DECEMBER 4, 2003
Guests: 1
Professor John Parson, chair of the Council on Enrollment and Student Progress (CESP), discussed the issue of summer commencement. He told the Council that there was a general hesitancy to hold commencement on the Sunday before Labor Day. Not holding commencement on that Sunday would create a “short summer quarter” when the ceremony would fall during Labor Day weekend. Dr. Parson distributed a chart of a proposed nine-week summer quarter and how it would compare to a full, “ideal” ten-week quarter. The basic change is to add an extra 6 minutes to each 48 minutes of instruction in a current period. He noted that there was considerable discussion both on shortening the break between classes and how this model compares to the current system. He asked the council to send him feedback or responses from their constituents on their feelings regarding the calendar proposal.
Professor Sharon West expressed concern about the five-week term classes during the summer. Professor Parson said that the University Registrar, Brad Myers, said that the first term classes have an overwhelmingly larger attendance than second term classes, which Dr. Parson remembered to be 4:1. He also said that students would be able to overlap their classes to have one week during which they participate in classes from both terms. Dr. West said that from her past experience with CESP, there is a large amount of enrollment during the summer, and especially during the first term of summer classes. She asked if it there had been proposals to eliminate the second term altogether. Professor John Current asked about the number of students who graduate during summer quarter. Dr. Parson said that the number of undergraduates is small, but the number of graduate and professional students is much larger.
Professor Jeff McKee said that in the Department of Anthropology most of the lecture courses in the summer are taught by GAs, who would find it very difficult to move six minutes of a lecture to the next lecture. Dr. Parson agreed, since he teaches chemistry labs, and finds it impossible to move 6 minutes of a lab experiment. Dr. McKee asked about the academic merits of such a proposal, and how deeply they had been investigated. It was proposed that all quarters be moved to 9 weeks. Dr. Parson said that CESP had discussed this plan, and that it is an option on the table.
The Faculty Council agreed with the 9 week calendar plan, in principle. Professor Jack Rall said that he thinks there has been good discussion and hopes that CESP will take note of the various suggestions.
2. Athletic
Council Resolution
Professor David Stetson, chair of Athletic Council, presented a proposal from Athletic Council regarding football game-day behavior and the recent “crackdown” on public drinking. He discussed a video produced by Vice President for Student Affairs Bill Hall and Athletic Director Andy Geiger that suggested that fans at this year’s home games displayed less disruptive behavior than at last year’s games. Dr. Stetson discussed the growing feeling by the football game attendees that they have the right to drink in public and cause disturbances. Other schools have asked to see the video to deal with comparable problems for their athletic teams; OSU is setting a trend among schools trying to cope with this issue. A member of Athletic Council wrote this resolution to commend the changes that have taken place and to support the current university policy. Dr. Stetson was asked to take this resolution to a higher level in the governance system.
Professor Jennifer Kuehn initiated a discussion on the mature consumption of alcohol at football tailgate parties. Professor Brian McEnnis noted a public relations issue for the University. The campaign shows the University having a zero tolerance for public drinking whereas the focus should be on public drunkenness. He thinks that the university is giving itself a “black eye” by going after a decades long tradition in the wrong way. Professor Stetson defended the administration’s actions, saying that this is the first year they have done this, and fine-tuning will occur in upcoming years. He admitted there is a tradition, but asked if it is a tradition that we want to endorse. Professor Charlie Wilson asked about the hypocrisy of allowing drinking at the boxes and at university hosted events while banning general public drinking? Professor Stetson said that the difference is that the boxes have a liquor license whereas the parking garages do not. Professor Lynne Olson suggested issuing liquor licenses to drink in the public areas.
There was a suggestion to eliminate the reference to alcohol in the resolution, but increase the references to unruly behavior. Professor Ken Jones disagreed, saying that older alumni are often a bigger problem than the college aged drinkers. Dr. Allen Firestone asked about the presence of the problem, asking what if the tradition had been discharging firearms. There was support for enforcing the law, and against endorsing a proposal or resolution that breaks the law.
Dr. Rall suggested changes in wording. Dr. Current said that he thinks the legal definition of public drinking is confusing, and recommended changing the title of the resolution. A modified version of the proposal was passed unanimously with one abstention.
3. Updates
and Announcements
Professor Rall discussed the progress that the Faculty
Leaders have made on establishing a rule regarding college POAs. A group met
with Provost Barbara Snyder and Vice Provost Carole Anderson. Provost Snyder
had shown a faculty generated document to the deans, who were unanimously
opposed to a rule requiring a faculty vote on POAs. It was agreed that a
working group should be established to discuss the issue. Dr. Anderson will convene the working group. She has selected Deans Alutto, Herbers and
Andrews to participate. The Faculty
Council leadership selected Steve Pinsky, Jack Rall and a third yet to be named
member to represent the faculty views. This working group will try to come to
an agreement on the guidelines for college POAs. Dr. Firestone told Council
that Dr. Anderson recently sent comments to the
Faculty Council is trying to establish ways for faculty to interact with the Board of Trustees, President, Provost, and Deans more often and more intimately. A small group met with Professor David Frantz, Secretary of the Board of Trustees, on this issue. Current interactions include: Faculty Leaders meet once a year with Board of Trustees over lunch, the Chair of Steering and Faculty Council are invited to all Board of Trustees meetings, Faculty Leaders meet quarterly with the President and monthly with the Provost. Ideas to enhance interactions being discussed are: have Faculty Council make a quarterly report to the Board subcommittee that deals with academic and student affairs, establish a yearly annual report from Faculty Council to the entire Board of Trustees, establish luncheons with faculty and Board of Trustees members which will include at least one Senator. Professor Pinsky will attend the dean cluster meetings and actively encourage them to promote faculty participation in faculty governance. Two meetings have been scheduled for January when election process starts, and Provost Snyder will attend these meetings as well. The Faculty Leaders are continually looking for ways to strengthen the voice of Faculty governance, and welcome comments or suggestions.
Dr. Pinsky, a member of the search committee, said the committee has developed a position description and hired a search firm, BakerParker and Associates. The firm does the legwork, such as confirming willingness to be a candidate, confirming academic backgrounds and searching for bibliographical information. The search will occur in stages: 1. collecting dossiers from candidates, including self-nominations and search firm nominations (January/February); 2. creating a list of candidates to be interviewed (the list will not be made public) (late February); and 3. developing a “short list” of 3-5 candidates who will interact with the university community (March). The team expects that the new provost will start July 1.
Dr. Current asked how much the contract with the headhunting firm cost. Dr. Pinsky said that they were told that the university will pay for it, and that the committee shouldn’t be concerned with the cost, though it is likely between $50,000-100,000. He said this firm was selected because it was an appropriate size to conduct a national search and the search committee was impressed with the firm. Dr. Macbeth asked how large the pool is, and Dr. Pinsky said relatively small. Dean Hoffsis, chair of the search committee, expects the final pool to have about 50 candidates. Professor Rall emphasized that President Holbrook wants to “strengthen shared governance”. Professor Jerry Winer says that he sees no evidence of Holbrook endorsing shared governance, and the only time that he has heard her make any substantial comments on it, she has only made negatively toned comments. He questions her dedication to shared governance. Professor Rall thinks it is up to Council to bring forward proposals to strengthen shared governance, and to encourage her to support these efforts. Dr. Pinsky noted that parallel committees formed by the central administration historically have undermined faculty governance and that President Holbrook has pledged not to do this. He added that to increase their value Senate elections need to be more competitive. Professor Macbeth said that governance happens around issues and is not an empty vessel. He suggested ways for faculty to become more involved in current issues, which evolved into a brief discussion on the research faculty track proposal.