The University of Oklahoma
(Norman campus)
Regular session - December 9, 2002 - 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, Dhall, Frech, Gensler,
Gottesman, Hanson, Havlicek, Huseman, Kauffman, Knapp, Lee, London, Madland,
Magid, Maiden, McInerney, Milton, Morrissey, Newman, Pender, Ransom, Rodriguez,
Rupp-Serrano, Striz, Tarhule, Taylor, Wheeler, Whitely, Wieder, Willinger,
Wyckoff
Provost's office
representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Lauterbach
UOSA representatives: Haigh, McFayden
ABSENT: Devenport, Ferreira, Fincke, Hart,
Hartel, Henderson, Robertson, Russell, Scherman, Sievers, Thulasiraman, Vale
__________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Status of issues for 2002-03
Student assessment report
Remarks by benefits manager and employment
benefits committee chair
Senate Chair's Report: budget cuts
Computer policies
Faculty Compensation Committee report
__________________________________________________________________________
The
Senate Journal for the regular session of November 11, 2002 was approved.
The
status of issues brought to the Faculty Senate for 2002-03 is attached. Prof. Cline reviewed the changes since last
month. The revised research compliance
policy approved by the Senate in November was approved by the OU regents
December 2-3. The cost of the emergency
red phones, which departments have had to pay, will be billed to the central
administration.
A
copy of the 2001-02 student assessment report, which includes a summary as well
as the full data, is available in the Faculty Senate office.
Prof.
David Carnevale, a member of the Faculty Senate and in his third year as chair
of the Employment Benefits Committee (EBC), said he has had to come before the
Faculty Senate each year with news of how we are going to address the health
care plan. The situation this year is
no different. Health care trends are
the same here as they are nationwide.
Health care cost is going up and utilization by members is high. The burden is shared between employers and
employees. What we have done every year
to arrive at an acceptable plan is a short-term approach of managing the plan
by adjusting benefits and co-pays. We
live year to year, hand to mouth. We
have no reserves. It is short term and
always discouraging. The good news is
this approach to managing health care may be on its way out. In other words, there will be long-term
thinking about health care management at OU.
The university is in the process of engaging consultants to help us
manage health care strategy. The
regents appropriated about $225,000 to engage consultants who have in-depth
experience working with university health care. The candidates have been narrowed down to two—Ernst & Young
and Mercer. Mercer is the firm
presently conducting the retirement study at OU. The reason we are getting consultants is that providers should
not be responsible for providing strategic advice about the provider or
options. By-and-large, people are
satisfied with Schaller-Anderson, our health care provider. Using a consulting firm is not a comment on
Schaller's integrity. It is just good
business and should improve long-term strategy. The consultants can think about a way to provide health care
without having to make changes in the pharmacy co-pay every year. What we do is plan management, but we need
to think beyond the next year. We will
get help this year in squeezing it one more time and then help with the longer
term. Prof. Carnevale said he had a
preference for Mercer because he would like the same company that is handling
retirement to handle health care too.
He would also like to see the same company engage in compensation. He said benefits manager Nick Kelly thinks
we might be about $3.5-4.5 million in deficit.
The Employment Benefits Committee consults with governance groups and
administrators and then gives a recommendation to the president. The EBC members try to negotiate with
everyone they can in order to come up with a consensus document. This year, our new human resources director
Julius Hilburn has been a great help.
Benefits
manager Nick Kelly said he wanted to add that we will struggle with the
inflation trend next year. One thing
that drives the planning is we need to maintain competitive benefits. He said some suggestions last year by the
Faculty Senate--buying drugs from Canada and using Goddard as a specialty
pharmacy--did not work out, but he appreciated ideas for making health care
manageable.
Human
Resources director Julius Hilburn said he had been at OU since August. He had a long career at Kerr-McGee, heading
up the human resources function, in particular compensation and benefits. He said the challenges are not unique to the
university. Health care is important to
our employees but is growing in cost much faster than other benefits. What is expected nationally is double digit
inflation for the foreseeable future.
It will be important this next year and in the future to keep benefits
affordable for the employee and for the university. He assured the group that he will involve various constituencies
in the dialog.
Prof.
Watts asked whether the consulting would be on a one-time basis. Mr. Hilburn said it was important to have an
ongoing relationship with the consultants in order to get help with actuarial
projections, setting rates, and negotiating with vendors. He wants them to help develop an overall
benefits strategy that we will start implementing this year. We do not expect to pay that much every
year, though.
Prof.
Magid asked whether there was any distinction between employees who are paid
from E&G accounts and employees who are paid from auxiliary and service
units. Mr. Hilburn replied that there
is no difference in the benefits offered right now. The focus is on one benefit plan for all employees.
The
projected budget cuts for next year for higher education, as published in the Norman
Transcript, are 10-20 percent. Cuts
at that level would be catastrophic, and serious damage would be done to the
educational mission of the university.
Governor-elect Henry said he was not in favor of a one percent tax
increase. Tuition deregulation may be
the only remedy likely to provide relief quickly.
The
proposed computer policies, which were introduced last month, will be deferred
until January. Prof. Cline reported
that a number of changes were inserted in the document. Two areas of concern have to do with due
process when e-mail is monitored and with password protection. One revision would require authorization
from the department chair to share passwords.
It is an attempt to provide some sort of audit trail. There are, however, innocuous reasons for
giving out a password. The Senate Executive
Committee decided to wait for the approval of the Information Technology
Council before bringing the document to the Faculty Senate again. He hopes a document will be ready to present
at the next meeting.
Prof.
Fred Striz, chair of the Faculty Compensation Committee (FCC), explained that
in light of what is going on with the budget, the FCC decided to lay out some
responses to the budget shortfall (attached). The document was based on single-digit
shortfalls. He said it was not clear
whether the new figure of 10-20 percent was the total cut or in addition to the
previous cuts. Provost Mergler said a
lot of information was coming out and that the exact details might not be as
important as the message that we cannot sustain business as usual if we have
any additional cuts. An article in the
December 13 Chronicle of Higher Education discussed the decline in state
support for higher education nationally and the negative impact that has
had. We are trying to make it clear to
our legislators that higher education and OU in particular cannot sustain any
additional reduction in state allocations and continue to deliver to our
students the quality of education that they deserve.
Prof.
Striz asked for information about the effect on Oklahoma versus other
states. Provost Mergler said that in
the Big 12, it appears that Nebraska, Iowa, and Missouri are in very bad shape,
in part because their tuition rates are above the average of the Big 12, so it
is harder for them to increase that source of revenue. There is a growing challenge in higher
education across the country. A number
of institutions are not doing faculty searches, are relying more on instructional
faculty, and do not have sufficient sections of courses available to meet
student demand. A few schools are
growing faculty, but the norm is discouraging.
We are trying to find alternative, additional sources of revenue to
sustain the excellence that we and our students all aspire to.
Prof.
Striz discussed some of the points in the document. Adjunct faculty teach large numbers of students, so laying them
off would mean we could not offer all of the sections we want to offer. The problem with eliminating open positions
is that a department with a large number of open positions is more likely to be
targeted for elimination. Other options
include voluntary retirement, phased retirement, leaves of absence without pay,
and full-year sabbaticals at half pay.
If teaching loads are increased, faculty could bank them against future
better times, that is, teach less once things get better. Any furloughs should be progressive with
income, such that people at the lower pay scale would be protected. If we have a shortfall larger than five
percent, it would affect the whole operation seriously, and we probably would
have to abandon some new initiatives.
If something like that does happen, since most economic cycles are short
term, the FCC would prefer across-the-board horizontal cuts. Terminating programs could only provide
fiscal relief on a longer time scale.
Prof.
Magid said the Budget Council sent a similar document to the president. The Budget Council decided that temporary
salary reductions were better than furloughs.
People who work for auxiliary and service units think they are exempt
from furloughs. If we all get identical
fringe benefits, it is probably not a good idea to make a distinction between
E&G and auxiliaries/service units. With temporary salary reductions, all university employees would
share the responsibility. Prof. Striz
said he agreed.
Prof.
Wieder asked how the budget problems compared to the last time we had
furloughs, in 1984. Provost Mergler
answered that we are about where we were then in terms of the percentage cut in
E&G, but now we have a substantial endowment, and a more substantial
portion of our revenue comes from grants and contracts. She said she was concerned about the
suggestion of increased teaching loads.
That could deflect faculty away from the research portion of our mission
and have a negative impact on that portion of our revenue. She said we should make decisions that will
do the least amount of damage so that we can rebound from any cuts we make. She said she welcomed thoughts through
councils or by direct e-mail. Our goal
is to sustain our momentum and not make choices that get us off the track.
Prof.
Wieder pointed out that one alternative was to increase the size of classes,
although that was difficult to do because of the lack of large classrooms. Provost Mergler explained that one of our
crises is the over-utilization of the physical plant. As the new buildings and additions come on board, we will have a
net gain in classroom space. Prof.
Taylor said she had been asked by faculty whether the university's restriction
on outside employment would be rescinded if we had furloughs. Provost Mergler said the policy probably
would not be changed if there was a temporary reduction in compensation because
the work is still there to be done.
Prof.
Lee said the administration was really trying hard not to discuss furloughs, so
the Faculty Senate should be the last body to entertain that as an option. Provost Mergler said everybody was seeking ideas
and solutions. The last time we went
through a tough budget situation, there was internal animosity. The more openly we talk about ideas, the
better off we will be. It is important
for us to collectively discuss ways to proceed. Prof. Cline said he did not think that avoiding contemplating
unpleasant actions would prepare us to handle them in the best way. We do not have control over the state
appropriation. The thoughts of the FCC
should not be taken as approval or desirability. It is not a pleasant task, but it is prudent to attempt to
minimize the problem.
A
senator suggested that we explore the possibility of having the Athletic
Department bail out the academic portion of the university, just as the
university bailed out the Athletic Department.
Prof. Cline said that certainly was an idea. Prof. Striz encouraged the senators to send ideas to him at
striz@ou.edu, and he would try to incorporate them.
Prof.
Carnevale noted that Oklahoma tends to look at one public policy issue at a
time, for example, roads or prisons.
Discussions about education usually refer to K-12. When money is appropriated, higher education
does not get its share. Second, we need
to talk about what happens when the disaster is over. We should have a study of faculty wages to determine how bad the
problem is. We could be doing something
about the compression and inversion problems.
The Senate ought to have some discussion about what to do to make up for
the disaster when this cycle is over.
Referring to the second paragraph concerning compensatory teaching
underloads, Prof. Rupp-Serrano suggested that since untenured faculty would not
be given the same kinds of resources as normal, perhaps their tenure clock
should be extended a year. For tenured
faculty, perhaps their weightings should reflect the fact that they will have
to do more teaching, and they should be given some leeway.
Prof.
Madland asked whether the Faculty Senate was involved in discussions about a
tuition increase. Prof. Cline said the
Executive Committee meets regularly with the administration but is not
monitoring the issue day to day. Prof.
Striz commented that one of the priorities of the president was to remove the
cap on tuition. Prof. Cline said the
Faculty Senate would continue to bring legislators to campus to thank them for
their support but also make the case for relief. Prof. Taylor asked whether discussions with legislators included
the point that state appropriated funds should not be diminished if tuition is
uncapped. Provost Mergler said
President Boren had scheduled a series of meetings with legislators to see what
their concerns and issues were. The
final meeting of the state equalization board is in February. Legislators are looking at an increasingly
challenged environment. The Faculty
Senate program has been showing legislators how valuable OU is to the state
economy. We are trying to make sure
they understand what a tough position we are in. Prof. Cline pointed out that the legislators who toured the
genome lab last year were enthusiastic about the economic impact of our
enterprises on campus.
Prof.
Morrissey commented that given the cap on tuition and the increasing
enrollment, teaching requirements would go up even without a budget
crisis. He asked whether enrollment
could be limited if the cap cannot be lifted so that teaching is not
increased. Provost Mergler answered
that we now have a waiting list for freshmen, which will give us more
flexibility to manage enrollment than we have had in prior years. Student tuition and fees only pay 26-27
percent of the cost of what we deliver to them. Prof. Cline mentioned that our quality of students has improved,
at least by the ACT measure. Prof.
Striz noted that we have to work with legislators whose constituents are students
here.
Prof.
Bradford suggested adding a preamble to explain that the document was a
desperate measure of severe consequences for students, faculty, and the
state. Prof. Davis said he was
uncomfortable with the document and did not think he could get endorsement from
his college. He said that given the
points of contention, he was uneasy saying this was how the faculty felt. Prof. Rupp-Serrano said a revised document
could be drafted that the Faculty Senate would feel comfortable with. She contended that the administration should
hear something from the Faculty Senate on this issue so that the Senate had a
say in the process. Prof. Striz said he
thought the faculty should participate in the process. Prof. Cline asked the senators to make it
clear to their constituents that this should not be regarded as an official
document of the Faculty Senate. It was
put out for discussion, and the Senate has taken no vote. The document will be modified.
Prof.
Taylor contended that anything that mentioned furloughs would be interpreted as
having the support of the Faculty Senate.
This group should indicate that we should avoid salary cuts at all
cost. Prof. Striz said he thought we
had to discuss alternatives somewhere along the line. Prof. Taylor replied that salary cuts should not be presented as
an option that is acceptable to the Senate.
Prof. Whitely commented that the inversion problem began after the
furloughs in 1984. Increasingly, the
university will be in a more desperate position in terms of retaining senior
faculty and attracting faculty because of the inversion problem. A second round of salary cuts would
exacerbate the problem. Prof. Knapp
said the guiding principles should be that faculty are responsible for
instruction and scholarship. They ought
to play a role in saying what is going to do minimal damage and give us the
greatest opportunity to move ahead when we can.
Prof.
Madland said she would like to see what other universities had done. Provost Mergler said that information was not
easy to get, and it was not reliable.
Other universities hesitate to speak frankly because it causes internal
problems. Prof. Wheeler said we should
consider all options but make clear the consequences of temporary salary
reductions. He suggested that data from
1984 could be used to show what happens.
Prof. Carnevale remarked that a lot of ideas had been put forward, but
that does not mean a specific idea had been adopted. Something should be pulled together that shows what the Senate
thinks about this problem. Prof. Cline
said the FCC would go back to the drawing board. Prof. Magid said it was a mistake to say all our good faculty
left after the cuts of 1984 or that we would see massive defections because of
this problem. Prof. Taylor commented that
those who are invested in the retirement system here would feel like they have
to stay.
The
meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next
regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, January 13,
2003, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Valerie Watts Secretary