The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session - February 12, 1996 - 3:30 p.m.
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102

The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Pat L. 
Weaver-Meyers, Chair.

PRESENT:	Badiru, Baker, Benson, Bremer, Burnett, Carnevale, 
DeBrunner, Dillard, Dillon, Durica, Elisens, Fiedler, 
Fung, Gana, Genova, Gilje, Greene, Gupta, 
Gutierrez, Harris, Havener, Hillyer, Hutchison, 
Konopak, Laird, F. Lee, R. Miller, Mouser, 
Murphy, Nelson, Ogilvie, Patterson, Ragep, 
Shaughnessy, Sipes, Stock, Tepker, Thulasiraman, 
Van Gundy, Wallach, Weaver-Meyers, Weinel, 
	Provost's office representative:  Bell
	PSA representatives:  Iselin, Spencer
	UOSA representatives:  Barron, Frederick

ABSENT:	Egle, Hertzke, Holmes, Horrell, Lucey, Palmer, 
Scaperlanda, Stoltenberg, Williams


   Announcement:  General Faculty meeting	2
   Program Duplication	2
   Senate Chair's Report:
      Provost search committee	3
      Athletic funding	3
      Information Technology Council	4
      Faculty salaries	4
      Benefits	5
   Paid leave and short-term disability policy	5
   Addition to Faculty Handbook concerning student conduct	6


The Senate Journal for the regular session of January 22, 1996, was 


The Spring General Faculty meeting will be held in conjunction 
with the Faculty Senate meeting on Monday, March 18.  President 
Boren will make remarks about the funding picture.  This 
combined meeting will be held in Adams Hall 255.


Prof. Schmitz, Chemistry and Biochemistry, thanked the other 
members of the committee for their work in preparing the report 
(Appendix I).  The committee was prompted by concern that the 
Council on Graduate Education and Research (COGER), a council 
on which he served, was serious about eliminating duplicate 
programs.  COGER is a council set up by the State Regents for 
Higher Education, whose purpose is to strengthen graduate 
programs and eliminate duplication.  It is composed of 17 members 
and 3 alternates.  The early work of the council eliminated 
programs that were not in use, but the council realized no dollars 
were being saved.  The citizen members of the council have made 
it clear they are intent on program elimination that would save 
money.  At the fall meeting of COGER, Engineering was on the 
block for elimination at OU or OSU.  The two schools were 
effective in persuading the council that these two programs 
complemented each other, were cooperative, and should remain in 
place.  However, the council is continuing to review other 
programs and will probably look at Business next.  

The Faculty Senate ad hoc committee looked at a number of 
documents from within the state and from Ohio State University 
(available in the Faculty Senate office).  In its report, the 
committee stressed the link between education and economic 
development.  In view of financial constraints, it is important to 
review programs; however, not all duplication is unnecessary.  The 
committee proposed some guidelines that should be useful in 
determining which, if any, programs should be eliminated.  The 
first question is whether programs are duplicate in name only.  In 
cases of unnecessary duplication, then questions should be asked 
about scholarship, productivity, and demand.  A cost analysis asks 
whether the elimination of a program will really save any money.  

Prof. Fiedler said it does not necessarily make sense to look only at 
OU and OSU.  He asked whether any thought had been given to 
program duplication in general.  Prof. Schmitz said in some areas, 
a regional program might be reasonable.  Prof. Fung asked how 
serious Higher Education Chancellor Brisch and the OU and OSU 
presidents were about eliminating programs.  A few years ago, a 
committee recommended the elimination of weak programs, but 
that was met with resistance.  He said the University of Rochester 
is eliminating four graduate programs, including Mathematics and 
Engineering.  Prof. Schmitz said the seven citizens on the council 
are very interested in cutting costs and giving that money to other 
programs.  They say all businesses are having to downsize.  The 
two university presidents are making a good faith effort to 
determine if there really is duplication.

Prof. Sipes said if the citizen members are serious about saving 
money and Engineering was spared, it seems there will be more 
pressure to cut other programs.  Prof. Schmitz said each program 
will have to determine if certain areas are duplicative.  Prof. Durica 
asked whether the council was aware of the downsizing that has 
occurred.  Prof. Schmitz said the council was told.  Prof. Dillon 
asked whether the council was looking just at doctoral programs.  
Prof. Schmitz said they are looking at any graduate level program.  
Prof. Dillon suggested that graduate programs at other schools in 
the state be examined.  Prof. Schmitz said he understood that 
Chancellor Brisch was resisting that.  

Prof. Wenk asked whether the council was targeting large 
programs to save money.  She asked why small programs that do 
not cost much would be cut.  Prof. Schmitz said the council seems 
to be picking programs with the same names.  He commented that 
not all duplication is unnecessary.  Prof. Gilje asked whether the ad 
hoc committee saw duplication between OU and OSU as a 
problem.  Prof. Schmitz said he was sympathetic to the fact that the 
programs at the two Engineering schools have different specialties.  

Prof. Hillyer asked whether there was any discussion about the 
impact on tenure and promotion.  Prof. Schmitz said a lot of 
question have been asked about what would happen to the faculty.  
If a decision is made to try to eliminate a program, then the cost 
effectiveness should be examined.  For example, if Engineering is 
offered only at OSU and OSU has to build new facilities and add 
faculty, then it might not save any money.  Prof. Schmitz said the 
ad hoc committee simply tried to suggest issues that should be 
addressed, rather than evaluate any programs.  Prof. Weaver-
Meyers said the committee was asked to set up some guidelines for 
an area under examination to consider.  Because of the concern 
about the significant activity on program duplication, she decided 
to be proactive.

SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers

The president selected the following faculty from the ten names 
proposed by the Faculty Senate for the Provost search committee:  
Trent Gabert (Health and Sport Sciences), Katheleen Guzman 
(Law), Wilbur Stolt (University Libraries), Cal Stoltenberg 
(Educational Psychology), and Bret Wallach (Geography).  The 
president will probably select some additional faculty and is still 
committed to having a faculty majority on the search committee.  
He will try to get regents' approval before their regular March 
meeting in order to get the advertisement and job description 
prepared.  Prof. Mouser asked about the additional faculty the 
president might select.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said to assure there is 
a faculty majority, the president may add some faculty.  She said 
she did not have any information yet about the Arts and Sciences 
dean search committee.  That committee will be formed after the 
provost search is put together.

A handout was distributed at the meeting showing expenditures in 
the academic area and in the athletic department for Big Twelve 
institutions (available from the Senate office).  A report prepared 
by the state regents shows athletic expenditures for 1993-94 at 
various institutions in the state.  Expenditures by state schools 
other than OU and OSU are funded mostly by state funds, because 
they do not have the opportunity to earn income through ticket 
sales, etc.  Any comments should be sent to Prof. Ted Roberts, 
Law, who is chair of the gender equity subcommittee of the 
Athletics Council.  

The Information Technology Council had its first meeting last 
week and discussed its standing committees and issues to address.  
Prof. Bruce Mason, Physics and Astronomy, is the chair.  

Prof. Andy Magid (Mathematics), chair of the Faculty 
Compensation Committee (FCC), explained his computation of 
what percentage salary increase we would need to get salaries back 
to zero.  In order for salaries to have the same purchasing power in 
July 1996 as they did July 1993, faculty and staff would need a 
5.99% salary increase, which would cost about $6 million.  Higher 
education would need to receive $34 million in new money in 
order for OU to get $6 million (17.5% of $34 million).  Other 
needs are being put forward for the new money.  Prof. Weaver-
Meyers said the president asked for input about the criteria for 
salary increases.  The FCC is meeting next week to put together 
some recommendations.  Issues include merit versus cost-of-living, 
staff versus faculty, and proportional raises.  Comments should be 
sent to Prof. Magid.  Prof. Gilje asked whether this computation 
had been presented to the president.  Prof. Magid said it had.  Prof. 
Gilje asked whether the FCC would recommend a cost-of-living 
raise as the number one priority.  Prof. Magid said the FCC had not 
met yet.  He reminded the group about the resolutions concerning 
salary increases that the Faculty Senate approved in May 1995 and 
May 1994.  This computation simply answers the question, "What 
does it take to get to zero?"  It is not inconsistent with the earlier 
resolutions.  Prof. Carnevale asked whether compression would be 
addressed.  He mentioned the FCC study showing that 71% of new 
hires create inversions (12/95 Journal, page 3).  Prof. Magid said 
that will be one of the issues.  Another issue the president asked 
the Senate to address is whether faculty and staff should receive 
proportionately the same share of salary.  Prof. Hutchison 
commented that faculty seem to be interested in across-the-board 
raises, because everyone has fallen behind in salary.  He suggested 
that a certain percentage could be designated as across-the-board 
and any excess could go to merit if individuals ranked at a certain 
level on performance evaluations.  Staff should get the same 
percentage raise as faculty because they did not get as much in 
salary as faculty did one year.  Prof. Greene suggested that across-
the-board raises be on a sliding scale.  Prof. Hutchison pointed out 
that that had been done in the past, and it compounded the 
compression problem.  Prof. Gilje said merit deserves to be 
rewarded.  "If everyone is treated equally, what incentive is there 
for excellence?"  

Prof. Havener said he had always favored merit, but he now 
believed that when you reach a certain level, you have to keep 
people from sinking.  Individuals who were hired in recently 
received higher salaries and should not automatically get a 6% 
raise.  Prof. Magid said the effect of two years of negative raises 
means it will take 6% to bring people up to what they were making 
in 1993.  Compression and merit raises could come on top of a 6% 
raise.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said she did not want people to think 
6% was all we are asking for.  Prof. Weinel asked whether it was 
unrealistic to ask that the issue be approached by college.  Over the 
last six years, some colleges have been rewarded at a higher level, 
which means faculty raises are differentiated.  Moreover, a gender 
equity component should be added.  Prof. Ogilvie said she would 
like to see an across-the-board raise and then a reward for 
excellence.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said there is also the question of 
whether an additional adjustment should be made for departments 
that are farther from the median of our peers.  Prof. Magid said the 
FCC will bring a recommendation to the Faculty Senate for a vote.  
He pointed out that the decision about how the administration 
allocates its new money will not come from the FCC but rather the 
Budget Council.  Salary cost of living adjustment should come 
before utility and insurance increases.  Prof. Sipes said new faculty 
should not be eliminated from raises just because they were hired 

Prof. Weaver-Meyers commented that our benefits package is 
reviewed every three years.  She asked the Faculty Welfare 
Committee to look at the cost of benefits and what is covered 
under Blue Cross/Blue Shield.  Concerns should be shared with 
Prof. Fran Ayres, Accounting, chair of the FWC.


Last month, the Senate discussed some changes being considered 
in the Paid Leave and Short-Term Disability Policy (1/96 Journal, 
page 7, and Appendix II).  Prof. Weaver-Meyers briefly explained 
the following Senate Executive Committee's recommendations 
concerning the changes being considered.

1.  Reduce the total number of hours deposited to short-term 
disability and delay when it can be accessed, but do not 
completely eliminate the initial deposit.  Remove the language 
referring to "demonstrated commitment to the University."
2.  Clarify that this does not apply to someone who retires.
3.  Reduce the number of days of paid leave usage (perhaps to 
4.  No position.  Does not apply to faculty.
5.  Support.
6.  Support.  The income from Worker's Compensation is not 
taxable; therefore, employees receive more than their usual 
take-home pay.

Prof. Durica asked how the computations were generated about the 
estimated annual savings.  For number 1, there would be a $4 
million liability if every new hire took short-term disability.  Mr. 
Don Flegal, Personnel Director, said those dollars are not funded.  
Last year, the university spent about $800,000 on short-term 
disability.  Prof. Patterson noted that for nine-month faculty, it is 
just time lost.  Prof. Hutchison said there is no real cost unless a 
replacement is hired.  Prof. Gilje said the administration was 
insulting the new faculty for no real gain by saying they did not 
have a demonstrated commitment to the university.  Prof. Patterson 
asked whether faculty who retire get paid for their short-term 
disability hours.  Mr. Flegal said employees do not get paid for the 
accumulation in short-term disability.  Prof. DeBrunner said the 
University was not out any money when his faculty wife took 
pregnancy leave.  Prof. Wenk remarked that departments get hurt 
because they cannot hire someone to replace a person who is sick.  
Prof. Gilje claimed it could be difficult to hire women faculty who 
might need leaves with pay for pregnancy if we take away short-
term disability.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that the Family 
Leave policy provides 12 weeks of leave, but not necessarily paid 
leave.  Faculty may use six weeks of short-term disability for 
pregnancy.  Faculty still would have 12 days a year deposited to 
short-term disability.  Prof. Gilje moved to keep the initial deposit 
of short-term disability as it currently is for faculty.  Prof. Fiedler 
suggested that this be an option within Sooner Options.  Prof. 
Hutchison asked what the current initial deposit is.  Mr. Flegal said 
it is 65 days.  Prof. Hutchison commented that the initial deposit 
could be reduced but should not be eliminated entirely.  Prof. 
Weinel asked about the benefit to eliminating short-term disability.  
Mr. Flegal said the University has been looking at funding this 
leave so departments could afford to hire replacements.  By 
reducing the amount, it is more likely it could be funded.  Prof. 
Weinel pointed out that the potential saving was only to the budget 
unit.  Prof. Sipes said we are talking about fixing something that is 
not broken.  Prof. Dillon asked whether the potential liability is 
more a problem with staff because it is difficult to hire a 
replacement for faculty.  Mr. Flegal said it is more likely that 
temporary employees are hired to replace staff members.  Prof. 
Mouser asked whether faculty and staff could be treated 
differently.  Mr. Flegal said they are now; staff receive 30 days.  
The motion to keep the initial deposit as it is for faculty (number 1) 
was approved with one dissenting vote and two abstentions.

In discussing number 2, Mr. Flegal explained that reducing the 
maximum amount of paid leave for which terminating employees 
can be paid would not apply to someone who retired.  That 
language is part of the current policy and would be included in any 
new policy.  Prof. Patterson asked whether it would be more 
beneficial to resign than retire.  Mr. Flegal said this concerns only 
paid leave, and nine-month faculty do not get paid leave.  Twelve-
month faculty get 22 hours a month.  Someone who retires gets the 
maximum paid leave [336 hours (42 days) for twelve-month 
faculty].  Someone who resigns would get half the maximum.

Prof. Ogilvie moved to approve the remaining five 
recommendations of the Executive Committee.  The motion was 
approved with one abstention.


In the agenda for this meeting, the following language was 
proposed for the Student-Faculty Policies and Information Section 
of the Faculty Handbook (after section 4.1, 4.19, or 4.20):
Faculty who are faced with disruptive behavior by a student 
in class should refer to Title 16--Prohibited Conduct--of the 
Student Code for information about disciplinary procedures.

Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that the proposed addition was 
intended to clarify how faculty can handle such a situation.  She 
noted that the paragraph had been revised to read:
Faculty who are faced with disruptive behavior by a student 
in class are authorized by the Student Code Title 13.1.2 to 
take immediate action to prevent disruption or obstruction of 
teaching.  Procedures for preventing on-going disruption 
should follow Title 16 of the Student Code.  Faculty taking 
formal action that may hinder a student's ability to earn a 
course grade should also refer to the Academic Misconduct 

Prof. Genova asked what kind of formal action would hinder a 
student's ability to earn a course grade.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said 
faculty might dismiss a student from class on a day a test is given.  
Dropping a student from the course permanently requires faculty to 
follow the procedure in the Student Code.  Prof. Genova said the 
proposed language made it sound like faculty are already doing 
this.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said this was meant to apply to faculty 
who are considering formal action.  Prof. DeBrunner asked 
whether it was appropriate to refer to titles in another document 
that faculty normally do not get.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said faculty 
have not known what to do because there is nothing in the Faculty 
Handbook.  Prof. Dillard said he was concerned about referring to 
a section in the Student Code that next year may cease to exist; he 
suggested that the pertinent sections be incorporated in the Faculty 

Prof. Tepker said he wondered whether faculty think they should 
have the right to drop students.  Prof. Laird remarked that there is a 
distinction between disciplinary misconduct and academic 
misconduct.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that was correct.  If a 
faculty member chooses a course that determines whether a student 
gets a grade or not, that could come under academic misconduct as 
well as disciplinary misconduct.  Prof. Laird asked about repetitive 
disruptions.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said that would go through the 
formal procedures in the Student Code.  Prof. Tepker said there is a 
provision for special administrative approval for suspension.  Prof. 
Gilje said this language does not really tell the faculty what they 
should do.  That should be spelled out.  In the case of academic 
misconduct, faculty should not talk to the student or accuse a 
student of cheating because that would violate their rights.  Student 
Support Services is supposed to notify the student of the charges.  
Prof. Genova said faculty can talk to the student, but 
communications should be in writing.  Prof. Tepker pointed out 
that due process must be followed when taking disciplinary action 
against an individual.  The University has added some additional 
procedures and safeguards.  Prof. Weaver-Meyers said the 
Executive Committee will do more work on this.  

Prof. Sipes said there is a problem with referring to another 
document.  On the other hand, if the Student Code changes, would 
those changes be incorporated in the Faculty Handbook?  Prof. 
Tepker commented that Title 13.1.2 of the Student Code, which 
says, "The Vice President for Student Affairs and other appropriate 
persons in authority may take immediate administrative or 
disciplinary action which is deemed necessary for the welfare or 
safety of the university community," is a tough standard.  Due 
process includes a hearing within 15 days.  Title 16.2 defines 
intentional disruption or obstruction of teaching as misconduct.  
Prof. Weaver-Meyers explained that faculty are considered 
"persons in authority."


The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.  The next regular session of 
the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, March 18, 1996, 
in Adams Hall 255.

	Sonya Fallgatter					Connie 
	Administrative Coordinator			

Norman Campus Faculty Senate
Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789   FAX: 325-6782

2/96 (Page  )

2/96 (Page  )