The
Regular session – November 14, 2005 – 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 Roy Knapp, Chair.
PRESENT: Apanasov,
Benson, Blank, Bradford, Brown, Burns, Catlin, Civan, Cramer, Croft, Dohrmann, Draheim,
Elisens, Forman, Franklin, Frech, Geletzke, Gutierrez, Hobbs, Houser, C. Knapp,
R. Knapp, Kolar, Lai, Magnusson, Marcus-Mendoza, Raadschelders, Schwarzkopf, Sharp,
Skeeters, Tabb, Trytten, Warnken, Wood, Wyckoff
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Hough, Smith
ABSENT: Albert,
Badhwar, Biggerstaff, Cintrón, Dewers, Fast, Fincke, Gade, Hawamdeh, Lewis,
Liu, Megginson, Pace, Ransom, Roche, Rugeley, Scamehorn, Wei
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Remarks by Vice President for Executive Affairs and Administrative
Affairs
Senate Chair's Report:
Young alum profiles
Student information system
Faculty deaths
Engineering facility
Central campus instruction
Course syllabus
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of October 10, 2005 was approved.
Prof. Knapp said the Faculty
Senate Executive Committee had asked Mr. Nicholas Hathaway, Vice President for
Executive Affairs and Administrative Affairs, to describe the budgeting process
at OU for the Senate.
Mr. Hathaway distributed a
handout on the mechanics and processes of the university budget (available from
the Senate office). The budget process starts
with a survey of budget needs that the state regents request in September. The survey asks each institution about expected
mandatory costs, including compensation, utilities, insurance, and operating
costs. The state regents frequently ask what
would happen in the case of a five percent reduction, no change, or a five
percent increase. The survey often asks
about supplemental budget needs. For
instance, for FY06, the administration reported on the need to fund additional
class sections because of enrollment pressures.
Some miscellaneous information that may be reported includes the cost of
salary increases. A one percent faculty
and staff increase now costs $1.6 million; in FY95 it was about $800,000. In November, the administration submits a
report concerning special fees, that is, fees not paid by the majority of our students. After reviewing the surveys from all the
institutions, the chancellor of higher education announces the budget that
higher education needs. The governor,
state senate, and state house indicate what they are willing to allocate to
higher education, and typically the numbers are not the same. There is never any certainty about the appropriation
until late in the legislative process.
As with any budget, we can
cut costs or increase revenue. Something
that the administration does continuously is to examine costs and using money
more efficiently. For FY07, the
administration knows fixed costs will be about $9 million and knows what
discretionary spending will be, but there is uncertainty about the state
appropriation and tuition and fees. The
people involved in the process include the Provost, General Counsel, Vice President
for Research, Budget Director, Chief Financial Officer, and Mr. Hathaway. The faculty is kept abreast of the budget
process through Senate Executive Committee meetings with President Boren and
the Budget Council. Each spring, the
Budget Council sends a letter to the president indicating its funding
priorities for the coming year and commenting on how a pay program might be
distributed. President Boren’s highest priority
is faculty and staff salaries. In June,
the state regents allocate funds to the institutions. OU gets 15-17 percent of what is given to
higher education, and the amount can vary greatly. A target for all of higher education is to
get the funding back up to the FY02 level.
The budget process ends when the budget office finalizes department budgets
and the budget is approved in June by the Boards of Regents.
Mr. Hathaway pointed out that
the state appropriation represents 20 percent of the operating revenue budget. Tuition and fees are 23 percent. The other 57 percent are grants/contracts and
auxiliary/agency accounts. Agency
accounts are self-supporting entities within the institution that charge fees
for their cost of goods and services. Auxiliary
enterprises include areas such as the residence halls, food services,
intercollegiate athletics, parking, and student health services. Mr. Hathaway commented that we are fortunate
to have an athletics department that has the financial health to add a
surcharge on football tickets that goes back to the central budget. Internal service units, for example, the
physical plant, provide services on campus and charge departments for those
services. The capital budget is funded largely
by section 13, revenue bonds, and private donations. To make sure the university is operating in a
sound financial way, the administration looks at eight different metrics in
relation to Moody's rating service.
An activity that goes on year
round is making sure we are good stewards of our resources. Over the last several years, we refinanced
the university debt, which saved $4 million.
Other savings have been realized in the physical plant and the purchasing
card program. Sometimes, the savings
have operating consequences. Typically,
the savings are used to give greater faculty and staff salary increases. OU has achieved remarkably low administrative
overhead costs. Those costs have
declined from 9.4 percent in 1995 to 4.7 percent in 2006.
Prof. Apanasov asked about the
loan from the university to the athletics department. Mr. Hathaway said the athletics department was
still paying back the loan and was ahead of schedule. In addition to those payments, the athletics department
has been giving the university the money from the ticket surcharge.
Prof. Raadschelders questioned
whether the Other E&G portion of the revenue budget included all of the continuing
education revenue, in particular, the overhead costs. Mr. Hathaway said the figures included all
revenue. Each piece of the pie takes the
overhead activity into account.
Prof. Schwarzkopf asked Mr.
Hathaway to describe the process when a department decides it needs a new
initiative. Mr. Hathaway said the
request would flow up through the academic structures to the Provost and would find
its way to the discretionary spending part of the budget.
Provost Mergler has asked for
success stories of recent graduates, which could be used in several ways. For instance, our legislative liaison would be
able to give legislators examples of the value of an OU education. Suggestions should be sent to Provost
Mergler.
The student information
system project has begun. Senate chair Knapp
and chair-elect Frech met with Brad Burnett, Financial Aid Director and manager
of the project, and with three consultants from the
This month’s report of
faculty retiree deaths includes Roy Male, Jr. (English), who died in June, and
Lorenzo Edward Carter (Journalism), who died in October.
The university received a $5
million gift from ExxonMobil Corporation for an engineering practice facility. The building will be named for Lawrence Rawl,
a 1952 engineering graduate.
On October 18, Student
Congress passed a resolution requesting a joint task force of students with the
Faculty Senate or concerned faculty members to consider implications of the new
chemistry buildings. At its October 10
meeting, the Faculty Senate formed an ad hoc committee to consider what kinds
of classes should be taught in the central campus area. The committee met on November 4 and plans to
meet again on December 1 with representatives from Student Congress. The committee intends to have another meeting
later in December to write recommendations for the Faculty Senate to consider.
On October 11, Student
Congress passed a resolution requesting that professors use learn.ou.edu to
post the current form of their class syllabus and current grade information for
each student (attached). Prof. Knapp opened the floor for discussion
of a possible Senate response to the student resolution.
Prof. Raadschelders said some
parts of the resolution were interesting and useful but he did not see why
putting syllabi and grades on learn.ou.edu would help students more than the
help they could get already. He said he
wanted students to come to his office to give him an opportunity to tell them
how far they had progressed or what was going wrong. The class syllabus contains information vital
enough to put on a website. Prof. Knapp summarized
that Prof. Raadschelders makes his syllabus accessible but does not post grades
online, with the intent being to have greater interaction with the class.
Prof. Burns said he thought several
of the “whereas” statements in the student legislation were misleading or possibly
false. As an example, the second
statement says students are notified only when they are failing. Students actually get notified of their
grades through mid semester grade reports if they have a C, D, or F. He said he did not know of any professor who
would refuse to give students a second copy of a syllabus. He commented that it is helpful to post syllabi
online for a large class, but it might not make sense for a small class. He suggested that the guideline should apply
to classes over a particular size. Prof.
Knapp reminded the group that the only part of the resolution that the Senate
should respond to was Section 1.
Prof. Sharp said she thought
that requiring learn.ou.edu was too specific.
We do not have a guarantee of how long that platform will be
around. Prof. Knapp pointed out that the
course management system was one of the items that would be discussed when the
new student information system is reviewed.
Prof. Sharp said she does not post grades because she waits until the
end of the semester to calculate participation and attendance. She made the following motion: The
Faculty Senate endorses a goal of having 90 percent of the undergraduate course
syllabi available online within two years in order to provide students with
greater access to the course materials.
Prof. Knapp noted that the Senate did not have to vote on the motion at
this meeting.
Prof. Trytten explained that learn.ou.edu
is the generic website that is used for whatever course management system
exists. She said she liked the wording
of Prof. Sharp’s motion. Many faculty
members have invested countless hours in building their own web pages. Indicating the syllabus is available online
is better than specifying the course management system. If someone is already keeping information
updated, we should not tell them how to do it.
Students complain, though, that when faculty members use different
formats, students have trouble keeping it all managed. If professors refuse to give out a second
copy of a syllabus, perhaps the Senate could pass a resolution that says a
professor is required to provide a syllabus at the beginning of a class and upon
request.
Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said it
can be expensive to hand out multiple paper copies time and time again. She said she favored the “online” language
because many faculty members provide the information on websites. Grades should be accessible to students but
not necessarily online. The issue is
accessibility rather than a requirement that everyone do it the same way. Prof. Knapp pointed out that Prof. Sharp had not
included “grades” in her motion. Prof. Sharp
mentioned that at a lot of universities the syllabi for a whole department is on
the departmental website, and the office staff updates the information. OU could do things like that, as long as the
syllabi are available to students online in some place. Prof. Benson agreed that the key issue was
accessibility. He said he thought syllabi
and grades should be accessible to students, but to micromanage how faculty
make them accessible would be a mistake.
When Prof. Knapp asked for a show of hands, the majority indicated that their
syllabi were available on the network.
Prof. Burns said in his case, it would depend on the size of the
class. Prof. Gutierrez said he thought
the online format was probably the best way to get the syllabi to students, and
it saves on paper and copying costs. Upper
level and graduate students do not ask much about their grades because they get
feedback from exams. Freshmen, however,
ask about grades, so he puts those grades online and reserves his office hours
for other questions.
Prof. Knapp said the Senate
would vote in December. He remarked that
there seemed to be consensus for approval.
Prof. Forman said he did not think there was consensus and he viewed the
proposal as micromanaging. “We, as faculty,
are responsible adults who are professionals.”
If professors do not do their jobs right, they will hear from their
department chair. He said he did not
want faculty members to think they had to respond to the student motion. Prof. Raadschelders said experiences with
some professors could not be generalized.
He said he would vote against the motion, not because he disagrees with
accessibility for students, but because he thinks most professors do not behave
in the way the student resolution suggests.
Prof. Knapp said Prof. Sharp’s motion proposed a goal of 90 percent of
courses, not all. Prof. Raadschelders
said he did not want a benchmark, because then someone would have to monitor
the number.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, December 12, 2005, in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
A. Steve Bradford, Secretary