The
Regular session – November 12, 2007 – 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 Steve Bradford, Chair.
PRESENT: Albert, Apanasov, Basic, Bass, D. Bemben,
M. Bemben, Benson, Bradford, Brown, Brule, Clark, Conlon, Croft, Edy, Forman,
Franklin, Ge, Halterman, Horn, Kent, Kershen, Livesey, Magnusson, Morrissey,
Moses, Radhakrishnan, Rambo, Reeder, Riggs, Roche, Rogers, Schmidt, Skeeters,
Striz, Trafalis, Trytten, Vitt, Warnken
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Cook
ABSENT: Callard, Eodice, Grasse, Greene, James,
Knapp, Marcus-Mendoza, McDonald, Miranda, Nelson, Russell, Sadler, Tan, Verma,
Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Senate Chair's Report:
Tuberculosis testing policy
Classroom disruptions
Senate discussions
Election, Campus Tenure Committee
Focus the Nation/UOSA Resolution on Climate Commitment
Faculty Handbook section 3.5.6 – faculty resignation
Student retention
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of October 8, 2007 was approved.
The Senate Executive
Committee met with Joe Harroz, Chief Legal Counsel, on November 5. Mr. Harroz said the new tuberculosis testing policy
applies to new international faculty and to faculty who travel. The testing for TB is self reported, and no
penalties are included in the policy; however, this is a public health issue to
the university.
Mr. Harroz also discussed
faculty rights and obligations in the classroom with the Executive
Committee. He pointed out that
instructors are in charge of the classroom.
If a student is disrupting learning, the instructor can report the
student, get him/her into counseling, or recommend discipline.
Prof. Bradford said he had
learned from a senator during a discussion on plagiarism last year about a
method of having students write their term papers in class. Prof. Bradford said he had his students write
their book reports in class, and the students seemed to like it. He said he hoped to have more discussions in
the Faculty Senate on the role of faculty in areas such as retention.
The Faculty Senate approved
the Committee on Committees’ nomination of Priscilla Griffith (Instructional
Leadership & Academic Curriculum) to complete the 2007-10 term of Leonard
Rubin (Mathematics) on the Campus Tenure Committee.
Prof. Bradford reported that the student resolution on climate commitment (attached) was introduced at the last meeting (see 10/07 Senate Journal). Further information will be presented at this
meeting by Prof. Deborah Dalton (Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the
Environment), Chair of the Environmental Concerns Committee, and three
students, Eric Pollard, Whitney Pearson, and Danny Terlip. The PowerPoint slides shown at the meeting are available at
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/FTNFacSen111207.htm.
Prof. Dalton explained that Focus the Nation was a nationwide project, with
over 1000 college and universities participating. She said the biggest hurdle had to do with
cultural values. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change was established to assess scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change. IPCC and science experts have come to the
conclusion, with 95 percent confidence, that global warming is happening. For about the last 20,000 years, the average
temperature has been around 15ºC, but we now have moved out of that climatic
"sweet spot." The forecast for
the next 100 years is that we will be 2-3 degrees warmer than average. Things are happening faster than we
expected. Non-scientists do not
understand that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for decades. Because of the growth in places like
Ms. Whitney Pearson said a national teach-in called Focus the Nation was
being held on January 31, 2008. At OU,
the week of January 28-February 1, 2008 will be devoted to talking about global
warming solutions. The mission of Focus
the Nation is we are in a race against time.
Mr. Danny Turlip, president of Our Earth, said these efforts were an
opportunity for change, not to scare people.
Some recent actions that address global warming have taken place in
Prof. Dalton noted that she had handed out information last time about the
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, which
President Boren signed in April 2007.
The ACUPCC commits the University to making a plan for becoming carbon
neutral by 2050. The Environmental
Concerns Committee and Our Earth are the core groups working on that
effort. For more information on the
Climate Commitment, go to http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/.
Mr. Eric Pollard, a member of Our Earth and Student Congress, thanked the
Faculty Senate for inviting them to speak.
He said he would like to get the Faculty Senate’s blessing on the
student bill and would be glad to answer questions. This is one of the most important things
happening on college campuses. The UOSA
bill was the first attempt at campus sustainability and addressing some of the
requirements of the ACUPCC. There is a
provision that the bill will be reconsidered every two years. The legislation, which President Boren
signed, is a commitment for change. OU
was first in
Referring to the student bill, Prof. Brown asked how an inventory of
greenhouse gas emissions was done. Prof.
Dalton replied that the IPPC had developed a number of protocols; Clean Air
Cool Planet developed a calculator based on IPCC protocols that is being used
by many colleges and universities to develop an inventory of greenhouse gas
emissions. Mr. Pollard said Student
Congress thinks prospective students will be interested in schools that are
making efforts to reduce global warming.
Prof. Dalton added that it was gratifying to see that the IT labs are
set for double-sided printing.
Prof. Moses pointed out that some of the proposed goals and solutions would
cost money. Mr. Pollard commented that
most of the initiatives would save us money in time. He acknowledged that a cost-benefit analysis
would help. Prof. Moses said we should have
a plan for how to pay for becoming carbon neutral. We should not miss the opportunity with new
buildings to incorporate green features.
Prof. Dalton said some funding initiatives exist, such as the Clinton
Climate Initiative. Ms. Pearson added
that another possibility was a fee on parking permits. Prof. Moses said he would like to see a focus
on what students could do now. Students
could start taking the stairs. Biking
and walking could be accomplished in two to three months. Mr. Pollard said the green week would focus
on those areas.
[The previous paragraph was amended 1/14/08 to read:
Prof. Moses pointed out that
as many as 5 of the 7 long-term
goals and 2 of the 4 short-term goals will have cost implications, which could
be significant amounts. There is no
consideration given to what the extra costs might be or a plan for how to pay
for them. Are students willing to
endorse tuition hikes to fund these changes?
Mr. Pollard commented that most
of the initiatives would save us money in time.
He acknowledged that a cost-benefit analysis would help. Prof. Moses said we should have a plan for
how to pay for becoming carbon neutral. A comment was made that we should not miss the opportunity with new
buildings to incorporate green features.
Prof. Dalton said some funding initiatives exist, such as the Clinton
Climate Initiative. Ms. Pearson added
that another possibility was a fee on parking permits. Prof.
Moses noted that three of the four short-term goals are what others should do.
He thinks the UOSA should focus mainly on what students should do. He gave two examples. First, he noted that the elevator in his
five-story building operated all day long, and able-bodied students could take
the stairs rather than the elevator.
Second, he noted that in previous years, a much greater percentage of
students lived near campus and walked/biked.
Now, many of them drive. He
thought the UOSA could develop policies that encourage reduction in student
commuting. He noted they mention this as
a long-term goal, but students move often and it could be more short term if
they are really serious. Mr. Pollard said the green week would focus on those
areas.]
Prof. Edy said the bill called for a portion of the purchased paper to be
recycled paper, but there was no provision to encourage everyone to
recycle. Prof. Dalton explained that OU
has a recycling program that is struggling with educating the community. We have doubled or tripled the recycling
here. Individuals can request recycling
bins. Prof. Vitt remarked that all of
the discussions on global warming focused on carbon production and did not
address other issues such as human population growth. If we cut carbon use per capita by 50
percent, in 35 years our net carbon production would not have changed because
of the growth in population. Ms. Pearson
suggested that faculty could discuss something like that in class as part of
Focus the Nation the last week in January.
Prof. Clark said the cost and potential benefit should be
considered. Even a small decrease in
emissions will be costly. He commented
that OG&E’s increase in wind power has to do with making a profit. When asked how much renewable energy we use,
Prof. Dalton said OU currently is purchasing as much wind power as possible
from OG&E, which is roughly 3.5 percent of our purchased electricity. Institutional pressure is one of the reasons
OG&E is quadrupling its production.
One senator suggested that we could ban cars for freshmen to reduce fuel
emissions.
Prof. Forman said he
applauded the students’ energy and desire.
He asked what the Senate was supposed to do with the student
proposal. Prof. Bradford said the Senate
could endorse the proposal, which he interpreted as supporting the students, or
the Senate could have its own policy.
Prof. Apanasov said there were different views regarding global warming. If the Senate supports the proposal, it is
saying it agrees with those views.
Still, this may be a step in the right direction. Prof. Bradford pointed out that the
resolution did not say that climate change was human generated. Prof. Striz noted that a discussion of
climate change could get complicated.
Prof. Skeeters recommended a more general statement. Prof. Moses said the Senate could say it
supported the students’ efforts.
Prof. Rambo said he thought
it seemed appropriate for the Faculty Senate to promote the students’ request
for the faculty to incorporate climate change discussions in classes and
consider participating in the movement.
Prof. Bradford said the student presenters had asked the faculty to do
that, but that was not part of the resolution.
Prof. Warnken added that the point about the teach-in related to Focus
the Nation. He asked about supporting
the student objectives without taking a faculty stance. Prof. Bradford said that would come down to
the definition of endorse. Prof. Moses
said the Faculty Senate could have its own statement. Prof. Skeeters said the students had asked
the Faculty Senate to endorse the resolution.
Prof. Bradford commented that the Environmental Concerns Committee
strongly supported an endorsement from the Faculty Senate. At the last meeting, a motion was made to
endorse the resolution. The Senate might
not agree with everything, and there probably were areas where there should be
more faculty input, but endorsing the student resolution would not preclude the
Faculty Senate from doing something further.
Prof. Radhakrishnan remarked that the bill would be considered again in
two years. He asked whether the Faculty
Senate would be able to revisit the subject.
Prof. Bradford said the students would reconsider the bill every two
years, but the Faculty Senate could always revisit an issue. Prof. Skeeters asked if it would it be
possible to table the bill, as a permanent postponement. Prof. Edy asked about the effect on the
administration if the Senate endorsed the bill in total. Prof. Forman said he did not think the Senate
should endorse a student proposal, and he did not want to tie the
administration’s hands. He said he would
be willing to offer an alternative.
Prof. Morrissey noted that the president had already endorsed the bill.
Prof. Clark asked if the
Senate could endorse the bill with suggested modifications. Prof. Vitt proposed that the Senate vote on
the bill and if it was voted down, the body could have a more general statement
that did not tie the Faculty Senate to any specifics. Prof. Benson said it was worth considering
the effort that went into this. If the
Senate did not endorse the bill and was not willing to do something like this
on its own, which will take a lot of work, then the students will think the
faculty does not care about this issue.
Prof. Striz reminded the group that the Environmental Concerns Committee
supported the bill. Prof. Bradford said
he agreed with Prof. Benson. An
endorsement means something, but the group should not over think what it is
doing by supporting a student resolution.
The motion to endorse the bill was approved, with 27 in favor, 4
opposed, and 5 abstentions.
Prof.
Bradford explained that section 3.5.6 of the Faculty Handbook states that a faculty member who resigns must give
notice no later than May 15 or 30 days after receiving his or her appointment
letter. The language was fitting when
the appointment letters came in the spring; now they come in September or
October, after regent approval of the salary increases. In effect, the recommended revision would
strike the 30-day requirement. The
primary purpose of the policy is to encourage early notice of resignation to
aid planning. Faculty may request a
waiver. The proposed paragraphs would
read (additions in bold, deletions struck through):
RESIGNATION
A regular faculty member who elects to
resign his or her appointment is obligated to give notice in writing at the
earliest possible opportunity, but not later than May 15 or thirty days after
receiving notification of the terms of his or her appointment for the coming
year, whichever date is later. It is
a professional expectation that a regular faculty member who elects to resign
his or her appointment give written notice at the earliest possible opportunity
to the chair or director of the academic
unit. Timely notice of resignation is
needed to allow sufficient time for the academic unit to seek appropriate
personnel to cover the teaching assignments of the resigning faculty person and
provide a smooth transition for students.
Written resignations for the subsequent academic year should be
submitted early in the spring semester, but not later than May 15. A faculty member may request a waiver of
this requirement.
For faculty and staff with
12-month appointments, resignations shall be effective on the last day of
service of the employee, and an employee shall not be paid for a holiday if the
last day of service was prior to the holiday period.
Prof. Kershen suggested that
the sentence beginning with “Written resignations” should be in the active
voice instead of passive voice. He moved
that the sentence read, “A regular faculty member who elects to resign his or
her appointment is obligated to give notice in writing at the earliest possible
opportunity, but not later than May 15.”
Prof. Benson said the revision could be introduced as a friendly
amendment, and it would not require a vote.
Prof. Bradford said he would accept the revised language as a friendly
amendment. The Senate will vote on the
revisions next time.
Prof.
Bradford said the Senate Executive Committee had had a wide-ranging discussion
on the issue of student retention. The
University seems to do a pretty good job with freshmen and sophomores but has
some retention problems with juniors and seniors. He said he would like the Senate to consider
whether we should think of students as adults or not, what obligation the
faculty has to get in touch with students, and to what extent retention is
partly a faculty problem. This semester
Prof. Bradford contacted students who were not attending class. Some, because he got in touch with them,
started coming to class. He asked the
Senate, “How much of a role should faculty have?”
Prof. Striz suggested that
faculty could have the people involved with retention contact the students who
were not doing well. Prof. Bradford said
that was already being done with the early grade reports, but he thought the
students did not connect the reports with the faculty. The administration follows up with the
students, and some students respond because of that. Prof. Edy asked if Prof. Bradford meant class
attendance or dropping out of college.
Prof. Bradford said his thought was that faculty could try to keep
students from failing classes. The
faculty cares about students and wants them to graduate. He said he would welcome other insights. Prof. Edy said she has a clear attendance
policy. When students get to the point
where they will be penalized, she sends them an e-mail. She tells them there are consequences for not
attending class, and she gets pretty good results.
Noting the two kinds of
retention -- program and university -- Prof. Radhakrishnan suggested that we
should have guidelines to tell students what their forte is. Prof. Rambo asked if there were some best
practices or succinct suggestions on what has worked elsewhere. Prof. Bradford explained that that was
exactly what he was asking for. Prof.
Trytten mentioned that the Instructional Innovation Program could provide some
suggestions. Prof. Striz remarked that
the Athletics Department was doing a good job with retention. Prof. Schmidt pointed out that the national
rankings of the University were tied to retention of students. He sends his students their grades and
suggestions for improvements by email.
They and their parents respond, and the students try to do better.
Prof. Benson said he
understood the importance of retention.
His position is students should show up to class and find out how they
are doing. His grades reflect that. He said he did not want somebody else to tell
him how to manage his class. College
students need to attend class without being prompted by their faculty
member. Prof. Bradford said he agreed
with him until he started tracking his students down. Some students have problems that need
counseling; some think they have dropped the course. Prof. Edy said she too had agreed for a long
time not to intervene, but then decided to be the boss. Prof. Benson commented that he is not his
students’ boss and they are not his customer.
Prof. Edy said she has trouble keeping students motivated when they feel
overmatched and they do not understand what is going on. In some cases they are unprepared.
Prof. Riggs pointed out that without a sense of what the target retention rate should
be, we cannot tell whether there is a problem, much less when we have overcome
it. Prof.
Bradford answered that the goal currently is 60 percent. Prof. Forman said he thought departments
should give a little more guidance to students on what courses to take. Students sometimes take courses in the wrong
order. Prof. Moses remarked that what
worked ten years ago does not work today.
The Millennials have a different
view of work. Prof. Bradford said he
personally would reject changing his methods for them. Prof. Moses said that generation of students
drop out if they do not like something.
Prof. Rogers said another way to increase retention is take a better
motivated, prepared group in the first place.
Prof. Vitt said sometimes students think they can do the work without
coming to class or lab. There are ways
to improve attendance in individual classes.
Faculty can find out what is causing students not to come to class. Prof. Bradford summarized the discussion by
saying there is not one answer. Prof.
Trytten noted that chairs and directors need to find out, though early progress
reports, about the student who is failing more than one class. Departments could do more proactive
advising. Prof. Magnusson said advisors
had met with an outside speaker a couple of years ago. The speaker’s research showed that
selectivity of the university was the best predictor. Compared with our peers, we are a little better
at retaining our students.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 2007, in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Roberta Magnusson, Secretary