Faculty Council

May 15, 2003

1008 Evans Lab

3:30-5:30

Present: 29

Guests: 2

3:30 1. Announcements

Undergraduate students representing the annual dance marathon, BuckeyeThon, made a presentation to Council seeking their involvement in the event.

Chair Gene Mumy announced that Faculty would continue to hood graduates at commencement.

3:40 2. Conflict of Interest Committee

Chair Mumy announced the creation of a conflict of interest committee. He said that it should have been sent to Council last year, but it fell through the cracks during Barbara Snyder’s promotion to Interim Vice President of University Relations. Professor Steve Fink moved to approve the motion. It passed unanimously by voice vote.

3:47 3. Arts and Sciences White Paper

Faculty Council engaged in a heated discussion on the White Paper co-authored by President Holbrook and Provost Ray on the restructuring of the Arts and Sciences (ASC). Most faculty are firmly opposed to formation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, although it would not add an additional layer of promotion and tenure review. Nevertheless, the administration seems determined to pursue a bureaucratic solution to the "problem." At a prior meeting, Faculty Council directed the chair to send a letter to President Holbrook, listing 10 specific concerns about the proposal, and asking for reasoning for the office as proposed. The President responded that the reasons were given in a White Paper. The Chair, Faculty Council and Faculty Cabinet expressed the view yesterday that the White Paper does not address any of the specific questions substantively, if at all.

This led to a spirited discussion. Many see the proposal as a foregone conclusion, because the administration, by co-opting the students, can overwhelm faculty participation in Senate and force the proposal on the faculty or implement it anyway. The general view seems to be that President Holbrook has used up virtually ALL of the goodwill anyone would extend to a new President by “blowing off” faculty input on such an important matter. The commonly expressed view was that the President is working to change the balance of power between administration drastically to the detriment of faculty, in common with top-down trends at most large universities. Some usually temperate Faculty Council members characterized the White Paper response as being "insulting" to Faculty Council, since the Faculty were very specific about their concerns. Some discussants suggested that we "owe" no cooperation to the President, having gotten no such cooperation or respect from her. "Dismay" and "disappointment" were words commonly used to express views about the matter.

Two responses were suggested as motions, discussed and voted on. The first urged formation of an ad hoc committee to give a "reading" of the White Paper. The motion was discussed extensively. The preamble would express Faculty Council dismay at the situation, the body would address the 10 points and the rules, and suggestions on how to implement the proposal. This committee could be formalized to become a standing Faculty Council committee to oversee implementation of changes that will ensue. It would work to make sure that the change does not override specific concerns that center around P&T, curriculum control, and budgetary authority of the Executive Dean of A&S. The committee would make recommendations to Faculty Council, Rules and appropriate University Senate Committees. The vote on this motion was unanimous in favor.

The second motion was to direct the chair and incoming chair of Faculty Council to write a letter to the President expressing Faculty Council's sense of dismay at these developments, the lack of faculty input into the process and the lack of changes in the proposal since the January announcement by Ed Ray. Proponents argued that this would make it obvious and on the record that the President had broken trust and used up goodwill, and show Faculty Council determination and "spine."

Opponents argued that she must surely already be aware of having ridden roughshod over faculty input, and we would be wasting effort telling her, and that it is useless to protest decisions that have already been made. They suggested that the resolution already approved could help Faculty Council get in the lead in protecting faculty from the worst excesses of the new Executive Dean position. The final vote on this motion was 11 in favor, 17 opposed with one abstention.

4:47 4. Evaluation of Administrators

Vice-Chair Grady Chism announced the committee’s pilot program of the review of administrators. The committee felt that the review process should begin with Deans. He explained that the committee chose Dean Bobby Moser as the first review over the summer since most of the FAES faculty are on 12-month appointments. The committee planned to use Zoomerang, a web-based polling instrument because it is not on OSU servers and it doesn’t allow users to vote more than once. He noted that they would poll regular faculty and regular clinical faculty from ten multiple-choice questions and several open-ended questions. The information generated would go to the dean and the faculty. Professor Gordon Aubrecht moved that the survey become a Faculty Council survey. Professor Chism responded that the committee hoped that the survey would be sent out at the end of the school year as a Faculty Council initiative. There was a lengthy discussion on the pros and cons of publishing the data that is collected by the survey. Council voted 26-0 to send all results to the dean and only the statistical results to the faculty.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.