Faculty Council Meeting

3:00 p.m., May 13, 1997
Council Room, 250 Student Union

HIGHLIGHTS

1. GAMS Update
2. Report of Status of Faculty Council Recommendations
3. Reports of Standing Committees
   • Academic Standards and Policies
     • Reexamining Requirements Associated with Dean's and President's Honor Rolls for Part-Time Students Recommendation
     • Convocation/Commencement Ceremonies Recommendation
     • Timely Reporting of Course Grades Recommendation
     • Missed Classes Recommendation
   • Campus Facilities, Safety, and Security
   • Long-Range Planning
     • Transfer Student Programs Recommendation
   • Retirement and Fringe Benefits
   • Rules and Procedures
   • Liaison Representative Reports
     • Athletic Council
     • Research Council
     • Student Publications Committee
     • Emeriti Association
     • Staff Advisory Council
4. Old Business
   
5. Report on Grievances During the 1996-97 Academic Year
   
6. Resolutions

SPECIAL REPORT: GAMS Update

Richard Norman gave a brief history of the GAMS project and introduced Jada Bruner. Bruner said that GAMS stands for Grants Application and Management System. The current GAMS consortium consists of five institutions, North Carolina State Univ, Univ. of Michigan, Ohio State Univ. Research Foundation, Univ. of Massachusetts, and Oklahoma State Univ. The business partners are IBM and University of Southern California Software Corporation. NSF has helped in the pre-award portion and ONR and NIH are helping in the electronic data exchange areas. USC Software will provide software support. GAMS is an electronic way to manage sponsored activity and will allow the free exchange of information among all involved parties. It will standardize proposal creation, give an automated routing system, reduce the use of shadow systems, provide data that is not currently available, and create standard management reports. The regulations of the agencies and of OSU are built into the system. PIs will be able to update their vitae using the Web. The system will work with the current accounting system to provide accurate wage and benefit data. Linda Lucas reported that the recent thrust has been to convert it from a project to a product. Version 2.0 is out and 3.0 will be available this summer. Version 3.0 will include the Web interface and a multi-agency/multi-disciple award system. The Web interface has two arms, a reporting arm and a proposal development and award maintenance arm. The reporting arm will include a system for standard reports, by department, college, or agency and one for custom reports which will allow you to generate management tools. On the proposal development side you can keep PI profiles up-to-date and route proposals. Things that are still to be addressed are invoicing and receivable system, automatic reporting of indirect costs, postscript printing, and the decision support module. Anderson asked if the package would be sold to other universities. Lucas said that when it is complete it will be available. Norman said that there were other universities interested in the system. If a state wants to buy participation in the consortium it will cost one million dollars, an individual school can participate for $400,000 and an associate membership is $250,000. The marketing will be done by USC software. Ackerson asked, in regard to vita information, who has access and who can update it? Lucas replied the system administrator and the faculty member. Allison asked about salary information and if the information was available through the Web. Lucas replied that the PI and the research administration office for the college would have access to the salary information. The access question is being left up to the colleges. The security is built into the system and does not change whether you use the Web or some other way of accessing the system. Finn asked what the implementation level would be this fall. Lucas replied that when version 3.0 is released it will be used on a limited basis in the colleges for one year and will be ready for full implementation the following fall.

REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. 92-03-01-FAC Fixed Terms for Administrators: Under study. Halligan recently received a response from Legal Counsel, which is now being reviewed by Keener.
2. 94-12-01-SALR Composition of Future Information Technology Committee: Keener has sent a draft of the committee charge to the Dean's and has received some response.
3. 96-05-01-LRP Strategic Management: An initial plan was discussed with Buchanan and members of the LPR committee. This involved the establishment of a year-long conversation concerning a topic important to OSU's future. A program would be established whereby this topic would be brought front and center to the campus community during the entire year. Keener will be responsible for designating an individual to manage this effort.
4. 96-10-01(1)-FAC On Summer Compensation (1): Compensation equity concerns prohibit acceptance of this recommendation. Persons working full time in research or teaching would be compensated at different rates. The administration would favorably consider a recommendation that all faculty be on a nine-month or eleven-month appointment. Keener's memo to Halligan added, the ability to pay faculty for summer teaching is a matter of resource allocation by the college. No one seems to support an artificial increase in the cost of summer school that appears to bring inconsistent compensation awards between those that teach versus those that seek and obtain extramural compensation. Finally, any faculty member who wishes to be compensated at the higher rate has the option to change their appointment period to a nine-month appointment. Ackerson said that if all were on 9-month appointments no one would legally have any vacation. Halligan replied that he had spent all his career at universities that were on 9-month appointments and they all managed to take vacations. Ackerson replied that you are working for pay and you are off. How do you justify this? Halligan replied that he is willing to solve the problem but he feels that the current recommendation makes the situation more complicated. Lawry pointed out that the question has to do with whether you are compensated inside the university or from an outside source not with whether you are doing research or teaching. The faculty member can choose to work for the one-tenth that the outside source is willing to pay or not to do so, but two people assigned to teach in the summer on the university's budget should both be paid at the same percentage of their academic years salary. Moder said that UCT uses a different formula to compute summer salary so they pay everyone at the 9-month rate. So, an OSU faculty member who is on a 10-month contract will make more by teaching at UCT in the summer. After much discussion about how the 4-tier compensation system (9, 10, 11, or 12 month) works, Lawry stated that during the academic year a 10-month employee accrues vacation time as part of his compensation but during the summer months he does not and so, in effect, has taken a pay cut. Keener said that he would like to see everyone on a nine-month contract and get out of the discussion such as this. Halligan said that he still was not clear on why a 9-month employee has no vacation time. Buchanan replied that it was to balance the old 10-month contract. A 10-month person worked 9 months and had one month vacation. So, a 9-month employee was paid 9 months with no vacation time and had one month without pay. Ackerson added that the documentation indicates that if you contract for 3 months in the summer then you have no vacation. Collins said that as a result of the Stanford situation there are new regulations and they are being enforced.
5. 96-10-01(2)-FAC On Summer Compensation (2):
   This recommendation is accepted in principle. Faculty should be compensated for all of their work, including advisement, but the decisions regarding summer employment and the nature of the compensation, as well as how advisement is handled during that period should be determined by the department. Lawry suggested that the administration send a memo to the Deans and Department Heads indicating their acceptance of this recommendation. Wilkinson said that some departments do not have funds to do that. Halligan replied that when he was department head he worked out such deals all the time. For example, you could compensate a faculty member for summer advisement by giving them money to go to a national meeting.
6. 96-12-04-FAC Changes in Appendix D: Under study. Halligan recently received response from Legal Counsel, which is now being reviewed by Keener.
7. 97-02-02-ADHOC Patent Policy 1-0202: Collins said they had talked with the ad hoc committee on further suggestions and the policy is currently being reviewed by the Research Council. Depending on the number of changes it could come back to Faculty Council. It will also go through Dean's Council, Legal Counsel and then to the Board. Lawry suggested that if it comes back to FC it should be sent to the newly formed Research Committee.
8. 97-03-02-FAC Faculty Appointment Periods: Delayed pending further discussion of summer compensation issues.
9. 97-04-01-ASP University Academic Format Policy and Procedures Statement 2-0207:
   The administration accepts with the modification to include the statement that justification must be provided when requesting time/date change in a final exam.
10. 97-04-02-ASP Recognizing Bachelor's Graduates who Have Achieved Academic Distinction: Keener is reviewing with the Registrar.
11. 97-04-03-ASP Guidelines for Scheduling Common Evening and Final Exams:
    Keener is reviewing with the Registrar.
12. 97-04-04-ASP Guidelines for Requesting Common Evening and Final Exams:
    Keener is reviewing with the Registrar.
13. 97-05-02-ASP Convocation/Commencement Ceremonies: To President Halligan.
14. 97-05-03-ASP Timely Reporting of Course Grades: To President Halligan.
15. 97-05-04-ASP Missed Classes: To President Halligan.
16. 97-05-05-LRP Transfer Student Programs: To President Halligan.

[Continued on Page 2]