The
Regular session – October 10, 2005 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site:
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The Faculty Senate was called
to order by Professor Roy Knapp, Chair.
PRESENT: Albert,
Apanasov, Badhwar, Benson, Biggerstaff, Blank, Bradford, Brown, Burns, Catlin,
Cintrón, Civan, Croft, Dewers, Draheim, Fast, Fincke, Forman, Franklin, Frech, Gade,
Geletzke, Gutierrez, Hawamdeh, Hobbs, Houser, C. Knapp, R. Knapp, Kolar, Lai,
Lewis, Liu, Magnusson, Marcus-Mendoza, Megginson, Pace, Ransom, Roche, Rugeley,
Prof. Scamehorn, Schwarzkopf, Sharp, Skeeters, Tabb, Trytten, Wei, Wood,
Wyckoff
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Hough
UOSA representatives: Bottoms
ABSENT: Cramer,
Dohrmann, Elisens, Raadschelders, Warnken
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
2005-06 Campus Departmental Review Panel
Faculty development award
Senate Chair's Report:
Search committee,
Benefits enrollment
Faculty deaths
Election, councils/committees/boards
Network policy
Resolution, undergraduate chemistry classes
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of September 12, 2005 was approved.
The following faculty will
serve on the 2005-06 Campus Departmental Review Panel: Fran Ayres (Accounting), Gail Hall (Music),
Mary John O’Hair (Educational Leadership & Policy Studies), Richard
Marshment (Regional & City Planning), and Deborah Trytten (Computer Science). The panel will also include Associate Dean
Debbie Rogers (Education), Associate Dean May Yuan (Geosciences), and
The Faculty Senate sent out
the call for proposals for the Faculty Development Award on September 27. Proposals are due to the Faculty Senate
office on October 31. Up to $2500 is
awarded. Further information is
available at http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/facdev.htm.
The Senate Executive Committee
nominated two faculty members for the at-large position on the
The office of Human Resources
has announced that annual benefits enrollment will be October 24 through
November 11. This is the time to change
plans, add or drop dependents or purchase other optional or supplemental
coverage. If you cover dependents,
please review the rates in the Benefits Guide, even if you are not making any
changes. You will be able to buy
additional life insurance up to a higher limit without medical qualifying. You have an additional two months to spend
your Health Care reimbursement account.
A list of enrollment assistance sessions and other information is
available at www.ou.edu/ohr.
The following faculty members
have died since the May Senate meeting. Prof.
Knapp said it was important to acknowledge their passing because we have
inherited their heritage. He noted that
the Iversons were important to international students, and Prof. Menzie taught
here 46 years.
Donald
Woolf, Public Administration, 6/28
Lloyd
Iverson, Mathematics, 6/29
Don
Menzie, Petroleum & Geological Engineering, 8/09
Norman
Crockett, History, 8/15
Dennis
O’Brien, Energy Economics & Policy, 9/20
James
Abbott, Modern Languages, Literatures & Linguistics, 9/21
The Senate approved the following
Committee on Committees’ nominations to fill vacancies on university and campus
councils, committees and boards.
Campus
Disciplinary Council -- To complete
Christa Ward’s 2004-06 term: Susan
Caldwell (Art)
Campus Tenure
Committee -- To complete Gene
Enrico’s 2003-06 term: Paul Gilje
(History)
Conflict of
Interest Advisory Committee --
2005-07 term: Connie Van Fleet (Library
& Info. Studies)
Faculty
Appeals Board -- 3 positions, 2005-09
terms:
Alan Roche (Mathematics)
Jay Shorten (Univ. Libraries)
Ann West (Chemistry & Biochemistry)
Student Code
Revision Committee -- To complete Jay
Shorten’s 2005-07 term: Jeffrey Wilhite
(Univ. Libraries)
Last month, a network policy
proposed by Information Technology Council was presented to the senate (5/05
draft attached). The ITC had proposed a revised version (10/05
revision attached)
but then asked that it be withdrawn from consideration. Prof. Knapp said he presumed the ITC would
bring another network policy to the senate at a future meeting.
At
the September meeting, Prof. Scamehorn moved that the Faculty Senate approve the
following resolution concerning undergraduate chemistry classes.
To maintain the
To not increase the amount of
non-renewable fuels for transporting OU undergraduate students to chemistry
classes,
To allow the large number of
OU undergraduate students taking chemistry classes from many different
departments to be able to walk to or from their chemistry classes and other
classes within the current 10 minute interval,
To maintain OU as a superior
university for the highest caliber students seeking science and engineering
education,
The
OU Faculty Senate is in favor of all future OU undergraduate chemistry classes
continuing to be taught on OU’s main campus, and none of them being taught on
the south campus near the intersection of
Prof. Knapp explained that
Faculty Senate meetings are open. However,
according to the senate by-laws, guests may speak only by invitation or permission
of the senate. Requests to speak have to
be addressed in writing to the chair. The
Executive Committee granted permission to speak to Prof. Roger Harrison
(Chemical, Biological and Materials Engineering), Ms. Susan Kerr (Chemical
Engineering student), Prof. Glenn Dryhurst (Chemistry and Biochemistry Chair), Prof.
George Richter-Addo (Chemistry and Biochemistry), and Prof. Phil Klebba
(Chemistry and Biochemistry). A
transcript of the presentations by the guest speakers is available from the
senate office. The following documents
were distributed to the senators and are available from the senate office: notes from a 4/20/05 meeting with Vice
President Hathaway and parties impacted by the proposed chemistry building, a 6/14/05
letter to President Boren from 17 OU professors, a letter by two chemical
engineering professors in the 9/30/05 school newspaper, and a 10/5/05 memo from
the School of Meteorology concerning its upcoming move to south campus.
Prof. Scamehorn explained
that there are plans to build a new chemistry building near Highway 9,
approximately two miles south of the main campus. The purpose of the resolution was to
encourage undergraduate lecture and laboratory courses to remain on the main
campus within convenient walking distance from other classes. To move the courses to the south campus would
significantly reduce the quality of education for over 5000 students. The chemistry department deserves a new
building; however, the teaching functions should remain on the main campus.
Prof. Harrison said the
central question was whether the Faculty Senate should go on record as
supporting a walking campus. A move to
the south campus would affect more than 5000 students from many different departments
who need to take chemistry. The proposed
plan is to move research and undergraduate teaching labs. When more funds are available, it appears
likely that lecture halls would be added.
The building will occupy 250,000 square feet. The resolution’s authors strongly support the
renovation or rebuilding of chemistry labs so that the department can continue
to be productive and successful. The
main reason for the resolution is the impact the move would have on getting undergraduates
to and from the south campus. The
administration expects students to use the bus system. Many students interested in science and
engineering would choose another university where they can get to their classes
easily. The current ten minutes between
classes would have to be changed, and that would affect all students. Students would be discouraged from taking chemistry
electives because of the travel problems.
Space for a new building could be found on the main campus. The argument that green space would be lost
is not as important as the extra travel time, effort and frustration that
students would have to endure for years to come. A new building would not sacrifice the beauty
of the campus if the architecture was attractive and innovative. If a parking area was lost to a new building,
we could build two-story parking ramps, which would take up less real estate. It has been argued that building a 250,000
square foot building on the main campus would give no room for incremental
growth. That requirement could be met by
using the real estate on the main campus more efficiently, making parking less
land intensive, and moving administrative offices elsewhere. Prof. Harrison said, “The cost to
undergraduates in terms of time, effort, and added frustration is too high to
move chemistry instruction to the south campus, and there is the risk that this
will bring declining enrollments in science and engineering at OU.” He urged the senate to pass the resolution
and keep our campus a “walking campus.”
Prof. Fincke said she
understood that other science departments were making plans to move south
eventually. Building or expanding chemistry
locally would not solve the ongoing problem.
Prof. Harrison said he was told that there were no plans to move the
zoology department. A lot of service
lots and dilapidated buildings could be demolished to make way for academic
buildings. Prof. Forman asked whether any
of the affected departments had taken a stand.
Prof. Harrison said a letter signed by 17 faculty from 5 departments and
3 colleges was sent to President Boren. Prof.
Apanasov asked about the chemistry professors’ view on teaching classes on main
campus. Prof. Knapp pointed out that
members of the chemistry department would address that issue in a few
minutes. Prof. Scamehorn said there was
a tendency for the bigger campuses to build research parks at some distance
from the main campus so undergraduate education was not impacted. The resolution’s authors want to keep
undergraduate classes on the main campus.
The administration did not ask the opinion of any department other than
chemistry.
Ms. Susan Kerr, a senior, said
students were excited about the new chemistry building. The main concern is where the undergraduate classes
will be taught. Students in chemical engineering
and other disciplines take several chemistry courses. Those students are concerned that they will
have to go to Highway 9 to take courses and labs. It would take at least 15 minutes just to be
transported by bus, and that would increase the potential for students to be
tardy to class. She and several student
association leaders met with administrators last semester. They presented the concern that the student
body had not been consulted or even told about the move, the difficulty of
transporting 5000 students back and forth, the likelihood that the class
schedule would have to be adjusted, and the problem of moving professors away
from students. At that time, the students
were assured that undergraduate classes would not be moved. However, a recent letter showed that in the
phased plans, undergraduate classes eventually would be taught at the new site. Ms. Kerr encouraged the faculty to say undergraduate
classes would not be taught on the south campus. Transportation officials told her that
Prof. Schwarzkopf asked
whether student government had taken any official action. Ms. Kerr said several organizations—Pre-med Club,
American Chemistry Society, zoology students, engineering undergraduate
advisory board—are in support of keeping undergraduate classes on the main
campus. Student Congress is planning to
present a bill on the issue at an upcoming meeting. Prof. Biggerstaff asked whether Ms. Kerr had
talked to other students who are going to be moved to the south campus. Ms. Kerr said the meteorology students were
excited about the weather center but thought it would be harder to interact with
faculty. Not as many students take meteorology
as chemistry, so its move will not be as big an impact as a move by chemistry.
Prof. Dryhurst reported that the
Chemistry Department has 200-240 people.
The department ran out of research space three or four years ago. One consequence was the Stephenson Research and
Answering a question from the
floor, Prof. Dryhurst said he was against the resolution, and the chemistry faculty
had voted overwhelmingly in favor of the new building. Prof. Albert asked whether it would it be
fair to mention only lecture classes in the resolution. Prof. Apanasov inquired about the faculty’s
opinion of teaching on the main campus while having offices on the south
campus. Prof. Dryhurst said some faculty
members already do that. Prof. Apanasov said
professors in his department often teach in other buildings, but the distance is
not as great. Prof. Schwarzkopf wondered
whether there would be office space on the main campus as well as the south
campus. Prof. Dryhurst said the offices
would be on the south campus when the whole project is finished. Prof. Benson asked his view of changing the
resolution to read, “The OU Faculty Senate is in favor of all OU undergraduate
lecture chemistry classes being taught on the main campus.” Prof. Dryhurst said his personal opinion was
he would support such language. Prof. Burns
asked whether it would be much of a logistical problem to schedule the
three-hour labs 15 minutes earlier or later.
Prof. Dryhurst said that would not be a problem.
Prof. Richter-Addo,
coordinator of the new building project for the chemistry department, commented
that the chemistry department had grown from the 1916 building to the annex in 1951
and to part of the physical sciences center in 1971. In fall 2000 the department began looking at
safety and expansion issues. The
university hired external consultants to make a recommendation. During the master planning project, the
department sought input from researchers, staff, graduate students, those in
charge of teaching the labs, the physical plant, and the Chem/Math
library. The recommendation was for a
new free-standing building that would house all of the functions of the
department—research, labs, and administration. The department does not want to be scattered
like some departments are. Additionally,
the department wants to expose undergraduate students in laboratories to
research ongoing in research labs. The
recommendation was for a $77 million, 250,000 square foot building with modern
labs, where students could work on experiments in the same way they would in
industry. Classroom space is outside the
scope of the project and is controlled by the Provost office. Undergraduate lecture classes were never part
of the master plan. Chemistry would like
first-rate labs to improve the quality of education. Departmental representatives looked at a
number of other locations on the main campus.
Because of volatiles, the building is restricted to three or four
floors. For any floor above that, the
quantities of volatiles and flammables have to be reduced by 10-15 percent per
floor. Currently, the plan is for four
floors, with the fourth floor for the mechanical infrastructure. There is no space to accommodate such a large
building on the main campus. The south
campus would allow space for future expansion.
Prof. Schwarzkopf asked
whether any large lecture halls were planned in any stage of the master plan. Prof. Richter-Addo answered no, just a small seminar
room.
Prof. Klebba said he was
opposed to the resolution. While some of
the points are worthwhile goals, they are secondary to maintaining OU “as a
superior university for the highest caliber students seeking science and
engineering education.” If chemistry does not move to south campus, this goal
will not be met. The department cannot maintain
the current level of quality in lectures and labs, attract the highest caliber
students in the sciences, or remain competitive in government-supported
research without relocating. The
impracticality and cost of renovating the existing facility leaves only the
alternative of building a new facility on the main campus or south campus. It is counterproductive to conduct research
on the south campus while maintaining teaching labs on the main campus. If teaching labs are not in close proximity
to research labs, it will reduce graduate student (teaching assistant) accessibility
to teaching and research endeavors, eliminate the opportunity for shared
instrumentation, reduce the ability to conduct laboratory demonstrations in
lectures and labs, and decrease faculty supervision of teaching labs, which has
serious ramifications with regard to lab safety. Such a large facility cannot be accommodated
on the main campus. We are fortunate to
have a serene campus with large green spaces.
Large technologically advanced buildings and high rise parking
facilities contradict our existing architecture. The current main campus, designed over a
century ago, is encircled on three sides by residential and commercial
development. The only direction of
future development is to the south.
Significant new construction on the main campus would severely disrupt
the existing environment and possibly eliminate many historical building. Other universities have experienced growth similar
to what is planned for chemistry and have seen dramatic returns in terms of
increased indirect costs to the university from research. OU is fortunate to have a space that will allow
growth without sacrificing history and tradition. The south campus already is the location for
other facilities. The
Prof. Knapp opened the floor
to discussion of resolution. Prof. Sharp
said she was confused about the potential of lecture classes eventually moving
to south campus. At the meeting last
April, that was raised as a possibility.
Prof. Knapp said it was difficult to foresee what might happen a decade
from now. The intention of the current
chemistry chair is that large lecture classes would remain on the main
campus. A senator pointed out that the
location of undergraduate classes was the prerogative of the provost. Prof. Dryhurst said the department never had
any discussion about moving the large lectures to south campus. Provost Mergler said that was accurate. It is difficult to change the location of general
education classes without causing major disarray.
Prof. Albert commented that
Prof. Klebba had raised the issue of having lab demonstrations in lecture
classes. He inquired about the issue of
equipment. Prof. Klebba said his point
was about sharing instruments between labs.
Prof. Dryhurst added that undergraduates could take advantage of multi-million
dollar instruments. Prof. Burns said the
issue could be handled by Prof. Benson’s suggestion that teaching would be done
on the main campus to the extent possible.
Labs on south campus would require some scheduling and additional
time. A football field size building
that is three stories high, regardless of the architect, is not going to be a
great building. We, as a community, need
to figure out a way to deal with south campus and make it doable. Prof. Richter-Addo replied that chemistry
planned to work with classroom scheduling to tackle that problem and make sure
there is enough time for students to go from one class to another.
Prof. Schwarzkopf noted that
many other disciplines would need to expand over time, and these issues would
apply equally well to them. The
appropriate thing would be to expand the scope of the resolution. What is of interest to faculty is the
cultural expectation of this campus--what do we want this campus to be and how
do we want to try to keep it that way. We
should not try to solve the problem piecemeal.
We need to be a part of a long-term campus plan and have that discussion
now before we have five buildings on south campus. Prof. Hawamdeh said he thought the building was
not the issue. It is going to be built
anyhow. He brought up the point of classes
that do not require a student to travel.
Prof. Hobbs mentioned online courses.
Prof. Cintron said she thought the decision should be the prerogative of
the chemistry faculty. When she was a
faculty-in-residence in the Kraettli apartment area, she realized that there is
a big division between what happens on main campus and what happens at the
south side. Putting an academic building
in that area would create one community.
Prof. Frech remarked that all
units would grow in the future. In the
notes provided from meteorology, Prof. Biggerstaff said his school was grappling
with its upcoming move. The last
sentence says, “We encourage the faculty senate to pass a resolution that calls
on the administration to partner with faculty and students to develop a
comprehensive strategy to accommodate current and future growth.” To Prof Frech, that is the larger issue that
the senate and others ought to deal with.
If Prof. Scamehorn and the seconder would agree, an ad hoc committee
could try to draft a resolution that would take a much broader view of a
critical problem that we have to solve. Prof.
Hobbs said she liked that idea. She said
the decision about the chemistry building seemed to come from a democratic
process. However, it seems there is a
bigger issue, and a wider constituency should be involved in the longer range
planning. Prof. Marcus-Mendoza agreed
that there are larger issues. She
thought the senate should vote down the proposed resolution because it treads
on self governance and academic freedom.
It is beyond the scope of the senate to get involved in the day-to-day management
of a department. Many of the issues
raised could be handled creatively. A
resolution brought from one department to prevent another department from
scheduling classes is not something the Faculty Senate should entertain and is
not the best way to solve conflicts.
Prof. Biggerstaff noted that
chemistry has a tremendous impact on the logistics of the campus. Meteorology will start teaching classes on
south campus next fall, so the school has gone through a multi-year process of
planning how to do that and how to accommodate its neighbors. The meteorology chair is working with the
provost to arrange the course scheduling.
Provost Mergler noted that the general education introduction to meteorology
course would remain on the main campus. Prof.
Biggerstaff remarked that the faculty office hours for those courses would be
on the main campus. The students are
excited about working more closely with the research community. Seventy-five percent of the students are employed
in research businesses, so this will be a tremendously positive impact on their
education. Students are concerned about the
logistics, though. As more departments
expand, there is a need to visit the larger issue of transportation and perhaps
scheduling. Texas A&M, which has
46,000 students, extended the length of time between classes and managed to
make it work.
Prof. Schwarzkopf said he
would like to ask the senate chair to appoint an ad hoc committee to investigate
the further ramifications and work with both the departments and administration
to draft a more comprehensive re-statement that would consider the larger
issues. Prof. Benson said the Campus
Planning Council would normally do that, but it has been inactive.
Prof. Scamehorn said he, too,
was confused about the plans for future lecture halls in the new chemistry
building. Prof. Dryhurst has not heard
of such plans. Vice President for
Research Williams envisions research and teaching ultimately being combined in
a single facility. As more money is
raised, could the lecture classes be moved off the main campus? Prof. Fincke said she thought the resolution was
misleading, in that apparently only lab classes would be moved. Prof. Blank pointed out that the higher level
lecture classes had an intimate relationship with labs and needed to be where
the instrumentation was. Prof. Fincke’s call
for the question was approved on a voice vote.
The resolution was defeated on a voice vote.
Prof. Schwarzkopf moved to
refer the issue of on-campus instruction in departments that are not housed
here to a committee who will come forth with a senate resolution. Summarizing the motion, Prof. Knapp said the
committee would study what classes ought to be held in the center of campus. Prof. Burns said it should include
timing. Prof. Biggerstaff suggested that
the charge include accommodating future growth.
The motion was approved on a voice vote.
Prof. Knapp asked Professors Scamehorn, Biggerstaff, and
The meeting adjourned at 5:00
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
A. Steve Bradford, Secretary