Faculty Council Meeting

250 Student Union November 11, 1997

David Buchanan called the meeting to order with the following members present: Ackerson, Arquitt, Bertholf, Bice, Bierman, Cole, Dawson, Edgley, Farr, Finn, Gedra, Horn, Hsu, Kimbrell, Krenzer, Lawry, Locy, Martin, Moder, Montgomery, Richards, Robinson, Schwarz, Scott, Sisson, Smith, Warde, and Wilkinson. Also present: Beer, Collins, Hromas, Jardot, Keener, Knottnerus, Lingelbach, Mitchell, Najd, Vitek, Vuong, Watkins, Weaver, Weber, and Wettemann. Absent: Miller

HIGHLIGHTS

[ Page 1 ] [ Page 2 ]

President Halligan was unable to attend the meeting because of a previously scheduled out of town trip. The Faculty Council officers were told of this conflict several months ago but elected not to change the date of the meeting because of the number of people involved. Dr. Warde moved acceptance of the October 14, 1997, Minutes. Dr. Horn seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved. Dr. Bice moved acceptance of the, November 11, 1997, Agenda. Dr. Arquitt seconded. The Agenda was approved.

SPECIAL REPORT: WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY John D. Vitek

Dr. Vitek gave some background on why OSU is involved in this organization and some of the reasons why Gov. Mike Leavitt of Utah is such a strong supporter of the concept. Governor Keating committed $100K to allow the State of Oklahoma to be involved in the WGU and the State Regents for Higher Education have asked OSU to be the pilot university within the state. Gov. Leavitt says that technology is changing the way we learn whether we like it or not. This technology has to be grasped as an outreach tool. Utah can not afford to build a new campus to deal with the clientele even if the people would attend this new campus. It is much more efficient to use technology to take the knowledge to where the people are. The obstacles are not technical but social. The WGU should not replace the universities in the state but as population continues to grow, it will absorb some of that growth. There are already many forms of information currently on the Web and the WGU is an association of universities with common interests who can come together to solve some of the problems presented by this form of information dispersal. The process of looking at the organization to see if OSU wants to participate is just beginning. A hand out was distributed giving the Western Governors University Focus Group members and problem areas. Student Records, Robin Lacy; Fee Issues, Bob Dixson; Articulation and Internal Marketing, Jack Vitek; Local Centers from the Educational Providers Perspective and Affiliated Status, Jim Hromas; Library Service, Anne Prestamo; Disability Issues, Debra Swoboda; Content Solicitation, Bill Cooper; Delivery Methods, Robert Brown; and Faculty Council Representative, David Buchanan. Simple things like who keeps student records has to be decided. Looking at what has happened in Tulsa, where only four universities are involved, shows how complicated some of these problems can be. WGU will involve three programs. The first is competency based skill acquisition in which certificates and degrees can be awarded. There are two programs starting that will give associates degrees. OSU-OKC and Okmulgee have been invited to participate in the discussion of an electronics degree. The second is an open college that will not award degrees. All the participating universities can list their courses as part of WGU. Students can enroll in these courses but which of the courses OSU allows students to transfer in will be up to us. The third is a clearing house to list all Web-based courses and programs. If OSU develops a Web-based program the WGU will list it and advertise it for us. OSU plans to have 10 courses listed by Nov. 14 and is developing four degree programs. There are issues of state policy that will need to be changed to allow us to participate in parts of the program. Please contact members of the Focus Group if you have any suggestions or concerns about WGU. Dr. Vitek pointed out that the University of Phoenix is the second or third largest private college in the nation and it has no campus. Its stock is selling for $40 per share. Dr. Ackerson asked who gives the degree. Dr. Vitek replied that in some cases it will be our degree and in some cases it will be WGU that gives the degree. WGU will be accredited. Dr. Moder asked about faculty workload and remuneration for these courses. Dr. Vitek replied that we have a University Extension model already and there are ways to pay faculty that are involved. It is possible that a faculty member could have two thousand students on the Web and that would be their total job. Dr. Moder said that it is possible that the extension model is not the ideal one since on campus students may be taking the course also. Dr. Vitek said that some of these issues, especially the academic problems, will be addressed in the Instruction Council. Mr. Locy asked if different universities will be offering the same classes and a price competition will develop or if there will be an effort to prevent duplication of classes. Dr. Vitek said that such competition could develop but also quality could play a role. Dr. Edgley said that there was an article in the New Yorker about Phoenix University and that it is thought of as a degree mill and is having difficulty getting accredited. Many of the students who choose this university are not concerned about getting an education but only want a degree. In view of this, is there a discussion about whether OSU should participate in WGU and if so how we can keep it from deteriorating into a degree mill. Dr. Vitek replied that we are asking the questions now and are not committed to anything in the long term. Dr. Ackerson asked about what resources were committed at this time. Dr. Vitek said all that is currently committed is time. We have been trying to hire a distance education coordinator who might take the lead in looking at WGU but have not been successful. Faculty will be given the opportunity to develop such courses and will have to make decisions as to whether it is worth their time. Joe Weber has developed a Web-based course FRCD 5423, Research Literature in Gerontology. Dr. Weber said that he attended the Technology 2000 conference and spent the entire time demonstrating his course. There seemed to be a feeling among the people present that their university needed to get this type of material ready quickly or they would be left behind. FRCD is also offering Nutrition for the Elderly as an internet course, are teaching some other courses by compressed video, and considering developing some other Web-based courses. Dr. Ackerson asked what seems to work well on the net. Dr. Weber replied that he has seen demonstrations of some chemistry and physics courses. Some courses in Sociology involve discussion where others require students to submit assignments. Dr. Edgley said he is still concerned by the big picture. This is designed to reach out to the non-standard student but what would keep a traditional student from enrolling in these courses on the cheap by staying home. Why should the state of OK support the infrastructure? Why not have the students take the course from Harvard? Dr. Vitek asked, what will it cost the state to build another free-standing university in Tulsa? Dr. Lawry agreed with Dr. Edgley that we do not know what is going to happen once these programs are out there. If the courses are as good as or better than those offered on campus, and possibly cheaper, then a person would be stupid to go to an on-campus course. Dr. Vitek pointed out that people are assuming it is less expensive but currently it is much more expensive to offer such courses. Dr. Moder asked if resources have not been committed to this then is the technology in place to do the delivery and design of these courses. Dr. Vitek replied that currently we do not have the equipment to do this but that we are evolving toward computer systems with the proper capabilities regardless of our participation in WGU. Dr. Lawry pointed out that many resources are being committed in the form of faculty and staff time and this is probably the most important resource at OSU. Dr. Vitek said that this thing is out there and OSU needs to deal with it up front and not after the fact. In this way OSU is a participant in determining some of the parameters. Dr. Horn encouraged the committee to consider questions concerning who teaches the traditional students and who teaches in the virtual classroom. If more faculty are teaching in the virtual classroom then does it mean residential students will be taught by more TAs and temporary faculty? In an earlier discussion it was suggested that it could take up to five times as much effort to prepare a Web-based course as an on campus course. Dr. Finn said that there are also questions in terms of promotion and tenure. At the medical school several courses are being taught as a pilot by intranet. Courses are being developed and taught on campus using Web technology before they are released beyond the school. Dr. Vitek said that there are many questions and that faculty have to be involved. This can not be imposed by the administration. Without the faculty this is nothing. Dr. Keener said at meetings involving vice presidents the feeling is that use of the Web in education will continue to expand however the future of courses totally delivered on the Web is still uncertain. Should OSU not participate because it is not clear how this will play out or should OSU continue to investigate and see what the issues really are. Many of you have asked questions starting with has anyone asked and the answer to this is probably yes but there probably have not been solutions found. The OSRHE asked OSU to participate. We have agreed to donate some time to research many of the types of questions asked here today. Depending upon the answers to these questions and whether or not the faculty wants to participate, OSU will decide whether to continue in the project or not. Dr. Lawry asked if the FRCD course was going to be done completely by computer. Dr. Keener replied that the student can not register or pay fees using the computer. Even though the course material is Web based there are still parts of the process of taking the course that can not be done in our current system. Ms. Watkins said that Rogers University had a booth at the Technology 2000 Conference and currently has 20 courses on line this semester and plans to have 20 more next semester. These 40 courses would essentially complete the General Education component at OSU. Rogers had contracted with a third party to produce these and many of them were not well done. It makes it more important that we get involved when you see what else is out there. Dr. Scott asked if OSU will be transfering these courses for credit. Dr. Keener said that we only accept courses that are transcripted by an accredited institution. If Claremore transcripts the courses then we have to accept them. Dr. Edgley said that it is possible that at some time in the future people may get enough of virtualness and want the real thing. If that comes to pass then OSU should be in a position to be a real place.

REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: President Halligan, Executive Vice President and Vice Presidents

Dr. Keener distributed a report on the status of the current recommendations and on the disposition of former recommendations.

94-12-01-SALR Composition of Future Information Technology Committee: Under review. Some input regarding committee charge and membership has been received from the Deans, and Drs. Moretti and Buchanan. Final draft is being prepared for final reviews.

96-12-04-FAC Changes in Appendix D: Under review. Legal Counsel has reviewed. Dr. Keener will work with Legal Counsel to draft wording changes to more clearly delineate the role of Ombuds and provide additional specifics regarding membership to the Informal Review Committee. Requires Board approval.

97-02-02-ADHOC Patent Policy 1-0202: Under review. Dr. Collins is coordinating review by Research Council, Deans Council, and Legal Counsel. Draft including incorporated changes from initial reviews will require another round of reviews. Final revisions require Board approval.

97-04-03-ASP Guidelines for Scheduling Common Evening and Final Exams: Defer decision awaiting new computer system. Dr. Vitek has coordinated this review with the Registrar and the Faculty Council committee. Draft revisions are being considered. Because of the extensive computer reprogramming involved, CIS requests postponing until new computer system is operating.

97-04-04-ASP Guidelines for Requesting Common Evening and Final Exams: Accepted, with the understanding that requests for common exams can only be approved if time and space are available. Dr. Vitek has coordinated this review with the Registrar and the Faculty Council committee.

97-09-01-FAC Policy and Procedure Letter on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure: Under review. September 9, FC approved the draft P&P as revised by the Faculty Committee. The draft has been forwarded for review, to include Deans Council.

97-09-02-FAC Return of Policy and Procedure Letter on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure to Faculty Council Before Action by the President: Pending review of draft P&P Letter.

97-10-01-ASP Change in How Grade Point Average is Accumulated in Establishing the Eligibility of Part-time Students for the Presidents and Deans Honor Rolls: Accepted. Dr. Vitek has reviewed with Registrar. Office of Academic Affairs will ensure implementation for Fall, 1997 grade reports.

97-10-02-ASP Preparation of Common Exams for Multiple Sections of the Same Course with Multiple Instructors: Accepted. Recommended statement has been reviewed and determined appropriate for including in the guidelines. Office of Academic Affairs will appropriately communicate this statement to the faculty.

97-11-01-EXEC Appointment of the Dean of the Graduate College: To President Halligan.

Dr. Buchanan turned the meeting over to the Vice Chair, Nancy Wilkinson.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

A. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE David Buchanan

Dr. Buchanan read the following statement: Challenging a decision made by a president, or others in the upper administration, is not something that should be done lightly but it is the responsibility of the Faculty Council to mount such a challenge when the facts dictate it. It is, perhaps, important at the beginning to point out what this is not. It is not about something which happened last year, or five years ago or about something which might happen next year. It is not a broader statement about this president's leadership or his relationship with the faculty. President Halligan's accomplishments at OSU are numerous and everybody in the OSU family, including the faculty, has benefitted from his leadership. He has been open with the faculty about the opportunities at OSU and equally open about the challenges that face us. However, his fine record as president should not deter us from facing the current topic head on. I have visited with many members of the faculty, from all over the campus, about this in the last two weeks. It is clear that there is a wide spectrum of opinions about how we should respond to this decision. However, three themes have emerged and I believe that all three are important. First, the Graduate College is important. The members of the OSU faculty are very serious about the importance of graduate education and the centrality of the Graduate College in the life of both graduate and undergraduate students and the university as a whole. It is one of only a few academic units which directly affects nearly every faculty member. It lends structure and a voice to that point where scholarly activity and education meet. As such, it is vital to the life of a comprehensive university like OSU. It deserves the very best leadership. Protestations have been made that this appointment means there's been absolutely no change in his duties. While this might be true from a mechanistic standpoint, it cannot and should not be true from a leadership standpoint. When assuming the title of Dean a person should assume a voice and a vision which were not possible previously. If there is no difference between an Associate Dean and a Dean then this change was not even necessary. Secondly, it is clear that Dr. Powell is well liked and respected on this campus. People generally enjoy working with him and value the work that he does. It is unfortunate that he has been denied the opportunity to articulate the case for his candidacy for the Dean position in an open forum. I believe that one of the many things which have contributed to the success of President Halligan's tenure is the fact that he was able to make the case for his presidency in an open faculty forum during the interview process. Dr. Powell has not been afforded a similar opportunity. The admiration and affection that members of the faculty feel for Dr. Powell make it tempting to just let this go. That would be the easy thing to do in this situation. However, the third theme is that rules matter. The rule, in this case, is in Section 1.9 of Appendix D of the Faculty Handbook. Appendix D was birthed through a long, and at times, difficult process which occupied this body for several years. Section 1.9 says the following: An appropriate national search and faculty consultation shall precede recommendation of appointment to administrative positions which entail direct or indirect supervision of faculty members or which have a direct bearing on the work of the faculty, including president, vice-presidents, registrar, director of admissions, assistant vice presidents, deans, librarians or directors of comparable rank, associate and assistant deans and unit administrators. The requirement for faculty consultation shall apply to all permanent appointments and to temporary appointments to fill a vacant position or to replace an administrator who will be absent for more than one semester. [ see A. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE continued... ]

[ Page 1 ] [ Page 2 ]