The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)

Regular session – March 8, 1999 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102

office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206 phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782

e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site: http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/

The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Alexander Holmes, Chair.

__________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Announcements:

Faculty awards ceremony 2

Faculty appeals, departmental tenure and promotion voting 2

Search committee, Vice President for Research and Graduate College Dean 2

Patent policy 2

Faculty Awards and Honors Council recommendations 5

Information Technology Council’s Technology Priorities and Goals 6

__________________________________________________________________________

Prof. Norwood said he wanted to amend the language in the Senate Chair’s Report. He said the reason he had asked the question about the funding particulars for other state sectors was to learn the figures for common education and vo-tech as well as highways. According to Sandy Garrett’s office (Superintendent of Public Instruction), common education and vo-tech also are not supposed to be taking cuts. Therefore, the statement that higher education is better off than any other sector is incorrect. In Prof. Norwood’s opinion, common education is one of higher education’s most bitter rivals at the state Capitol, and higher education generally fares very poorly against the competition. It is misleading to say he was asking only about highways. He moved to amend the minutes to read, "Prof. Norwood asked about the figures for the other state sectors like highways, common education, and vo-tech." The Senate Journal for the regular session of February 8, 1999 was approved as amended.

The faculty awards ceremony is scheduled for Thursday, April 15, at 3:00 p.m. in Meacham Auditorium, with a reception following in the Beaird Lounge of the Oklahoma Memorial Union. Invitations will be sent to faculty in mid March. Prof. Holmes said this is a wonderful opportunity to thank our colleagues.

The Board of Regents approved the revisions to the policies regarding faculty appeals procedures (see 11/98 Senate Journal, page 5) and the departmental tenure and promotion voting procedures (see 11/98 Senate Journal, page 4, and 1/99 Senate Journal, page 2).

Dr. Eddie Carol Smith, Vice President for Research and Graduate College Dean, will be stepping down, and a search committee is being formed. President Boren asked the Senate for two nominees for the faculty-at-large position on the committee. The Senate Executive Committee nominated Professors Marilyn Ogilvie (History of Science) and Will Sutton (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering), and the President will select one. The deans also are putting forward nominations. Because this position straddles the world of academics and administration, the search committee probably will have more representation from the administrative side than is typical for a dean’s position, but it will be dominated by faculty. [Note: The President selected Prof. Sutton to serve on the search committee.]

Prof. Holmes explained that the revisions in the Patent Policy had been delayed until the state constitution was amended. The Senate approved the motion to remove the proposal from the table. Prof. Holmes asked the chair of the patent task force, Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers (University Libraries) to highlight the changes this proposal would make in the existing policy (see Appendix I and 2/99 Senate Journal, page 2).

Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the policy would take into account the changes in the state statutes that will now allow corporations to share in the ownership of patent rights and help researchers get venture capital to develop patents. The proposal specifies the percent of remuneration going to inventors and arrangements with the University for various types of licensing relative to ownership rights. The policy affects the amount of income and speed with which a patent can be pursued by the University. In the past, many people who had potential patents thought the University did not have sufficient resources to file patents.

Prof. Murphy noted that both the Vice President for Research and Vice President for Technology Development are included in most steps but not all. She asked whether section 3.1.D was supposed to read, "the Vice President for Research and the Vice President for Technology Development." Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that was correct. Prof. Murphy asked whether the Vice President for Research should be included in the last sentence of section 2.1. Prof. Weaver-Meyers replied that as a result of the appointment of a new Vice President for Technology Development, the language was changed from the Office of Technology Management to the Vice President for Technology Development. When the proposal was first developed, the task force was trying to provide more resources to the Office of Technology Management, which was a freestanding office, to pay for patent filing and to pursue venture capital. Prof. Murphy asked whether the Vice President for Technology Development should be included in section 3.4. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that could be changed to read, "The Vice Presidents for Research with the Vice President for Technology Development." The proposal was phrased this way originally because there was no Office of Technology Management and no Vice President for Technology Development at the HSC. The HSC Faculty Senate currently is reviewing the proposal. Prof. Sutton suggested that "Director of the" be deleted in the second paragraph of section 6. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that error occurred in changing the Office of Technology Management to the Vice President for Technology Development.

Prof. Russell said there seemed to be some confusion between the Vice President for Research and Vice President for Technology Development. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said it was a philosophical question as to whether the Vice President for Research should be included with the Vice President for Technology Development in patent affairs. Some faculty think that including the Vice President for Research will slow the process down and make the system less responsive to potential inventors. Prof. Russell responded that whoever controls the money will be in charge. He pointed out that the wording at the end of section 2.1 would give the Vice President for Technology Development control of the money. He suggested that perhaps the Senate should add "with the advice of the President." Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she assumed the Vice President for Technology Development was the appointee of the President. Prof. Russell noted that the Vice President for Technology Development could now get a contract with private entities to do research and try to create wealth. Prof. Holmes asked about the value of the sentence inasmuch as agreements have to be processed through the President and regents. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the task force wanted to make sure that the Office of Technology Management had adequate funding to do a better job in getting venture capital for inventions. Once the revenues are distributed among the inventor, department, and the University, an appropriate amount of the University’s share would go to the office of the Vice President for Technology Development. It is for the Senate to decide whether the Vice President for Research should be involved. Prof. Sutton said he thought the intention was to make it clear that the technology office would be supported by the University’s share and not the inventor’s share of the funds. Prof. Weaver-Meyers noted that the University used to have enough funding for only four or five patents at a time. There was no budget for technology development when the proposal was written. Now the state has come forward with the funding for offices at OU and OSU. However, the funding is not stable yet, and the office will need to grow to keep up with the patents. Prof. Russell said he thought the Vice President for Research should be included.

Prof. Scherman asked whether the gross revenue mentioned in section 2.1 was total income. Prof. Weaver-Meyers answered that it would be gross, not net, revenue, including equity. She said the task force thought it was a good ratio. Prof. Russell moved to amend section 2.1 to change the inventor's share from 40% to 50% and the University’s share from 50% to 40%. Prof. Osisanya asked for a clarification of the distribution. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the University would not get any money until the revenue is at least $2500. The task force thought the inventor should get some initial reward for his/her time, energy, and the use of any personal resources. Prof. Schwarzkopf said he thought the wording needed to be clarified. He agreed to Prof. Holmes’ suggestion to change the language to read "everything above $2500." Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she was not sure that Legal Counsel would buy the change in the inventor and University share. What was recommended was more generous than patent policies at most universities.

Prof. Schwarzkopf asked who would pay to develop the invention. Prof. Weaver-Meyers responded that the University would pay the development costs if it chose to develop the patent with the inventor. If the University gives up the idea, the policy states that the University will sign it over, even if the idea came about in a lab funded by the University, and the inventor will have sole ownership. Prof. Holmes added that just because someone has a patent does not mean s/he has revenue. The University may work with venture capitalists to turn the invention into something that will generate revenue. Prof. Cline said he supported the inclusion of the Vice President for Research in section 2.1 to provide a strong academic presence.

Prof. Holmes summarized the motions on the floor. The first amendment would change section 2.1 to read, "everything above $2500, 50%, 10%, 40%." The amendment was approved. The second amendment would add "and the Vice President for Research" in 2.1, "for Research" in 3.1.D, and "with the Vice President for Technology Development" in two places in 3.4 and would delete "Director of the" in 6.

Prof. Benson said section 2.1 should not be amended simply by adding "and the Vice President for Research." The sentence says "support" not "fund." The intention was that the funds that support the Vice President for Technology Development should come out of the money the office makes. The question is whether we want the Vice President for Technology Development to be as self-supporting as possible. By contrast, we do not want the office of the Vice President for Research to be supported only from money generated by inventions. Currently, the Vice President for Research also receives E&G funding. These are two very different offices. Prof. Holmes summarized Prof. Benson’s point: these funds should be used to support the Vice President for Technology Development as well as to support the Vice President for Research. Ideally the Vice President for Technology Development should be supported entirely from these funds. In contrast, patent funds should not be the only funds supporting the Vice President for Research. Prof. Benson said the Vice President for Research would lose interest in the patent policy quickly if s/he failed to get any of the money. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the Technology Development Office is funded by the state. Prof. Holmes remarked that the problem is the funding is too small to develop patents. He proposed the addition, "and aid in funding of the Vice President for Research." Prof. Cline said his intent was that the Vice President for Research would have an interest. Prof. Patterson asked what would happen if the two vice presidents did not agree. Prof. Benson said the rights would revert to the faculty member in 90 days. Referring to section 3.1.D.3, Prof. Murphy said only the Vice President for Technology Development would make that decision. Prof. Cline accepted Prof. Holmes’ proposed change as a friendly amendment. Prof. Sutton commented that the key words are "to further the research mission of the University." The Vice President for Research has the academic interests of the University in mind. The proposed language would provide a balance. The mission of the Vice President for Technology Development, which is to develop inventions, does not necessarily go hand in hand with the academic mission of the University. The amendment was approved with one nay vote.

Prof. Agrawal proposed that the wording in section 3.3 be changed to "research and technology development" to be consistent with the rest of the document. Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she thought the sentence was included because of a concern that the revenues might go to something like office furniture rather than to research. Prof. Karriker said it is clear what the research area of a department is and what the department’s commitment to research is, but its commitment to technology development may not be that clear. She said she opposed the suggestion. Prof. Holmes said one version of technology development could be wiring a classroom for computers. Prof. Sutton commented that by adding the Vice President for Research, any funding for research could go to any of the research and creative activities in that office and not just to research of this sort. Prof. Kunesh asked whether a change to "and/or technology development" would satisfy the concerns. Prof. Schwarzkopf moved to change the wording to "research related." Prof. Kutner said some change needed to be made to accommodate what was added at the end of 2.1. He suggested an additional change: "research related purposes as the University or department deems appropriate." Prof. Schwarzkopf accepted that change as a friendly amendment. The amendment was approved with one nay vote. The proposal as amended was approved on a voice vote. Prof. Holmes thanked Prof. Weaver-Meyers for her work on the patent policy.

Prof. Lora Rikans, a faculty member at the HSC and chair of the Faculty Awards and Honors Council, presented the following recommendations of the council.

(1) Nominators should be allowed to nominate a candidate for only one specific award. Rationale: nominators should be encouraged to determine which award is most appropriate for their candidate, rather than using a shotgun approach.

(2) In keeping with the eligibility criteria for Presidential Professorships and Amoco Foundation Good Teaching Awards, persons currently holding a distinguished professorship (David Ross Boyd, George Lynn Cross, Presidential and Regents' Professors) or a named endowed chair or professorship should not be eligible for the Regents' Award for Superior Teaching, the Regents' Award for Research and Creative Activity or the General Education Teaching Award. Rationale: Eligibility criteria for the Regents' awards and the General Education Teaching Awards should be consistent with those for the Presidential Professorship and Amoco awards. Moreover, recipients of distinguished professorships and endowed chairs are deemed to have already achieved unusual distinction in teaching, research or service.

(3) Previous winners of Regents' Awards should not be eligible for the same award at a later time. Instead their nominators should consider them for other awards. Rationale: because of the large number of outstanding nominees for these awards and the difficulty in distinguishing among the top candidates, Regents' Awards should be given to faculty who have not received the same award previously.

(4) An award for team teaching should be considered. The Council recommends that a committee be formed to investigate the possibility and practicality of setting up such an award and that one or more of the members of the Award Council be appointed to this committee. Rationale: some faculty members do all of their teaching in team-taught courses; in this format teaching excellence often goes unnoticed.

She explained that the council believed that the endorsement of the Norman and HSC Faculty Senates would carry more weight with the President. The recommendations were approved by the majority of the council members. Questions may be sent to her at Lora-Rikans@ouhsc.edu. Prof. Benson asked whether any of the awards could be thought of as performance for a given year rather than performance over one’s career. Prof. Rikans replied that the council looks at the awards as cumulative achievement. Prof. Holmes noted that Prof. Rikans would be present next month for the Senate vote.

Prof. Holmes explained that the Information Technology Council (ITC) had asked the Senate to discuss the attached document (Appendix II) to get a better understanding of faculty sentiment about technology priorities and goals.

Prof. Wilbur Stolt (University Libraries), chair of the ITC, said the council is an advisory body consisting of faculty, staff, administrators, and students and deals with the use of computing, networking, telecommunications, and similar technologies on the Norman campus. Its aim is to help facilitate the use of information technology that will advance the University’s goals of teaching, research, and service. This document and the ITC membership and activities are included on its web site: www.ou.edu/committees/itc. During the past two years, the ITC surveyed faculty, discussed technology needs and priorities with administrators, advised the Department of Computing and Telecommunication Services on issues such as modem access, and participated in student technology forums. A major project was the development of this document. The ITC intended the document to be a platform for discussion and to provide direction for future action. Some progress has been made on technology goals. The library is upgrading its computer system, the modem pool has been upgraded, and Dr. Bob Swisher has been appointed as Director of Instructional Technology. However, many areas need attention. We lack classrooms that will support computer technology, faculty members often do not have the necessary tools or encouragement to develop technology, the on-line registration system is still being developed, and modem access continues to be a concern. Prof. Stolt said the ITC is not the only group working on technology issues, which indicates that the University is moving to a greater awareness of the role of technology. Dr. Skip Porter, Vice President for Technology Development, formed a task force on the future of technology on campus, and the task force has drafted a report. A technology consultant is meeting with a number of individuals this week. Prof. Stolt suggested that faculty, staff, and students become involved in the deliberations. Technology as a singular funding issue is not being considered by the University. Individual projects are being funded, but planning for technology initiatives on a broader scale is lacking. For example, the Budget Council has not considered technology as a funding issue. We must take a more deliberate role in finding technology needs and seeking funding for those needs. Many departments do not have funding for the basics. He said he hoped the Faculty Senate would participate in discussions and provide input. Comments may be sent to the Information Technology Council or wstolt@ou.edu.

Prof. Deming said the word, "must," was used repeatedly. Any institution has limited resources. If the library must do what is outlined in the priorities, does that mean fewer books will be bought for the library? To him, academic freedom means not only the freedom to determine what is taught in the classroom but how it is presented. He asked whether the section on incentives meant a professor who did not use a computer in the classroom could be denied tenure. Prof. Stolt answered that what was being suggested was rewards, not pressures, for creating innovations. He asked Prof. Deming to send him suggestions for new language that would not infringe on academic freedom.

Prof. Badhwar said she had the same concern. She proposed that some language be added such as, "If the instructor deems appropriate, s/he should have the technology support to introduce technology in the classroom." She said the University should not decide how instructors should teach their courses (see Training and Support Priority 2 on page one). Prof. Stolt replied that one of the things the Information Technology Council is trying to do is facilitate the use of technology. He asked, "When does incentive become a threat?" Prof. Holmes said it becomes an academic freedom issue when a particular method of delivery is encouraged. The function of technology is not to impose itself on people but to be available for those who choose to avail themselves of those resources. Prof. Joyce said she thought the document should mention the need for training, the personnel that should be added for that purpose, and a budget.

Prof. Schwarzkopf said the appropriate role for technology support is to facilitate and enable, not dictate and control. We should not come down on the control side. For example, specifying what computer the students should have not only is control but dangerous because it implies they can use it until they graduate, which is not true, given the speed with which computers change. Prof. Stolt said the document suggests that in purchasing and other areas, because we would like the campus to be able to support the tools, there should be some consultation to make sure that whatever is purchased will be supported. Prof. Patterson said she counted 17 "musts" in the Executive Summary, so she thought the language should be reworked. Prof. Stolt responded that the Information Technology Council did not want this to be a soft statement.

Prof. Benson said he was interested in the faculty view of technology as a budget priority. If we put resources into technology development, then those resources will not be available for something else. The Faculty Senate has taken the position for a long time that faculty salaries are first priority. It would be useful to the Executive Committee, in discussions with the President and Provost, to know where technology development should be in terms of budget priorities. Prof. Holmes added that this year many things would fall off the list of budget priorities. This is an opportunity for the Faculty Senate to tell the President what is important. He asked the senators to e-mail their budget priorities to the Faculty Senate office.

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, April 12, 1999, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.

____________________________________

Ruth Okediji, Secretary

____________________________________

Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator

Appendix I

(3-8-99 Faculty Senate additions underlined; deletions double crossed through)

PATENT POLICY

1.2 All rights in and to inventions described in Paragraph 1.1 shall be assigned to the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma as a specific condition of employment with the University and admission to and/or attendance at the University. Faculty, staff and students shall execute any and all documents the University deems reasonably necessary to evidence such ownership, meet its legal obligations and effect patent protection, domestic and foreign, for the University or its nominee. All costs involved in obtaining and maintaining patent protection shall be borne by the University or its nominee.

(3) Such transfer will automatically take place if the Vice President for Technology Development does not declare the University’s interest within 90 days of disclosure by the inventor.

3.2 All transfers of University inventions shall be subject to and contingent upon any rights in third parties as may be governed and/or required by, among other things, sponsored research agreements, other third-party contracts or law.

Any discovery or invention undisclosed by faculty, staff or student at the University of Oklahoma, that is part of any subsequent patent application by former employees of the University and/or associated institutions or sponsors violates this Patent Policy and may result in the loss of valuable rights in the invention and may violate contracts to which the University and its faculty, staff and students are legally bound.

5. CONTRACTUAL TERM

Appendix II

Information Technology Council Technology Priorities and Goals

http://www.ou.edu/committees/itc/planning/goals.html