Oakland University Senate
Third Meeting
November 13, 1997
Minutes
Members present: Andrews, Bertocci, Blume, Boddy, Brieger, Cronn, Dillon, Doane, Downing, Eberwein, Gilroy, Goslin, Grossman, Halsted, Haskell, Herold, Hildebrand, Jarski, Johnson, Keane, Landau, Liboff, Lombard, Long, Longan, Mabee, Miller, Moore, Mukherji, Olson, Otto, papazian, Patterson, Polis, Reynolds, Riley, Rush, Russi, R. Schwartz, Sen, Sieloff, Simon, Sudol, Wood
Members Absent: Alber, Barnett, Belanger, Benson, Berger, Blanks, Connellan, Frankie, Gardner, Hovanesian, Lilliston, Mahamwal, McNair, Moudgil, Rozek, H. Schwartz, Speer, Weng
Summary of actions:
1. Approval of the minutes of October 1997 (Eberwein, Brieger) Approved.
2. Committee reports
3. North Central Accreditation report (Ms. Papazian)
4. Charter Schools report (Ms. Melhado)
5. Motion to approve a Ph.D. degree in Education with tracks in Counseling, Early Childhood Education and Educational Leadership (Goslin, Downing) First reading
Dr. Cronn brought the third meeting of the Senate to order and summarized the various items that had previously been distributed and those which were being passed out at the meeting. She then called for a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Ms. Eberwein so moved, Mr. Brieger seconded and the minutes were approved as distributed. Directing the Senate’s attention to the summaries of Senate Committee reports that had been distributed, Dr. Cronn asked if there were any questions of the chairs. Hearing none, she expressed her thanks and complimented the committees for their hard work. She added that those items mentioned in the reports as needing further action would be looked at in the Provost’s office.
Ms. Papazian reported on the preparations for the 10 year accreditation review by North Central. We will be preparing a self study and to that end there have been three meetings of the Steering Committee and the establishment of various subcommittees that will be working on parts of the report during the winter term. The first draft of the report is scheduled to be completed by July and the final draft of the report will be completed in the fall and sent to North Central in November, prior to their site visit in 1999. The report will be geared to address the five criteria set by North Central and will also allow Oakland the opportunity to look at our progress in meeting the goals of the Strategic Plan. A series of General Institutional Requirements are being collected and additional information on institutional data will be obtained from the Office of Institutional Research. Ms. Papazian invited comment and feedback from the university community regarding the criteria and the evidence proposed to answer the criteria and she encouraged everyone to let her know their ideas and comments. North Central has been sent suggestions concerning the site visitors; Oakland is hoping for individuals experienced with our type of university. She encouraged everyone to contribute and added that we all can learn from the process.
Next on the agenda was a report on charter schools by Ms. Melhado. She distributed several pages containing information on the charter schools including the membership of the review committee, the process and policies related to chartering a school, some relevant legislative information and a list of the current and proposed schools. A recent state action involved an audit of CMU’s academies and she is expecting and preparing for a similar audit of Oakland’s charter schools. In addition to visiting each academy at least twice a month (she shows up unexpectedly and sits in on classes), she also attends every academy board meeting. She encouraged senators to call her for a copy of a more detailed report of the charter schools operations. In addition to the five schools already underway, there are a number of pending applications, one of which (Southgate) looks very promising. There was a question as to whether or not we would be chartering any additional schools. In 1996-7 there was a deficit of $31,000; that gap is closing and this year the deficit will probably be around $13,000. The revenue is based on the number of students; the university is allotted 3% of state aid funds per enrolled student. This year’s enrollment generated around $6000 or $180 per student for oversight purposes; however, it actually costs more than that to oversee the academies, she reported There is concern the state may increase the amount of oversight required and possibly lower the amount allocated to each school for oversight. Regarding the eight pending applications, she indicated that the Public School Academy Advisory and Review Committee is working to make sure that the Senate and its committees have enough time for adequate consideration of the application(s).
With no old business on the agenda, the Senate then turned to the first item of new business. Mr. Goslin moved and Mr. Downing seconded a motion to recommend to the President and the Board of Trustees the approval of a Ph.D. degree in Education with tracks in Counseling, Early Childhood Education and Educational Leadership. Mr. Goslin noted that the agenda inadvertently omitted the word Education from the Early Childhood Education track and added that the complete proposals are available for review in both the Provost’s office and the School of Education and Human Services. Mr. Keane, stating that he’d been involved in the development of the Educational Leadership track, explained that the framework proposal with three tracts has a number of advantages. It encourages collaboration between units and provides for economies of scale in that all students take a core of like courses. He highlighted the success of the School’s Ph.D. in reading and stated that those individuals involved in doctoral education have been very helpful in the development of these new programs. Expressing his gratitude to the Graduate Council, the Senate Committees and those who expedited the paperwork in getting this proposal to the floor of the Senate, he added that attempts have been made to address all the concerns raised by providing additional information. He also announced that two open meetings have been scheduled to allow for further discussion of the issues and concerns. These meetings will be Dec. 3d, 11:30-1:00 in the Meadowbrook Room,OC and Dec. 4th, 1:30-3:00 in 126 ODH.
Noting some of the concerns raised by the Senate Planning Review Committee, Ms. Eberwein wondered about the staffing implications and how the School will fill vacancies. It is an ambitious program that will require a heavy involvement by faculty in the School, she noted. The Graduate Council has recommended that hiring be done at a senior level and she expressed concern about personnel allocations and the impact that this would have on the University as a whole as well as its effect on existing courses. It doesn’t just involve teaching, she pointed out, it also involves service on dissertation committees and supervising graduate students and there is no evidence in the proposal as to how these will be addressed. Mr. Cramer explained that faculty take on the additional responsibilities of graduate study because of its importance to the profession, that most who supervise graduate study feel this way and that they do it for personal compensation rather than monetary considerations. As to the concern regarding hiring at the senior level and the effect this might have, he argued that it is reasonable to ask for additional resources when expanding a program. He also noted that when the university succeeds in producing more Ph.D.s, the institution should get additional monies from the state and he assumes that a fair share of that money will then be allocated to the unit.
Mr. Liboff expressed his support for the program and agreed with the need for graduate programs. He opined that Oakland is an institution with growing pains. When physics inaugurated a Ph.D. program, one assumption was that there would be recognition of those people involved in work with the doctoral students. However he felt that this institution has not come to grips with the fact that Ph.D. programs require different ways of thinking of student faculty ratios; with doctoral programs the student faculty ration is approximately 3-5students/1 faculty. He argued that departments with doctoral programs should be rewarded by having a larger number of faculty to cover both the undergraduate and graduate courses.
With no further discussion ensuing regarding the education proposal, Dr. Cronn indicated that it would proceed to second reading at the next meeting and opened the floor to any good and welfare items. In reply to Mr. Grossman’s query about new faculty positions, Dr. Cronn answered that they have authorized the continuation or reopening of last year’s searches and also all positions that have funding. They have yet to take up the question of new faculty positions. The Deans have formed a subcommittee that will be looking at requests for positions and will have a recommendation for the Provost early next year. She added that the source of funding for new positions often comes from turnover in faculty and the use of the salary differentials between senior faculty who’ve left and new hires. Ms. Eberwein expressed concern over a radio announcement that spoke of how Oakland was revamping its curriculum and bypassing the bureaucracy. She worried about the impression it gives that we are bypassing normal governance procedures and envisioning massive changes in our general education courses and asked for assurances that this is not part of a university plan. Dr. Cronn reassured the group that the institution wouldn’t bypass the established governance procedures and that any academic matters would be considered by the Senate. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Submitted by
Linda L. Hildebrand
Secretary to the University Senate