FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

MAY 20, 2004

The meeting was called to order by Dr. Grady Chism. Members applauded Dr. David Stetson for his service to the University.

1. Clinical Faculty in the College of Law: Dr. Stetson introduced the first of several proposals for clinical faculty that are in the works. He briefly reviewed the background of the proposal, which came as a result of the Senate approving a rule that allows for the creation of Clinical Faculty in units other than the Medical Professions. The Council on Academic Affairs then developed a set of guidelines that would guide the production of proposals. Copies of the guidelines were distributed to the members of Faculty Council.

As soon as the guidelines were available, two proposals came forward, one from the College of Law and the College of Engineering. The College of Law proposal was straightforward and modest. The proposal was reviewed by CAA Subcommittee A. The full Council reviewed the proposal, and after obtaining some revisions from the unit, is now forwarding it to Faculty Council before CAA gives its final approval on June 2. It is expected that the proposal will be on the June 10 Senate agenda. CAA wishes this proposal from the College of Law for Clinical Faculty to be the model for future proposals from other units.

Sharon Davies, representing the Dean from the College of Law, and David Goldberger, also from the College of Law, were present to help with the discussion. Dr. Stetson explained that governance rights of the new clinical faculty track was discussed in detail by CAA, which determined such rights rested in the unit that defines the position and not at the University level. Faculty are concerned about the numbers of these clinical faculty. Are they going to reach the 20 percent threshold? In the College of Law, there are seven adjunct faculty who will become clinical faculty when this proposal is passed. CAA looked carefully at the types of courses these faculty are allowed to teach.

A question was raised about whether the clinical track will replace regular tenure track faculty and if data around the country is available. Vice Provost Anderson noted that OSU has its own data. Mr. Goldberger noted that in the College of Law, they are now just catching up with other universities. He noted that the faculty in Law are equally against increasing non-tenure track faculty as the rest of the University faculty are. Dr. Stetson noted that this proposal will bring the Law School into compliance with the American Bar Association. A brief discussion followed concerning the titles these faculty will hold.

A question was raised about what kind of problems might arise with the addition of clinical faculty in Law, and it was noted that having clinical faculty teaching core courses would be such a problem.

A question was raised about evaluation criteria for these faculty, which is not as intense as for regular faculty. The criteria seem sketchy. Mr. Goldberger listed how these faculty will be evaluated, which is based on Faculty Rules. He reviewed how the faculty performance will be assessed. Discussion followed about whether these faculty would be allowed Graduate Faculty
Faculty Council

May 20, 2004

Page 2

status. These faculty are eligible to enter the pool of candidates for tenure-track positions if they so desire. They cannot transfer between tracks. It was noted that this does happen in reverse in the College of Medicine, where those who realize they are not going to get tenure transfer to the clinical track.

Dr. Winer was surprised at the number of courses that could be considered “clinical” and are taught by a regular faculty member along with a clinical faculty. Mr. Goldberger said that this list of courses is in response to the growing recognition among traditional faculty that a better job needs to be done to prepare students for practice with clients. Dr. Davies explained how sometimes the staff attorneys have had to step in to help teach a doctrinal course. If this happens in the future, the College of Law has agreed to set into motion certain procedures that require them to notify the Provost any time the College of Law uses a clinical faculty member to cover a doctrinal course. Dr. Winer was very concerned that the original intent of the proposal would be abused and asked if this proposal is strong enough to protect against such abuse. Dr. Davies said it would be necessary to look to University reviews to make sure the intentions of this proposal are being carried out. Mr. Goldberger noted that the Law faculty are not concerned about this.

Dr. West questioned whether the University would follow up on the reviews since so many reviews in the past have not been followed up on. Dr. Stetson noted that CAA has a new refreshed commitment to doing the reviews that are the responsibility of CAA. Dr. Davies expanded on the necessity of having clinical courses for the students, and that these courses are part of the curriculum in most law schools. Mr. Goldberger added that each proposal concerning clinical faculty should be evaluated on its individual merits because each college has different needs. A question was raised as to why these people would not need a JD degree. Someone might have incredible experience but not have a JD degree.

Faculty Council agreed to take a position on this proposal, and the motion to support the proposal was passed.

2. Proposed Rule Changes from the Council on Academic Affairs: Dr. Stetson introduced two proposed rule changes, one to change the rule defining departments, and another to change the rule defining academic centers. He said these will be coming to the Senate next October. CAA will be working on these rules over the summer.

Section C. in the rule on Departments, which lists quantitative criteria that must be met in order for a department to exist, is proposed to be deleted because the numbers are too arbitrary.

Conversation followed on when and why the language was first put into the rule. Dr. Gunther raised concerns about the increasing numbers of administrative staff, which takes up a large portion of the budget. The list of departments with fewer than ten faculty will be shared with Faculty Council. It was noted that some departments that are at the minimum number of faculty may fall below the minimum because of buy-outs. Hypothetically, these units with less than ten faculty should have been abolished because they do not fulfill the criteria of the rule.

Faculty Council Minutes

May 20, 2004

Page 3

Dr. Fisher noted that the Division of Comparative Studies was forced to keep its status because it could not meet the numerical criteria for a department under this rule. It was noted that CAA was the committee who insisted on this because it feared that Comparative Studies would not be able to provide a full range of studies and faculty would not be able to do the advising and the service that is required of a department.

Dr. Chism encouraged Faculty Council members to look at the proposal and let Dr. Stetson know of any concerns.

Dr. Stetson next introduced the issue concerning the review of centers. Some units felt they were bring hamstrung in the formation of new centers in response to particular opportunities for funding. Only six people responded to a CAA ad hoc committee report on this problem, and now CAA is revising the rule in response to the committee report. It is hoped that this proposed rule change will come to the Senate in October. Any centers that have courses will be grandfathered under this rule change. As of now there are about 120 centers.

Dr. Gunther pointed out that there needs to be a review of centers to keep a proliferation of centers from occurring. The Fiscal Committee will be reviewing the issue of financial support of Centers next year. He hoped that CAA would explicitly acknowledge responsibility for this function of reviewing centers. Dr. Stetson said CAA is aware and moving forward on the review of Centers. It was noted that with the decentralization of the budget, money might be funneled off to centers at the expense of faculty. Dr. Gunther noted that the ad hoc committee did not specifically address the issue of college centers. He said there must be faculty committees to advise deans with regard to the allocation of college resources.

3. University Calendar: CESP is the Senate committee that reviews the University Calendar. Dr. Parson, Chair of CESP, noted that a problem arose as a result of doing away with early senior finals for graduating seniors. As a consequence, scheduling graduation in summer quarter became problematic, especially if it fell during the Labor Day holiday. He reviewed the calendar that CESP is proposing, which is to go into effect the summer of 2005. He hoped that this could be decided by this summer. A question was raised about how this would affect students from other universities who attend OSU in the summer. Dr. Parson reviewed that if students attend a semester school, this summer calendar would affect them since they usually go back to school late in August.

Dr. Chism asked faculty to review this decision by CESP and send their comments to CESP and to the Registrar. It was noted that the late graduation will affect those students who are teachers and must get back on the job, which would probably be before the graduation.

4. Dr. Chism acknowledged Graeme Boone, who is running for Chair of Faculty Council. He encouraged members to complete their ballots for next year’s Chair. T. K. Daniel is the other candidate running for the position. The Faculty Council year-end party will be next year.

Faculty Council Minutes

May 20, 2004

Page 4

5. College Patterns of Administration: Dr. Charles Wilson reviewed Faculty Rule 3335-3-35 (C) (2) which requires department chairs and school directors to develop a POA in consultation with faculty. There is no requirement for deans to develop a POA. However, the Office of Academic Affairs requires deans to prepare and submit a POA to the Provost. The OAA Guidelines emphasize that the rule does not require formal faculty acceptance of the POA although most departments provide for such a process. OAA Guidelines also require that department POAs be approved by the dean and OAA, but there is no rule requiring faculty approval of the college POA. However, OAA requires new deans to review and either revise or reaffirm their college’s POA. He noted that the Council of Deans rejected the idea that faculty should approve college POAs. The group working on this issue has come up with new language on this issue, which Dr. Wilson distributed. The new language grandfathers in colleges that currently require faculty approval for a college POA, but it does not require faculty approval in those colleges that do not currently require faculty approval of a college POA.

Dr. Gunther, noted that the decentralization of the budget has given incredible authority to the deans, and at the same time at the University-wide level, there is a system of accountability with the Fiscal Committee. It is essential that there be established those kinds of accountability mechanisms at the college level. Dr. Gunther hoped that the Provost would be a firm administrator in this regard. He pointed out that while Provost, Dr. Ed Ray called upon deans to establish such a system, which was supported by Faculty Council, but there has been no progress toward accomplishing this objective of faculty oversight. He urged central administration to wield a heavy hand on this issue. He felt that there should be iron-clad language that requires faculty input on college budget matters. One faculty member pointed out that at one time the faculty in his college, which is a TIU, were allowed to vote on the college POA, but now isn’t because of a directive from OAA. The faculty member noted that OAA is treating colleges with TIUs differently from colleges that are a TIU. Also, the new college POAs do not have faculty approval yet some of the old ones did. Dr. Anderson argued that the deans always have had authority over budgets and that budget restructuring doesn’t give them any more authority than they always had. Dr. Gunther disagreed.

Dr. Chism thanked Dr. Wilson for helping with this issue, which will be back on the table in the fall. Dr. Anderson asked faculty to send their comments to her or to Dr. Wilson. She

believed that the problems seen with budget restructuring are more a function of how it is being implemented in the individual colleges. It is not a function of the actual changes in the budgetary system. To have more transparency about what is coming in and going out and why is a good thing.

At this point, the meeting came to an end.