OhioUniversity Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

March 10, 2008

Margaret M. Walter Hall, Room 235

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

In Attendance:

College of Arts and Sciences: T. Anderson, D. Bell, G. Buckley, M. Clouse, S. Gradin,

D. Ingram, P. Jung, S. López-Permouth, J. McLaughlin, D. Miles, S. Patterson, B. Quitslund,

W. Roosenburg, G. Van Patten, J. Webster

College of Business: T. Stock

ScrippsCollege of Communication: J. Bernt, P. Bernt, J. Slade (for N. Pecora), J. Smith

College of Education: V. Conley, T. Leinbaugh

College of Engineering: R. Whaley (for C. Bartone), J. Giesey, R. Pasic, T. Sexton

College of Fine Arts: M. Scott, D. McDiarmid, C. Smith, D. Thomas, D. Wilson

College of Health and Human Services: J. Hinton, S. Marinellie

College of Osteopathic Medicine: P. Coschigano

Group II: A. Hall, C. Naccarato

Chillicothe Campus: J. McKean

Eastern Campus: T. Flynn

Lancaster Campus: P. Munhall

Southern Campus: M. Crawford (for E. McCown)

Zanesville Campus: S. Fusner (for K. Collins)

Excused: A. Smith, W. Gist, D. Bolon, S. Brogan

Absent: G. Matlack, S. Hatty, M. Simpson, J. Benson

Overview of the Meeting

  1. President McDavis
  2. University System of Ohio Update
  3. Voluntary System of Accountability Update
  1. Executive Vice-President and Provost Krendl
  2. Admissions Update
  3. Faculty Salaries Comparative Data
  4. Choose Ohio First Funded Proposals
  1. Roll Call and Approval of February 11, 2008 Minutes
  1. Chair’s Report – Sergio López-Permouth
  2. Resolution to Endorse Student Senate Resolution on Presidential Evaluation (for first reading)
  3. Upcoming Executive Committee Meeting with Chair Delawder
  1. Finance and Facilities Committee (FFC) – Joe McLaughlin
  2. Budget Update
  3. Health Benefits Update
  1. Educational Policy and Student Affairs Committee (EPSA) – David Ingram
  2. Advising Policy Update
  3. Academic Integrity Committee Recommendations
  4. Outdoor Space Use Policy
  5. Fall Quarter 2008 Schedule Issues
  6. Enrollment Management Committee Update
  1. Promotion and Tenure Committee (P&T) – Charles Smith
  2. Promotion and Tenure Workshops Update
  3. Resolution on a Proposed Amendment to Procedures for Tenure and Promotion (for second reading and vote)
  1. Professional Relations Committee (PRC) – Sherrie Gradin
  2. Request from Deans for Changes in Deans Evaluation Process
  1. New Business
  1. Adjournment

Minutes of the Meeting

  1. President McDavis
  • McDavis updated the Senate on developments with respect to the University System of Ohio (USO):
  • We are still waiting on the first draft of the Strategic Plan from Chancellor Fingerhut. It is anticipated that the Plan will be distributed for vetting by the end of March;
  • The metrics with respect to “measures of success” have not changed since the last report;
  • McDavis updated the Senate on developments with respect to the Voluntary System of Accountability of the USO:
  • McDavis said that during last month’s meeting of the Inter-University Council presidents it was recommended that a common assessment tool should not be imposed on all member institutions; a meeting last week with the Chancellor appears to affirm that each university will be able to choose their own assessment tools;
  • There has been conversation about the idea of a common curriculum for general education, but McDavis said that he does not anticipate an effort to standardize the general education curriculum among all member institutions;
  • McDavis said that there has been no change in status with respect to the state budget situation and still anticipates receiving a 9.5% increase in the state subsidy next fiscal year;

Questions for McDavis:

  • P. Bernt said that she had read a newspaper report that a person has been hired to manage a shared-services center and that a consultant has been hired to help this person implement the center. She asked why we needed to spend money on a consultant. McDavis said that he did not have specific information about the consultant that was hired but noted that the idea behind a shared-services center is to more efficiently implement shared services and to use the savings for the academic enterprise;
  1. Executive Vice-President and Provost Krendl
  • Krendl announced an upcoming AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Program) accreditation visit next month, April 23-25. The AQIP action projects are available on the Provost’s website (URLis given below).
  • Krendl said that an announcement regarding the results of the several searches that have been taking place over the past few weeks and months will be forthcoming soon.
  • Krendl updated the Senate on admissions data:
  • The fall 2008 entering class is targeted at 4,050; we currently have just over 13,000 applications;
  • Non-resident applications are up 10% over last year; applications from Ohio residents are up 7%; multicultural student applications are up 303; international student applications are up 135;
  • The number of admitted students currently stands at 10,008, but Krendl reminded senators that the Office of Admissions is being more selective this year;
  • The quality of the freshman class is up this year: the average gpa is 3.42;
  • Krendl presented to the Senate recent data with respect to how faculty salaries at Ohio University compare to other Ohio institutions as a result of the ongoing 5-year initiative to this effect:
  • At the rank of full professor OU now ranks 6th; at the associate level OU ranks 3rd; and at the assistant level OU ranks 5th; in all ranks combined OU ranks 4th;
  • In terms of total compensation, OU ranks 5th at the full professor level, 3rd at the associate level, and 4th at the assistant level; in all ranks combined OU ranks 4th;
  • Krendl reported that 1 of 4 proposals from OU for the Choose Ohio First funding initiative was funded, that of the Biomedical Science consortium’s proposal; the total funding is $4.475 million; OU will be the lead institution and according to Ann Fidler about $700,000 is OU’s share of the funding.
  • The full text of Krendl’s report may be accessed online at the Provost’s website at:

Questions for Krendl:

  • R. Pasic said that full professor salaries at OU have lagged behind other institutions for over ten years and asked why this situation has not been addressed. Krendlsaid that the ongoing five-year faculty compensation initiative is meant to address such concerns and that the colleges distributed these funds according to their own criteria.
  • C. Naccarato asked if there is any funding to increase Group II salaries in the 5-year academic plan. Krendl said that the administration will be looking at the data regarding Group II salaries;
  1. Roll Call and Approval of February 11, 2008 Minutes

MOTION: B. Quitslund motioned to approve the minutes as presented (T. Leinbaugh second)

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOICE VOTE

  1. Chair’s Report – Sergio López-Permouth
  • López introduced a resolution, sponsored by Executive Committee, to endorse an earlier resolution from the Student Senate that encourages the Board of Trustees to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of President McDavis in this penultimate year of his current contract. He explained that this was consistent with the Presidential evaluation procedure recently approved by the Board and commended the Student Senate for their efforts in putting their resolution together.
  • T. Flynn said that he felt the resolution was appropriate;
  • C. Smith asked if this would be a “sense of the Senate” resolution; López said that it would be;
  • G. Van Patten asked if a copy of our resolution would be sent to the student Senators listed at the bottom of their resolution; López affirmed that it would;
  • P. Coschigano suggested removing López’s name from the list at the bottom of the resolution and adding the President of Student Senate instead; this was accepted as a friendly amendment;
  • P. Bernt said that this resolution simply asks the Board to follow their own rules;
  • J. McLaughlin asked how this resolution would interact with our own procedures and stated that he was under the impression that the Senate would conduct its own evaluation regardless of what the Board of Trustees says; López said that it had not yet been decided if we were going to undertake our own evaluation but that if there is agreement we should do so;

MOTION: D. Ingram motioned to suspend the rules and vote on the resolution as amended (T. Flynn second)

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOICE VOTE

  • J. McKean asked why we are replicating what the Student Senate says in their resolution. López said that it is a statement of support for the 360-degree evaluation and shows that we stand with the Student Senate on this issue;
  • M. Clouse said that we can support the Student Senate, but it should not mean that we cannot conduct our own evaluation;
  • J. Slade said that since it is likely that the Board of Trustees will ignore this resolution we should move on with the business of conducting our own evaluation;
  • B. Quitslund said that there is strength in endorsing what the students say and that this shows unification;
  • G. Buckley posed the question of what the Senate’s next step should be with respect to conducting its own evaluation. López said that it had been suggested earlier that we conduct our own evaluation, but we need to have clear goals in mind and these should first be discussed in an open manner;

MOTION: J. Bernt moved to call the question (C. Smith second)

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON A VOICE VOTE

The complete text of the resolution as passed is available in Appendix B.

  • López told the Senate that the Executive Committee will be meeting with Dan DeLawder, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, regarding the evaluation of the President and the Senate’s resolution to include a faculty member as a non-voting member of the Board. He requested feedback from the floor as to some preliminary thoughts on the criteria for the selection of a faculty trustee that had been put together by the Executive Committee.
  • P. Bernt said she felt it would be a good idea to consult with faculty senates at the other institutions in Ohio who have faculty members on the Board of Trustees;
  • D. Ingram agreed with P. Bernt and noted that a non-voting faculty member on the Board would not need to be appointed by the Governor;
  • J. Bernt said that he believed the Executive Committee should come to the Senate with recommendations for endorsement of this idea;
  • J. Smith asked why we are asking for this when the faculty member on the Board would have no voting privileges; W. Roosenburg said that it is because there is frustration that the Board of Trustees does not have enough faculty input;
  • Lópezreported on progress toward a proposal requesting the creation of a standing committee on benefits to be presented to the Committee on Committees. He said that he has been communicating with representatives of other constituent groups throughout the university community to inform them of our motivation for seeking such a standing committee; he said that the idea has been met with positive responses from the people with whom he has consulted.
  • López reported that he is working with SenatorC. Naccarato to put together a proposal that would extend salary adjustment benefits to Group II faculty.
  • D. Ingram mentioned that information on the undergraduate centers of excellence review has recently come to light and asked if University Curriculum Council (UCC) will be “kept in the loop.” D. Thomas said that there is still no clear consensus on how these reviews will be accomplished. Ann Fidler said that the goal of the review is to identify targeted programs for enhancement, as stipulated in the 5-Year Academic Plan.
  1. Finance and Facilities Committee (FFC) – Joe McLaughlin
  • McLaughlin updated the Senate on the work of the Budget Planning Council (BPC). He said that the recommendations for the 08-09 budget are largely determined and the budget will be balanced. BPC is now working on contingency plans in case state funding is less than expected.
  • McLaughlin said that FFC is looking at uses of student fees and will forward a report on this to BPC.
  • McLaughlin noted that there is a significant problem with departmental “3-9” budgets not keeping pace with inflation and that this problem needs to be addressed.
  • J. Hinton asked if there are any issues that we should be aware of with regard to course fees. McLaughlin said that, although unfortunate, course fees are seen as a legitimate way to raise revenue. Martin Tuck said that the Student Fee Committee looks very closely at whether nor not students are benefitting from a fee – fees need to be tied directly to the course and detailed explanations need to be included in course fee proposals.
  • P. Bernt asked if the Senate is going to “be at the table” to determine how the second year of the salary increases are going to be handled. McLaughlin said that it will through faculty representation on BPC and that a resolution from FFC on how the money targeted for salary adjustments for Group I faculty has been proposed.
  • J. Bernt said that the issue of salary compression at the full professor rank should be included in these discussions.
  • McLaughlinupdated the Senate on health benefits issues. He said that in aggregate we are “running ahead” this year with regard to health care spending.
  • J. Bernt asked if there has been discussion in BPC about what to do with this surplus. McLaughlin said that it has been articulated that this surplus money should at the least be reinvested into the health care benefits area, but he also noted that people are being “very protective” of carry forward money;
  • A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the meaning and value of “total compensation” and whose money the surplus money from health care spending really is;
  • C. Naccaratosaid that the Senate should request details from the administration about how “total compensation” is computed and that clarity is needed on this issue;
  • P. Coschigano said that co-pays and deductibles have increased and the university is reaping the benefits and that therefore some of the savings is “ours”;
  • T. Flynn asked if wellness assessments are available on regional campuses. McLaughlin said that he was not sure, but a representative from the regional campuses on the Health Benefits Advisory Committee has been pushing for this;
  • McLaughlin said that he has had discussions with Howard Lippman at the OU Foundation regarding the frustrations expressed by chairs due to difficulties obtaining Foundation funds in a timely manner. He said that he will be putting together faculty groups to take a look at this and has asked for participation from other colleges besides Arts and Sciences.
  1. Educational Policy and Student Affairs (EPSA) – David Ingram
  • Ingram said that EPSA is likely to propose the insertion of a new advising “policy” section in the Faculty Handbook, most likely as a new section IV.D. There may still need to be a new “Policy and Procedure” if every topic cannot be included in the Handbook.
  • Ingram said that EPSA has resumed work on the recommendations from the ad hoc committee on academic integrity, in particular their recommendations for changes to the Handbook. He said that EPSA believes some of these recommendations are too descriptive and is seeking more information; discussions will be held with Susan Sarnoff, a co-chair of the committee, to determine their intent.
  • Ingram said that EPSA has been asked to review a new outdoor space use policy which sets rules and priorities regarding the use of these spaces. No member of EPSA objected to this policy. If Senators would like a copy of the draft policy they can contact Ingram at: .
  • J. Bernt asked for some further clarification about what the policy says about such things as rights to protest;
  • Ingram led a discussion about an unusual issue regarding the fall 2008 calendar. In fall 2008 there are 11 Mondays and 9 Tuesdays. The 11th Monday is the last day of classes; the Registrar has asked if faculty members are interested in declaring the 11th Monday a Tuesday for class scheduling purposes. This enables classes and laboratories that only meet on Tuesdays to not lose a class meeting. Senators noted that this might not be a good idea for the regional campuses due to the work hours of many of their students. It appears that this might work for the Athens campus, but we need more input before doing the same at the regional campuses. It would also need careful handling to avoid confusion.
  • Ingram said that EPSA supports the President’s efforts to ensure that the USO does not implement a “one size fits all” standardized testing scheme, and that universities be able to design their own evaluation schemes, as proposed in the Voluntary System of Accountability, and as implemented by us in the Learning Objectives for General Education (
  • Ingram said that at the Enrollment Advisory Management Committee it has been suggested that we need to do a better job of presenting our idea of liberal education for all of our students (General Education). It appears that Miami does a much better job than we do at presenting their version of General Education than we do. This also links back to the previous item and communicating to the USO and the legislature who we are and what we do.
  1. Promotion and Tenure Committee (P&T) – Charles Smith
  • Smith reported on positive feedback he has received regarding the college-specific promotion and tenure workshops that have been organized by P&T and Associate Provost Marty Tuck.
  • Smith said that P&T has received another new case regarding a request for a tenure clock extension. A short discussion ensued about the role of P&T in these cases, especially with regard to with whom the final decision rests (the Provost or P&T). P. Bernt said that to her knowledge the final approval is with P&T.
  • Smith presented a resolution on a Proposed Amendment to Procedures for Tenure and Advancement in Rank and Recommendations of Salary Increases for second reading and vote.
  • Smith discussed changes to the resolution since the first reading.
  • P. Munhall asked for clarification on when the changes proposed in the resolution would take effect. Smith said that according to his reading of the resolution if it is approved today the changes would take effect next September. There was disagreement on this supposition from the Senate floor, however.

MOTION: W. Roosenburg made a motion to vote on the resolution as presented (P. Bernt second)