FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

February 5, 2004

Dr. Chism brought the Faculty Council meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Topics to be discussed were Research Faculty and Library renovation.

Referring to an e-mail he had sent Faculty Council, Dr. Chism asked for volunteers for the Faculty Development Action Plan task force. He hoped the committee would be diverse so that appropriate perspectives would be represented on the committee that is being formed.

Research Faculty Track Discussion: Dr. David Bromwich, Chair of the Research Committee and the subcommittee on the Research Faculty Track, reviewed the draft White Paper, dated January 28, 2004, concerning the proposed Research Faculty (RF) Track, which had been distributed to members. He noted that there is available a November 11, 2003 DRAFT #2 Rationale for the Development of a Regular Research Faculty Track and Draft new Rule.

The White Paper is a preliminary document, not yet reviewed by the Research Committee. Input has been from a wide range, with strong opinions on all sides. The subcommittee is in favor of creating this new faculty position, realizing that there are concerns from tenure-track faculty. The subcommittee tried to take these concerns into consideration as they reviewed the proposal.

Having this position should lead to bringing in more research dollars to the University and to compete more effectively. Indirect costs, payment of students, purchase of equipment are all items that could be positively affected with the creation of this position. The title lends itself well to those faculty who are excellent researchers and offers a title with some prestige. As pointed out by Steve Pinsky, there are several retired Professors from Europe in his department of Physics who are prestigious people, and this title would be more fitting for them.

The subcommittee addressed the concerns of funding RF faculty, teaching by Research Faculty, Graduate student advising, Governance/Committee service, transfer from the RF track to the tenure track, and caps on the number of RF, and suggested some options for meeting each of the concerns.

In summary, the subcommittee believes this proposal to be of substantial benefit to the University in its goal to become a top-ranked research institution. The improved research funding will help to offset the decline in funding from the State of Ohio. However, because of the possible erosion of regular tenure-track faculty that could occur, safeguards need to be in place to protect the regular tenure-track faculty positions.

Dr. Gerald Winer presented CAFR’s concerns about creating the new position. He distributed copies of “Downside to Research Faculty”. He noted that while there may be benefits to the new position, he believed that the benefits are overstated. CAFR felt there might be some slight advantage for obtaining research grants with this title, but not necessarily. CAFR also believed that people with large grants most likely would want to transfer to Ohio State only if they obtained tenure. CAFR realized that the Medical School most likely could most benefit by having this title. This title might also be good for attracting post-docs to the University in departments such as Physics. However, CAFR felt that money and the prestige of the program would have more influence in bringing good researchers to the University.

Regarding costs of this proposal, there is a lot of slack in the language concerning how the position would be financed. Research Faculty might end up on critical committees that are in charge of allocation of resources, such as those controlling purchase of equipment. CAFR is very concerned about the erosion of tenure-track faculty, with these lines being used to support Research Track faculty. Some people have also mentioned that creation of this title might develop a “caste” system, with some people doing research and others doing teaching. At Ohio State, it is understood that to be a professor, one is expected to do teaching, research, and

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

February 5, 2004

Page 2

service. Bringing in people with a Research Faculty rank would change the nature of what it means to be a Professor. Grants are driving research. People are under great pressure to have grants renewed. This can lead to cheating. It has been learned by a National funding agency that there is a positive correlation between the amount of funding that institutions received and the amount of misconduct in research.

Some solutions to the concerns raised by this proposal are to tighten the language, impose caps and restrictions on the position. However, history of the Clinical Faculty line at Ohio State has shown that caps can be raised, and the position has even been extended to other colleges other than the Medical Colleges. There should be continued oversight by the college and University levels of the number of people in these positions. The departments should also review the programs, with faculty being allowed to revote on the concept of Research Faculty.

Dr. Winer noted that while this proposal might not be a bad thing, it is one of the many changes that serve to weaken tenure. He saw that somewhere in the future, someone might wonder why faculty did not stand up against this proposal.

It was asked how the subcommittee of the Research Committee got created; do we want or need this faculty line – there seems to be an implication that we don’t have enough funding, enough students, enough equipment – how much is enough, and there is a difference between Clinical faculty and this proposal in that the Clinical Track faculty get five-year appointments.

Dr. Bromstein answered that the Research Committee felt that a smaller subcommittee would be better equipped to handle this proposal. Regarding the terms of these appointments, these could be tied in to the length of the grant. Dr. Pinsky noted that the language concerning terms could be totally rewritten, and input from faculty would be welcome.

In answer to a question about obtaining information from other Universities who have this track, Dr. Winer said that CAFR felt that the information was unsatisfactory. He contacted AAUP as well, but it did not have this kind of information. A faculty member remarked that these positions are very valuable. He felt that the position already exists on campus, but this proposal makes the position a more formal one. He agreed that Research Faculty should not serve on most major committees but could provide some good input on such committees as the curriculum committees.

It was noted that the only people who are legally allowed to be Principle Investigators (PIs) are faculty. A Research Scientist can be a PI provided the department faculty and chair request it.

One faculty member was concerned about controls over these positions and felt that controls should be stated in the proposed rule. Dr. Pinsky noted that this rule would supersede Patterns of Administration of colleges. Another faculty member asked if anyone had looked into why such prestigious research institutions such as University of Michigan and University of California do not have these positions. Dr. Fisher said that if one of these people was given a three-year contract, and the grant was cancelled after two years, the department would have to pick up the salary for the remaining year. This would potentially encumber departmental resources; that is why this has to be a decision of the faculty to do this.

If the University wishes to be a top-ranked research institution with its benchmark peers, the limitations from the Statehouse need to be considered. The faculty/student ratio is about one-third that of the benchmark institutions and needs to be improved. This proposal is one mechanism to reach the goal of becoming a top research institution.

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

February 5, 2004

Page 3

It was pointed out that this proposal was a budgetary initiative. The proposal was made in order to enhance external support, yet a decision is being made without any fiscal analysis of this proposal. The faculty member was very uncomfortable with the proposal and the direction in which the University is going.

It was mentioned that faculty have a bare majority in the University Senate and don’t really control its destiny through the Senate. This proposal is one small place where faculty can control its destiny by voting. Another member expressed concern about the Patterns of Administration.

Dr. Chism said this matter could be taken up at another Faculty Council meeting if there is a need to continue the conversation. He asked members to send their comments to him. He said he would request a fiscal analysis of the proposal. He also noted that the majority of the CIC institutions do have Research Faculty. But, the two Universities that do not have the position felt very positive about not having it.

It was suggested that any further discussion of this proposal be held on the final report from the Research Committee.

Library Renovation Discussion: Dr. Joseph Branin, Director of the Libraries, and Bernie Constantino, Associate University Architect, presented pros and cons on the Library renovation project. Faculty have been asked to comment on the two designs being considered, and a web site has been developed that contains all the information.

There are two basic preliminary designs, both of which preserve the 1913 building, but the 1977 structure will be torn down. Design A keeps the book tower that was built in 1951, and Design B takes the tower down. Both schemes can work, but in making a decision, three issues need to be considered -- cost, design, and the tower itself. Dr. Branin favors Design B. The cost difference is $3.5 million. It will cost more to tear the tower down. This is not a significant amount of money in a $99-100 million project. This cost differential is small enough that the two schemes are very close together. Building a new core behind the 1913 building is a better design, creating a more unified, clarity of design, and a modern design that cannot be achieved with the book tower. This raises the question of whether the tower is an iconic structure on campus. There are many opinions about this which range all over the spectrum. An historic preservationist has given the opinion that the tower should be kept because it is a significant historic piece of architecture. The design architect recognizes that it is a familiar presence on campus, but it is not a significant piece of architecture and in fact is flawed.

Dr. Branin said also that to offset the added expense of tearing down the tower, the square footage of the building would have to be reduced by 6,700 assignable square feet.

Mr. Constantino gave arguments for keeping the tower. The Office for Facility Planning and Development, which includes master planning, facility planning, and architecture, believes that the tower should stay. The tower is an important aspect of the Campus Master Plan. Three experts looked at the three issues of cost, design, historic, and graphic/iconic aspect of the tower. All three experts have recommended that the tower stay. The expense and time required to tear the tower down will be much costlier than the $3.5 million projected. There will be added risks as well. Reducing the square footage will leave less flexibility because new requirements tend to be added along the way. Costs also tend to increase as planning increases. The iconic/historic value of the tower, as determined by the consultant, who also worked on COSI and the stadium, is that the tower relates to historic people on campus (President Thompson, for whom the tower is named. It is located at an important place on campus, but over time it became less of a centerpiece of the campus. However, with the addition of the tower, the library once again became the “center” of the campus. Removing the tower would diminish the Library’s place on campus and damage its architectural character. The consultant concluded that the tower met three out of four characteristics that signify an historic landmark.

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

February 5, 2004

Page 4

Regarding the Campus Master Plan, Mr. Constantino said that the tower is an orienting device on campus and will become more so. He explained how the tower could be renovated to offer some of the best views of the campus and of Columbus. He ended his presentation by saying that Design A, which keeps the tower, is a better design.

In the Question and Answer segment, it was noted that the Library would gain roughly 160,000 assignable square feet. Costs of projects around campus have been right on budget or below budget. In an argument concerning form versus function, and which plan is better, Dr. Branin noted that each floor plate in the tower is only 5,600 sq. ft. It is a narrow building and not much can be fitted on each floor. This leads to isolation and security problems. The more horizontal, open space will give more flexibility. Dr. Branin felt it is difficult to get oriented in the building as it now exists, but Mr. Constantino disagreed.

The Provost and President will make the final decision on the design once input from faculty and students and others is received. It was also noted that the tower could be used for offices as well as stacks.

Paul Young, Professor Emeritus, asked members to consider the fact that the language of the campus tells a lot about the values of the institution. The University needs a building in this location that represents the academic core of the campus and needs a vertical component, such as the tower.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Brenda A. Wright