OSU

Faculty Council Minutes

250 Student Union
June 10, 1997


President Halligan called the meeting to order with the following members present: Ackerson, E. Arquitt, Bertholf, Buchanan, Dawson, Edgley, Finn, Horn, Hsu, Kimbrell, Krenzer, Lawry, Locy, Martin, Miller, Montgomery, Robinson, Schwarz, Scott, Sisson, Smith, Warde, and Wilkinson. Also present: A. Arquitt, Beer, Birdwell, Harp, Hays, Knottnerus, Leonard, Najd, Pierce, Presnal, Watkins, and Weaver. Absent: Bice, Cole, Farr, Gasem, Gedra, Moder, and Richards.

HIGHLIGHTS



  1. Telecommunications Report
  2. New Budget Year Report
  3. Report of Status of Faculty Council Recommendations
  4. Reports of Standing Committees
  5. Reports of Liaison Representatives
  6. Old Business



Bertholf amended the May 13, 1997, Minutes by changing the Report of Status of Faculty Council Recommendation 94-12-01-SALR to read, "Keener has sent a draft of the committee charge to the Dean's and has asked for a response." Warde moved acceptance of the May 13, 1997, Minutes. Horn seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved. Warde moved acceptance of the, June 10, 1997, Agenda. Horn seconded. The Agenda was approved.

SPECIAL REPORT: Telecommunications

Glade Presnal

The Institute for Telecommunications was established in 1991 under the umbrella of the Educational Television Services. It is a catalyst for distance learning, applied research, testing, and applications. It is advised by a board of senior leaders from business, industry, government and education as well as eight representatives from OSU, one from each college and one appointed by the Faculty Council. Last years committee members were Jim Choike, Kevin Hayes, Lee Manzer, Ray Martinez, Linda Robinson, George Sheets, Ramesh Sharda, and Grant Turnwald. The primary purpose is to assist the faculty to meet the university's mission. The Institute supports the A&S teleconferencing services which consists of AP Calculus, Physics, and German by Satellite. Nine MS degree programs are offered through the compressed video facilities to other educational institutions and to industrial sites. The institute also does beta testing of equipment. It assisted in the new Masters Degree Program in Telecommunications by getting the initial funding and the equipment for the lab. The institute also does surveys for clients. For example, it did a survey of higher education institutions as to what equipment they were using. The client allowed the institute to add three questions of their own to the survey at no cost. They learned that 437 institutions did not add a technology fee to credit hour charges for courses taken at a distance. Of those that did, (137), the range of charges was from $3 to over $100 per credit hour. Most institutions (455) provided training to faculty teaching at a distance and the method used was evenly distributed among technical, facilitator, and instructor training. The majority (359) indicated that faculty were assigned to teach at a distance as an inload responsibility with 232 responses indicating faculty were compensated on an overload basis. The Data Processing Telecommunications committee of the State Legislature asked the institute to develop a plan for Oklahoma telecommunications and they did that by obtaining $250,000 from the Department of Commerce to conduct this study. They also received $1.5M from the Department of Commerce and $1.5M from Southwestern Bell to establish 33 electronic community centers throughout rural OK. The institute has a program of annual executive briefings for senior leaders in industry. Future challenges include changing from analog equipment to digital equipment. The institute currently has two proposals pending to pay the $2.5M dollar cost. A second challenge is the merging of voice, video and data and helping the faculty to use the technology needed for electronically mediated learning. A handout was distributed that contained further details on several programs and listed four national awards won by OSU. Wilkinson asked for more information on the electronic community centers. Presnal said that the electronic community centers could involve up to five sites, a county extension office, an educational institution, a health care facility, a library, and/or a government office. There would be at least a computer with desktop video in each of those sites. Halligan asked for a sense of scale in terms of high school courses and college courses. Presnal replied that he did not have the exact figures but it involved about 300 high schools in 43 states and about 3 to 4 thousand students. Birdwell added that there were 355 students, excluding UCT, taking graduate level courses. Ackerson asked if they worked with Correspondence Study. Presnal replied they were separate and administratively reported to Birdwell. Ackerson asked if they used only OSU faculty and how people get involved with the program. Presnal replied that only OSU faculty were used except for a couple of engineering courses that are co-taught by a professor from OU and one from OSU. He added that they recruited people through the advisory committee and that over 100 faculty have taught at a distance through their program. Finn asked how tuition was shared between universities. Presnal replied the university has a position for Director of Distance Learning open at the current time. Part of his duties will be to work with the OSRHE to develop policies dealing with such issues. At the current time these things are decided on an individual basis. Halligan said that there is a possibility that Gov. Keating is considering having the state participate in the Western Governor's University. The state systems of Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, etc., would pool their programs through electronic means and not create any physical infrastructure but out of all their intellectual assets would create a university whereby individuals could get degrees. Presnal said he thought the idea was workable and that the person responsible for putting the program together was on our advisory board. If we have a chance to be involved we should do it. Industry seems to be excited about their program. Edgley asked if there was any downside to this. In particular are there any studies on the impact on traditional classes. Presnal said that you lose the face to face interaction and the social aspects of the traditional university. Edgley added that if we are serving people, disabled and place bound, who we could not reach before, then that is one thing; but, if this becomes a way to avoid a classroom experience then we need to think about it. If someone is granting degrees in our name using these kinds of experience then we need to take a really hard look at that. Halligan added that his understanding of the Western Governor's vision is that it will be competency based. A student will be given a proctored examination at the end of the course and will be certified on the basis of these competencies. Edgley said that this again is something that needs to be monitored carefully because it may be very suitable for courses that have real answers but what about courses where you are trying to generate creativity. What about the arts and humanities? It is not that these things cannot be done but only that they need to be watched. Birdwell pointed out that the courses are taught through the extension mechanism at OSU, by OSU faculty, approved by the Deans and that the Institute for Telecommunication is a facilitator that distributes the information and trains the faculty to use the technology.

SPECIAL REPORT: New Budget Year

Harry Birdwell

The legislature approved $56.8M in new funds for higher education. They also approved a tuition increase of 5% for two year institutions, 4% for the four year institutions and 9% for the comprehensive universities. When this is all added together it amounts to an increase of about $71M. This may be a better budget year than last year since last year $13M was earmarked for OTRS. Because of increased oil gas tax revenue there was no requirement for OTRS this year. In addition, last year the State Regents had more new initiatives than they do this year. Consequently, more new money will be going into the formula than did last year. Birdwell handed out a chart showing the allocation of state appropriated funds. OSU received $5.4M of new money whereas OU received $6.3M. This difference is because OU has grown more over the last five years than OSU. However, OSU did receive about $300,000 of new money for the Food Processing Center and about $700,000 of new money as tuition offset for the Ag Experiment Station and Ag Extension since they will not be receiving any of the new tuition increase money. The university also received $1.1M in operating costs for the ARTC and the Food Processing Building and about $238,000 in new money for Teacher Education programs. Birdwell shared the goals set by the University Budget Committee: 1) continue to provide increases in compensation for faculty and staff; 2) maintenance, operations and instructional technology; 3) technology for campus; 4) new positions, particularly as we grow; 5) graduate stipends (last year a commitment was made to provide all GAs a 10% increase); and 6) new programs. June 12 the administration will take their recommendations to the Budget Committee. On June 20 the budget will be taken to the OSU Regents. On June 27 the OSRHE will consider our budget and the new year will begin on July 1. The final form of the budget will not be known until the Regents act on it. The recommendation will contain a 5% merit salary program effective Oct. 1. However, this could depend upon two things: 1) will enrollment hold up and 2) since the legislature did not pass the emergency clause, the tuition increase cannot take effect until after the semester begins. The Attorney General has been asked for an opinion on whether the tuition for the fall can be prorated. If not OSU will receive about $1.5M less new money this year. The budget will also include an amount of equity money in addition to the merit portion to be used to help solve salary equity problems amongst both faculty and staff. Administrative costs will decrease from 6.8% to 6.2% of the E&G budget. For each of the last six years OSU's administrative costs have gone down. The amount of money that goes toward the instructional part of the budget will be up. There will be additional money for faculty training in the use of technology. Research will show a significant increase. OSU has never budgeted the receipts from the endowed chairs and professorships, but will be doing so this year. There will also be an increase in start up funding. Student service will get some new money for University Placement Services. One of the worst things that can happen is to have people complete their degree and then not get a job. Halligan said "growth matters." This tuition issue is a very sensitive issue. It passed 52-48 in the House after a significant effort. To give a sense of the reluctance in the legislature to pass such measures, OSU had proposed a $.75 per credit hour increase in the library fee to improve PETE and this failed 83-17 in the House. The final decisions on the budget will have to wait until after the Attorney General makes his decision and how the legislators react to his decision. Halligan added his support to the increase in the graduate stipends and for the salary program including the equity money. David Boren has said that OU will have a 5% salary program beginning Oct. 1. If OSU is able to give a 5% salary program and the rest of the Big 12 gives a 3% program then OSU faculty salaries will be at 95% of the Big 12 average. Edgley asked if a negative ruling by the Attorney General would mean the 5% program would not go into effect. Birdwell replied that the situation is being watched very carefully. The intention is to pursue the 5% program if at all possible. Halligan added that before a final decision is made he wants to know the Attorney General has ruled and what the fall enrollment is going to be. Salary increases are first on the list. Edgley asked if the program would possibly start later than Oct. 1. Halligan replied that a decision will be made about Aug. 15 on the salary program and it will go into effect Oct. 1. Lawry asked about the formula and its tie to enrollment. Weaver replied that the funding is based on the standard cost per student credit hour FTE. Halligan added that it depends on the program in which the student is enrolled. Every program has a cost. The algorithm that calculates the formula is about an inch thick and depends on level and program. They average our costs for a program with those of OU to get a standard peer cost. Lawry asked if there was a way to look at OU's numbers and see how much extra money they got because they grew more than we did. Weaver said it was possible but he had not done it because of the time restraints in putting OSU's budget together. Halligan said a very crude model would be to input the number of student credit hours at each level, lower division, upper division, or graduate, and these SCH's are also labeled with their program designation. You then turn the crank and out comes a justifiable budget need. Then they will give us 61% of the justifiable budget need. Lawry said he has always been baffled by how much new money OSU gets because of growth. Weaver said that it can be very complicated because a school could have a big growth in a year when there is no new money and there is no reallocation system wide. Halligan pointed out that in some years they make up for past growth if it had occurred during a year when there was no new money. They are now getting slices of steak and we are getting slices of air. Birdwell said that OU got about $460,000 this year for growth in years when there was no new money. Student credit hour costs are in the ratio of $1 for lower division to $1.90 for upper division to $3.08 for graduate. In order to get a number that ties funding to enrollment Halligan said OSU teaches about 15,000 FTE and gets $90M, so that means we get $6,000 per FTE. However, this number will vary from $3,000 for some lower division students to over $10,000 for some graduate students. Lawry said that OSU has a built in incentive to get more Physics majors than Philosophy majors. Halligan said that never enters the thinking, since the increased revenue is offset by increased costs. Najd asked if the new PETE was going to be put on hold because of the loss of the new library fee. Halligan said that it is too important. However it does open us to the criticism that we did not really need the fee. Lawry said that since OSU is thinking of a 5% merit raise program does that mean that the salary budget line will be increased 5% and the actual average raise will be 5.1% because the raise was not paid in July-September or will it mean that the salary budget line will increase 4.8% and the average merit based salary increase will be 5%. Halligan replied that it is the latter. In fact a portion of the raise program will have to be funded out of next years budget.

REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS:

President Halligan, Executive Vice President and Vice Presidents
  1. 92-03-01-FACFixed Terms for Administrators:Legal Counsel has reviewed and identified conflict with Board policy stating that there cannot be any tenure or property interest in these administrative positions. The recommendation as stated is not accepted; however a committee of two deans, two department heads and four faculty will be appointed to develop revised appraisal procedure for administrators, to be reviewed by Faculty Council before implementing.
  2. 94-12-01-SALR Composition of Future Information Technology Committee: Under review.
  3. 96-12-04-FAC Changes in Appendix D: Under review.
  4. 97-02-02-ADHOC Patent Policy 1-0202: Under review.
  5. 97-03-02-FAC Faculty Appointment Periods: Delayed, pending further discussion of summer compensation issues. Will have lunch with Buchanan to continue the discussion of the issue.
  6. 97-04-02-ASP Recognizing Bachelor's Graduates who Have Achieved Academic Distinction: Accepted and referred to Keener for implementation.
  7. 97-04-03-ASP Guidelines for Scheduling Common Evening and Final Exams: Under review by Jack Vitek and Robin Lacy who will report to Keener.
  8. 97-04-04-ASP Guidelines for Requesting Common Evening and Final Exams: Under review by Jack Vitek and Robin Lacy who will report to Keener.
  9. 97-05-02-ASP Convocation/Commencement Ceremonies: Accepted in principle. The Chair of the University Commencement Committee will appoint and coordinate an ad hoc committee, to include the specified representation and charge as noted.
  10. 97-05-03-ASP Timely Reporting of Course Grades: Accepted and referred to Keener for implementation.
  11. 97-05-04-ASP Missed Classes: Accepted and referred to Keener for implementation.
  12. 97-05-05-LRP Transfer Student Programs: Accepted and referred to Keener for implementation.

Continue to [Page 2]
Submit corrections to Diane Lafollette