Faculty Council Meeting

SPECIAL REPORT: The GAMS System — Richard Norman

Mr. Norman, Director of Grants and Contracts, reported that GAMS is a software application designed, in an interactive environment, to give faculty members who write grant proposals the capability to write them with everything necessary to support the proposal. GAMS focuses on content not process, enables a quick response time, reduces effort, decreases approval time, incorporates the cost accounting standards, has a guide for new faculty, and is open access. On the technological side, it is on-line budget development and electronic forms processing. Each agency has their own forms and GAMS contains templates of all these forms and knows which data needs to be inserted. It also contains an automatic routing system that knows the routing order for each college and will do the routing electronically. If the requirements of GAMS are met, the proposal can be prepared and forwarded electronically. GAMS will have the rules for figuring benefits and exclusions built into the software. So the preparer will not have to contact personnel to determine the correct rates to include for each employee. Post-award management is also part of GAMS but up to now OSU has put most of its effort into getting the pre-award system up and running. The pre-award system is current on the OSU server and every college has had representatives trained to use GAMS. Training is and will be available to faculty and staff. The post-award system has been installed but there have not been any training sessions offered. The sessions should start very soon. Anyone with hard access to the mainframe will have access to it at all times. Full implementation of the pre-award system will be available in late spring, 1997, segments of the post-award system in fall, 1997, and full implementation in the summer of 1998. Part of the funding for the new system is coming from a $72,000 per year savings from the discontinuation of the Model 204 system and $200,000 from ERF.

Dr. Lawry asked what information the faculty member will have to put into the system and who will have access to that information? Mr. Norman replied that the only information they plan to have in the system is your personal vita. There are a lot of questions that have not been answered, like who has access. The faculty will have to answer those questions. It is possible to set the access level any way the faculty wants and they will ask for faculty input before these levels are decided. Dr. Lawry asked if it was possible to have different access levels for each department? Mr. Norman replied that “it is your system.” It is a college system and will be based on how the colleges have operated in the past. He expects, as time goes by, there will be fewer restrictions as faculty become familiar with the system. Dr. Lawry asked if it would be decided by the colleges or if access could be different for each faculty member. Mr. Norman replied that it is possible to go all the way down to the faculty member. It is possible to have access to the system and not to all the data stored in the system. Dr. Lawry indicated that he had talked to a faculty member at North Carolina State University and they had mentioned that their faculty was enthusiastic about the capability of the system to allow abstracts of the proposal to be circulated for approval and the body of the proposal be submitted much later giving faculty a longer time to get the proposal done. Is this going to be a possibility on our system? Mr. Norman replied that he was sure it would be. He added that he would like to schedule another meeting to discuss these issues. Dr. Halligan asked about when it will be in operation. Mr. Norman said that it will probably be another year. The post-award side needs to have all the HRS links put into place. Other problems like how to handle conflict of interest or movable inventory need to be resolved. Dr. Moretti asked if the post-award system would allow him to determine, at any time what he had spent. Mr. Norman replied that this is a FAS file interface and if the item is in the system, either paid or obligated, then the system should pick that up. It should be able to pull the information out of the AMO90 side and get it out that environment and tell you what your budget is and what you spent.

SPECIAL REPORT: OSU Home Page — Natalea Watkins

Ms. Watkins, Director, Communications Services, showed several of the links that are available on the OSU Home Page and reported about some of the services available on the net. There are 64 links on the OSU Home Page. Every time you look at it some parts of it are different so that you get a different story about OSU. Most of the use of the Home Page is on campus but it is visited by people all over the world. She gets a large variety of questions ranging from technical questions, that are referred to different individuals or departments, to prospective students seeking information, to alums trying to find a former professor or an E-Mail address of a current faculty member. One of the new links on the Home Page this year is the Placement Office which in turn contains links to employers, to campus interview schedules, to part-time or full-time jobs on campus, and to many others. She also showed some of the student Home Pages. The student system is housed on a Macintosh Computer in the SGA Office. Even this small system sometimes gets 200,000 hits in a day. Last year the students were given access to a "training wheels" version of software to prepare pages but many of them had gone way past that so a complicated version has been added this year that allows them to have multiple pages, graphics and web sites. Since they had no staff, the system was automated using "page factory" as a beta test site. In order to start a page a student has to read and agree to abide by the web policy. After a Home Page is completed it is put on hold until the address is checked against the Z-Mail records to keep outsiders from posting pages on the system. They try not to censor content, but will do so if it violates the rules. These pages are indexed by their Z-Mail addresses that are assigned to them by the Computer Center. If you do not know the correct address for a student you can click on a letter and be shown all addresses that start with that letter. She showed a page that contained an animated picture and several links to other pages. Another new link on the OSU Home Page is an athletic site and it is very popular. It contains a chat area which has been very popular, a kids area with activities and games, and several other links. OSU athletic events are now on real audio and they are getting mail from alums all over the country that listen to the games on the internet. The OSU spirit songs are also on this page. The Home Page also has a campus map, the OSU Magazine, last years teaching award winners, some pages from the CD-Rom, and many student organizations. Ms. Watkins demonstrated how to build a faculty web page using the simplest system and pointed out that there are systems available to allow you to build more complicated pages or even web sites. For more information on these systems contact Ms. Watkins. She pointed out that you can use the Web to fill out complaint forms for the Physical Plant, to use one of the many links on the library page, to consult many of the publications from the Personnel Office, or to check the University Calendar. Please send any suggestions to improve the system to her. Dr. Moretti asked if student Home Pages are flushed when a student leaves the university. Ms. Watkins replied that Home Pages are checked against the Z-Mail addresses and removed if a student no longer has a valid Z-Mail address. Dr. Moretti asked if there were any records of how much this is used by faculty for homework and such. Ms. Watkins replied that it is happening more and more. Last year, in Agricultural Engineering, they had students do a joint project with students in Holland and that a number of faculty are putting their class notes up. Also, CIS is providing a Lotus Notes application to put up class notes. Last year a faculty member made an assignment for each of his 300 students to build a Home Page.

REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. 92-03-01-FAC Fixed Terms for Administrators: Executive Vice President Keener is coordinating the review with President Halligan and soliciting input from Deans.
2. 94-12-01-SALR Composition of Future Information Technology Committee:
September, 1996, draft currently under review by Executive Group.
3. 96-02-02-ASP Issues Relative to Extension Courses: The administration supports this recommendation and has appointed a committee to review these issues and report problems and possible solutions to the Executive Vice President.
4. 96-03-01-RFB Accumulation of Annual Leave: Dr. Keener is interacting with faculty regarding this issue.
5. 96-04-01-ASP Computerized Student Enrollment and Degree Audit Program:
Under study. Dr. Keener is coordinating review.
6. 96-04-02-ASP University Calendars: As recommended, the administration is pursuing the adoption of a common academic calendar with the State Regents. The issue is under discussion with the OSRHE President’s Council.
7. 96-04-05 Adoption of Financial Conflict of Interest Policy: Vice President Collins coordinated finalizing this policy, which was approved by the OSU Board of Regents on Sept. 13, 1996.
8. 96-05-01-LRP Strategic Management: Under study. Dr. Keener is coordinating review including discussions with faculty.
9. 96-09-01-FAC Adoption of OSU’s Draft Smoking Policy: Vice President Birdwell is coordinating the review and continues to solicit input from faculty, staff, and students. It is now being put on the Web for review and is also being brought before SGA and GSA since neither group has acted on it recently.
10. 96-10-01(1)-FAC On Summer Compensation (1): To President Halligan
11. 96-10-01(2)-FAC On Summer Compensation (2): To President Halligan

A. Budget: Nancy Wilkinson — Update

The Budget Committee met on September 20. The committee discussed several concerns of the faculty. Many of the concerns centered on the funding and budgetary impact of the many new buildings and renovations on campus. Questions raised were: Besides private money, how are these buildings being funded? Is any money coming from general university funds? Are savings from open positions or other academic sources being used? What impact will the maintenance of these buildings have on the university budget? Since some of these buildings are related to auxiliary enterprises, what budgetary relationship do these enterprises have to the university? In connection with these concerns about funding new buildings a paradox was noted. In Joe Weaver's report last month it was stated that OSU had set aside 10% of flexible new money to recognize growth and productivity in the colleges. Growth and productivity are probably measured more in people, i.e., faculty positions and student numbers, rather than in facilities. At this point the committee is only asking questions and gathering information. If any faculty have input and/or questions please address them to Dr. Wilkinson or one of the committee members.

B. Campus Facilities, Safety and Security: Jeff Anderson — Update

The committee was very concerned about the incident last month when a student was struck by a car on Monroe Street and the recent report of a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle backing out of a parking space. The committee is continuing to explore ways to make the integration of pedestrians, cars and bicycles on campus safer. One aspect will be working with the campus community to assist Chief Eaton’s development of a comprehensive safety plan that includes traffic control on Monroe.

C. FACULTY: Ed Lawry — Update

The Faculty Committee met two weeks ago and discussed the A&D process and some possible changes to Appendix D. In addition, the committee brought a recommendation on Summer Compensation to Council.

Recommendation No.: 96-10-01-FAC

Title: On Summer Compensation

The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that:

1) faculty summer pay be apportioned at the rate of 1/9th per month (or portion thereof) of the AY salary for all faculty regardless of whether they are on 10 or 9 month appointments; and that:

2) in the summer, no faculty members should be permitted required to advise graduate student masters or doctoral research through credit courses without appropriate compensation.

Rationale:

On point #1:

It seems unfair to compensate faculty with 9 month appointments at a higher rate of pay for summer service that is given to colleagues who happen to have chosen a 10 month appointment schedule. Presumably the lower rate of pay per month for faculty with 10 month appointments during their nine months of work is made up by the accrual of vacation. But 10 month faculty accrue no vacation during the summer and so are taking a cut in compensation compared to their 9 month colleagues. (How many checks one gets per AY is irrelevant.)

On point #2:

Faculty are being abused by requiring them to expend a significant amount of time advising graduate students on theses and dissertations during the summer while not being on the payroll. It can significantly interfere with various activities (some of them academic and career related) that are planned by faculty for summer.

Furthermore, though such advising should be compensated (at least included as part of the workload) in any semester, it is taken into account in varying degrees by departments during the academic year. However, it often loses its status during summer. Possible ways of compensating faculty for advising in summer could include a) direct financial compensation, or b) release time from normal duties during the academic year (for example getting a course reduction for a certain number of advisees). Otherwise, students should not be permitted to enroll in courses with faculty who are not on the payroll. Those faculty names should not appear in the class schedule.

Dr. Warde stated that it would not be practical for faculty names not to appear in the class schedule unless they were on the summer payroll since schedules are submitted very early in the fall semester. It would be possible to set the class size to zero. Dr. Lawry replied that this statement is part of the “Rationale” and that the committee members would be happy if the Council passed the recommendation and allowed the Registrar to make the appropriate adjustments in its implementation. Dr. Moder said she was uncomfortable with the use of the word "permitted." If a faculty member chooses to advise graduate students in the summer, without compensation, then he/she should be allowed to do so. Dr. Lawry replied the committee had discussed this wording because it would help protect faculty from themselves. If they are not on the payroll or are not being compensated then they should not be permitted to advise graduate research. The administrator in charge should be the one to see that this does not happen. If the faculty member insists then something could be worked out. The administrator should be the one who has to solve the problem of providing compensation for graduate advising. Dr. Moder stated that when a faculty member agrees to advise a students dissertation he/she is willing to advise the students work regardless of when the student chooses to enroll. All this would do is shift the registration to the fall and the advisor would still be doing the same amount of work. Dr. Lawry restated the position that if a faculty member is doing work for the university then he/she should be compensated for it and that the university should be watching to be sure that it does not happen. Dr. Moder replied that this assumes that faculty are compensated for dissertation advisement during the academic year, which in fact they are not. Dr. Lawry said that advising graduate students is valuable whenever it takes place and faculty should be compensated for it. Dr. White said she has some problems with the recommendation because in some cases she would like to delay the students enrollment until the summer because of loads during the spring semester. Summer enrollment actually works to her advantage. The second point is that work with graduate students is also part of her research. Are we saying that if we do research in the summer then the university should pay for it? Dr. Lawry answered that if we do research or teaching at the university which is scheduled as part of the activity of the university, especially for credit then we should be compensated for it. Dr. White raised the question, if we are not employed by the university during the summer then should the university charge us to use the facilities during the summer. Dr. Moretti said that he had always advised students during the summer whether he was funded to do so or not and whether they were on his research contract or not. He has done it because it is a tradition to help the students. It seems like the end of world if we stopped doing that, but on the other hand in those cases where a faculty member is away, we have always found a solution. So I suspect we will find ways to get around this. Dr. Allison pointed out that Education has the biggest problem in this regard since they do most of their graduate work in the summer. Dr. Lawry explained that "not permitted" sounds a little stiff but that the phrase "appropriate compensation" allows some wiggle room for negotiation between the faculty member and his/her administrator. Dr. Moretti could claim that appropriate compensation for him is that it would make his soul feel good. But it would give the faculty member that is burdened with 10 or 12 students to advise in the summer a chance to say that he cannot do this without compensation. Dr. Robinson suggested that the word "permitted" be changed to "expected," so that the faculty member would have the choice. Drs. Allison and Lawry affirmed that the committee had discussed this and they feel that the administrators should make sure that the faculty members under them are being compensated. Dr. White expressed concern about putting in some rules to solve a problem in one area of the university that block the way professional people in another part of the university may choose to use their time. Last spring she was teaching two night classes and a Saturday class and felt no guilt about playing golf on Wednesday morning. The point is we need to think very carefully before we start making rules about how we will be paid and what the time factors are and these kinds of things, because the more rules you have the less flexibility you have and the less professional your job is. Dr. Lawry said that he does not think that Part 2 is a rule. It just says that administrators should make sure that faculty members who are doing work for the university should in some way be compensated for their work. Dr. Moder asked why this is restricted to the summer. Why not discuss whether people should be compensated for thesis work whenever it occurs? Dr. Lawry replied that such an amendment could be made but that he felt the most serious problems were occurring in the summer. Dr. Moder expressed concern that there was an equity issue if some parts of the university compensate and others do not. Dr. Krenzer said that there is at least a verbal commitment from the administrator of what the responsibility is and are paid a salary to fulfill that responsibility. Why is this issue different from other aspects that would be part of faculty responsibility? Dr. Moretti commented that during the year when a faculty member is on 100% payroll the professional expectation is to put in whatever time it takes to get the job done. But if a person is on 0% in the summer it seems to be harsh to expect that person to work while others are getting paid for summer work. Dr. Powell commended the committee for bringing this issue to Council because it is extremely important for the university to do a better job of identifying the faculty that are working with graduate students. This needs to be done year around, not just in the summer. However, the current recommendation could harm faculty scholarship by discouraging them from working with graduate students in the summer and could be detrimental to graduate programs. This proposal should be taken to the Graduate Faculty for them to study the effect on graduate programs since this proposal could cause some graduate programs to go under because of the number of faculty that are not employed in the summer. Even though the current system may not be ideal, this does not seem to fix it. Dr. Lawry replied that he could not see any programs going under as long as the faculty member and the administrator worked out some compensation plan. We are not saying that someone's summer budget needs to have an additional $85,000 added to it. Dr. Moder said that she understood that E Group was considering whether faculty could be compensated for thesis advising, or whether it was appropriate to compensate faculty for this work. Dr. Keener replied that he did not recall any such discussion. However, there has been discussion in various arenas about additional compensation and many times extension courses are considered in these discussions. There has not been any distinction between what is being done in these courses, thesis work or other work. Dr. Lawry asked if we could split the motion into two parts since all the discussion has been on Part 2. Part 1 of the motion passed with 1 no vote. Dr. Moretti made an "unfriendly" amendment that the word "permitted" in Part 2 be replaced by the word "required." The amendment was seconded by Dr. Moder. Dr. Lawry said that the new wording would allow an administrator to tell a faculty member that he had to advise ten students because he was going to be given appropriate compensation, determined by the administrator. Whereas, the previous wording would require that there be a negotiation on what the compensation should be. Dr. Moder said she did not read it that way. Dr. Williams asked if summer advising is part of the original contract with 9 or 10 month faculty or if it is just something that builds up. Dr. Lawry said that the anecdotal evidence is that it just builds up. Dr. Williams then asked if it was not a goal of young faculty to advise graduate students. Dr. White said she came in last summer when she was not on payroll and worked with undergraduate students. Dr. Lawry replied that faculty should be compensated whenever they are doing the work of the university. Dr. Williams pointed out that this work could involve many different things not just credit courses. Dr. Warde asked what happens to the revenue. He understood that the summer program was basically supported by student fees. Dr. Keener replied that higher administration allocates money to colleges and colleges allocate money to departments. We are trying to get to the place where the money generated in the summer is the cost of teaching summer so that it does not put a drain on the academic year funding. But we are not there yet. Dr. Lawry said that in light of students only paying 20-30% of the cost of their education he was confused as to what this meant. Dr. Keener replied that a certain amount of money is historically allocated in the summer. We also know how much colleges are spending. So we would like to get to the point where state appropriations and tuition and fees are enough to break even in the summer. The money is not allocated on a student credit hour basis. Dr. Farr said she could not understand why there would be a budgetary difference between teaching a class with 8 students and advising 8 students, because thesis advising is just teaching one on one. There is not an issue of compensation for teaching a course, why should there be for thesis advisement? Dr. Halligan replied that you make commitments through the colleges to the summer long before you know how many credit hours you are going to have. You have to do the best you can with the amount of money you have. There is a fixed amount of money available so any extra money that is moved to the summer has to come out of the academic year budget. The vote on the "unfriendly amendment" was 16 in favor, 3 against. The motion, as amended, carried by a voice vote.

Reports of Liaison Representatives

Athletic Council — Margaret White

Athletic Council met on September 19.
1) Lamar Daniel, Title IX consultant, met with the Student Athletes Welfare and Gender Equity Committee as well as others in the Athletic Department. Athletics expects his report soon.
2) Football tickets have surpassed budget projection. This is good news. Buy more tickets!
3) AC received the Athletic Academic Integrity Report. Things look okay. Steve Uryasz is doing a great job with very limited resources.
4) AC recommended schedules for all sports be approved with the exception of baseball. Coach Ward has been invited to meet with Athletic Council at the November meeting. Men's and women's golf violate the 10-day rule but have different people going to different tourneys. Soccer starts home games at 3:00 and this causes a violation; however, they must start games then because of intermurals.
5) AC talked further about the men's basketball game on December 7. The math tutor and Steve Uryasz will go with the team to the game. If a second area (besides Math) is identified, then Uryasz and Joe Schatzer will look at a second tutor (faculty) accompanying the team.
6) AC is waiting on SGA feedback regarding the Athletic Funding Policy.

Research Council — Ed Knobbe

Dr. Knobbe reported on the September 20 meeting. Dr. Collins has been hosting a series of informal review and information sessions for faculty in all the colleges. He still has to visit with OCOM and the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Faculty from other colleges are also welcome to attend any of the meetings. Dr. Collins wants to use the input from these meetings to formalize the plans for a Research Park and to take the plans to Faculty Council and the Deans Council next month. Another issue is one of data ownership. There is an unsettled issue of data ownership on data and results from federally funded grants. Some funding agencies claim exclusive rights to the use of reported data. The question is whether the university needs to generate some new policies to deal with the problem. Dr. Halligan said he had recently visited with the Governor of Iowa and was impressed with how well they had done with their Research Park. Their successes in this area have greatly enhanced the funding prospects for the university.

Staff Advisory Council — Duane Hunt

Mr. Hunt reported that Staff Appreciation Day is November 6 and they are still soliciting nominations for the Distinguished Service Awards until Oct. 14.