Faculty Senate Minutes

October 12, 2004

 

Members in attendance:  Charles Anderson, Kit Andrews, Roy Bennett, Mary Bucy, Brian Caster, Keller Coker, Claire Ferraris, Kristina Frankenberger, Sylvain Frémaux, Maria Fung, Scott Grim, Karen Haberman, Jessica Henderson, Gudrun Hoobler, Chloe Myers, Emily Plec, John Rector, Bill Schoenfeld, Julia Smith, Chehalis Strapp, Diane Tarter, Mark Van Steeter, Zenon Zygmont

 

In attendance, ad hoc:  Phillip Conn (University President), Jem Spectar (Provost), James Chadney (Dean, LAS), President, ASWOU

 

I.                 Meeting called to order at 3:35 PM

A.              Name tags were not completed for all members since the complete membership was not yet known.  Also, the nametags should be larger

 

II.              Roll call (automatic, via sign-in sheet)

 

III.           Minutes approved as written

 

IV.           Reports of Presidents

A.              Keller Coker, Faculty Senate President.

1.                Received an e-mail regarding whether Senate is a unit involved in strategic planning

·                  Senate members should submit goals and directions regarding faculty senate to Keller

·                  Try to compile by next meeting

2.                John Rector handed out the “University Governance” statement from the faculty handout that includes sections on the Faculty Senate and associated committees

·                  We specifically reviewed Article I, Section 1,  Article II, Section 4, and article III, sections 1-2.

·                  Thought about the question, “Do we have power?”

®              We have ample responsibilities as defined in the faculty handbook.

®              We are part of a collaborative process; work with other institutions of the university

3.                Committees:  We are in the process of compiling a list of who is currently serving on faculty senate committees.

 

B.              President Conn, University President

1.                Good start to the quarter, both serious and festive

2.                Two policies for revising and updating:  Being distributed to all three bodies involved in shared governance (Faculty, Staff and Student Senates)

·                  Policy 1:  Consensual Relationships statement (Draft document and previous/current policy handouts provided)

·                  Policy 2:  Discrimination and Harassment (Draft document and previous/current policy handouts distributed)

®              Attempt to combine two policies into one

·                  Policies now on books haven’t always helped in dealing with specific grievances.  Want policies to be clear, but not overly tight and prescriptive.

·                  These have been submitted to us for our consideration.  We should deal with this as soon as possible, but also take the time we need to do this right.  Dr. Conn specifically wants comments on whether the draft policies are “too general, too specific, on target or wrong heading”.

·                  Discussion in two weeks?

·                  Where is this in Staff Senate?

®              Judy Vandenberg stated that they reviewed drafts and had comments for clarifying.  They recommended, with their clarifications, adoption of the documents.

®              Judy Vandenberg also stated she would look into the complete policy history.

3.                Fund balance

·                  Initially came up at the end of last year; the new policy was approved in September

·                  Our fund balance was higher than provided for in the new policy.

·                  New policy states that at the end of a biennium (i.e. June 30, 2005), OUS institutions are to have a fund balance ≤15% and ≥5% of the annual operating budget (ours is 35-40 million).

®              Translates to approximately 1 month of operating costs

®              Is this adequate?  In Oregon, we need to convince the legislature that we are “living close”.

·                  Task for university:  see where we are and develop a monitoring system

·                  Handout:  statement written by the acting chancellor for the board at the meeting where the fund balance policy was adopted.

®              Our balance on June 30 was 28%, the highest percentage in the system.  Other campuses around 15%.

·                  Result of our high balance

®              Continue tuition plateau at cost of about 1.6 million of projected revenue

·                  Note that some of the funds spent in June 2004 were authorized in March, 2004, prior to when budget issues were raised, while additional projects were identified after the budget issues were raised.  including the elevator for Todd Hall and expanded server capability for the campus computing systems.

·                  The acting chancellor’s document indicates that our fund balance for June 30, 2005 will be $3,375,000, which is within the appropriate boundaries.

®              Key variables are enrollment/tuition shortfall and difference between what the state initially appropriates vs. what we actually receive.

·                  Misconceptions that we had coffers of  money.  Much of the money we had was based on one-time dollars.

®              Also, much accumulated over two biennia, 1999-2003—four years of  prudent, conservative management.

®              One source of increased funds was the funding of staff positions that remained unfilled.

®              Also, individual units, including academic divisions, didn’t spend out their budgets and this added up.

·                  We are improving/correcting our system

®              University now has an ongoing needs list. 

·                  Questions:

®              Roy Bennett asked whether some of the needs that had been identified were actually in the budget and the President said that they were (no specifics given)

®              Mark Van Steeter asked about the staff positions that were eliminated.  The President answered that we cannot sustain staff with one-time money.  Also, he stated that the loss of dispatchers had been compensated for by equipment, and that other units who lost staff were doing better than they thought they would.

4.                Enrollment

·                  Figures will be officially reported at the end of next week—final count.  We could be down by 5% (right now, down around 200-300 students).  We are down more continuing students than new students (down by 144 continuing, 128 new).   Decrease in head count tracks directly with decrease in student FTE.

®              We have a big task in terms of retention as well as recruitment.

·                  Why are we down in numbers?  See handout of survey results provided by President Conn.  Contacted 436 students in good standing, 234 responded.

®              Economic factors played a role, but…

®              Note especially those that left and who are now enrolled at another 4 year school or community college (OSU, PSU, U of O and Chemeketa, in that order).

®              A more thorough analysis of this data will be done.

·                  Other schools

®              SOU will probably be down more than us

®              OSU and U of O with slight increases, both are down in terms of freshman numbers

®              OIT, EOU may be slightly up, most likely due to their extended programs

®              Community colleges are the most affected, approximately 8% statewide.

C.              ASWOU President

1.                Voter registration campaign ending.  At this point, approximately 100 away from the 1500 student goal—biggest effort ever.

2.                New effort is to get out the vote.  ASWOU will again be contacting faculty for class time.

3.                This Saturday:  leadership training is going to occur on campus.  ASWOU is combining its efforts with other student groups including the residence hall association.  They hope to reach more students with this collaborative effort.

4.                Student senate had its second meeting

5.                Next weekend:  six students will be involved in service learning training in Whiskeytown, CA.

V.              Old Business

A.              Recommendations of ad hoc committee on faculty search procedures.

1.                Current status: have not yet been recommended.

·                  Motion to approve made, seconded and passed!

2.                Discussion and questions about where these stand

·                  Mark Perlman reported that the search processes were started early, so #1 on the document was satisfied.

·                  Still of concern that all searches are still being run out of Human Resources

®              Still don’t have funding earmarked for conferences.  This is not needed for all disciplines, but is standard practice nationwide for some (for example, humanities).  Budget for this type of search currently doesn’t exist and the division S & S budgets can’t cover this.  Meetings are soon!  If we don’t go to ones where it is standard practice, a perception is created that we are not a serious university, and we thereby harm our reputation.

·                  Judy Vandenberg

®              Willing to work with divisions/departments to handle own searches and satisfy particular requests.  They can deliver the mail/files directly to the academic units as long as this has been agreed upon by the particular division chairs and search committees.

·                  Both President Conn and Judy Vandenberg emphasized the need for the files to be handled correctly in terms of EEOAA regulations, and that training in this is required.

·                  What about travel to conferences?

®              President Conn created a search/recruitment fund in 2003-2004 (handout provided with details)

®              Common fund allows more equality across divisions/departments

®              Conferences not included in this document, but Dr. Conn agrees that this is a legitimate venue, and that special allocations could be made.  He indicated that if conference attendence is common practice in a particular field for recruitment, that he would work with the provost to make funds available for this.  This needs to be a separate line form the basic search funds.

®              Keller Coker pointed out that this is time-sensitive.  It needs to happen in the next few days in some cases, so we need to get the word out to divisions currently involved in searches where conference attendance could be a factor.

®              Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon suggested that we compile a list of those departments for which conference recruitment is common practice.  A suggestion was made to funnel this through the provost.

®              President Conn:  Wants to clarify what constitutes a bona fide search-oriented trip.

®              Dean Chadney:  Need a qualitative component.  How critical?

®              Charles Anderson asked why we should get information from departments now.  The answer was that this would help determine budget issues.

®              Keller Coker:  From now on, make request for conference recruitment at the same time as search request is approved.

®              President Conn:  Summer is a good time to make these requests, as it would coincide with budget hearings, and could actually be considered as budget items.  He also suggested that we need to look carefully into our own budgets.  As of commencement, LAS had $111,000 fund balance including division budgets.

®              Ann Bliss:  Part of this was that faculty were not provided with expected funds to go to conference as attendees.  In earlier years, funds were spent in this way.

®              Mark Perlman asked President Conn if there was anything in the faculty search procedure document that he didn’t approve.  President Conn replied that he would like to look at the document again before making further comment.

VI.           New Business

A.              Writing intensive:  David Hargreaves

1.                Keller Coker explained that he was communicating with Dave Hargreaves about their divisional ideas regarding writing intensive courses.  They asked whether the program was working and if/how it could be improved.  What came out of the discussions is that the principles of having writing focused in upper division courses is sound.  The key question, “What do we value as forms of writing in upper division courses?”

·                  Problem 1:  How do writing intensive guidelines fit with goals of field/upper division courses?  Standards for each discipline are different.

·                  Problem 2:  Students can’t find W-designated courses in their own disciplines.  They go to other departments, thus defeating the purpose of writing intensive courses.

®              Issues here include staffing and the 25 student cap in “W” courses.  The program is an unfunded mandate.  Is there a way to provide faculty members with incentives to teach these courses?

·                  Another issue:  The term “writing intensive” is problematic.

·                  We will come back to this topic at a later meeting.

B.              Need a faculty senate representative at foundation meetings.  Sriram Khe did this, with John Rector as an alternate, but Sriram wishes now to step down.  Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon volunteered to take his place.

 

VII.        IFS (Bob Turner)

A.              No full report due to time.

B.               One policy initiative involving curriculum is going forward to the State Board.  This is a set of courses that will transfer seamlessly. 

1.                Courses proposed are a subset of the AAOT.

2.                First step toward a common core, possibly including lower division cores of majors.

3.                Meeting this Thursday, 3:30, in the Calapooia room led by IFS President Gilke.

4.                Purpose of the meeting is to get faculty feedback.

5.                Note that the desire for curriculum change is being driven by the legislature.

·                  Several faculty pointed out that we need to be active in this process, and that anything can happen.  Our freedom to develop our own curricula is endangered.   

·                  There is possibly some good in wanted to provide the same number for the same course for some fields. 

·                  It was suggested that this is a good time to get information, to which Bob Turner replied, “Don’t go to be a sponge.”  He emphasized that we need to participate actively.  What goes on at these meetings will get passed along.

 

VIII.     Meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM