JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY SENATE
The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session - February 12, 1996 - 3:30 p.m.
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Pat L.
Weaver-Meyers, Chair.
PRESENT: Badiru, Baker, Benson, Bremer, Burnett, Carnevale,
DeBrunner, Dillard, Dillon, Durica, Elisens, Fiedler,
Fung, Gana, Genova, Gilje, Greene, Gupta,
Gutierrez, Harris, Havener, Hillyer, Hutchison,
Konopak, Laird, F. Lee, R. Miller, Mouser,
Murphy, Nelson, Ogilvie, Patterson, Ragep,
Shaughnessy, Sipes, Stock, Tepker, Thulasiraman,
Van Gundy, Wallach, Weaver-Meyers, Weinel,
Wenk
Provost's office representative: Bell
PSA representatives: Iselin, Spencer
UOSA representatives: Barron, Frederick
ABSENT: Egle, Hertzke, Holmes, Horrell, Lucey, Palmer,
Scaperlanda, Stoltenberg, Williams
______________________________________________________
____________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcement: General Faculty meeting 2
Program Duplication 2
Senate Chair's Report:
Provost search committee 3
Athletic funding 3
Information Technology Council 4
Faculty salaries 4
Benefits 5
Paid leave and short-term disability policy 5
Addition to Faculty Handbook concerning student conduct 6
______________________________________________________
____________________
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
The Senate Journal for the regular session of January 22, 1996, was
approved.
ANNOUNCEMENT
The Spring General Faculty meeting will be held in conjunction
with the Faculty Senate meeting on Monday, March 18. President
Boren will make remarks about the funding picture. This
combined meeting will be held in Adams Hall 255.
REPORT BY PROFESSOR FRANCIS SCHMITZ, CHAIR
OF PROGRAM DUPLICATION AD HOC COMMITTEE
Prof. Schmitz, Chemistry and Biochemistry, thanked the other
members of the committee for their work in preparing the report
(Appendix I). The committee was prompted by concern that the
Council on Graduate Education and Research (COGER), a council
on which he served, was serious about eliminating duplicate
programs. COGER is a council set up by the State Regents for
Higher Education, whose purpose is to strengthen graduate
programs and eliminate duplication. It is composed of 17 members
and 3 alternates. The early work of the council eliminated
programs that were not in use, but the council realized no dollars
were being saved. The citizen members of the council have made
it clear they are intent on program elimination that would save
money. At the fall meeting of COGER, Engineering was on the
block for elimination at OU or OSU. The two schools were
effective in persuading the council that these two programs
complemented each other, were cooperative, and should remain in
place. However, the council is continuing to review other
programs and will probably look at Business next.
The Faculty Senate ad hoc committee looked at a number of
documents from within the state and from Ohio State University
(available in the Faculty Senate office). In its report, the
committee stressed the link between education and economic
development. In view of financial constraints, it is important to
review programs; however, not all duplication is unnecessary. The
committee proposed some guidelines that should be useful in
determining which, if any, programs should be eliminated. The
first question is whether programs are duplicate in name only. In
cases of unnecessary duplication, then questions should be asked
about scholarship, productivity, and demand. A cost analysis asks
whether the elimination of a program will really save any money.
Prof. Fiedler said it does not necessarily make sense to look only at
OU and OSU. He asked whether any thought had been given to
program duplication in general. Prof. Schmitz said in some areas,
a regional program might be reasonable. Prof. Fung asked how
serious Higher Education Chancellor Brisch and the OU and OSU
presidents were about eliminating programs. A few years ago, a
committee recommended the elimination of weak programs, but
that was met with resistance. He said the University of Rochester
is eliminating four graduate programs, including Mathematics and
Engineering. Prof. Schmitz said the seven citizens on the council
are very interested in cutting costs and giving that money to other
programs. They say all businesses are having to downsize. The
two university presidents are making a good faith effort to
determine if there really is duplication.
Prof. Sipes said if the citizen members are serious about saving
money and Engineering was spared, it seems there will be more
pressure to cut other programs. Prof. Schmitz said each program
will have to determine if certain areas are duplicative. Prof. Durica
asked whether the council was aware of the downsizing that has
occurred. Prof. Schmitz said the council was told. Prof. Dillon
asked whether the council was looking just at doctoral programs.
Prof. Schmitz said they are looking at any graduate level program.
Prof. Dillon suggested that graduate programs at other schools in
the state be examined. Prof. Schmitz said he understood that
Chancellor Brisch was resisting that.
Prof. Wenk asked whether the council was targeting large
programs to save money. She asked why small programs that do
not cost much would be cut. Prof. Schmitz said the council seems
to be picking programs with the same names. He commented that
not all duplication is unnecessary. Prof. Gilje asked whether the ad
hoc committee saw duplication between OU and OSU as a
problem. Prof. Schmitz said he was sympathetic to the fact that the
programs at the two Engineering schools have different specialties.
Prof. Hillyer asked whether there was any discussion about the
impact on tenure and promotion. Prof. Schmitz said a lot of
question have been asked about what would happen to the faculty.
If a decision is made to try to eliminate a program, then the cost
effectiveness should be examined. For example, if Engineering is
offered only at OSU and OSU has to build new facilities and add
faculty, then it might not save any money. Prof. Schmitz said the
ad hoc committee simply tried to suggest issues that should be
addressed, rather than evaluate any programs. Prof. Weaver-
Meyers said the committee was asked to set up some guidelines for
an area under examination to consider. Because of the concern
about the significant activity on program duplication, she decided
to be proactive.
SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers
The president selected the following faculty from the ten names
proposed by the Faculty Senate for the Provost search committee:
Trent Gabert (Health and Sport Sciences), Katheleen Guzman
(Law), Wilbur Stolt (University Libraries), Cal Stoltenberg
(Educational Psychology), and Bret Wallach (Geography). The
president will probably select some additional faculty and is still
committed to having a faculty majority on the search committee.
He will try to get regents' approval before their regular March
meeting in order to get the advertisement and job description
prepared. Prof. Mouser asked about the additional faculty the
president might select. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said to assure there is
a faculty majority, the president may add some faculty. She said
she did not have any information yet about the Arts and Sciences
dean search committee. That committee will be formed after the
provost search is put together.
A handout was distributed at the meeting showing expenditures in
the academic area and in the athletic department for Big Twelve
institutions (available from the Senate office). A report prepared
by the state regents shows athletic expenditures for 1993-94 at
various institutions in the state. Expenditures by state schools
other than OU and OSU are funded mostly by state funds, because
they do not have the opportunity to earn income through ticket
sales, etc. Any comments should be sent to Prof. Ted Roberts,
Law, who is chair of the gender equity subcommittee of the
Athletics Council.
The Information Technology Council had its first meeting last
week and discussed its standing committees and issues to address.
Prof. Bruce Mason, Physics and Astronomy, is the chair.
Prof. Andy Magid (Mathematics), chair of the Faculty
Compensation Committee (FCC), explained his computation of
what percentage salary increase we would need to get salaries back
to zero. In order for salaries to have the same purchasing power in
July 1996 as they did July 1993, faculty and staff would need a
5.99% salary increase, which would cost about $6 million. Higher
education would need to receive $34 million in new money in
order for OU to get $6 million (17.5% of $34 million). Other
needs are being put forward for the new money. Prof. Weaver-
Meyers said the president asked for input about the criteria for
salary increases. The FCC is meeting next week to put together
some recommendations. Issues include merit versus cost-of-living,
staff versus faculty, and proportional raises. Comments should be
sent to Prof. Magid. Prof. Gilje asked whether this computation
had been presented to the president. Prof. Magid said it had. Prof.
Gilje asked whether the FCC would recommend a cost-of-living
raise as the number one priority. Prof. Magid said the FCC had not
met yet. He reminded the group about the resolutions concerning
salary increases that the Faculty Senate approved in May 1995 and
May 1994. This computation simply answers the question, "What
does it take to get to zero?" It is not inconsistent with the earlier
resolutions. Prof. Carnevale asked whether compression would be
addressed. He mentioned the FCC study showing that 71% of new
hires create inversions (12/95 Journal, page 3). Prof. Magid said
that will be one of the issues. Another issue the president asked
the Senate to address is whether faculty and staff should receive
proportionately the same share of salary. Prof. Hutchison
commented that faculty seem to be interested in across-the-board
raises, because everyone has fallen behind in salary. He suggested
that a certain percentage could be designated as across-the-board
and any excess could go to merit if individuals ranked at a certain
level on performance evaluations. Staff should get the same
percentage raise as faculty because they did not get as much in
salary as faculty did one year. Prof. Greene suggested that across-
the-board raises be on a sliding scale. Prof. Hutchison pointed out
that that had been done in the past, and it compounded the
compression problem. Prof. Gilje said merit deserves to be
rewarded. "If everyone is treated equally, what incentive is there
for excellence?"
Prof. Havener said he had always favored merit, but he now
believed that when you reach a certain level, you have to keep
people from sinking. Individuals who were hired in recently
received higher salaries and should not automatically get a 6%
raise. Prof. Magid said the effect of two years of negative raises
means it will take 6% to bring people up to what they were making
in 1993. Compression and merit raises could come on top of a 6%
raise. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she did not want people to think
6% was all we are asking for. Prof. Weinel asked whether it was
unrealistic to ask that the issue be approached by college. Over the
last six years, some colleges have been rewarded at a higher level,
which means faculty raises are differentiated. Moreover, a gender
equity component should be added. Prof. Ogilvie said she would
like to see an across-the-board raise and then a reward for
excellence. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said there is also the question of
whether an additional adjustment should be made for departments
that are farther from the median of our peers. Prof. Magid said the
FCC will bring a recommendation to the Faculty Senate for a vote.
He pointed out that the decision about how the administration
allocates its new money will not come from the FCC but rather the
Budget Council. Salary cost of living adjustment should come
before utility and insurance increases. Prof. Sipes said new faculty
should not be eliminated from raises just because they were hired
recently.
Prof. Weaver-Meyers commented that our benefits package is
reviewed every three years. She asked the Faculty Welfare
Committee to look at the cost of benefits and what is covered
under Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Concerns should be shared with
Prof. Fran Ayres, Accounting, chair of the FWC.
PAID LEAVE AND SHORT-TERM DISABILITY POLICY
Last month, the Senate discussed some changes being considered
in the Paid Leave and Short-Term Disability Policy (1/96 Journal,
page 7, and Appendix II). Prof. Weaver-Meyers briefly explained
the following Senate Executive Committee's recommendations
concerning the changes being considered.
1. Reduce the total number of hours deposited to short-term
disability and delay when it can be accessed, but do not
completely eliminate the initial deposit. Remove the language
referring to "demonstrated commitment to the University."
2. Clarify that this does not apply to someone who retires.
3. Reduce the number of days of paid leave usage (perhaps to
five).
4. No position. Does not apply to faculty.
5. Support.
6. Support. The income from Worker's Compensation is not
taxable; therefore, employees receive more than their usual
take-home pay.
Prof. Durica asked how the computations were generated about the
estimated annual savings. For number 1, there would be a $4
million liability if every new hire took short-term disability. Mr.
Don Flegal, Personnel Director, said those dollars are not funded.
Last year, the university spent about $800,000 on short-term
disability. Prof. Patterson noted that for nine-month faculty, it is
just time lost. Prof. Hutchison said there is no real cost unless a
replacement is hired. Prof. Gilje said the administration was
insulting the new faculty for no real gain by saying they did not
have a demonstrated commitment to the university. Prof. Patterson
asked whether faculty who retire get paid for their short-term
disability hours. Mr. Flegal said employees do not get paid for the
accumulation in short-term disability. Prof. DeBrunner said the
University was not out any money when his faculty wife took
pregnancy leave. Prof. Wenk remarked that departments get hurt
because they cannot hire someone to replace a person who is sick.
Prof. Gilje claimed it could be difficult to hire women faculty who
might need leaves with pay for pregnancy if we take away short-
term disability. Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that the Family
Leave policy provides 12 weeks of leave, but not necessarily paid
leave. Faculty may use six weeks of short-term disability for
pregnancy. Faculty still would have 12 days a year deposited to
short-term disability. Prof. Gilje moved to keep the initial deposit
of short-term disability as it currently is for faculty. Prof. Fiedler
suggested that this be an option within Sooner Options. Prof.
Hutchison asked what the current initial deposit is. Mr. Flegal said
it is 65 days. Prof. Hutchison commented that the initial deposit
could be reduced but should not be eliminated entirely. Prof.
Weinel asked about the benefit to eliminating short-term disability.
Mr. Flegal said the University has been looking at funding this
leave so departments could afford to hire replacements. By
reducing the amount, it is more likely it could be funded. Prof.
Weinel pointed out that the potential saving was only to the budget
unit. Prof. Sipes said we are talking about fixing something that is
not broken. Prof. Dillon asked whether the potential liability is
more a problem with staff because it is difficult to hire a
replacement for faculty. Mr. Flegal said it is more likely that
temporary employees are hired to replace staff members. Prof.
Mouser asked whether faculty and staff could be treated
differently. Mr. Flegal said they are now; staff receive 30 days.
The motion to keep the initial deposit as it is for faculty (number 1)
was approved with one dissenting vote and two abstentions.
In discussing number 2, Mr. Flegal explained that reducing the
maximum amount of paid leave for which terminating employees
can be paid would not apply to someone who retired. That
language is part of the current policy and would be included in any
new policy. Prof. Patterson asked whether it would be more
beneficial to resign than retire. Mr. Flegal said this concerns only
paid leave, and nine-month faculty do not get paid leave. Twelve-
month faculty get 22 hours a month. Someone who retires gets the
maximum paid leave [336 hours (42 days) for twelve-month
faculty]. Someone who resigns would get half the maximum.
Prof. Ogilvie moved to approve the remaining five
recommendations of the Executive Committee. The motion was
approved with one abstention.
PROPOSED ADDITION TO FACULTY HANDBOOK
CONCERNING STUDENT CONDUCT
In the agenda for this meeting, the following language was
proposed for the Student-Faculty Policies and Information Section
of the Faculty Handbook (after section 4.1, 4.19, or 4.20):
Faculty who are faced with disruptive behavior by a student
in class should refer to Title 16--Prohibited Conduct--of the
Student Code for information about disciplinary procedures.
Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that the proposed addition was
intended to clarify how faculty can handle such a situation. She
noted that the paragraph had been revised to read:
Faculty who are faced with disruptive behavior by a student
in class are authorized by the Student Code Title 13.1.2 to
take immediate action to prevent disruption or obstruction of
teaching. Procedures for preventing on-going disruption
should follow Title 16 of the Student Code. Faculty taking
formal action that may hinder a student's ability to earn a
course grade should also refer to the Academic Misconduct
Code.
Prof. Genova asked what kind of formal action would hinder a
student's ability to earn a course grade. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said
faculty might dismiss a student from class on a day a test is given.
Dropping a student from the course permanently requires faculty to
follow the procedure in the Student Code. Prof. Genova said the
proposed language made it sound like faculty are already doing
this. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said this was meant to apply to faculty
who are considering formal action. Prof. DeBrunner asked
whether it was appropriate to refer to titles in another document
that faculty normally do not get. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said faculty
have not known what to do because there is nothing in the Faculty
Handbook. Prof. Dillard said he was concerned about referring to
a section in the Student Code that next year may cease to exist; he
suggested that the pertinent sections be incorporated in the Faculty
Handbook.
Prof. Tepker said he wondered whether faculty think they should
have the right to drop students. Prof. Laird remarked that there is a
distinction between disciplinary misconduct and academic
misconduct. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that was correct. If a
faculty member chooses a course that determines whether a student
gets a grade or not, that could come under academic misconduct as
well as disciplinary misconduct. Prof. Laird asked about repetitive
disruptions. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that would go through the
formal procedures in the Student Code. Prof. Tepker said there is a
provision for special administrative approval for suspension. Prof.
Gilje said this language does not really tell the faculty what they
should do. That should be spelled out. In the case of academic
misconduct, faculty should not talk to the student or accuse a
student of cheating because that would violate their rights. Student
Support Services is supposed to notify the student of the charges.
Prof. Genova said faculty can talk to the student, but
communications should be in writing. Prof. Tepker pointed out
that due process must be followed when taking disciplinary action
against an individual. The University has added some additional
procedures and safeguards. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the
Executive Committee will do more work on this.
Prof. Sipes said there is a problem with referring to another
document. On the other hand, if the Student Code changes, would
those changes be incorporated in the Faculty Handbook? Prof.
Tepker commented that Title 13.1.2 of the Student Code, which
says, "The Vice President for Student Affairs and other appropriate
persons in authority may take immediate administrative or
disciplinary action which is deemed necessary for the welfare or
safety of the university community," is a tough standard. Due
process includes a hearing within 15 days. Title 16.2 defines
intentional disruption or obstruction of teaching as misconduct.
Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that faculty are considered
"persons in authority."
ADJOURNMENT
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, March 18, 1996,
in Adams Hall 255.
__________________________
__________________________
Sonya Fallgatter Connie
Dillon
Administrative Coordinator
Secretary
Norman Campus Faculty Senate
Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782
e-mail: facsen@uoknor.edu
2/96 (Page )
2/96 (Page )