Faculty Senate Meeting September 13, 2001

The minutes of the June 7, 2001 meeting were approved.

Remarks from the Chair of the Faculty Senate, Robert Faaborg: Welcome to the first meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year, 2001-2002.

First, a couple of announcements:

Senate meetings this quarter will be in the Boom Boom Room in Dabney Hall.

The first of two All-University Faculty meetings will be Wednesday, Oct. 17 at 3:30-5:00 in Swift Hall, Room 510. Note: there is no faculty forum scheduled along with this meeting. at the present time, there are no plans for either faculty forums nor a retreat.

Please note that the FS website is at facultysenate.uc.edu or can be accessed from the UC website by going to faculty/staff and then governance. This provides minutes and meeting times and locations and other information.

Second, I'd like to once again thank those who served as standing chairs last year who are not continuing during the coming year:

Billi Johnson who was the previous secretary of the faculty senate.
Ron Huston who served as Vice Chair.
Emel Yakali who was chair of Budget and Priorities.
Virginia Paar who served as chair of Human Relations.
And John Cuppolleti and Jeff Gordon who served on the senate cabinet.

Third, I need to ask the Senate for the following confirmations:

First, I need a motion to confirm the following appointees to chair our standing committees:

Academic Affairs: Bert Heuther, Biology, A&S
Budget and Priorities: Larry Gilligan, Mathematics, CAS
Committee on Committees: Rita Taylor, Business, RWC--Continuing as chair.
Human Relations: Michael Ma, Physics, A&S
Information Technology: Karen Monzel, Design, DAAP
Planning: Rick Karp, Biology, A&S--Continuing as chair.

[All appointments were approved without dissent.]

Second, I need a motion for the appointment of Vice Chair: David Lee Smith,
Architecture, DAAP.

[The senate confirmed David Lee Smith's appointment as Vice Chair without dissent.]

Finally, I now appoint this year's Committee on Committees: All second-year senators are hereby appointed as members of the Committee on Committees.

After our reports and other agenda items, I hope we'll have ample time to discuss issues that the senate might consider this year.

First, I remind the Senate of two issues tabled from last June's meeting:

Part-time compensation

Consensual relationships between faculty and students.

(These will be removed from the table and reconsidered as soon as the relevant committees have had time to meet and reconsider issues raised by the senate at that meeting.)
Second, there are other continuing issues that we're bound to revisit:

Faculty Forums

The Teaching and Learning Center

The implementation and assessment of General Education including the structure of the General Education

Faculty Senate representation on planning committees in the Architect
and Planning Offices

Remarks from the President of the University, Joseph Steger. There were no remarks.

Remarks from Provost Anthony Perzigian:

The senators were presented with an Organizational chart of the West Campus Provost and the Provost's Office Priorities (through August 31, 2002).

The Provost was pleased and optimistic about the new leadership resulting from the appointment of Kettil Cedercreutz to head Professional practice and the successful Dean searches in A&S (Karen Gould) , DAAP (Judith Koroscik) and the University Libraries (Victoria Montavon). During the 2002 academic year searches will be conducted for Deans of CAS and Clermont College.

The Provost Office's list of priorities which describe how the office will be channeling its efforts over the next 12-15 months was highlighted.

Academic planning.
One focus will be upon a multi-faceted effort to engage public schools in joint programming. Hughes High School was identified as one Cincinnati Public School with whom such a partnership will be explored.
There is a task force on Distance Learning working on a mini-conference on 'best practices' within the various colleges.

The UC Collaboration for Student Success (the Aspen Initiative).
Efforts continue toward getting the colleges to work more collaboratively and cooperatively in terms of transfer and articulation issues and similar challenges. During the past year, four disciplinary teams (English, Math, Biology, and Psychology) worked together on these efforts and this year five teams (History, Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, and Sociology) will begin similar work.

The recent progress with Gen.Ed. also is contributing to the collaboration efforts.
Another area which will be explored relative to enhancing student success is the
collegiate structure and organizational system. A task force to work on structural design issues will be established in the near future.

General Education.
The committee has been successful over the past couple of years and we are now well into the implementation phase.

This year focus will be upon putting into place an assessment plan.

Pedagogy Initiatives
Wayne Hall is working on the development of the Teaching and Learning Center and will be consulting with the senate and developing an advisory committee to design the mission and structure of the center. The center will support all types of pedagogy and not be limited to the use of (computer)technology.

The provost is looking forward to working with the senate again this year and is hoping for a banner year.

In response to questions from the senators, the Provost had these additional comments:

The senate will have a visit from Wayne Hall early in the academic year to discuss the Teaching and Learning Center.

Summer school will be part of the charge of the group looking at the organization and coordination of the colleges.

The situation with room availability needs to be addressed.

The part time faculty are instrumental to the delivery of instruction at UC and although it is not listed as a main area in the Provost's re-organizational scheme, it is a high priority in the job descriptions of several individuals in the Provost's office. In particular, it is one of the key responsibilities of Karen Faaborg, Vice Provost for Faculty and Administrative Services. There are plans to revive the part-time faculty advisory group to the Provost's office. Further, the plans for the Teaching and Learning Center will be a resource for part-time faculty as well as full-time faculty. Deans in Colleges that make heavy dependance upon part-time faculty will be required to identify in there goals, the conditions, the support systems, etcetera for the part time faculty.

The Faculty Senate will have representation on the advisory committee, chaired by Kristi Nelson, that will look at the structure and coordination of the colleges.

We are in the midst of revising Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure documents University-wide. There is opportunity for colleges to include activities related to the Provost's list of priorities as items to consider relative to reappointment, promotion, and tenure. Further, the annual performance reviews need to be looked at so that they more clearly identify where people are making progress and where there is room for improvement.

The faculty chair reiterated that the faculty senate has the right contractually to elect at least one member to University wide committees involving planning, thus the Teaching and Learning Center planning committee will need at least one elected representative.

Remarks from the President of the AAUP, Joe Fisher:

The contract expired as of midnight, August 31, 2001 which was also the last day that any negotiating took place.

Negotiations are 'bogged down'. Efforts have been made by the AAUP to try to get the administration's team to consider the faculty's non-economic issues (shared governance, grievance policies, equity), but they want to focus upon the economic issues. The AAUP team continues to refuse to address economic issues before the non-economic issues so that the non-economic issues do not get lost.

The AAUP is waiting for the faculty to return so that these issues can be discussed with the faculty. There is a meeting scheduled for Monday, Sept. 24, at 4:00 p.m. in Lindner 112 to discuss issues and what is happening with negotiations. The strike team will be passing out leaflets to students as they return to classes. A copy of the leaflet is on the AAUP's website (aaupuc.org). Other AAUP information can also be accessed via the website.

Remarks from the Student Government Representative. There were no remarks.

Update on the Quality Service Initiative by Jim Tucker, Assoc. Vice-President

This initiative came out of the Student Satisfaction survey results. Most of the concerns that came out of this survey were in the Administrative areas. The faculty items turned out well. Over the summer months a group was formed to discuss how we can improve the services we provide to each other and to the community.

Four handouts were given out describing aspects of the initiative.

Four committees (people, process, place, and strategies) have been formed. If there is interest by anyone in serving on one of these committees, please call Jim Tucker at 6-4731.

There are two advisors, Jim Evans from the College of Business and Zondra Keally from Arts and Sciences advising on the organization and direction of the project.

A survey was sent to faculty over the summer over issues that were on the student survey. A summary encompassing best practices and current barriers to the institution relative to quality service was included. Fifteen critical issues are being tracked and discussions are being held on how to improve in these areas.

Of course, one area of continuing concern involves parking.

Housing was one of the areas addressed and some renovations have been completed since the survey was taken. Students indicate improvements in both housing and food in less than a year.

One big effort toward quality improvement involved training of the administrative staff. All full-time, non-academic employees were invited to training. For some the training was mandatory. The presenters of the program received high marks, averaging 4.6 on a 5 point scale. The programs on the West Campus will be completed tomorrow. The medical center which used an outside consultant, ProMark, got started a bit later will continue their training for a couple of weeks. The training involved approximately 3,800 employees and about 87% of those identified as possible participants actually attended. The training was an 8 hour program on providing service and, for managers, how to coach your employees in providing quality services. Additional training that was provided covered such topics as phone etiquette and managing stress.

Student health waivers was an issue also addressed over the summer so that students will not be canceled out of classes due to glitches with the health waivers.

Helping hands, faculty and staff volunteers, will be helping students move into their on-campus rooms.

Ask Me buttons will identify individuals who have volunteered to help new students find their way around campus and to answer questions.

Temporary signs will be in place to help students find their way around campus and to identify buildings that have other identities.

There will be Welcome signs at each of the six main entrances to campus.

Efforts are being made to make UC a friendlier place for all of us.

Planet Feedback is the main effort to monitor quality in 17 major categories by providing a website (www.feedback.uc.edu) where individuals may give or read feedback about UC. There are also surveys provided on this website.

The following remarks addressed comments and questions from the senate:

Parking is, of course, one of the categories being tracked through Planet Feedback.

Faculty were not involved in this specific training because it was not really designed for them, however similar training could be provided to faculty if there is interest.

The faculty chair complimented the work on the Quality Service Initiative and encouraged all to make efforts to make UC a friendlier place to be.

It was suggested that perhaps the senate could go through the training to observe and evaluate it and its usefulness for faculty.

Report and Discussion of Strategic Enrollment Management by Stan Henderson, Assoc. Vice-President:

Update on enrollment:
As of Sept. 13 a.m., Freshman registrations were 3.1 % ahead of last year. It is possible that the actual Freshman numbers will be between 150-200 ahead of the 5,000 freshman we had last year.

Actual enrollments for the total University indicate that we are 2/10 of 1% ahead of last year same day.
Up .7% in graduate
Down 3.7% in professional
Up .3% in undergraduate
Clifton campus enrollments are down slightly, but should be close to even next week. Raymond Walters and Clermont College are both up.

Other Ohio Colleges and Universities compared to their (main campus) enrollments last year:
Kent Stateeven
Miamieven
Toledoeven
OUup 3.5%
Bowling Greenup approximately 150 freshman
Ohio Stateeven
Last year we were up 9% which was the largest enrollment of Freshmen ever. We should be up approximately 3% above that this year.

Strategic Enrollment Management(SEM)
A committee of eight was charged with the task of reviewing the SEM process and procedures. This committee prepared a self-study which is part of an on-going evaluation process and now wants some input and feedback from faculty relative to this study.

The self study was envisioned to be somewhat like an accreditation self-study, but is not to be viewed as the entirety of the review of the SEM. It is one of three parts of the review. It is the part that has been completed. We are now in the second phase which is 'seeking input'. We are looking for general perceptions, comments and other input about SEM at the University. All of the input will be used by the review group for analysis and a set of recommendations about SEM that will go back to the SEM steering committee which is comprised of several of the President's cabinet members and others including Bob Faaborg as the Senate representative. In addition to input given at today's meeting, faculty are encouraged to contribute ideas and feedback to the members of the SEM review committee.

Questions/comments from the senate and in response to the senate:

The emphasis on different units to meet their enrollment quotas may create a situation where colleges compete too aggressively against one another for the same students. There should be more of a cooperative/collaborative atmosphere.

Some of the incentives may result in education becoming a popularity contest. The number of students signing up for a given professor's courses (popularity) does not necessarily correlate with how good of a teacher that professor is (quality).

Are there any real data on the effects of the construction upon the students? None as yet.

Are there data on how successful the Cincinnatus competition has been on
attracting top students? 59% of those who competed this year have enrolled. Approximately 87% of the Cincinnatus group has returned for its Sophomore year. Surveys indicate that between 30-40 % of those who did come to UC would not have come without the scholarship support. Previous to the Cincinnatus scholarship program, the University was enrolling only about 42% of those who would have been eligible for the scholarship competition.

Web registration has affected registrations. #0% more students are getting in on the Web registration than last year.

Students can get all of their registration information at www.onestop.uc.edu .

The goals for enrollment change from year to year from college to college, but should remain approximately even for the Clifton campus as a whole. 29,000 enrollment total (22,000 undergrad, 6,000 grad, 1,000 professional) for the Clifton campus should allow for financial stability. Targets are set individually for each of the colleges.

Are there data on the reasons why students do not return for their Sophomore yr.? National and UC data suggest that students leave primarily because of finances, lack of focus, and personal problems. In A&S, two-thirds of those who did not return were undecided majors, pre- majors, or those in transition. Focus has been placed upon these students to improve retention.

Does the effort to develop consistent dates for admissions include the concept of rolling admissions? Colleges submit proposed changes to the admissions office for the coming year. Colleges have had various admission cut offs and one of the things the SEM group looked at was having one consistent date for the University. The University has moved to having one uniform deadline, however, in some cases colleges may have a slightly different approach.

There is a real need to connect the transfer students with good academic advising during the early stages of their transfer (from one college to another).

Are there programs targeted for colleges that are having difficulties with enrollments? For some colleges efforts will be made for selected out-of-state recruitment. Help will be given to those colleges to help them market themselves. E-mail can be used more extensively to assist with enrollments. SEM is interested in cooperation and collaboration.

Elections:

Elections were held with the following results (tabulated after the Senate meeting):

Faculty Senate Standing Committees:

Academic Affairs: 2 year term, 3 to be elected

K Driscoll (Nursing), L Plevyak (Educ), E Yakali (RWC)
Budget and Prioities: 2 yr term, 3 to be elected
L Davis (RWC), H Elzarka (CAS), D Langmeyer (A&S)
Planning: 2 year term, 2 to be elected
D Langmeyer (A&S), R Franklin (Library)
Human Relations: 2 year term, 3 to be elected
C Christianson (CAHS), B Dietz (Clermont), K Driscoll (Nursing)
Information Technology: 2 year term, 2 to be elected at large
S Boyce (CAHS). L Davis (RWC)
University Student Appeals Committee: 1Year term, pool of 8 to be elected
Postponed until October meeting

Reports of Standing Committees. There were none

Unfinished Business. None was discussed

New Business

Discussion was held regarding having student photographs on the class rosters. If this idea is put into place, anyone teaching a class and thus receiving a class roster would have access to these pictures. (The pictures come from the student i.d. cards.) Presently there is no way that students can opt out from having their picture contained on the roster. Although several senators felt there would be benefit in having the pictures in order to get to know the students better and to correctly identify students when taking exams, etc., great concern was expressed over the potential problems that would arise from access to the rosters. Two concerns included privacy issues and the increased possibility of identity theft.

Relative to this issue, the following motion was offered and passed: ³The faculty senate recommends that no action be taken on putting pictures on class lists until the student senate has voiced its concerns or endorsement of that practice.²

Senators were asked to consider the list of possible issues for Discussion and planning for 2001-2002 for the next meeting.

Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned.