Oakland University Senate
Thursday, December 11, 1980
Third Meeting
128-130 Oakland Center
MINUTES
Senators Present: Arnold, Berger, Bertocci, Bieryla, Boulos, Butterworth, Chipman, Christina, J. Eberwein, R. Eberwein, Edgerton, Felton, Fullmer, Gardiner, Hetenyi, Hirschfeld-Medalia, Hitchingham, Karasch, Ketchum, Kingstrom, Kleckner, Lentz, Liboff, Matthews, Miller, Mourant, Obear, Pine, Scherer, Schmidt, Shantz, Shepherd, Somerville, Strauss, Wilson.
Senators Absent: Beardman, Brown, Burke, Caligiuri, Cameron, Evarts, Feeman, Garcia, Gerulaitis, Ghausi, Griffith, Hammerle, Heubel, Horwitz, Jaymes, Johnson, Jones, McMahan, Mittra, Moeller, Otto, Pak, Pettengill, Pierson, Riley, Stevens, Tower.
Interim President George T. Matthews called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m., noting that the -Senate may anticipate a new presiding officer within a few months when Mr. Champagne occupies the oblong office. Mr. Matthews observed, however, that we must plan for "Champagne on a beer purse" in the light of actual and anticipated budget difficulties. The general outlines of the 1980-81 budget are now clear, despite changing figures over the months from Lansing. Having planned for a "zero-increase" allocation, Oakland University has been able to cope with a total decline of about 6.1% from last year's budget and an approximate two million dollar unavoidable increase in expenses by raising money through tuition increases and cutting expenses. Most position losses this year have been handled through attrition. While relieved at having survived this crisis in relatively good form, we must prepare for more drastic cuts in the 1981-82 budget, the prognosis for which is decidedly grim. An additional tuition raise seems unavoidable; the problem is to keep educational quality in some kind of equity with its cost. The University will respond to the State's failure to compensate us adequately for enrollment growth in recent years by budgeting for no projected increase in FYES for next year- a break with tradition but not actually an enrollment freeze. We shall have to work hard to maintain current enrollments of approximately 9700 FYES.
Questions directed to the President concentrated on budget information. Mr. Bertocci, inquiring how much less money the University actually received this year than last, learned that we have experienced a cumulative decline of about $1,200,000. Mr. Shantz wondered whether our problems result solely from economic trends in the State. He suspects a general decline in commitment to higher education among Michigan citizens and their representatives. Mr. Matthews agreed that other priorities seem to have loomed larger than higher education in the past decade; it will be necessary to build political support for the state universities. Mr. Liboff wondered what future strategies Oakland University might pursue to improve its standing in FYES dollar support among Michigan public universities, some of which receive proportionately more support despite enrollment declines. Mr. Matthews pointed out that it is harder for an institution to fight its way up than to hold on to previous advantages; Oakland University is still making a place for itself.
The minutes of the October 9, 1980, University Senate meeting were approved without discussion (Moved, Mr. Hetenyi; Seconded, Mr. Arnold).
A. Old Business:
1. The following motion from the Admissions Committee (Moved, Mr. Strauss; Seconded, Mr. Jones) was approved unanimously without further discussion:
MOVED that the membership specifications for the Admissions Committee be amended to add one (1) representative of the Alumni Association.
B. New Business:
1. Motion from the Teaching and Learning Committee (Moved, Mr. Miller; Seconded, Mr. Bertocci).
MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President and the Board the formation of a Teaching Consultant position at Oakland University to help faculty members resolve teaching problems and develop or diversify their instructional competence. The Consultant shall:
a. Provide assistance to any faculty member at that person's request: consulting, observing, and making recommendations to help the faculty member resolve instructional problems in the context of the instructor's teaching goals. At no time shall the Consultant impose counsel on anyone;
b. Maintain scrupulous confidentiality and completely separate his/her office from reappointment, tenure, and promotion review evaluations;
c. Report annually to the Senate on his/her activities, indicating the number of faculty members consulted but not identifying specific persons or departments;
d. Be a tenured member of the faculty, serving 1/2 or 2/3 time as Consultant but continuing to teach each semester of a three-year consultancy appointment; and
e. Be appointed by the Provost upon nomination by the Teaching and Learning Committee, which will poll the faculty for recommendations before identifying and interviewing candidates.
Mr. Miller reported that details of the consultantship proposal were developed by a subcommittee of Teaching and Learning without knowledge of such arrangements elsewhere. A recent article in the AAHE Bulletin, however, called attention to a remarkably similar program which has been operating successfully at Earlham College for six years. About two-thirds of that faculty have availed themselves of the consultant's services. Ms. Berger asked for further information about Earlham College to establish whether experiences there would be likely to parallel developments here. Mr. Miller agreed that a small, private, liberal arts college would vary considerably from Oakland. Mr. Mourant wondered whether the people who used such services at Earlham actually became better teachers. Mr. Edgerton supposed that two-thirds of the faculty working with the consultant demonstrated success, though Mr. Christina felt that anonymous visits would be hard to tabulate or evaluate.
Another alternative teaching-development system recently explored by the Teaching and Learning Committee is the committee-based developmental program now being established in the School of Human and Educational Services. Ms. Felton urged Mr. Miller's committee to explore the SHES program for teaching improvement and report back on it to the Senate. Both Mr. Miller and Mr. Pine indicated that the Teaching and Learning Committee is in touch with this experiment; they saw merit in trying out several alternative models on campus to encourage dialogue on good teaching and call attention to its importance. Mr. Chipman asked if a study had yet been conducted to find out how teaching problems are now being handled here on a collegial basis.
Mr. Miller expanded on item d. of the motion, observing that the Consultant would continue departmental teaching while serving 1/2 or 2/3 time in this University service. Several questions indicated discomfort with the idea of taking a good teacher from the classroom for so large a proportion of time over a three-year period. Small departments, in particular, and those with highly specialized teaching loads would suffer from having a member assume such duties. Mr. Bertocci wondered whether a lesser time commitment would be possible or whether several people might share such responsibilities simply on a University-service basis, without giving up courses. Mr. Miller thought it would be difficult to persuade several people at once to undertake such burdens, although the SHES program works on this basis. Mr. Obear explored another aspect of Mr. Bertocci's and Mr. Liboff's concerns by suggesting that the Teaching and Learning Committee consult with a candidate's department chair or dean before offering anyone the Consultant position.
Ms. Lentz asked whether the Consultant's annual report to the Senate would indicate the kinds of help requested and given as well as the number of people served. Mr. Miller thought the report should be made as informative as possible without violating confidentiality. Noting that three years is a long time, Ms. Scherer suggested a one-year experiment with the Faculty Consultant role as described in the proposal. Mr. Miller concluded discussion by volunteering to share the full subcommittee report with all interested persons before the motion comes up for its second reading and vote.
2. Motion from the Teaching and Learning Committee (Moved, Mr. Miller Seconded, Mr. Bertocci).
MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President the establishment of an annual Award for Teaching Excellence to recognize outstanding teaching at Oakland University. The recipient shall be nominated by a group specially appointed by the Teaching and Learning Committee, shall be honored by the President at University commencement exercises, and shall receive a financial award when funds are available.
Mr. Miller reviewed the history of this proposal, observing that the subcommittee which planned the Teaching Award obviated the problem of funding a $1,000 cash prize by freeing the Senate resolution from specific financial commitments. In response to Mr. 'Bertocci's inquiry about the nomination process, he indicated that a set of procedural rules has been formulated to guide a special awards subcommittee of Teaching and Learning in selecting the honoree. The subcommittee would have members from various University groups, not only faculty.
C. Good and Welfare: Private Resolutions
There were no private resolutions offered for the good of the order. Mr. Wilson inquired whether a resolution welcoming our new President would be in order; Mr. Matthews anticipates such action in due time.
D. Information Items:
The President reassured the Senate that he is, indeed, considering appointing the committee described in the agenda.
Upon motion by Mr. Hetenyi, seconded by Mr. Ketchum the meeting was adjourned at 4:21 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Jane D. Eberwein
Secretary to the University Senate