President Halligan called the meeting to order with the following members present: Allen, Allison, Anderson, Bertholf, Buchanan, Cole, Farr, Finn, Gasem, Gethner, Horn, Kimbrell, Krenzer, Lawry, Marks, Moder, Paustenbaugh, Richards, Robinson, Schwarz, Scott, Smith, and Williams. Also present: Beer, Birdwell, Collins, Harrison, Keener, Matoy, Schlais, Sim, and Watkins. Absent: Ackerson, Boswell, Dawson, Lau, Moretti, Warde, and Wilkinson.
Reports of Standing Committees
Dr. Allison moved acceptance of the February 11, 1997, Minutes. Dr. Horn seconded the motion. Dr. Bertholf reported that the minutes needed to be amended by changing "Graduate Student Council" to "Graduate Student Association" in both the Highlights and on page 8. The minutes were approved as amended. Dr. Horn moved acceptance of the March 11, 1997, Agenda. Dr. Williams seconded the motion. The Agenda was approved.
REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS:President Halligan, Executive Vice President and Vice Presidents
A. ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND POLICY -- Joe Williams
Dr. Williams reported that the committee will probably have three recommendations to bring forward next meeting. The committee is currently working on the consideration of a plus-minus grading system. The faculty has shown interest in such a system. The committee has developed a survey to seek student opinion on the system. If the students also support such a change, the committee will draft a proposal asking the administration to seek the Regents approval for the implementation of such a system. One of the recommendations to be brought forward next time is on the scheduling of final exams in an effort to reduce the number of conflicts. The committee is studying the methods for choosing the Dean's and President's lists. They are also considering a proposal for OSU to give graduation honors, such as "with distinction," and "with high distinction."
B. FACULTY -- Ed LawryDr. Lawry reported that the committee was asked by Dr. Keener to act as a screening committee to review applications for the Big Twelve Faculty Fellowships. Their recommendation has been forwarded to Dr. Keener. There was a very good response to the call for applications. Dr. Lawry commended the Big Twelve Provosts for their efforts in originating this program. Dr. Keener said that the committee's recommendation was being reviewed by people in his office and that the letters should be going out in the next few days.
Faculty Appointment PeriodsThe committee is continuing its work on the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedure Letter. The committee hopes to bring its recommendation to the Council in April or May. With the help of Adrienne Hyle and Michael Mills, the committee has developed a survey to be sent to all faculty to determine their level of satisfaction with the A&D process. Dr. Lawry urges the faculty to complete the survey and return it to the committee. The committee has also had some preliminary discussion involving term limits for administrators at the Deans level or above. The committee has also been asked to look at how the current evaluations of administrators are being used. The first recommendation came to the committee because the library staff was having a good deal of difficulty in adjusting to the 11 month contract. However, there are other faculty that feel uneasy about having 9 month or 11 month contracts without vacation periods. The committee presented the following recommendation: The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: OSU faculty be permitted to choose appointment periods either with vacation (10 or 12 month) or without vacation (9 or 11 month), and before the beginning of each fiscal year they be permitted to change their period of appointment for that coming year. The committee checked with Anne Matoy and Joe Weaver on this and they both said, "do not do this to us." However, the committee's opinion is that there would be very few changes after each faculty member made his/her original choice. Dr. Buchanan asked if the committee viewed the procedure to be that the current status would be the default. That is, if a faculty member did not initiate a change then no change would be made. Dr. Lawry indicated that it could be handled very much like the flex benefits. The motion passed.
On the Timing of Raises and A&D ReportsThe second recommendation was initiated because of the decision to start raises in the fall instead of July 1. The committee was asked to consider changing the timing of the A&D process to better match with the date the raises take effect. It seemed to be in the best interest of faculty and possibly for the university as a whole to start raises in July instead of changing the A&D process. Given that the university has a priority of raising faculty salaries up to the level of peer institutions in the Big Twelve, it should commit itself to giving faculty the highest possible raise at the earliest possible moment. The faculty knows that enrollment affects the budget and in turn it affects the money available for raises. However, by early summer enrollment estimates should be sufficiently accurate to be able to give raises and adjust for any shortfall in the budget caused by a small over estimate in enrollment by making adjustments in some other area. There is a widespread suspicion on the part of faculty that the money which would have normally been given in raises from July to Fall is being used by the administration for special projects at the expense of faculty salaries hidden behind a smoke screen of enrollment figures. This is undoubtedly not true. It would be difficult to eliminate such suspicions from the minds of many faculty, since explanation of why this is not so would require showing virtually every item in the university budget. Keeping to a practice which excites such suspicions is unwise, especially when there are relatively easy ways to adhere to the July 1 deadlines and still protect the budget against most shortfalls. Dr. Lawry moved the following recommendation: The Faculty Council recommends to President Halligan that: The Faculty favors a time frame for Appraisal and Development activities during Spring semesters so that faculty are evaluated for the calendar year. Additionally, the university should restore a July 1 date to general faculty raises, the date on which a new fiscal year begins and by which a budget for the coming year should be in place. (The complete recommendation can be seen in the Faculty Council Office, 312 PIO Building.) Dr. Buchanan asked if it was not in conflict to ask for the highest possible raise at the earliest possible time. The early date will naturally cause the administration to be more conservative about raises. Dr. Lawry replied that it was possible for the budget to be bigger than estimated and in that case there was no reason that the administration could not give a second raise. Dr. Halligan said that from his perspective the greater the degree of certainty you have, the greater confidence you have in being able to give raises. He has an objective of raising faculty salaries to the level of the Big Twelve universities, but that due to uncertainties in the university budget he can not commit to raising salaries to that level. Any prudent individual will be more conservative when making decisions before all the information is known than they will be after getting the information. Dr. Halligan added that it takes about 45 days lead time to give a raise and so to start the raise on July 1, the estimates would need to be in by May 15. Any administrator has to be very conservative under those circumstances. It also helps our image outside the university to show that students are important to us. Dr. Allison asked if it was true that President Boren was going along with fall raises. Dr. Halligan replied that OU gave fall raises last year. Dr. Birdwell added that the year before OU did not have a raise program. Dr. Moder said that she had been told that faculty raises were given in July last year. Dr. Keener replied that there may have been examples of July 1 raises, but Dr. Mergler told him that OU's salary program went into effect in October. Dr. Lawry said that this is not a popular decision amongst the faculty and that faculty morale is very important to carry on the work of the university. Dr. Schwarz asked if the two parts of the recommendation had to be tied together. Dr. Lawry replied that if it is going to be university policy to give raises in October then the timing of A&D should be reconsidered. However, there are other things to be considered when deciding the timing of A&D, such as faculty availability during the summer and reappointment decisions. Dr. Lawry also recommended that if raises are going to be given in the fall then the administration should make it a university policy and announce it to the faculty. Dr. Moder said that even if this recommendation is not approved by the Faculty Council or the administration, then something should be done to address the morale problem. One suggestion would be to talk to the faculty about the difference in the amount of money allocated for raises in October as opposed to July. Dr. Horn asked what the faculty concern involved. Dr. Lawry replied that no one knows but the concern he has heard is that money is allocated in July. If a faculty member is to get a $200 per month raise then the money for July - September is being spent somewhere else. Dr. Halligan added that the budget process is now open to everyone. Any faculty member can attend the budget hearings. Dr. Lawry said that faculty are suspicious of budget figures since they can be manipulated. However, if you can show that improvements are being made in faculty salaries, with regard to the other Big Twelve Universities, then the faculty will be much happier. Dr. Halligan reported that gains have been made in overall average salaries during the last few years but there is still room to do more. Dr. Birdwell added that over the last seven years any raise program of more that 3.2% would move you up. Three years ago OSU said it wanted to be at the average of the Big Eight. That goal is close to a reality, but now the standard has been raised a little with the addition of the four new schools to make the Big Twelve. Dr. Lawry suggested that raises could be announced in July but only a lower percentage given at that time. If enrollment meets the prediction then the rest of the raise would be given in October. If enrollment did not meet expectations then the lower number would remain in effect. Dr. Horn said that faculty would be even more inclined to think games were being played with the budget if the lower number was used. Dr. Kimbrell asked how accurate the May enrollment projections were last year. Dr. Birdwell replied that the university missed its budget projections by $300,000 last year. Dr. Gasem said that the major problem was the faculty perception of the use of the money and we should be discussing how to improve the faculty's perception. The motion failed. Dr. Lawry said that the committee would reconsider the question of moving the A&D process.
C. LONG-RANGE PLANNING -- Dave BuchananDr. Buchanan reported that it had been brought to the attention of the committee that there are several committees specifically devoted to student issues but no committee that is specifically devoted to research. In some cases some research related items, like the Conflict of Interest Policy, have been referred to other committees which were not specifically staffed to deal with research related items. The idea of an Extension Committee was raised during the Executive Committee Meeting. The needs in that area have not been assessed.
Revise the By-Laws of Faculty Council to Include a Research CommitteeDr. Buchanan moved: The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: the By-Laws of Faculty Council be amended with the following addition: B:5:i: Research Committee: two or more members from Faculty Council, three members from the General Faculty and one Emeritus faculty member. This committee shall formulate and recommend policies concerning research activities at OSU. Some issues, which may fall into the domain of this committee, would include: research productivity goals, research funding, intellectual property rights, patents, conflict of interest, distribution of indirect costs, awards for research activities, research centers, cross-cutting research needs. The motion carried.
Transfer StudentsThe other item from the Long-Range Planning Committee was the two page document on transfer students that was attached to the Agenda. This was not a recommendation but was included as a discussion item. The committee will consider the input from the faculty and make a decision as to whether to bring a recommendation, write a white paper or hand the topic off to another committee. Dr. Buchanan highlighted some of the summary statements in the document. Three of the top five feeder institutions for OSU are much closer to Tulsa than they are to Stillwater. So, a four-year state institution in Tulsa could have a large effect on OSU's transfer enrollment. OSU has many programs to help orientate freshman students while we do only a few things to orientate transfer students and in some cases the transfer student is less equipped to deal with OSU than the freshman. Dr. Gasem said that in many cases our transfer students are at a great disadvantage. Dr. Beer said that there are orientation activities for transfer students but the challenge is how to get them to participate. Many of the students expect OSU to be like their past institution and are not interested in orientation activities but structure, policy, procedures, and opportunities can all be different from institution to institution. We may have to have a program that starts a little later when they have discovered that OSU is different than their last institution in order to get better participation. We could consider orientation classes just for transfers and not intermingle. Dr. Beer added that there is an Alpha Committee that has some faculty representation and a member of the LRP committee or SALR committee could be added to that committee. Dr. Buchanan said that the LRP committee is more concerned with raising issues than with setting policy. So, they would probably not handle the details of implementing a program. Dr. Krenzer said there seems to be a bigger retention problem with transfer students than there is with freshmen. It is possible that the academic shock is as great for the transfer student as it is for the freshmen. Dr. Schwarz commented that there is a perception amongst some faculty that the transfer student is not academically equivalent to the other students. Dr. Moder asked if there are scholarship opportunities for transfer students and if so are they as plentiful as those for freshman. Dr. Beer replied that there were some but definitely not as much support as for freshmen. Dr. Moder added that we could be missing a lot of transfer students by not having financial aid available. Dr. Keener said the major growth in scholarship funding over the past few years is in the departments and colleges. Dr. Halligan said that the current policy was to allow givers to designate where their gift goes and not force all scholarship gifts to be given to university scholarships. This policy should encourage more and larger gifts. Dr. Williams replied that Agricultural Economics has some scholarship money and does a good job of recruiting transfer students but in many cases they self-destruct in their first semester and possibly lose their scholarship. OSU needs to develop some mentoring programs to help these students. It is not a new problem. The transfer student faces a real cultural shock. The faculty at many of the smaller institutions work closely with the students in small classes and individually. They come here and face a different level of competition in the classroom. Dr. Krenzer asked if the retention problem for transfer students was being made worse by students who were not eligible to enter OSU when they graduated from high school but are entering after attending another institution. Ms. Watkins replied that Institutional Research has statistics that show that the students from Tulsa that transfer to OSU have a higher graduation rate than students from Tulsa who start at OSU as freshmen. Dr. Beer suggested that we invite Lee Tarrant and Mary Jane Warde to address the problems that transfer students are having at OSU. Dr. Halligan suggested that we have a special report next time on the issue and to also invite Joe Weaver to share some of the statistics related to transfer students.
[Continued on Page 2]