The
Regular session –
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 Mike McInerney, Chair.
PRESENT: Abraham,
Baldwin, Barker, Bozorgi, Bradford, Brady, Brown,
Burns, Caldwell, Catlin, Cintrón, Davis, Devenport,
Dewers, Dohrmann, Driver, Forman, Frech, Hartel, Havlicek, Hayes-Thumann, Henderson, Houser, Huseman, Kauffman, C. Knapp, R.
Knapp, Marcus-Mendoza, McInerney, Megginson, Mendoza, Milton, Newman, Pender,
Penrose, Raadschelders, Rai, Rupp-Serrano, Russell, Scherman, Schramm, Sharp, Sievers, Striz, Watts, Wheeler, Wyckoff, Yuan
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ABSENT: Biggerstaff,
Halterman, Liu, Ransom
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Password sharing policy; Research Council charge
2003-04 Campus Departmental Review Panel
The Big Event
Senate Chair's Report:
Out-of-state tuition waivers for graduate assistants
Reception for Athletic Department
Regents’ policy manual
UOSA initiatives
Legislative issues
OTRS/retirement plan
Faculty development fund
Health benefit survey
Senate apportionment
Salary program
Committee nominations
Renewable term faculty
Library filters
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of
President Boren approved the
password sharing policy and the revisions in the Research Council charge that
the Faculty Senate passed at its
The following faculty will
serve on the 2003-04 Campus Departmental Review Panel: Jim Kudrna (Architecture), Lance Lobban
(Chemical Engineering and Materials Science), Paul Minnis
(Anthropology), Laurette Taylor (Health & Sport Sciences), and Mike Wiggins
(Petroleum & Geological Engineering).
The panel will also include Associate Dean Gary Emery (Business),
Associate Dean Mary Jo Watson (Fine Arts), and Dr. Guoqiang
Shen (Architecture and
Mr. Mark Moravits,
chair of the Big Event, explained that the event is the official day of
community service at OU. This year is the
fifth year of the event, and he would like to get faculty and staff involved
along with the student volunteers. Last
year, about 3500 students participated; this year, he anticipates 5500. The event, which will be held Saturday, March
27, is a way of saying thank you to Norman and Oklahoma City for the support
they show our campus. Volunteers work at
about 200 job sites, doing everything from visiting senior citizens to minor
construction. Mr. Moravits
said he thought the event would be a good team building activity for a
department or college or a way to spend the day with students off campus. He distributed flyers and applications and
said volunteers could also apply on the web at bigevent.ou.edu. The deadline for applications is Friday,
March 5. Prof. Watts asked whether the
volunteers provide the ideas for the community service projects. Mr. Moravits replied
that individuals are assigned to a job site but he could try to match someone’s
work preference. When asked about
sending the information to faculty by e-mail, Mr. Moravits
said the details could be downloaded from the web site. He clarified that people could volunteer as a
group or individually.
“The Executive Committee of
the Faculty Senate sent a letter to Dean Williams expressing
“I had lunch with Dean Sul
Lee and Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers of the University Libraries about hosting a
reception to thank the Athletic Department for their assistance. A number of coaches donate money to the
library endowment. In addition, part of
the proceeds from the sale of OU merchandise goes to the library endowment. I thought that this was a very good idea and volunteered
the Senate to help sponsor this event. The
event will occur sometime in late March or early April, and faculty will be
invited.
“Sections 2 and 3 of the OU Regents’
policy manual were approved at the January meeting of the Regents. Ms. Fallgatter, senate coordinator, checked
the copy of the policy manual as it appeared on the agenda to make sure that
the
“The Executive Committee met
with UOSA President Mary Millben to discuss the new
initiatives that UOSA is undertaking this semester. Very soon, they will form the Honor Council,
which will be a student body that will inform students of their
responsibilities regarding academic work. I think that this is a very important
initiative and hope that, with both faculty and students working together, we
will be able to reduce the incidence of academic misconduct on campus. The council will be charged with developing
plans that will inform students, particularly new students coming in, about
what they should or should not be doing related to academic assignments. UOSA will be involved in Higher Education
Day. They will invite student
representatives from other universities to discuss
“We discussed the budget with
President Boren and various initiatives in the state legislature that affect
OU. The Equalization Board meets
tomorrow, which will update the state’s revenue projection for next year. The President is working to get funding for
the increase in OHLAP, which provides scholarships to high school students that
complete a prescribed set of college preparatory coursework. Also, the President is working on funding for
a new cancer center to be built at the
“Prof. Frech brought to our
attention House Bill 2226 that proposes an alternative retirement plan for higher
education. I contacted Human Resources
Director Julius Hilburn to get more information about this bill and how it
affects OU employees. A committee was
set up in 2002 to review the Oklahoma Teachers’ Retirement System (OTRS), and
it recommended that OU try to get out of OTRS, mainly because of an equity
issue. OU and OSU employees who do not
reach the cap in OTRS do not get the same retirement benefits as employees at
other higher education institutions. The
bill would allow current employees to stay in OTRS or opt out. In place of OTRS, the university would set up
a defined contribution plan with similar kinds of benefits. I will ask Mr. Hilburn to come to the senate
and explain what is going on. I will
have the Employment Benefits Committee and the Faculty Welfare Committee review
this matter as well.
“We received five proposals
for the Faculty Development Fund. Prof. Jim
Davis’s committee will review these proposals and make funding recommendations
soon.
“The Faculty Welfare
Committee is now reviewing the data from the survey on Health Choice. We received 175 responses from retirees (out
of 575 mailings) and 143 responses from faculty and staff. The committee will make a report to the Senate
on their findings in April. We will also
have Mr. Hilburn and Benefits Manager Nick Kelly come to the April meeting to
update us on the RFP for health care and the University’s recommendation for a
health coverage provider.
“We have the data on faculty FTEs
that our Senate committee needs to recommend reapportionment of the Senate. Prof. Gary Copeland’s committee should be able
to make recommendations by our next meeting.
“The Faculty Senate Faculty Compensation
Committee recommended that the salary program address cost-of-living, particularly
since the faculty has had increased health insurance costs; merit; and equity
(compression and inversion) issues. The
executive committee discussed this recommendation with Provost Mergler and
President Boren. If this is agreeable to
the Senate, we will send a letter to President Boren requesting that these
issues be addressed in the salary program this year.” There were no comments or objections from the
floor.
“Prof. Watts, who is the
chair of our Committee on Committees, wants to remind everyone that nominations
for committees are due March 10. Please
discuss this with your colleagues and encourage individuals to volunteer.”
Last
month, the Faculty Senate considered a proposal drafted by a committee chaired
by Prof. Susan Marcus Mendoza to consider renewable term faculty as regular
faculty and allow them participation in University governance (see 1/04 senate
journal).
The committee on renewable term faculty recommends
that the definition of regular faculty be changed in the faculty handbook as
stated in section 3.5 of the proposed revisions in the regents handbook,
“Regular faculty appointment(s) to an academic position must be a) a
tenure-track appointment (beginning and terminating at a specified date), b) a
tenured appointment (beginning with and following the granting of tenure) or c)
a ranked renewable term/consecutive term appointment (renewable annually for a
fixed term); and must be at the rank of assistant professor, associate
professor or professor.”
This change in definition will affect all other
sections that refer to the regular faculty and in turn will modify the faculty
handbook.
The committee on renewable term faculty recommends
that a limit on the proportion of renewable term faculty be enacted, as stated
in section 3.5.3 of the proposed revisions in the regents
handbook, “At no time may the number of the ranked renewable term faculty
exceed ten percent of the number of tenure-track and tenured faculty on the
Norman campus.”
The committee on renewable term faculty also
recommends the addition of the sentence, “Renewable term/consecutive term
faculty contract renewals will follow the process of the appointing college.”
Prof.
McInerney said, “The Executive Committee discussed this proposal last Monday
and thought that having a cap on the number of renewable term faculty in a
given unit would be wise and recommended that this be set at 25 percent of the
tenured and tenure-track faculty in the unit.”
The
end of the third paragraph would read (proposed new language in bold):
“At
no time may the number of the ranked renewable term faculty exceed ten percent
of the number of tenure-track and tenured faculty on the Norman campus. For any
individual academic unit, the limit should be no greater than twenty-five
percent."
“However, Prof.
Marcus-Mendoza, who chaired the committee on renewable term faculty, raised
some important points. Such a cap would
be very difficult for small departments and could impair departments and colleges
from meeting their academic missions. It
especially hits units that add a diverse cultural perspective to the
curriculum. Another possibility would be
to establish some percentage in a unit that would trigger a review done by the
provost and a Faculty Senate committee.”
Prof. Burns said he thought
it would be a better idea to recommend the 25 percent cap as a guideline. Many units could be at the cutoff or
over. A requirement like this would not
offer any long-range solution. Prof.
Raadschelders asked how many units had more than 25 percent. Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said certain programs
like Religious Studies, Women’s Studies, Film & Video Studies, and
African-American Studies would already violate the cap. A unit cap would decrease the autonomy of
units and colleges. She suggested
leaving the cap at 10 percent campus-wide and letting the colleges administer
it.
Prof. Sharp asked whether
renewable term faculty who were not ranked would be included. Prof. McInerney said only faculty at the rank
of assistant professor and above would be included. Ranked renewable term faculty generally have commitment
to contracts and are here a long period of time, similar to the tenured/tenure-track
faculty positions.
Prof. Sievers
pointed out that the proposal was not universally accepted by all units. His unit—Music—was worried about condoning such
a practice and was afraid of the ramifications.
He advocated some sort of guarantee that there was a cap that fit a
particular unit. Prof. McInerney said he
would hate to dictate to a particular unit the number that they could
hire. Renewable term faculty members are
already present on campus. This proposal
addresses whether they will have certain university privileges. Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said she thought the 10
percent cap university-wide was a good idea, but a unit cap would cause all
kinds of problems. What was important was
whether renewable term faculty members were given these rights, privileges, and
responsibilities. Prof. Kauffman
suggested rewording the proposal to recommend a reasonable percentage of faculty within each academic unit. Prof. Striz questioned why the percentage of
renewable term faculty was so high in certain programs and why
tenured/tenure-track faculty members were not in those positions. Prof. Raadschelders asked why it was
important to identify three categories of regular faculty and whether it had to
do with governance. Prof. McInerney said
the proposal would allow renewable term faculty to have governance and run for
the Faculty Senate. When Prof.
Raadschelders asked about the notion of a cap, Prof. Knapp said the cap was to
make sure the University had some limits so that it would not become a faculty
of renewable term. Prof. Megginson asked
about the rights of renewable term faculty and whether they could vote on
tenure. Prof. McInerney responded that
it was up to the department to decide who votes on tenure. Some committees, such as the Campus Tenure
Committee, require the members to be tenured.
Prof. Megginson remarked that it was not obvious that these types of
contracts would weaken tenure. He said
it was specialization of labor and added flexibility.
Prof. McInerney suggested
that the senate vote first on the proposed amendment and then on the
proposal. The senate voted to strike the
amendment (the sentence in bold) on a show of hands. Prof. Watts asked whether the senate wanted
to consider the idea of establishing some percentage by unit that would trigger
a review. Prof. McInerney said he
thought that could create a lot of review at the dean’s level. When asked about the number of renewable term
faculty, Prof. Marcus-Mendoza said there were about 35 ranked renewable term
faculty, appointed in every college.
Prof. McInerney noted that the number was still well below the 10
percent cap. Dean Bell pointed out that
Arts & Sciences had 21 ranked renewable term and 380 tenured/tenure-track
faculty. The senate approved the original
proposal, minus the amendment, on a show of hands.
Prof. Rupp-Serrano announced
that House Bill 222, which is in committee, would require all libraries in the
state to install filters. She said she
hoped it would die in committee but that she wanted the faculty to be aware of
it. She said filters were unnecessary in
school and public libraries because they are subject to CIPA and therefore have
to have filters in place. It flies in
the face of academic freedom for a university and would seriously impact
students’ ability to use the Internet to conduct research.
The meeting adjourned at
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Karen Rupp-Serrano, Secretary