Faculty Council Meeting

250 Student Union March 10, 1998

President Halligan called the meeting to order with the following members present: Bertholf, Bice, Bierman, Buchanan, Cole, Edgley, Finn, Gedra, Horn, Hsu, Kimbrell, Krenzer, Locy, Martin, Miller, Montgomery, Richards, Robinson, Schwarz, Scott, and Wilkinson. Also present: Birdwell, E. Johnson, S. Johnson, Jones, Lingelbach, Matoy, Najd, Vitek, and Watkins. Absent: Ackerson, Arquitt, Dawson, Farr, Lawry, Moder, Sisson, Smith, and Warde

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Library Issues with Special Emphasis on Copyrights
2. Report of Status of Faculty Council Recommendations
3. Reports of Standing Committees
   • Campus Facilities, Safety, and Security
   • Faculty
   • Personal Profit on Required Materials Recommendation
   • Long-Range Planning
     • "Research Makes It Happen" Recommendation
   • Retirement and Fringe Benefits
   • Rules and Procedures
4. Reports of Liaison Representatives
   • Student Publications
   • Emeriti Association
   • Graduate Student Association
   • Student Government Association
5. New Business
   • Report on Meeting with OU Faculty Senate

Dr. Horn moved acceptance of the February 10, 1998, Minutes. Dr. Krenzer seconded the motion. Dr. Bertholf pointed out a correction in the Graduate Student Association report. It should say that the GSA was asking that the university pay for a health insurance policy and the Student Health Center fee. The current amount is $525. The Minutes were approved. Dr. Edgley moved acceptance of the, March 10, 1998, Agenda. Dr. Krenzer seconded. The Agenda was approved.

Dr. Johnson said he wanted to inform Council about three negative trends in the publishing business that impact scholarly activity. The first is the consolidation of the journal publishing into the hands of a profit driven commercial industry. The second is the rapid escalation of prices beyond the requirements of reasonable profitability. The third is a sustained effort by publishers to extend their legal control over copyright protected works and to eliminate copyright provisions that benefit information users. On this third point the publishers are trying to do away with the concept of "fair use" granted in the 1976 copyright law. Under "fair use" teachers can make copies of copyrighted works for use in class. The biggest fear of the publisher is that an authors work will be digitized and made available on the web so the author and publisher will not get their share. The publishers have allied themselves with the entertainment industry and the software industry to try to remove some of the current privileges enjoyed under the copyright law. Most of the tries have been turned back with a modest degree of success but their efforts are continuing. This is a big problem for libraries since it could mean the end to free inter-library loan. So far the librarians have been working to block efforts to remove the fair use principle but seem to be losing the battle. However, there have been two bills introduced in the congress to help with this problem. One is H.R. 3048, The Digital Era Copyright Enhancement Act. The second is S.1146, The Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997. Both of these bills, amongst other things, would expand the fair use of a copyrighted work to include uses by analog or digital transmission in connection with teaching, research, and other specified activities. Both of these are in committee. Those of us who are impacted by these need to let our representatives know. Dr. Johnson distributed a document prepared by the Committee on Libraries and Intellectual Property of the National Humanities Alliance (NHA) which gives some basic principles for managing intellectual property in the digital environment. The fundamental principle seems to be; "Copyright law provisions for digital works should maintain a balance between the interest of creators and copyright owners and the public that is equivalent to that embodied in current statue." The Library Advisory Committee has recommended that a university wide committee, with input from the Faculty Council and the Library Advisory Committee, write such a white paper or at least give a formal endorsement to the NHA document. There are links on the library home page to other documents on these issues. Sheila Johnson added that faculty need to be aware of the rights that they give up when they sign away a copyright to a publisher. The university wide committee should inform faculty about what is lost once the copyright has been signed away. Many universities are reconsidering their copyright management policies and making an effort to inform faculty of their rights under the copyright laws. A good web page to learn about copyrights is the University of Texas page called a "Crash Course for Copyright." There is also a policy statement put out by the UT system on how they plan to take a pro-active approach to handling copyrights. Dean Johnson said that the scholarly communication process is broken and before long it will be beyond repair unless we take some action. Dr. Halligan asked if both H.R. 3048 and S.1146 were passed would that grant substantial relief. Dr. Johnson said that it would. Both bills make an attempt to strike a balance between copyright owners and users. Dr. Halligan asked if the university wide committee should make a statement about these two bills. Dr. Johnson replied that he would like to have a policy statement on behalf of the university which would endorse the concept of managing intellectual property in a way that would follow some of the basic principles. For example the university could endorse the NHA document or they could develop an independent policy. Dr. Buchanan replied that the Student Affairs and Learning Resources Committee would look into this matter. Dr. Johnson said that it was important to act rather quickly. Dr. Vitek said that faculty can view a PBS program about copyrights from 1:30-3:00 p.m. on April 2. If a faculty member wants to see the program but is unable to attend at that time then tapes will be available. Dr. Edgley asked how this would affect ProQuest. Dr. Johnson replied that as part of our sight license, we pay the copyright fee. We have no problem with the copyright owner getting their fair share.

President Halligan, Executive Vice President and Vice Presidents

Dr. Halligan also added that there was a FC recommendation to have the same start date at all the institutions participating at Rogers. OSU had agreed with the other institutions to do this; however, there were schedules printed with the start date listed as August 24 instead of August 17. These are being recalled and replaced with schedules listing August 17 as the starting date for the Fall 1998 semester.

At one time there was a "taxi" service provided whereby a student could call a number and a van would come to their door and take them to a shopping area. This service was unable to accommodate all students who desired it. This year the shopping shuttle was instituted to take students to the "Wal-Mart area." Originally, it was hoped that both the downtown and the "Wal-Mart area" could be served, but due to the lack of funding the service was limited to the "Wal-Mart Area." It takes about an hour for the bus to make a circle from the dorms to University Apartments then along Hall of Fame to Hastings, Albertson's, Pioneer Square and Wal-Mart and return to the dorms. A petition from students in the apartments was received complaining about the shuttle service. The statistics show 824 people from the residence halls and 727 from the apartments have ridden the shuttle since its inception in November. The provider ran a survey on the shuttle and found that response was positive. (Two of the respondents claimed to have never used the shuttle even though they were on it when they completed the questionnaire.) Several people complained that the route was too long. One possible solution would be to add a second shuttle. A limitation to this is funding. The current funding is provided by the Graduate Student Association, Residential Life, International Programs, International Students, General Fund, OSU Athletics, and Albertsons. Since Wal-Mart refused to support the shuttle, the downtown merchants did not want to help. This year OSU's part of the cost was $10,200 which was about half of the total cost due to a grant from ODOT. Next year the shuttle will operate during the holidays which will increase the cost to $11,578. If a second bus were added it would probably not qualify for ODOT funding next year so OSU's cost would rise to $34,734. Ms. Jones asked if it would be used during the summer. Dr. Robinson answered that it would. President Halligan said that the total number of riders for the year, using our current rate, would be about 5000 people and the annual cost is about $22K, so the cost per ride is about $4. Mr. Locy asked if there were plans to stop at SMC. Dr. Robinson said that it had not been discussed and none of the people surveyed had asked for that stop. There will be another survey conducted by the OSU police of all the residents of the dorms and apartments.

Dr. Edgley presented a recommendation on "Personal Profit on Required Materials." The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: OSU employees should not make a personal profit on any materials that they require OSU students to purchase for academic classes or assigned research. This shall include, but not be limited to, textbooks, manuals, reports, music scores, sets of instructions, syllabi, instruments, other equipment, etc. Any profit that comes to OSU employees from such sales must be donated back to the University through the OSU Foundation. Dr. Edgley continued with the rationale. It is a conflict of interest for persons to require the captive audience of students to purchase materials and yet make a profit from those sales. Academic materials should be required solely for academic reasons. While it is recognized that there often are good academic reasons for requiring one's own students to purchase materials created by the instructor, removing the profit on them will insure that conflicting motives do not operate. Dr. Gedra asked if there were any events that prompted the recommendation. Dr. Edgley said that there was nothing in particular and the committee does not know the extent of the problem. This recommendation was written purely out of principle. The institution should remove the impression that the instructor is profiting from the materials the students are required to buy for a course. Dr. Buchanan asked about how the policy would be administered. Dr. Edgley said it was discussed and no plan was brought forward but that it should be something that can be worked out. Each author gets a list from the publisher of how many books were sold and the number bought by the OSU bookstore can also be determined. Mr. Najd asked if other universities have such policies and if so how are they administered. Dr. Edgley said that they do but he does not know how the policy is administered. Dr. Kimbrell said the Accounting Department has 6 people in the department who authored a textbook. They voluntarily give the portion of their sales generated at OSU to the OSU Foundation. It is a simple procedure. They have established a scholarship fund. Dr. Edgley added that the Sociology Department has a custom book that was authored by several faculty and graduate students and the department gets $3000-$5000 in royalties from this which go into a foundation account to fund graduate student travel to professional meetings. If you have a problem enforcing the policy for some faculty member then that underscores the need for such a policy. Dr. Vitek asked if the policy would pertain to web pages. Dr. Edgley said if there is a profit from it, he would presume that it would. Dr. Richards said that she has taught a course for about 10 years in which she uses selected readings. The students complain about the readings and the inconvenience of going to the library to find them. Two years ago she decided to write a textbook for the course. She has used her own time 6 days per week during the last two summers working on the book. She has also had to pay the copying and printing costs and has one more summer’s work in order to complete the work. Had she taught in the summer she would have been paid at the expense of the students. How is profit defined in this case? Would she be allowed to recover her salary loss and out of pocket expenses before having to give any of the royalty money to the foundation? Dr. Edgley said that profit would have to be revenue beyond production costs. Most authors work under similar constraints in which the university does not support them directly. If royalties are ever realized out of these sales then it generally depends not on how many are sold here but on how many are sold at other institutions. In Dr. Richard’s case there may not be a large market for these outside of OSU. When you get a royalty statement it could have production costs deducted from it, but you should not make a profit. Dr. Richards asked if her time would be considered a production cost. Dr. Edgley said it would be very hard to calculate such costs. Dr. Gedra said that if he wanted to take some of his class notes and develop them into a textbook then he would do it because he thinks it is the best thing for his students. Getting some royalties would be an incentive for him to do something that would improve his class. If he wants to sell it at another university and they ask, "do you use your own book?" then the answer better be "yes." Dr. Edgley said that the policy does not prevent a faculty member from using their own materials or from having students purchase them. It only says that a faculty member should not profit from its use. Dr. Gedra said he would require his own book whether he received royalty or not. It does not remove the potential conflict of interest. Dr. Edgley said that it removes the profit motive but not all possible conflicts. Dr. Buchanan moved to table the recommendation so colleagues who have views on this issue could communicate them to their FC representative. Dr. Wilkinson seconded the motion. Motion carried.