Present: Jon Harbaugh, Diana Maltz, Mark Siders, Barbara Scott, Petey Young, George Converse, Peg Sjogren, Greg Gassman, , Doug Chapman, Gudrun Gill, John Sollinger, Susan Walsh, Marianne Golding, Barbara Scott, Connie Anderson, Michael Naumes, John Fitton, Dale Vidmar, Sherry Ettlich, Linda Wilcox Young, Marc Levy, Marianne O’Sheeran, John Uto. 

Absent: Margaret Dibb, Garth Pittman, Kavinda Arthenayake. 

Guests: Dr. Zinser, Bud Rose, Kevin Talbert, Ken Kempner, Neil Kunze, Joseph Graf, Sandra Coyner, Parvaneh Scoggin, Bill Danley. 

Approve minutes of October 15, 2001

Motion –George Converse– changes sent a priori to Secretary Marc Levy have been integrated - no further additions/discussion, approved unanimously. [Levy requests that changes continue to be submitted via email prior to subsequent Senate meetings whenever possible.] 

Announcements

Cannot get more $$ for cookies, we’re too poor (Sjogren).

Peg will continue to grab “leftovers” when possible. 

Remarks from the President, Dr. Elisabeth Zinser

Attempting to attend all candidates’ presentations for Student Affairs office.

Exciting to see Emeriti group recently, met with Joe Cox, offered assistance to the campus.

Plans to send out more budgetary information in the near future, when the contents are more verified by the State.

Budget discussions continue, and SOU administration continues to communicate to OUS their opinions as much as they can. 

Remarks from the Provost, Dr. Sara Hopkins-Powell

• Sent out Provost Notes today.
• Follow-up on Dr. Zinser’s budget comments:

§         We were already looking at 2.5% savings for this year prior to the Governor’s directive.

§         Leaving it up to programmatic/departmental managers to work on plans to achieve this.

§         Governor has held back 2% of actual FY budget.

§         Administrative cuts – small part of our budget – 2% is about $39,000.

§         Could be that OUS will try to take “high level” cuts which would reduce the hit on individual institutions.

§         Very general discussion occurred at 1-day meeting in Portland recently. Conjecture about # of staff, material, hours, etc.

§         Once OUS makes recommendations, still needs to go through Governor’s office, then Legislature.

§         Because of historical problems with budget, Dr. Hopkins-Powell remains cautiously optimistic that the hit won’t be as bad as we might fear.

§         Naumes – heard that an economic recovery is just around the corner (NPR) – does this contribute to your optimism? H-P: It certainly underscores the ambiguity of the issue.

Remarks from the Student Senate, John Uto, Student Senate President

• Students are headed to Salem to help with lobbying during the budget meetings.
• Student government now working with others to put on World Aid event.
• Considering the Tech Fee increase proposal from $44 to $50.
• Faculty advisory committee memberships – assignments nearly completed.
• Sjogren expressed appreciation for the Student Government’s creative and hard work on important issues.

Action Items (Constitution Committee, Sherry Ettlich) (4:25) 

Establishment of University Honors Committee – Sandra Coyner

§         Vidmar moved, Petey and Marianne 2^nd

§         Jon Uto – should student government be involved in appointment of student member of the committee?

§         Sandra would like to make sure that whatever student is appointed be a strong advocate of having a University Honors Program at SOU

§         Ettlich – who would select faculty members? Committee on committees? Sandra said she would like to make initial selections for similar reasons, and have them reviewed by Senate.

§         Approved unanimously. 

IFS Resolutions on Chancellor Search – Marc Levy

§         Motion – Marc Levy – move that we ratify a resolution to support our sister/brother institutions in expressing our concern about not including members of a new chancellor’s constituency (faculty, staff, students, etc.).

§         Ettlich – just as a former Board member is being added in order to expand the inclusiveness, could we not have a faculty representative appointed by the Board as well?

§         Hopkins-Powell – it’s not being done to be more inclusive, it’s because VanLuvanee does not have time to chair the committee. It’s in the rest of the process that we should be included. Presidents may have some opportunity to have some input with pool of initial 25 and five finalists.

§         Connie – motion to suspend rule of 2 week delay in vote on this issue.

§         Ettlich – change “participation” to “membership” as amendment to motion.

§         Unanimously approved with amendment.

§         See attached form of resolution sent to IFS for presentation to OUS Board along with other institutional resolutions.  

Year-end Summaries from General Faculty Committees and Councils

§         Ettlich – move to try summaries this year, and review next year. 2^nd – Vidmar.

§         Unanimous approval

§         Sjogren will send reminders to committee chairs at end of year.

Discussion Items: 

Promotion & Tenure – Hopkins-Powell

§         Is it enough for faculty just to do the “minimum?”

§         Are people engaged throughout the promotion process? She’s seen folks glide through, particularly between Associate and Full.

§         I’m looking to more supportive and thoughtful colleague feedback rather than “rubber stamping.”

§         Vidmar – this is tricky – we could use some words of advice on how to actually carry this out. H-P: Constitution Committee is working on some guidelines that might be helpful.

§         Naumes – Several issues: used to be more rigorous; how do we maintain our working relationships when more detailed feedback is provided? There is a pressure to help people with raises since there is no other way to get raises.

§         Gudrun Gill – Do I hear you advocating a mentoring program? H-P: in a sense, yes. Gill: If so, who can assist small departments with the added load or responsibility?

§         Anderson – I agree to a great extent. I recall being frustrated when I served on Faculty Personnel Committee, when we might reject an application, and too frequently, those decisions were overturned by administration.

§         Will try to get input on this issue at next Dept. Chairs meeting December 3^rd 2-4pm. 

Committee Reports (5:25) 

Constitution Committee

§         Proposal to change “Vice Chair” to “Chair-Elect”

§         Naumes: What happens if someone becomes Chair-Elect, then experiences life changes and/or changes mind? Another election could be held.

§         With 3-year terms, a person could either only run during their 1^st or 2^nd years of their term, or plan that they would run for re-election to Senate upon completion of their 3^rd year (if they were simultaneously serving as Chair-Elect)

§         Proposal for change in protocol regarding use of Temporary Department Chairs

§         Discussion of changes in wording of what constitutes causes of chair vacancy (e.g., “death”)

§         Concurrence that one-year is good upper limit.

§         Regarding YIR for promotion & tenure, particularly related to part-time faculty.

§         No other institutions were found which promote or tenure part-time faculty.

§         OARs require FTE-equivalent for tenure. Therefore, not proposing any tenure language change.

§         Departments/academic units should develop their own guidelines regarding professional work or productivity levels and qualitative factors specific to their discipline, for respective levels of rank.

§         Converse: My reaction is that it feels like we’d be developing nothing more than a “checklist.”

§         Naumes: There may be too many “gray” areas for implementation. Also, it appears that it would require a lot of work on the part of departments.

§         Anderson: Critical to ensure some parity between departments.

§         Petey Young: Serving on Personnel Committee, it would be nice to see at least some minimal description of what a specific discipline might expect from, say an Associate or Full Professor.

§         Wilcox Young: We might consider de-coupling this from the YIR issue in order to tackle one issue at a time.

§         Graf: Still struggling with how to treat .5 FTE faculty who, in fact, has been as objectively productive.

§         Peg: We’d like to vote on these first two at the next meeting. Propose that we go back to our Departments with the issues regarding YIR for promotion, and regarding the possible need to develop some guidelines for those faculty regarding information to include in their applications.

§         Ettlich: The YIR issue and guidelines would also assist in leveling the cases of those faculties who are reduced in time, temporarily or permanently. Other institutions seem to de-emphasize the YIR requirement, and focus much more on the explicit descriptions of what constitutes the different ranks (e.g., productivity, engagements, etc.)

Committee on Committees (Pittman)

§         No Report

Elections Committee (Chapman)

§         Ballots for new members are going out next week.

Representative to Technology Council (Dale Vidmar)

§         No Report. 

Announcements

§         None