans. The third
bullet of the Acceptable Use policy references the policy on password sharing,
which has not been developed yet.
Everyone should have a unique password that only that individual can
use. The technology is not there yet to
allow each person to have his own unique password and still share
information. Because a password policy
will require more than a few lines and will change over time, the collective
wisdom was to develop a separate policy on password sharing. One of the goals was that a policy should
not be so lengthy that people will not read it. He mentioned that Prof. Gensler had been very helpful and had
some thoughts to consider in the final policy.
Prof.
Scherman asked about the volume of e-mail coming from Korea. Mr. Harroz said the Information Technology
(IT) people were working on some software that would allow us to cull out a lot
of that. He said Prof. Trytten had
raised the issue of the policy's application to junk mail. Mr. Harroz promised the group that the
application would be reasonable. He
will talk with various groups about specific examples to make sure people are
comfortable with the application of these policies. Prof. Trytten said there also would be another policy coming out
concerning e-mail. If we filter e-mail
too carefully, we may lose some content.
The plan is to give users the control by using rules to filter
messages. Mr. Harroz said he thought it
would be helpful to have a regular review to see if the actual instances are
being handled appropriately.
Prof.
Magid asked whether playing a game on a university computer was an example of
unacceptable use. Mr. Harroz said none
of the policies were aimed at occasional personal use. If someone is using the university system to
build a game and sell it, that is a different story. Prof. Kauffman asked whether Mr. Harroz could point out where
that is specified in the policy, in particular, in the Enforcement section,
which could be interpreted rather broadly.
Mr. Harroz said he was open to any wording changes. In the Enforcement section, individuals have
the opportunity to file a grievance if they believe the application is unfair
or inappropriate.
Prof.
Hanson wanted to know whether the university had taken any position on
encrypting e-mail or data. Prof.
Trytten replied that she did not think it was appropriate in an academic
environment to forbid or require people to encrypt their e-mail, so the policy
is silent on that issue. Mr. Harroz
said he had not been involved in any discussions about encryption. Prof. Tarhule asked whether there was any
policy on using software to erase one's track on the Internet. Prof. Trytten said that was an individual
decision, and she did not think there should be a university policy. Everyone should be aware that erasing
something from a computer is very difficult to do completely.
Prof.
Wieder asked about the circumstances in which the university would open its
system to federal and local agencies; in other words, what claims would have to
be made before Legal Counsel would give a response. Mr. Harroz responded that he would require a subpoena for any
documents. Prof. Wieder commented that
during times of protests, federal agencies have become interested in the
activities of university faculty. Mr.
Harroz said the political atmosphere after 9-11 was not unlike what Prof.
Wieder was describing, and he required a subpoena then. If we changed our approach, which he did not
foresee happening, he would consult with the Faculty Senate.
Prof.
Magid said he thought the server named faculty-staff was not an official
university server and therefore was a system for which the university claimed
no responsibility. Mr. Harroz said the
general disclaimer language was included because of the free speech issue, to
make it clear that a lot of the content on our server is not necessarily the
views of the university. Prof. Taylor
asked whether Prof. Magid's question had to do with whether the policies
applied to the faculty and staff web pages on that server. Prof. Magid said he thought that server had
been set up so that the university was not liable for anything that might be
placed there. Mr. Harroz said he would
ask IT for the answer.
Prof.
Rodriguez asked for more information about monitoring. Mr. Harroz said there was general monitoring
to make sure the system was running and there was access for users. In certain instances, there would be a
specific monitoring and heightened level of approval. The idea is to have a tiered system for approvals. Prof. Trytten said the intention was to have
IT give a summary to the Faculty Senate and the ITC once a year on the
monitoring that is occurring. The kind
of monitoring they want to do, for example, is if a computer suddenly takes up
70 percent of the bandwidth of the university, which could be an indication of
a virus and could choke the system. Mr.
Harroz said the key element was that individuals have the right to appeal. There will be communication with the Faculty
Senate about how cases are being handled.
Prof.
Cline asked the senators to let him know as soon as possible if they had
suggestions for modifications. He would
like to bring the policies to a vote at the next meeting.
Prof.
Cline said he had invited Staff Senate Chair Jackie Farley and Human Resources
Director Julius Hilburn to represent their opinions on the Faculty Compensation
Committee (FCC) report concerning budget cuts (attached).
FCC
Chair Fred Striz reported that the FCC had revised its report since the last
meeting, taking into consideration the comments from senators and other
people. A preamble was added that
states we all must share in the pain but that we do not approve of retrenchment
or think it is desirable. The committee
looked at the amounts of money coming in from tuition and fees versus research. They are about the same order of magnitude. If we increase teaching, it will probably
decrease the amount of research funding since faculty cannot work that many
more hours. This semester, the FCC will
discuss a suggestion about different ways of phased retirement. If furloughs become necessary, the FCC
recommends that open searches should be closed first. One year of salary plus start-up amount to about $90,000, so
filling the current open faculty searches would cost about $2.2 million. Another option to furloughs is to take the
cut out of the defined contribution.
The FCC concluded that compression and inversion should not be addressed
in a bad budget situation but when we have extra money. Another area the committee looked at was
student headcount and faculty headcount around the time of the 1984 furloughs (attached). Between 1982 and 1986, we lost about 16
percent of the faculty. That is a
considerable drop and impacts programs and the number of courses taught. Furloughs are really detrimental to the
university and should be avoided if at all possible. We got lucky back then because the student count dropped
too.
Prof.
Scherman said he would be interested in knowing the faculty headcount in the
last decade. Prof. Striz said the
period 1980-90 was chosen to show the short-term effect of furloughs but that
he could extend the data. Prof. Knapp
noted that the committee focused on the decade of the 1980s, the last time we had
a recession, to find out whether speculations as to what happened were
true. Prof. Striz said he had received
suggestions from faculty to look at combining colleges to cut administrative
overhead and to be careful about adding new programs. Originally, the FCC had concluded that a good time to take
furloughs would be Spring Break; however, that is a week when many faculty do
research. Another idea was pre-finals
week, when faculty are not supposed to give exams, and students are getting
ready for finals. The drawback to that
is that is when Staff Week is held. It
is possible, though, that faculty and staff would not have to be at work at the
same time. Furloughs should be as
flexible as possible, within the confines of PeopleSoft.
Prof.
Milton wondered whether furloughs during class time would violate the state
regents' rule about the number of class periods. Prof. Magid said the decision should be made at the unit level or
by the individual faculty member. Prof.
Striz said the logical solution was to spread out any salary reduction so we
would not have a whole week’s salary taken out of one month. Prof. Rupp-Serrano remarked that if a
majority could not be here a certain day, that would make a statement.
Ms.
Jackie Farley commented that these were difficult times for faculty and staff. Staff took extra vacation days over the
holidays. Most thought that was an
excellent way to participate in a difficult situation without a lot of impact
on them. Staff would be severely
impacted if they had to take more than one day a month as a salary
reduction. Her position is to reduce
the impact on staff as much as possible.
Prof. Taylor said she thought the provost expected faculty to be on
campus and do the same work if we had furloughs. Prof. Cline said that was still her position as of today. There was some discussion as to whether
furlough meant days off or whether this actually would be a reduction in
pay. Prof. Knapp said he thought the
appointment letters indicated that the board of regents had an opportunity to
change one's salary. Prof. Striz added
that the Faculty Handbook contains a
financial exigency policy.
Prof. Lee said he and his colleagues would be more
comfortable if the document included a strenuous statement of opposition to
furloughs. Prof. Frech suggested that
perhaps there were places other than faculty and staff salaries where cuts
could be made. For example, faculty
teaching salaries total about $68 million, while scholarships and fellowships
total $15 million. If we are
furloughed, is $15 million an appropriate number? Prof. Carnevale pointed out that there are maintenance,
operation, and staffing costs associated with all of the new buildings. The pain is coming principally out of the
educational mission. Other areas, such
as campus beautification and athletic activities, could be deferred. Cost reductions should not come just out of
personnel line items. Prof. Striz
pointed out that the document stated clearly that furloughs should apply to the
whole university, including auxiliary services. Prof. Hart said he would want to make sure the administration
also was included in furloughs. He said
he would rather use a different word in the document if furlough really meant
taking a cut in pay and not getting a day off.
Prof. Knapp replied that nothing in the document presumed this was the
only set of budget reductions that would take place. It is just the Faculty Senate position on various options. Presumably this is not the only group trying
to address this problem. Other areas
also will have to pay a price. In some
sense, students will pay a price if we have fewer class sections offered.
Prof.
Taylor said the term "salary reduction" should be used if employees
are expected to continue working their established work loads. She said she would like the document to
include a plan for how the money will be repaid once the budget situation is
rectified. Prof. Striz said the FCC
thought a temporary salary reduction could very easily be made permanent,
whereas a furlough was something temporary.
Prof. Magid said the Budget Council had preferred "temporary salary
reduction" so that auxiliary and service units would take the same
reduction in compensation. Now the
Budget Council has begun to use “furlough” because it implies a temporary
salary reduction and gives the employee an opportunity to vent the anger that
builds up. In the 1980s, we saw an
accumulation of resentment. Referring
to Prof. Taylor's suggestion, Prof. Striz noted that we could only get the lost
salary back if we worked that day.
Prof. Vale explained that in some areas, like Dance, it is not possible
to take furloughs. Prof. Davis said
this would amount to a reduction in pay because faculty members would still do
their work. Prof. Tarhule asked for
more information about the budget situation.
Prof. Cline said the Norman
Transcript had reported
that the state would not increase the budget cuts at this time. While we do not know the probability of a
further reduction, Prof. Cline said he thought we should plan for it.
Mr.
Julius Hilburn said it had been helpful to listen to the discussion. At this point, no firm decision has been
made. Some contingency planning is
being done to make sure we consider a range of options. He talked with Ms. Farley and Prof. Cline
about different approaches. The
administration also is looking at the best way to manage things. Some basic concepts from a Human Resources
perspective are to spread any actions over the entire university community and
spread the impact over time so we do not have a significant impact on people’s
take home pay. Another idea is to set
up a tiered program to lessen the impact on lower paid staff and faculty. Much of the discussion has to do with trying
to make sure we maintain the educational mission and some minimal level of
service. No final decision has been
made about the kind of cost savings we need.
The administration is trying to consider other ideas in order to avoid
an impact on take home pay or vacant positions. A whole range of items should be looked at in combination, as opposed
to just one item such as furloughs.
Furloughs would get the most attention but also the most reaction from
our employees. He would like to harvest
ideas and try to understand the options and trade-offs so we can get to some
good decisions.
Prof.
Carnevale said there should be a clear agreement that the next pay raise will
replace any pay cut. The various groups
ought to work together to invent options for mutual gain. A salary cut is a cleaner concept than a
furlough. He would not mind giving up a
day’s pay to help make this place work, but he would like to see the whole
budget looked at. Mr. Hilburn said he
was committed to having discussions and sharing information with the faculty
and staff senates. Prof. Tarhule asked
whether the Faculty Senate would have input on the final options. Mr. Hilburn said there would be
opportunities to provide input before the final recommendation but he was not
sure whether the final decision would be brought to the senate for ratification
or approval. He will make sure the
senates and their leadership are not surprised. If the recommendation is inconsistent with the thinking of the
Faculty Senate, there ought to be a chance for input. As to the question of whether PeopleSoft could handle solutions
to this budget situation, he said PeopleSoft would not deter us from coming to
a conclusion that made business sense for the university. Any work that needed to be done on
PeopleSoft would not be a major expense.
Prof.
Rupp-Serrano proposed that the senate make some concrete suggestions for
changes so that the body could vote at the next meeting and get the document in
the hands of the president sooner rather than later. Summarizing the comments that had been made, she said the
Preamble should include another statement that salaries are just part of the
solution. Prof. Cline said his sense
was if faculty and staff were the only ones taking the cuts, then they had the
right to ask the administration to see what cuts could be made in other
areas. Continuing, Prof. Rupp-Serrano
said a point should be included about a plan to pay back any lost salary. The paragraph on furloughs should be revised
if the term "salary reduction" is used. Prof. Gottesman suggested substituting a term like "deferred
salary." Prof. Cline said a
suggestion had been made to regard a salary reduction as a gift to the
university so it would be tax deductible.
Mr. Hilburn asked whether the proposal to take reductions in non-OTRS
retirement contributions would be optional.
Prof. Striz said the idea was that people would have a choice. Referring to the comment about the
scholarship budget, he noted that a large portion of the funding comes from the
state regents, not OU, and that most students had already received letters
about their award. Prof. Frech said the
point was to look at the entire budget.
Prof. Cline pointed out that if faculty worked fewer days doing
research, the university would lose money in indirect costs. Prof. Striz asked whether the Budget Council
was looking at the overall budget.
Prof. Magid said it was. Prof.
Vale mentioned that some units get no money for recruiting, while others
do. Prof. Hart asked whether PeopleSoft
could handle the choice between salary and defined contribution. Mr. Hilburn said giving an option would be
more complicated than picking one.
People who opted for a reduction in the university's pension
contribution could retain those dollars in retirement by making a contribution
to a 403b or 457b plan.
Prof.
Cuccia said he would e-mail some specific suggestions to Prof. Striz, but he
was confused as to whether the recommendations were intended to address this
year's budget shortfall or were long term.
Prof. Striz said he could break the recommendations into immediate and
long term. Prof. Carnevale remarked
that some faculty lines were critical to the operation of certain departments
and needed to be filled. In a big place
like this, there are things that can be done to stretch the budget and soften
the impact. Prof. Milton said he would
be opposed to furloughs that were progressive with income if it meant a higher
percentage cut for senior faculty.
Prof.
Vale asked for a projection on the long-term situation. Prof. Striz said the budget problem in the
mid 1980s lasted four or five years, but that was energy specific. Prof. Hart asked whether there was a hiring
freeze now across the board. Mr.
Hilburn said units had to get vice presidential approval before they could fill
a vacant position. Prof. Hart asked
about the energy savings over the winter break and suggested that additional
energy savings could replace a day off.
Prof. Lee said he thought this body’s mission was to be a faculty
advocate but that the document was negotiating from a position of weakness and
was doing the administration’s hard decision making for them. He cautioned against the general erosion of
faculty sovereignty and power. He
encouraged the group to re-write the document to make it clear that furloughs
were not okay and to get a promise that any sort of cuts would be addressed
when the good times return. This
faculty already is underpaid by national standards.
The
meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. The next
regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, February 10,
2003, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Valerie Watts Secretary