The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)

Regular session - May 3, 1999 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102

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

e-mail: web site:

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

PRESENT: Abraham (1), Agrawal (2), Badhwar (1), Benson (0), Bert (3), Blank (3), Butler (2), Cline (1), Durica (2), Edwards (1), Emery (1), Ferreira (0), Fleener (1), Gilliland (2), Greene (0), Gross (1), Holmes (0), Houser (1), Joyce (2), Karriker (1), Knapp (0), Kudrna (1), Kunesh (2), Kutner (0), Mau (0), Murphy (0), Newman (2), Norwood (2), Osisanya (2), Pailes (0), Patterson (1), Ratliff (3), Russell (2), Scherman (3), Schwarzkopf (1), St. John (2), Sutton (1), Watts (2)

Provost's office representative: Mergler

UOSA representatives: Shankle

ABSENT: Beasley (3), Brown (2), Deming (2), Eliason (1), Engel (2), Lancaster (3), Leigh (4), Okediji (1), Rosenthal (4), Weston (3), White (3)

[NOTE: During the period June 1998 to May 1999, the Senate held 9 regular sessions and no special sessions. The figures in parentheses above indicate the number of absences.]




Senators who received awards 2

Schedule of Senate meetings for 1999-00 2

Summary of Speakers Service program 2

Faculty retirees 2

Senate Chair's Report:

Research professor 2

Post-tenure review 2

Budget 3

Charges of Faculty Compensation Committee and Faculty Welfare Committee 3

Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation 4

Election, councils/committees/boards 4

Election, Senate standing committees 4

Election, Senate Secretary and Chair-Elect 5

Resolution of Appreciation to Prof. Alexander Holmes 5




The Senate Journal for the regular session of April 12, 1999 was approved.



Prof. Holmes congratulated the senators who received awards at the faculty tribute April 15.

The regular meetings of the Faculty Senate for 1999-00 will be held at 3:30 p.m. in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102 on the following Mondays: September 13, October 11, November 8, December 13, January 10, February 14, March 20, April 10, and May 1.

Summary of the activities of the Speakers Service for the past year:
From May 1998 to April 1999, the Faculty Senate office arranged for 70 faculty and staff to give 169 talks to 69 organizations throughout the state. These speakers from OU gave programs to groups such as high school honors classes, business and civic clubs, and church discussion groups in 27 communities ranging from Mangum to Bartlesville. The Faculty Senate and the University sincerely appreciate the members of the Speakers Service who share their expertise and knowledge with the people of Oklahoma.

Prof. Holmes thanked Ms. Sonya Fallgatter, the Senate's administrative coordinator, for her hard work on the Speakers Service. He explained that the program is a significant and beneficial aid to explain to the citizens of the state what we do here for a living. In any given week, two faculty or staff members are out giving talks.

The Faculty Senate thanks the following faculty members who retired during the past academic year for their dedication and contribution to our community: Peter Brueckner (Modern Languages, Literatures & Linguistics, 31 years), Norman Crockett (History, 29 years), Loren Hill (Zoology, 32 years), Barbara Hillyer (Human Relations, 26 years), David Huettner (Economics, 24 years), Jack Kanak (Psychology, 31 years), Jacob Larson (Music, 21 years), Koichi Miura (Modern Languages, Literatures & Linguistics, 11 years), Wayne Morgan (History, 26 years), James Mouser (Legal Studies, 32 years), Robert Petry (Physics & Astronomy, 31 years), Francis Schmitz (Chemistry & Biochemistry, 35 years), Gary Thompson (Geography, 31 years), Robert Weiss (Psychology, 30 years), Joseph Whitecotton (Anthropology, 31 years), and Frederick Wood (Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, 13 years).


SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Lex Holmes

On May 7, the OU Board of Regents will consider the research professor position and post-tenure review policies. The research professor position was approved by the Faculty Senate (see 2/99 Senate Journal, page 2), revised slightly by the Provost's office, and reviewed by the Senate Executive Committee. The version approved by the regents is attached as Appendix I. Post-tenure review was approved by the Faculty Senate over a year ago (see 1/98 Senate Journal, page 2) and was amended by Legal Counsel. Prof. Holmes and former Senate chairs Connie Dillon and Rick Tepker reviewed the changes with Joe Harroz, General Counsel, and deemed them insignificant except for one change. Ordinarily, the review committee will be composed of Committee A and the chair/director of the department. The change would add, in exceptional cases, an outside member chosen by the faculty member from a list of names selected by the Provost. It is intended to provide protection for the faculty member from a vindictive Committee A. The change has nothing to do with how the evaluation process is administered. Departments would still create the evaluation process and criteria. The document has languished to allow time for negotiations and to get assurances that the document would not be changed by the regents. Prof. Holmes thanked the Provost and President for making the Faculty Senate a partner in the process and giving the Executive Committee the opportunity to respond to any revisions. The version approved by the regents is attached as Appendix II.

Because the legislature does not adjourn until the end of May, the higher education budget is very much in flux. The education subcommittee of the General Conference Committee on Appropriations received $29.5 million. No decision has been made as to how it will be distributed among the education entities. Also of interest to higher education is the potential for a bond issue supported by a cigarette tax. However, the proposal would have to be approved by the legislature and then by a vote of the people. The bond money would amount to almost $400 million, but the money would not all go to higher education. The Rainy Day Fund, revenues that came in the preceding year in excess of estimated revenue, can only be accessed by a vote of both houses and the governor. A significant portion of the potential $148 million could go to higher education, but this is one-time money. Prof. Norwood asked what the $29.5 million would mean in terms of pay raises. He commented that a lot of new faculty members are being hired at very high salaries, while current faculty are experiencing compression. Prof. Holmes predicted a 2% across-the-board salary increase to cover health care and OTRS increases. Whether or not there should be a freeze on hiring, or money should be set aside for inversion and compression problems, or M&O budgets should be augmented are difficult questions. The Executive Committee has argued that pay increases are fundamental and more important than M&O increases. He reminded the Senate that it had insisted that health care should not be altered in such a way as to lose benefits or require an employee to pay a portion of the cost, so that will weigh on the budget process. Prof. Norwood suggested that the freeze on administrative salaries should be reinstated. Prof. Holmes said the administration is talking about reductions in staffing and cutbacks in certain areas to reduce administrative overhead. Prof. Norwood noted that we are told we have a booming economy, yet we are falling behind in faculty salaries. Prof. Benson pointed out that faculty salary is the issue that the Executive Committee discusses most with the President and Provost. No one is happy about the budget outlook. Prof. Norwood said he hoped that with the massive hiring taking place, something would be done about the compression and inversion problem. It makes no sense to hire untested people at the same or higher salaries than people who have been here 20 years and who have helped develop a reputation for the University.



Prof. Holmes explained that the proposed change in charges of the two committees would transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits from the Faculty Compensation Committee to the Faculty Welfare Committee (Appendix III). This change is at the request of the chairs of the committees and would formalize what has been de facto the case. The proposal was approved on a voice vote.



Certificates of Appreciation were presented to the following outgoing senators who completed full three-year terms (1996-99): LeRoy Blank, Gary Emery, Barbara Greene, Beverly Joyce, John Lancaster, Stephen Norwood, and Craig St. John. Certificates were also presented to the other senators whose terms expired and to the outgoing members of the Senate Executive Committee. Prof. Holmes thanked them for their contributions to the Faculty Senate.



The Senate approved the Committee on Committees' nominations for end-of-the-year vacancies on university and campus councils/committees/boards (Appendix IV). The names of remaining volunteers will be forwarded to the President for the appointments he makes.



Prof. Bert suggested that someone from Finance or Accounting should serve on the Faculty Compensation Committee. Prof. Schwarzkopf responded that Professor Buckley's research area is compensation. The following faculty members were elected to fill vacancies on Senate standing committees:


Continuing members: Victor Hutchison (Zoology), Roy Knapp (Petroleum & Geological Engineering), Cal Stoltenberg (Educational Psychology).

To replace Richard Gipson (Music), 1999-02 term:

Ellen Greene (Associate Professor of Classics, B.A. Rutgers, M.A. SUNY at Binghamton, Ph.D. California at Berkeley, at OU since 1991)

To complete the 1998-01 term of Barbara Hillyer (Human Relations):

David Etheridge (Professor of Music, B.M.Ed. Colorado, M.M., D.M.A. Eastman School of Music, at OU since 1975)


Continuing members: Neera Badhwar (Philosophy), J. R. Cruz (Electrical and Computer Engineering), Trent Gabert (Health and Sport Sciences).

To replace Gary Emery (Finance) and Lee Willinger (Accounting), 1999-02 term:

Michael Buckley (Director and Professor of Management, B.A. LaSalle, M.S. Virginia Polytechnic, Ph.D. Auburn, at OU since 1987)

Donald Maletz (Associate Professor of Political Science, A.B. Princeton, M.A., Ph.D. Cornell, at OU since 1979)


Continuing members: Joyce Palomar (Law), Donald Pisani (History), Kenneth Wedel (Social Work).

To replace Fran Ayres (Accounting), 1999-02 term:

Katharine Leigh (Director and Associate Professor of Interior Design, B.A. American University, M.S. Massachusetts at Amherst, at OU since 1996)

To complete the 1997-00 term of Duane Stock (Finance):

Fran Ayres (Director and Branch Professor of Accounting, B.A. Northern Iowa, M.A., Ph.D. Iowa, at OU since 1982)

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 1999-00 term, 3 vacancies

To replace Donn Edwards (Dance), Barbara Greene (Educational Psychology), Will Sutton (AME). Cannot succeed themselves.

Jayne Fleener (Associate Professor of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum, B.A. Indiana, M.A., M.A.T., Ph.D. North Carolina at Chapel Hill, at OU since 1990)

Al Schwarzkopf (Associate Professor of Management Information Systems, B.A. Vanderbilt, Ph.D. Virginia, at OU since 1970)

Valerie Watts (Assistant Professor of Music, B.M. Northwestern, M.M. D.M.A. Eastman School of Music, at OU since 1994)



Prof. Will Sutton (Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering) was elected Secretary, and Prof. Ruth Okediji (Law) was elected Chair-Elect of the Senate for 1999-00.



The Faculty Senate unanimously approved the following resolution of appreciation to Prof. Alexander Holmes, outgoing Senate Chair.

Whereas Professor Alexander Holmes, the recipient of numerous teaching awards and a Regents Professorship, understands and remains dedicated to the highest goals of an academic institution;

Whereas he guided the Senate through the adoption of the complex and sometimes enigmatic Patent and Copyright Policies, always attentive to and protective of those highest academic goals;

Whereas he tirelessly defended the virtues of faculty governance to anyone who would listen;

Whereas his astute awareness that the interests of the faculty and the interests of the University as a whole were seldom (if ever) at odds was especially auspicious in the re-negotiation of the University's health insurance plan;

Whereas his skill in delegating, which he may be rightfully credited with elevating to an art form, bore fruit in the creation of the Research Professor position;

Whereas his skill in delegating may only be surpassed by his skill in managing Senate meetings so that he may fairly be thought to have set a record in the number of meetings adjourned before 5:00, and indeed may even have set a record for the first Senate meeting to be completed in less than an hour;

Whereas he is the first and probably the last Senate Chair who can rival our current President in the number of stories concerning Oklahoma politics that he is willing (and indeed eager) to tell;

Be it resolved that the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate expresses its sincere appreciation to Professor Lex Holmes for his commitment to faculty governance, his leadership, eloquence, and aplomb in defending the highest goals of the academy, and his dedication to academic excellence.

Prof. Benson presented a certificate of appreciation and an engraved clock to Prof. Holmes. Prof. Benson then assumed the office of 1999-00 Senate Chair.



The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, September 13, 1999, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.


Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator


William H. Sutton, 1999-00 Secretary

Appendix I



(Strikeouts and underlines are deletions and additions approved by the OU Regents May 7, 1999. AAO believes that as long as these are coded temporary regular faculty positions, only the recruitment processes for hiring temporary faculty need be followed.)


The R research P professor position is non-tenure track, with continuous renewable term appointments at the rank of A assistant professor, A associate professor, or Full P professor. This track will be is used to recruit and retain top research scholars to support and enhance the major research programs and initiatives at The University of Oklahoma. Candidates for these positions must demonstrate significant capability or potential both to conduct high quality research and to obtain external funds. The primary responsibilities of these faculty will be research and research-related activities such as proposal writing, project management, and teaching and service specifically linked to their research programs (for example, supervision of graduate students and service for professional organizations). The continued appointment of these professors will depend on their success, or the success of the research program with which they are connected, in obtaining external funding. Notwithstanding the term of the appointment, the existence of any research professor position is at all times subject to the availability of funding as provided below. These procedures shall be considered The procedures outlined below are the only route to for appointing people to non-tenure track R research P professorships.


Since this policy covers a position devoted primarily to research, with some related teaching and service responsibility, it is expected that both the Vice President for Research and the Senior Vice President and Provost will have a determining role in the approval of personnel covered by this policy.

Units would be eligible for a Research Professor position if they A research group is eligible for a research professor position when it can document that they have the group has a major research program that has brought can bring in sufficient funds to pay all costs of the program plus this new those of the proposed position for at least 3 three years without additional Educational & General University funding. Since these positions are different from the current designations for either regular faculty or temporary employees, units will need to modify their personnel policies (or organizational plans) to reflect the unit's willingness to hire people with the new designation. Additionally, units should stipulate , in the modification to personnel policy, the different requirements for Research Professors appointed at the Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor rank.

In addition, the academic unit with which the research professor is most closely allied shall have policies in place for recruiting, evaluating, and promoting research professors at the ranks of assistant, associate, and full research professor. These policies shall be determined by the academic unit in conjunction with the director of the research program and Committee A.

Candidates for R research P professorship positions will be are to be recruited and appointed through a process similar to that used for hiring regular other temporary faculty except as provided in this policy. The director of the research group will request from the Provost, in consultation with the Vice President for Research, permission to recruit for the position. The positions will may be posted advertised in appropriate national publications and applications will shall be reviewed by a search committee chaired by the director of the research program group in question funding the position. Since the director of the research program is the faculty member with the greatest interest and stake in this appointment, having him/her chair the committee allows for appropriate control over the process. The search committee will shall also consist of tenure track or tenured faculty within the department academic unit and at least one tenure track or tenured faculty member from outside the department academic unit. Applicants for these positions will shall be considered eligible if they meet the required qualifications determined by the head of the research program and the other members of the search committee. The search committee will shall recommend a candidate to the department's academic unit's Committee A and Department Chair/Director for approval. The Committee A and Department Chair can shall present the approved candidate, along with a recommendation for rank, to the department tenured and tenure-track faculty for a vote.

Once the Department academic unit has made a recommendation and the academic dean has endorsed this recommendation, the credentials of the candidate and the final recommendation to hire a research professor will shall be reviewed by the Research Council whose recommendation will shall be forwarded to the Senior Vice President and Provost for review prior to presentation to the President and the OU Regents. All subsequent practices currently in place for regular temporary faculty appointments would apply in these cases as well (see section 3.5.1 of the Faculty Handbook). Contracts will shall state clearly that these appointments will not become tenure track.

Research professor appointments are temporary, renewable appointments not subject to the seven-year probationary period applicable to tenure-track faculty. Should a tenure-track position become available in the department academic unit, an individual in a Rresearch Pprofessor position would be is eligible to apply. Standard national external search procedures for tenure track vacancies are to be rigorously followed. Research Professor appointments may be renewed beyond the seven-year period following procedures described in section 3.5.3. (B) of the Faculty Handbook.


The salariesy awarded those appointed to these positions will be paid from the grant(s) funding the research program. Initial salary and rank will be commensurate with experience and national standards. Continued appointment of these professors employment of a research professor during the term of the contract will depend on their success, or the success of the research program with which they are connected, in obtaining the availability of external funding. In the event of a break in the continuity of funding during the period of a research professor's appointment, the individual may apply, with the approval of his or her research unit, for bridge funding only after three years of service, subject to two limitations: 1) the individual will be eligible for bridge funding in an amount equal to one-half the total indirect cost generated by the grants and contracts on which he or she has been appointed, up to a maximum of 12 months' salary, and 2) the University will provide no more than 12 months of salary, regardless of the amount of indirect cost generated. The University will establish budgetary procedures for bridge funding. Academic units will not be required to assume any obligations for funding of R research P professor salaries. All bridge funds shall come from a percentage of indirect costs set aside in an escrow account.

The budgetary considerations of these positions will follow the same path as do regular faculty appointments. That is, after a candidate is selected and department approval from the academic unit is attained, the financial offer and budget agreement are subject to the approval and control of the appropriate budget Dean and Senior Vice President and Provost. Since this policy covers a primary research position, with some related academic responsibility, it is expected that both the Vice President of Research and the provost will have a determining role in the approval of personnel covered by this policy.

Evaluation and promotion procedures for Rresearch Pprofessors will shall be those described for regular faculty in section 3.11 of the Faculty Handbook applicable to other temporary faculty, except that the nature of their non-tenure track, continuous renewable term appointments means that they will be evaluated and promoted primarily based on their research and funding productivity. Specific criteria for annual evaluation and for promotion will be determined by the department in conjunction with the director of the research program and Committee A and will be made clear to the holder of the position at his/her initial appointment. Raises will be awarded in the same manner as they are for regular faculty.


Given that these temporary Research faculty professors (non-tenure track, renewable term) will do not have the same responsibilities and concerns as regular faculty, and they will be are excluded from participating in the governance roles within the University; i.e., Non-tenure track R research P professors are not governing faculty. Such faculty shall not be eligible to vote regarding departmental affairs, policies, and procedures, tenure, promotion, administrative searches, Committee A, the Faculty Senate or other similar governance issues.


An initial cap on these non-tenure track, continuous term research professor appointments will be set at 5% five percent of the number of all tenured/tenure-track faculty appointments on the Norman Campus, with an understanding that. aAfter a full evaluation of the program, the percentage may increase up to 10% ten percent, but not beyond that point.


The impact of these non-tenure track, continuous term research professor appointments will be reviewed at regular intervals. The first such review will occur after three years; then review will occur every five years. These periodic evaluations will be undertaken by the Senior Vice President and Provost, the Vice President for Research, the UniversityVice President for Technology Transfer Development, and the Faculty Senate or their appointees.


Appendix II


Post-Tenure Review Policy

Approved by the University of Oklahoma Faculty Senate as an Addition to Section 3 of the Norman Campus Faculty Handbook, 1-12-98

(Strikeouts and underlines are deletions and additions approved by the OU Regents 5-7-99.)



3.X.1 Purpose

Post-tenure review at the University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus, is a periodic peer-based evaluation of tenured faculty, for the purpose of guiding career development and, when judged necessary, improving faculty performance. The post-tenure review process is based on and extends the annual evaluation of faculty described in Section 3.11 [Norman Campus Faculty Handbook] through two processes: (1) a retrospective review of faculty performance in teaching, research/creative activity and service over the five years preceding the review, and (2) a formative evaluation for future professional growth.

For all faculty, post-tenure review provides a formal opportunity for self-assessment and discussion with peers about professional development. For those faculty whose performance is judged to be below expectations, the evaluation leads to the formulation of a professional development plan, the purpose of which is to assist the faculty member to raise his or her level of performance to meet or exceed the expectations for tenured faculty.

Post-tenure review is mandatory for all tenured faculty who are reviewed under Section 3.11 of the Faculty Handbook, unless they have signed an agreement to retire within the two years following the year of the scheduled review or have entered into a formal phased retirement agreement with the University.

Bearing in mind the value and importance of academic freedom and procedural due process to the well-being and success of the academic community, the University acknowledges and supports in principle the policies and procedures set forth in The University's policies and procedures are intended to be consistent with the AAUP's Standards for Good Practice in Post-Tenure Review, which are included as part of this policy. Post-tenure review is not a reevaluation of a faculty member's tenure status, nor is it intended as means to effect programmatic change. The post-tenure review process must will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the University's policies on academic freedom and responsibility (Section 3.2 of the Faculty Handbook) and on faculty evaluation (Section 3.11 of the Faculty Handbook). Post-tenure review must will be based on the criteria for annual review established by the faculty of the unit and approved by the administration.

3.X.2. Timing

3.X.2.1 When Accomplished

Post-tenure reviews shall be initiated immediately following the completion of the annual faculty evaluation process.

3.X.2.2 Normal Review

Each faculty member shall undergo post-tenure review in the fifth year after the year in which the faculty member is awarded tenure or promotion, whichever is later, and every fifth year thereafter. Annually, the office of the Senior Vice President and Provost will identify those faculty to undergo a normal post-tenure review, and establish and publish a time schedule for completing the required steps in the post-tenure review process.

3.X.2.3 Early Review

A post-tenure review shall be initiated earlier than the normal review cycle under the following circumstances:

(a) If the composite or overall rating of a tenured faculty member's performance on the annual evaluation is below expectations (2.00 or less on a 0-5 scale) for two consecutive years, an early post-tenure review will be initiated immediately as an extension of the annual evaluation. Candidates for early post-tenure review will be identified by Committee A as part of the annual faculty evaluation process and reported to the unit's budget dean. However, Committee A may request from the dean permission to postpone initiation of an early review for one year if, in their opinion, the early review is not justified due to circumstances that Committee A enumerates in its request to the dean. With the approval of the dean, the initiation of an early review shall be postponed one year. If the review is postponed and the faculty member is judged to have performed to expectations in this third year, no early review will be required. If performance continues below expectations, the early review will be conducted immediately following the third year annual evaluation.

(b) A tenured faculty member may request an early review for the purpose of professional development. Such reviews are not subject to the mandatory professional development plan (Section 3.X.7), nor to the sanctions provisions (Section 3.X.8) of this policy.

3.X.3 Level of the Review

The review will be conducted by a Post-tenure Review Committee composed of the members of Committee A, and the chair or director of the unit or units in which the faculty member holds an appointment, unless another arrangement has been approved in writing by the budget dean(s) and the Senior Vice President and Provost. Provided, in exceptional cases, as determined by the Senior Vice President and Provost, a senior faculty member outside such unit but within the college shall be added to the Post-tenure Review Committee, such member being chosen by the tenured faculty member under review from a list of three candidates selected by the Provost.

The results of the review will be forwarded simultaneously to the budget dean(s) and the Senior Vice President and Provost. All recommendations for actions must be forwarded to the dean(s) for approval.

3.X.4 Components of the Review

Post-tenure review dossiers shall consist of the following elements:

(a) Annual evaluations and mini-vitae for the previous five years. The annual evaluations and the accompanying mini-vitae from the five years previous to the review will constitute the primary sources of information about the faculty member's performance. The post-tenure review will take into account the numerical evaluations (on a scale of 0-5) for: teaching; research, scholarship & creative activity; professional, university and administrative service; and the composite evaluation reflecting the relative weights of the three categories.

(b) A self-appraisal by the faculty member being reviewed. A written statement prepared by the faculty member will constitute a central element of the post-tenure review dossier. This statement is intended to serve two purposes: provide a formal opportunity for the faculty member to reflect on his or her professional career and contributions to the University; and serve as a source of information to Post-tenure Review Committee to assist in helping the faculty member develop professionally. In this statement, the faculty member should describe his or her past contributions to the unit(s) to which he/she is appointed and to the University, assess the current state and direction of his or her career, and discuss what he or she has planned professionally for the next five years. This self-appraisal should include an evaluation of his or her past performance in the areas of teaching, research (including scholarship and creative activity) and service; a statement of professional goals for the next five years; and an explicit discussion of how achieving those goals will advance his or her professional career and contribute to achieving the goals of the unit(s) to which he or she is appointed and the University as a whole. This document is not intended to be a contract but only a source of information to the Post-tenure Review Committee to assist it in helping the faculty member to develop professionally.

(c) The faculty member's current complete curriculum vitae.

(d) Sabbatical leave reports. The report of activities and accomplishments of any sabbatical or other leaves that occurred during the interval being reviewed should also be included.

(e) Post-tenure Review Evaluations. A copy of the evaluations by the Post-tenure Review Committee from the faculty member's previous post-tenure review(s), if any.

(f) Final Reports. A copy of previous professional development plans, if any.

3.X.5 Expectations

Faculty are expected to perform in all categories of the annual evaluation and achieve a composite evaluation of 2.01 or higher on a criterion-referenced scale of 0-5. The criteria should be specified in the approved evaluation criteria of the unit(s) to which the faculty member is appointed. As required under Section 3.11 of the Faculty Handbook, academic units should communicate carefully and clearly to their faculty the specific expectations criteria for evaluation of the unit as to the measures of quantity and quality, commensurate with rank and length of service, that are used for the basis of the annual evaluation.

When and only when a faculty member's five-year average composite evaluation is lower than 2.01, the faculty member shall be required to develop and participate in a professional development plan as described in Section 3.X.7.

3.X.6. Feedback

All faculty members undergoing post-tenure review will be provided with written and verbal feedback about how they are developing as professionals and how the Post-tenure Review Committee evaluates the professional goals of the faculty member in relation to the goals and mission of the unit and the University. Within thirty days of completing its review of the faculty member's dossier, the Post-tenure Review Committee will provide the faculty member with a written evaluation of its assessment of his or her past performance, current status, and future professional goals. In addition, within thirty days of providing the faculty member its written evaluation, the Post-tenure Review Committee will meet with the faculty member to discuss the findings of the review.

3.X.7 Professional Development Plan

A professional development plan is intended to assist a faculty member whose performance is not meeting expectations to bring his or her performance up to the expected level. Participation in a professional development plan is mandatory for faculty members who, during post-tenure review, are found not to meet the expectations for faculty performance, as described in Section 3.X.5. Other faculty members may request, from Committee A, permission to participate in a professional development plan on a voluntary basis to assist in their professional development. Voluntary professional development plans are not subject to the sanctions described in Section 3.X.8 and shall not alter the cycles of the normal and/or early review or otherwise affect those processes.

3.X.7.1 Process

The professional development plan should be prepared cooperatively between the faculty member and the Post-tenure Review Committee. The faculty member should prepare a draft of the plan and submit it to the Post-tenure Review Committee within 30 calendar days after his or her initial meeting with the Post-tenure Review Committee to discuss the results of the post-tenure review. The Post-tenure Review Committee must prepare a final plan, in negotiation with the faculty member, and submit it to the budget dean(s) for approval within 60 calendar days after the initial meeting between the Post-tenure Review Committee and the faculty member to discuss the results of the post-tenure review, and within 30 calendar days of its initial receipt of the draft plan from the faculty member. Should the faculty member disagree with the final plan prepared by the Post-tenure Review Committee, he or she may write an appeal to be submitted to the budget dean(s) along with the plan, setting forth the reasons for disagreement.

The dean(s) must notify the faculty member and the Post-tenure Review Committee, in writing, as to whether or not the final plan is approved. If the plan is not approved, the faculty member and the Post-tenure Review Committee must be notified in writing of the reasons for non-approval and the process described in the previous paragraph should be repeated until approval is obtained.

Following approval of the plan, the Post-tenure Review Committee must meet with the faculty member and explain both the contents of the plan, including the expected time-line, and the consequences to the faculty member of failure to attain the goals of the plan. Sufficient Reasonable University resources to support implementation of professional development plans will be provided by the Provost and the Dean of the College. A faculty member shall have the two full annual evaluation cycles following the date the plan is approved to accomplish the goals of the plan and to bring his or her performance up to expected standards.

3.X.7.2 Content of the Plan

The professional development plan should include the following components:

(a) Goals and expectations.

(b) Proposed activities.

(c) A time-line for the plan.

(d) Resources that will be made available to the faculty member to assist with completion of the plan.

(e) An explanation of the consequences of failure to attain the goals of the plan. This provision is not applicable for a voluntary professional development plan.

(f) Signatures of the faculty member, the members Post-tenure Review Committee and the budget dean(s) verifying an understanding of the plan.

3.X.7.3 Monitoring, Follow-up, and Final Report

Formal written evaluation of the faculty member's progress towards meeting the goals of the professional development plan will take place as part of the annual evaluations of the faculty member following the beginning of the plan. Since less than a year will have elapsed between the implementation of the plan and the next annual faculty evaluation, that evaluation and the subsequent annual evaluation shall be used by the Post-tenure Evaluation Committee as an opportunity to provide written feedback to the faculty member on his or her progress in meeting the goals of the plan. The final assessment of the faculty members' progress in meeting the goals of the plan shall occur during the third annual faculty evaluation after implementation of the plan. Following this third annual evaluation, a written report will be issued by the Post-tenure Review Committee to the faculty member, with copies to the dean(s), explaining the outcome of the plan.

3.X.8 Sanctions

Failure of the faculty member to meet the goals specified in the plan and to bring his or her performance up to the level expected may lead to the initiation of the Abrogation of Tenure process as outlined in Section 3.8 of the Faculty Handbook. The results of the professional development plan, including without limitation the final report, shall be relevant evidence in such a proceeding. In tenure abrogation proceedings, the University retains the burden of persuasion to show sustained failure to meet institutional and professional expectations or other just cause of dismissal cause, as defined by the Faculty Handbook. Provided, nothing in this policy shall be construed to limit or restrict the University's authority to undertake the Abrogation of Tenure and Severe Sanctions process set forth in subsections (a) through (e) of Section 3.8 of the Faculty Handbook.

Alternative actions, such as resignation or retirement from the University, may be negotiated and implemented with approval of the budget dean(s) and the Senior Vice President and Provost.

3.X.9 Review of Post-Tenure Review Policy and Procedures

The above Post-Tenure Review Policy will be jointly reviewed by the Faculty Senate and administration at least every five years and, if continued, will be evaluated every five years thereafter with respect to its effectiveness in supporting faculty development and redressing problems of faculty performance, the time and cost of the effort required, and the degree to which in practice it has been effectively cordoned off from disciplinary procedures and sanctions.


(The OU Regents decided not to include the AAUP Standards for Good Practice in Post-Tenure Review, saying such policies are subject to change, and the general statement of support of principles seems sufficient.)

(The OU Regents did not approve the following proposed addition to Faculty Handbook Section 3.9.1 (I)(6) because they thought it would adopt a new standard of review:

In abrogation of tenure hearings, the University has the burden of persuasion to establish sustained failure to perform or other just cause of dismissal.)


Appendix III

Proposed Changes in the Charges of the Faculty Compensation Committee and Faculty Welfare Committee

Section 11.5.E.1 of the Faculty Handbook (additions underlined; deletions crossed through)

(c) Faculty Welfare Committee.

Charge: This Committee is responsible to the faculty for policy review and recommendations on questions of tenure, faculty evaluations, professional conduct, promotion, fringe benefits and working conditions. It shall review policies and programs, propose changes and additions, distribute information, and supervise the implementation of Senate recommendations.

The Committee shall report at least yearly to the Senate and, upon approval, to the President and the Senior Vice President and Provost.

In carrying out these responsibilities, the Committee shall:

(1) Gather information about other policies and programs within the University and in other universities.

(2) Distribute information to the faculty in simplified form and see that new faculty receive comprehensive information.

(3) Establish priorities on recommendations for changes and additions.

(4) Participate in the process of amending the Faculty Handbook and make recommendations to the Senate.

Operating Procedures: The Committee shall formulate its own operating procedures, which shall include:

(1) The election of a chair from among the faculty members of the Committee.

(2) Provision for liaison with all appropriate councils and committees.

(3) Provision for sub-committees of the Committee to which non-members of the Committee may be appointed if appropriate.

Membership: 5 faculty members to be elected by the Faculty Senate for 3 years (staggered terms)


(d) Committee on Faculty Compensation.

Charge: This Committee is responsible to the Faculty Senate for reviewing and recommending policy on questions related to the economic welfare of the faculty.

In carrying out this responsibility, the Committee shall:

(1) Monitor, each year, the entire process by which salary increases are requested and fixed by the University administration, the University Regents, the State Board of Regents, and the State Legislature.

(2) Gather information about salaries and fringe benefits from within the University and from other universities, put such information into proper form, and make it available to the Senate for the purpose of accurately presenting the economic position of the faculty and the faculty's economic needs to the administration, the Boards of Regents, the Legislature, and the general public.

(3) Suggest to the Senate appropriate proposals, strategies, and forums for advancing the economic position and needs of the faculty, both inside and outside the University community.

(4) Recommend to the Committee on Committees the faculty nominees for the University Employment Benefits Committee.

(5) Report at least yearly to the Senate and, upon approval, to the President, the Senior Vice President and Provost, and the Budget Council.

Operating Procedures: The Committee shall formulate its own operating procedures, which shall include:

(1) The election of a chair from among the faculty members of the Committee.

(2) Provision for a sub-committee of the Committee to which non-members of the Committee may be appointed by the Faculty Senate, if the Senate deems such additions appropriate.

(3) Provision for liaison with all appropriate councils and committees.

Membership: 5 faculty members to be elected by the Faculty Senate for 3 years (staggered terms)


Appendix IV


For current membership list, see



Debbie Rodgers (Instr. Lead & Acad Curr.)

Alfred Striz (Aerospace & Mech. Engr.)


Deborah Trytten (Computer Science)

Eric Anderson (Art) to complete Reynolds' 98-01 term

ATHLETICS COUNCIL (three-year term):

Jayne Fleener (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.)

BUDGET COUNCIL (three-year term):

Janalee Caldwell (Zoology)


Sally Faulconer (Music) 1999-00 term

Laurette Taylor (Health & Sport Sciences) 1999-00 term

Maureen Weston (Law) 1999-00 term

Ronald Keith Gaddie (Political Science) 1999-01 term

David Swank (Law) 1999-01 term

Cameron Wesson (Anthropology) 1999-01 term

CAMPUS LIFE, COUNCIL ON (three-year term):

Craig Hofford (Health and Sport Sciences)

CAMPUS PLANNING COUNCIL (three-year term):

Karen Hayes-Thumann (Art)


Noland James (Art)

CAMPUS TENURE COMMITTEE (three-year term):

S. Lakshmivarahan (Computer Science)

Michael Scaperlanda (Law)

Ed Marek (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.) to complete Rapf's 97-00 term


Katharine Leigh (Interior Design)


John Lancaster (Botany & Microbiology)


Wallace Koehler (Library & Information Studies) 99-01 term [if the new policy is approved]


Zev Trachtenberg (Philosophy)

FACULTY APPEALS BOARD (four-year term):

Gary Anderson (History)

Susan Caldwell (Art)

Richard Cifelli (Zoology)

FACULTY APPEALS BOARD (four-year term) [continued]:

Jid Kamoche (History)

Clara Sue Kidwell (Native American Studies)

Robert Lauer (Modern Languages)

Stephen Norwood (History)

Debbie Rodgers (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.)

Andrew Strout (Art)

Krishnaiya Thulasiraman (Computer Science)

Bret Wallach (Geography)

M. Zaman (CEES)


C. LeRoy Blank (Chemistry & Biochemistry)

Tillman Ragan (Educational Psychology) to complete Nayar's 98-01 term

FILM REVIEW COMMITTEE (two year term):

Heidi Mau (Art)


Sally Beach (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.)


Scott Russell (Botany & Microbiology)

LEGAL PANEL (three-year term):

Nim Razook (Marketing)


Philippe Foret (Geography)

Claire McInerney (Library & Information Studies)

Phil Gutierrez (Physics & Astronomy) to complete Emanuel's 98-01 term


Changwook Kim (Computer Science)


Maureen Weston (Law)

RESEARCH COUNCIL (three-year term):

Eugene Enrico (Music) [hum/arts]

Shane Moriarity (Accounting) [other]


Le Gruenwald (Computer Science)

ROTC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (three-year term):

John Chiodo (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.)


Shelia Kennison (Psychology)

SPEAKERS BUREAU (three-year term):

Linda McKinney (Instr. Lead. & Acad. Curr.)


Samir Barman (Management)