1. Roll Call
2. Approval of the November 7, 2000, Minutes
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Special Report: Review of Walker Report - Geary Robinson, Parking Manager (15 minutes)
5. Report of Status of Faculty Council Recommendations: President Halligan, Executive Vice President, and Vice Presidents (Appendix 1)
6. Reports of Standing Committees:
a. Academic Standards and Policies: Jacqueline Fletcher - Update
b. Budget: Robert Mayer - No Report
c. Campus Facilities, Safety, and Security: Steve Hallgren - No Report
d. Faculty: Larry Sanders - Report and Two Recommendations
Improving Performance of Students Participating in OSU Athletics*
Sabbatical Leave Recommendation*
e. Long-Range Planning: Kenneth Eastman - No Report
f. Research: Richard Bost - No Report
g. Retirement and Fringe Benefits: A. J. Johannes - Two Recommendations
Changes to Current Restrictions on Lump Sum Distributions from TIAA/CREF*
Change in Flex Benefits to Cover Changes in Family Status*
h. Rules and Procedures: David Fournier - No Report
i. Student Affairs and Learning Resources: William Weeks - No Report
7. Reports of Liaison Representatives
8. Old Business
9. New Business
10. Anticipated Adjournment 5:00 p.m.
*Attached
Recommendation No. 00-12-01-FAC
Title: Improving Performance of Students Participating in OSU Athletics
The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that:
The Administration and the Athletics Department use the hiring of the new varsity football coach as an occasion to take steps to assure faculty, staff, students, and the public at large that the coaching staff for all team sports will be evaluated in part on their ability to show marked improvement in the academic performance of NCAA students. Such performance includes such things as GPA's, retention rates, graduation rates, and support for students who choose academics over team participation.
Rationale:
The recent announcement by the OSU Athletic Director that a search for a new football coach will involve a multi-million dollar salary package has brought a mixed response from the faculty. Some look forward to a new day of competitiveness in OSU football and point to the following as evidence that OSU needs to be involved in big time sports:
á Being in the Big 12 brings some expectations about the level of sports competitiveness, ticket sales, and thus, seating capacity for events as well as more pressure on recruiting athletes even though some of them may not be academically qualified.
á Some Gift-giving alumni, supportive legislators, students, faculty and regents expect OSU's major teams to be competitive.
á The pool from which prospective coaches are selected is small and highly competitive, driving up salaries.
á A large part of the salary package for coaches comes from private donations and not from E&G funds (although some faculty would prefer to see an independent audit trail before conceding this point).
On the other hand, there is a growing concern among some faculty that each new athletic announcement, whether it be the apparent need for a multi-million dollar renovation of Gallagher-Iba Arena, or the proposed $80-100 million required to renovate Lewis Field, is symptomatic of an expanding problem which threatens the very foundations of the academy itself. These faculty, as well as some members of the administration, many of whom are personally supportive of athletics, nonetheless express a growing concern with respect to such issues as:
á The ongoing absence of academic integrity in the major men's team sports.
á Allowing the NCAA to control˛directly or indirectly˛decisions that affect both sports and academics at OSU.
á The cost to OSU to buy out the outgoing football coach's contract and the subsequent impact on faculty and staff salaries as well as other academic funding.
á The inconsistency in placing such a high value on an activity that is increasingly consumed as mass entertainment and whose development may further remove us from the goals and purposes of the Academy.
In the eyes of many faculty, priority for sports teams and facility expansion seems to far exceed our commitment to and success in achieving such goals as funding the OSU Library to make it nationally competitive; funding financial aid and tuition waivers to develop a competitive Graduate Program; funding the filling of faculty positions, and expanding classroom space with state-of-the-art technological support to meet current and future demand, and upgrading inadequate academic facilities to mention only a few of our many pressing needs.
We deeply respect and sympathize with the position in which the Administration and the Athletic Department finds itself. Many students, faculty and constituents desire big-time sports as part of the university environment. However, it is apparent to many faculty and students that with each new decision to buy into a higher level of participation in NCAA sports, and the spiraling price tags that go with it, we are losing our ability to achieve or even to maintain high levels of academic excellence and integrity. When will we reach a point where we look back and see the last vestiges of our own integrity on the wrong side of the last decision?
Recommendation No. 00-12-02-FAC
Title: Sabbatical Leave Recommendation
The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that:
Dr. Halligan and Dr. Keener work with the Deans and department heads to encourage:
a. Improved equity for faculty access and consistency in application of sabbatical leave policy among and within colleges.
b. Improved opportunity for alternatives to sabbatical leave in cases that do not meet the prescribed criteria, but would promote professional development (i.e., on-campus or local opportunities, writing books).
Rationale:
To achieve the goals of this recommendation, this rationale outlines specific points identified by the Sabbatical Leave Task Force which should be considered in assessing and improving sabbatical leave policies.
The Faculty Council in 1999 approved the establishment of the Sabbatical Leave Task Force to determine the alleged extent of problems with sabbatical leave policy and to make appropriate recommendations to the Council. The task force, reviewed preliminary surveys of faculty, the policy itself, and comparative data of leave levels among colleges and within the Big 12. The universities that have greatest participation in sabbatical leaves are also institutions that have first-class national reputations in research, instruction and grant-seeking. The task force met with Dr. Keener in October 2000 to discuss his views on sabbatical leave policy and its use. It is apparent that the university administration does support the concept of sabbatical leave and shares a commitment to its use by faculty within the prescribed guidelines. While the Administration would be willing to improve the equity and consistency issues, such action would require the administration to reclaim some level of funds from the Deans' budgets to effect centralized control.
Based on this input, the task force believes these are the key problems:
1. OSU ranks at or near the bottom in the Big 12 with respect to the percentage of faculty taking sabbatical leave (see attached data).
2. Opportunity to apply for and be approved for sabbatical leave varies widely by college and department, primarily because of unit size, mission, and ability to cover the responsibilities of faculty applicants. For example, in a small department with a large service role with common courses, faculty are less likely to be allowed to apply, much less be approved. Neither Deans nor department heads seem to have funds designated specifically for hiring substitutes (when necessary) to cover programs for faculty desiring sabbatical leave. Nor do administrative heads seem willing routinely to be flexible on alternative solutions such as allowing the faculty member to shift teaching and research responsibilities in one semester to free up another semester. The common perception among faculty is that this is unfair and not defensible.
3. There is a general ignorance among the public, and perhaps among the faculty, about the importance and success of sabbatical leaves. Expectations of post-sabbatical reporting vary by unit, and reports are seldom shared among the faculty or public in a way that increases awareness and understanding.
It is suggested that faculty, department heads and deans agree on reporting requirements and documenting the results of sabbaticals as a part of the approval process. Another suggestion is the publication of a document similar to the "Research Report" which would compile faculty reports on sabbaticals (and maybe other follow-up information like grants generated) for dissemination to the general university community and the Regents.
4. Some Deans apparently do not approve of the use of additional external funds to compensate faculty on sabbatical leave at a level greater than the faculty member's normal full salary. In cases where extra expenses would be incurred, for example to maintain two residences, the policy on receiving additional compensation from outside sponsors should be relaxed where it may be currently restrictive.
5. Some Colleges have more restrictive criteria than specified in university policy, further reducing equal opportunity of access in the sabbatical leave process.
Other points to consider but are not included in the recommendations above:
1. There is a need for awareness training for department heads to better facilitate negotiating with faculty on alternatives for professional development, possibly including encouragement of such discussions with faculty in annual appraisals of department heads.
2. If the decision point continues to be decentralized in colleges, the university administration should consider developing a future sabbatical leave fund as further encouragement for faculty to participate in such leaves. The fund could be operated as a grant or scholarship program (similar to Big 12 mini-sabbatical leave program).
3. As part of the newly initiated research focus for fund-raising or as a future focus, the university could seek soft funds to establish an endowed fund for sabbatical leave fellowships/scholarships. OSU will benefit from increased faculty participation in sabbatical leave and similar activities that bring increased visibility and prestige to the university in much the same way that student success in high-profile fellowship competition does.
4. The appropriate standing committee of Faculty Council (Rules Committee?) should consider an amendment of its bylaws to permit Faculty Council members to go on approved sabbatical leave without losing their position on the Council. Instead, if the member's sabbatical leave time is less than his or her time remaining on the Council, the Executive Committee could appoint a substitute faculty member from the appropriate administrative unit to serve on the Council for the duration of the permanent member's sabbatical leave time.
BIG 12 SABBATICAL LEAVE COMPARISON (Table on file in Faculty Council Office)
Recommendation No. 00-12-03-RFB
Title: Changes to Current Restrictions on Lump Sum Distributions from TIAA/CREF
The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: the University remove the 50% lump sum distribution restriction on TIAA/CREF funds.
Recommendation No. 00-12-04-RFB
Title: Change in Flex Benefits to Cover Changes in Family Status
The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: OSU change the flex benefit provision for medical services accounts to include changes in family status.
Refreshments will be served at 2:45 p.m.
Submit corrections to Diane Lafollette