Oakland University Senate

20 March 2008
Minutes

Members present: Andersen, Berven (D), Berven (K), Bhargava, Brown, Condic, Connery, Debnath, Doane, Dulio, Dvir, Frick, Goslin, Graetz, Hawley, Ingram, Khattree, Larrabee, Lee, LeMarbe, Machmut-Jhashi, Mittelstaedt, Mitton, Moore, Moudgil, Murphy, Nixon, Pelfrey, Penprase, Polis, Preisinger, Rammel, Russell, Sangeorzan, Severson, Shablin, Spagnuolo, Sudol, Thompson, Voelck, Wharton, Williams, Wood

Members absent: Eberly-Lewis, Giblin, Halpin, Hightower, Kissock, Lilliston, Lombardo, Moran, Otto, Rigstad, Spedoske, Tanniru, Townsend, Zou

Calling the meeting to order at 3:15, Mr. Moudgil invited Ms. Rowe to update the senate on the status of the OU email systems. Ms. Rowe thanked those in the room for patience with the difficulties with email this semester, and noted an upcoming transition involving student accounts moving to Google. The target is April 2. Students will see vastly improved speed, storage, and tools on the new system. Faculty and staff with existing accounts will remain on the system for the time being. Because students generate about 60-70% of the email, much greater capacity will result. Ms. Rowe remarked that this is not the end of the process; expanding with the existing platform is not a viable option. Google would certainly provide more space, currently providing 6.5 gigs of space, and growing. Mr. Polis asked whether increasing the size of faculty accounts is possible in the interim. Ms. Rowe suggested that some additional space may be possible once all the student accounts are purged, but it will not approach what Google offers. Mr. Polis then asked whether moving the student accounts would allow a return to the kind of system we had about a year ago. Ms. Rowe doesn't believe so and mentioned the increasing volume of spam as a cause. Mr. Moudgil inquired as to what other institutions are experiencing. According to Ms. Rowe, CMU, EMU, Notre Dame, and Arizona State are in the same process. Mr. Russell asked about advertisements on existing vs. new student accounts. Ms. Rowe noted that new students will not receive advertisements from the time they are admitted and register, and for a full year after they stop attending OU. She added that this was a concern raised by the Academic Computing Committee, and that it was favorably negotiated.

Mr. Moudgil thanked Ms. Rowe for the update and requested that the campus be informed of any further developments. He then turned to an update on the Medical School and the dean search. Three candidates visited the campus, gave public lectures, as well as met with a wide constituency at the university. It was a thorough and organized process. Mr. Moudgil thanked Ms. Lee for compiling evaluation data from the visits. It is likely that two candidates will be invited back to campus for another visit. Mr. Moudgil and Mr. Russi will be meeting soon with Beaumont representatives. Mr. Moudgil noted that a founding dean occupies a special role that requires a particular vision for the creation of things that do not already exist. As for budgetary matters, Mr. Moudgil noted that a massive campaign has been launched in addition to an anonymous donation of four million dollars. Two solicitations are in progress, and if only one comes to fruition, it would be enough for the new school. All expenses related to the SOM are separately recorded so that no general fund money is used, and this includes the salary for the new dean. Faculty who are active in the medical school, for example, will be paid by medical school funds. As to the governance structure, two models are being discussed. The first is a privately funded separate entity; in this scenario, state approval is required to grant diplomas and a state-wide review board must be involved (a board consisting of other medical schools in the state). The second model entails creating another school on campus whose dean will be part of the OU Dean's Council. Expenditures will still come from the school's own fund, and no state approval is required as OU is already able to grant degrees and programs. Both models pose challenges. LCME accreditation is another key component that is being actively worked on. Subcommittees are currently preparing a database of information including courses, numbers of faculty and students, student facilities and so forth, that should be put together by the end of March. In April the database will be converted into a narrative that will be used by consultants (a group comprised of former deans of medical schools). A site visit is targeted for October, and if all is positive, conditional approval will be granted for an entering class in 2010. If that deadline is missed, a visit would occur in February 2009, which would still allow recruitment in fall 2009. LCME is interested in a developed plan, and does not expect all to have been accomplished.

Ms. Jackson asked for clarification about the governance structure of the first model mentioned by Mr. Moudgil, and also asked about the academic experience of the dean candidates. Ms. Adams explained that all the candidates had experience in an academic environment, such as serving as chairs of departments in academic health centers. Ms. Adams added that the selection committee was sensitive to the competencies required for both environments at OU and Beaumont. Mr. Moudgil responded to the governance issue by explaining that either model would be subject to university governance. Mr. Polis inquired about the funding for the dean and whether it was coming from specific donations; Mr. Moudgil clarified that it is part of the four million dollars dedicated to the medical school. Mr. Khattree wondered whether we would share university services, such as IT. Mr. Moudgil replied that that question is still on the table, with Ms. Rowe and Ms. Cheal working on the subcommittee addressing those issues. He added that the expectations of students paying high tuition will be higher as well.

Mr. Debnath then presented an informational item from the General Education committee regarding the requirement that students take two intensive writing courses, one in general education and the other in their major. The General Education committee unanimously recommends that because of the limited number of intensive writing courses in general education and the lack of intensive writing courses in all majors, students should be allowed to take both IW courses in either general education or in their major. Thus, two IW courses will still be taken, but the option will give students more flexibility. Mr. Debnath added that the recommendation is consistent with the multiple requests it has received from the Professional Advisers Council. Mr. Moudgil voiced his endorsement for teaching effective writing in the curriculum, and Mr. Goslin added strong support for the recommendation and encouraged the GEC to consider wording in the catalog that suggests to students that at least one of the IW courses be in the major.

The secretary proceeded with the roll call.

One final information item was offered by Mr. Moudgil. He announced the appointment of Dean Mary Otto as the senior administrator of Macomb programs. With her strong history at Macomb, Ms. Otto's knowledge of the campus will allow her to effectively lead OU at Macomb university center. Mr. Moudgil noted the importance of OU's dominant presence there, citing the opportunity we have to support academic programs with a broad economic base. Mr. Polis asked about whether Ms. Otto has moved SEHS programs away from Macomb university center. Mr. Larrabee clarified that SEHS programs are taught at Macomb ISD, which is a separate issue.

Ms. Andersen motion to approve the January minutes, was seconded by Ms. Hawley and approved.

Turning to old business, Mr. Murphy made the following motion:

MOVED that the membership of the General Education Committee consist of the following:

Nine faculty members, one of whom shall be chair, and one student; ex officio and non-voting: the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, a representative from the Advising Steering Committee, the Registrar or designee, and the Director of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment or designee.

Mr. Debnath suggested an amendment to the title of Ms. Awbrey, which has now changed to Senior Associate Provost. Mr. Larrabee moved, Mr. Shablin seconded, and the amendment was approved. The senate voted to approve the motion.

Mr. Bhargava moved the second item of old business, and the senate voted to approve.

MOVED that a student who has completed an undergraduate degree at a regionally accredited institution (including Oakland University) is not required to complete Oakland University's general education requirements for the second bachelor's degree. A student who has completed a bachelor's degree (or equivalent) from an international university will have his or her transcript evaluated to determine what general education courses at OU will be required.

New Business

Mr. Polis moved the first item:

MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering.

With Mr. Doane's second, Mr. Das then presented an overview of the new program. He remarked upon the following: the focused nature of the ECE degree (vs. the umbrella Ph.D. in Systems Engineering); the recommendation of the Dean's strategic task force in 2003 to separate the doctoral degrees in each discipline; the popularity of the ECE doctoral degree in the USA and abroad; and the support for the program by 69% of students polled in 2006. Mr. Das outlined the goals of the program and compared the proposed program to other programs at five other public universities in the state of Michigan. He also noted that Michigan has one of the highest concentrations of engineers in the United States. Other aspects of the program were highlighted: a recruitment plan, needs and costs of the program, enrollment data for Ph.D. programs in mechanical engineering and systems engineering, and an assessment plan.

Mr. Moudgil wondered about graduate assistantships and whether doctoral students will enroll and pay tuition without an assistantship. Mr. Das replied that many students are employed by local industries (that fund their studies) so that the assistantship is not a crucial factor. Ms. Moore asked whether Graduate Council has approved the program (which it has) and also whether students are provided guidance in selecting courses as it appears unclear in the proposal, and suggested that catalog copy be included. Mr. Berven asked how many students would be eligible for TA positions. Mr. Das commented that only full-time students are eligible for TA positions, and then Mr. Frick observed that between 60-70 grad assistants are employed at any one time, with approximately 16 allotted in the general fund.

The second item of new business was moved by Mr. Severson.

MOVED that the Senate recommend to the President and Board of Trustees approval of a new major in Japanese Language and Literature.

Mr. Nakao then presented the program highlights to the Senators. Beginning with the observation that the program fits the university 2010 and 2020 strategic plans, he summarized the steady growth in enrollments in Japanese over the past thirty years, reaching 290 students last year. Another key issue is the important role of Japan in the world, in Michigan (as a trade partner), and in Oakland county (industry).

Ms. Voelck indicated that the holdings in Kresge library are insufficient, and that UCUI had also mentioned that in their report. The University of Michigan library is nearby but UM does not lend to OU students, and also limits the number of free interlibrary loans per year, and charges a steep fee for additional material. She asserted that the proposed budget is 2500 less than recommended. Mr. Moudgil suggested that the matter be resolved between the provost and the library dean so that the needs of the program are met. Ms. Berven went on record to say that the MLL department is very excited about the new major and is highly supportive. Mr. Moudgil added that the data supplied by NSSE was highly complimentary to the Department of Modern Languages. Mr. Mitton suggested that contacts with businesses in the community could also be a significant resource to tap for library collections support. Mr. Nakao observed that he will explore this possibility, and Mr. Moudgil suggested that he work with the Development office.

The final item of new business was moved by Ms. Williams, and seconded by Ms. Andersen:

MOVED that the Senate support the continuation of Domestic Partner Benefits at Oakland University.

Mr. Larrabee presented a power point overview of the history of the Proposition 2, which is currently sitting with the Supreme Court. Currently OU has not taken any steps to respond to the issue, which will become important when faculty contracts expire. Faculty appear safe until 2009, but CTs, APs, and Administrators who have yearly or no contracts are vulnerable. The University of Michigan has taken a lead on this discussion, which has also been taken up with institutions around the state. Ms. Cunningham remarked that Diversity and Compliance at OU is in full support of the resolution

Mr. Russell moved to waive the second reading of the resolution, duly seconded by Ms. Wood, and was approved. The senate then voted to approve support for the resolution. Mr. Moudgil announced that he would forward the resolution to the President.

A motion to adjourn was met with general approval, and the meeting concluded.

Respectfully submitted,
Tamara Machmut-Jhashi
Secretary to the University Senate