|
|
|
|
|
Current Newsletter: Winter 2009editor: Gordon Aubrecht, Physics Department
Note: The OSU/AAUPdate is reproducing abridged versions of two annual reports of Senate committees as a public service. Such reports are available, but seldom accessed. We hope that the 2008 Annual Report of the Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee and the 2008 Annual Report of the Faculty Hearing Committee will be informative of some of the issues facing the University and us, its faculty. We hope in the future to reprint excerpts from other reports of the Senate’s standing faculty committees, to inform the University community of the serious work of governance, and encourage your participation in the decisions. [Eds.] Professor Anthony Mughan of the Department of Political Science chaired the FCBC Committee in 2007-2008 and was the principal author of its report. This abridged FCBC presentation focuses on faculty salaries, rather than benefits. The full FCBC report can be accessed at http://senate.osu.edu/committees/FCBC/FCBC.html. On the proposed conversion to semesters OSU faculty have no doubt heard that the Chancellor of the University System of Ohio has called for public universities on the quarter system (Ohio State, Ohio University, University of Cincinnati, and Wright State) to convert to semester calendars comparable to those other Ohio institutions on the semester system. The four schools have coordinated somewhat, and all have said that conversion could occur in 2012 (or later, should the economic circumstances require that). An ad hoc committee chaired by Professor Tim Gerber has been appointed to review the question, and while OSU could in principle decide not to make the conversion and keep the quarter system, as a practical matter it is not likely that OSU would decide to do so. However, if OSU does convert, what does this mean for faculty: what tasks, burdens, costs and contingencies? Most faculty members have not thought about possible consequences. I would like to point out that there are matters that concern faculty beyond simple rewriting of syllabi. For example, many faculty members teach two five-credit courses per quarter. Is this equivalent to three three-credit courses per semester? As you know, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between teaching two courses or three courses simultaneously. The university could alternatively adopt a constant-course change, in which faculty would go from teaching two courses per quarter to two courses per semester, But then we’d be teaching four courses per year rather than, say, six. And we could be purging one-third of our course offerings from the schedule. Re-writing syllabi may be a larger task that we imagine. Which will prevail? Think about the matter from an actuary’s point of view. Say you need to offer 30 sections of English 110 per year. This would mean five full-time-equivalent faculty per year. If there is demand for 30 sections under quarters, there also will be under semesters. In the 2-to-3 course model, this would still involve five faculty equivalents. Under the 2-to-2 course model, it would take 7.5 faculty equivalents. The university would need to hire more faculty and so spend more money in the latter case. The actuary will surely choose the 2-to-3 model. What does this do to time faculty members spend on research? There are many other points of the conversion that should be of interest to faculty. We at AAUP are involved and want you to become involved in your own future. If faculty are interested in being heard on their preferences on this and the other matters affecting their teaching and research, they should discuss this among themselves, join AAUP, and/or send Tim Gerber (gerber.4@osu.edu) an email. Gordon Aubrecht, Physics / Marion Return me to the Table of Contents On First Amendment rights and Provost Alluto’s memo about political expression When Faculty Council chair Dick Gunther visited the AAUP Board meeting last fall, he noted that the Provost had released a memo about political speech that cleared up the faculty right to free political speech. He saw the memo as a good thing, as there were reports of local administrators suppressing such ordinary activities as voter registration efforts in their buildings. In that memo, the provost wrote in part: “A number of questions have been raised about participation in local, regional, and national policy debates. Our legal counsel has determined that we must make absolutely certain that we limit university involvement in partisan political activities. Events designed to provide bipartisan information, examine political issues from all perspectives, engage in policy debates with multiple perspectives involved, present debates involving multiple political party representatives, etc., are certainly appropriate for university sponsorship and organization. This is an exciting and important time in our political history, and it is wonderful to observe the level of interest that has been generated. We simply need to follow an approach that ensures the university will be seen as a base for impartial discourse.” Many faculty subsequently received memos or advice from their deans or chairs that interpreted the provost’s words differently from Prof. Gunther’s expectations. Faculty were told in some cases, for example, that it was inappropriate to park a car with a political sticker in a faculty parking lot, or that it was inappropriate to speak in classes because customers (i.e., students) could consider it a political rant, or that political First Amendment expression should not be allowed on a faculty member’s door, window, or wall. We presume that the Provost thought the memo was clear and supported free speech, but that some administrators thought otherwise and acted on their perceptions is instructive. In the aftermath of the election and because we have some time before the next one, it would be a good time to formulate a clearer policy that is sensible and respects faculty and student rights as we do for those of all Americans. First Amendment freedoms are more than merely supplying bipartisan information. Historically, the university was the pre-eminent site of free expression. Gordon Aubrecht, Physics / Marion Return me to the Table of Contents AAUP Informal Faculty Survey Ohio State has had a Merit system of Annual Review for well over 10 years now, and for most of those years, we at AAUP have either heard of or, in some cases, experienced, less than the best of what a meritocratic exercise should be. We would like to find out more of the faculty’s experience with merit salary awards. As a start, AAUP canvassed our members. (See our sidebar: “COLAs: An idea whose time has come, again?”) We would now like to canvass our readership, on the question of what experiences with merit salary awards you’ve had. We have printed our brief survey, below. To reply, just cut out the survey and campus mail to Gordon Aubrecht, OSU / AAUP chair, Room 1008, PRB, 191 West Woodruff Avenue. A strong response rate may lend some credence the outcome. All replies will be tabulated and reported in aggregate only. In the long run, a review of the merit system may be in order. 1. In your experience of the exercise of Annual Review and Merit Awards, how satisfied are you with the fairness of the review and its outcome as ones based on Merit alone? a. Very satisfied b. Somewhat satisfied c. Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied d. Somewhat dissatisfied e. Very dissatisfied 2. Have you had a negative experience with the Merit Salary award, that is, have you had the felt experience of being dealt with on grounds not based on Merit? Yes No 3. Have you heard similar reports among colleagues? Yes 4. How often do you heard such reports? Rarely 5. Additional comments 6. Rank [please check] Full 6. Years of University service: _____ Return me to the Table of Contents Contingent faculty matters Speculation continues to circulate that the majority of faculty hires in the future will be on the Clinical and Research tracks rather than on the tenure track. As Joe Berry and Elizabeth Hoffman observe in the November-December 2008 issue of Academe, AAUP’s national bulletin, “Contingent faculty are now the majority of higher education teachers, by a ratio of about three to one.” This is a national trend being replicated at OSU. In that same issue of Academe, the article “Nameless, New Haven, and Nicholls,” by Jordan E. Kurland recounts three recent AAUP cases involving contingent faculty. In this article, we read: “AAUP policies do not recognize full-time non-tenure-track appointments. With the exception of temporary appointments for a fixed term, the policies require all full-time appointments to be either with tenure or probationary for tenure. In each of the three cases, because the faculty member had been retained beyond the maximum seven-year probationary period, she (all three are female) had tenure under the policies.” For this reason, national AAUP intervened and argued for redress just as it would have for tenured faculty. Clearly, we at OSU / AAUP welcome all faculty members in the university community as members of AAUP. Part of the problem for contingent faculty in University governance is that their positions are beholden to the deans who appoint and renew them. Recall that if you are OSU Clinical or Research Faculty, you are appointed to a fixed–term contract for which there are no grounds or provisions for the appeal of a non-renewal decision by your Dean. Imagine what you would think if your state legislature, or city council, or local school board were organized that way. All faculty share professional goals and aspirations. But all faculty members do not bear this potential weight of administrative pressure, and suspicion of undue administrative influence in governance decisions. Such suspicion can undermine shared governance. On August 20, 2008, the College of Law became the first college to enact a new College Rule providing for the eligibility of clinical faculty members to stand as candidates as College Senator to the University Senate. Because the College of Law has only one University Senator, this vote means that its only Senator will not be a member of the tenured or tenure-track faculty if a clinical faculty member is selected as Senator. Clinical faculty will be permitted to vote for the College’s sole Senator position in the 2009 election. This can happen in other colleges as well. Gordon Aubrecht, Physics / Marion Return me to the Table of Contents OSU/AAUP Committee A Report, Activity Summary for Actions from 2006-June 2008 Committee A is charged with developing principles and standards of academic freedom, tenure, and due process; working for the acceptance of these principles in the higher education community; and approving reports of investigations into allegations of violations of academic freedom or due process. Committee A is a standing committee of every campus chapter of AAUP. OSU’s Committee A work has been especially important in recent years because the University has no equivalent. There has not been an office of dispute resolution for some years, although President Gee has expressed his commitment to an ombudsman. Committee A receives inquires from all faculty members, whether they are members of AAUP or not. Familiar issues brought to the Committee include disputed promotion and tenure reviews, sexual harassment, climate in the workplace, interference with academic freedom, and compensation were addressed. About a dozen faculty members took advantage of our services between 2006 and 2008. SUMMARY The most serious cases involve Faculty Rule 3335–5–04, commonly referred to as ‘04’ cases. These entail charges of serious faculty misconduct, and can eventuate in detenuring and dismissal from the University. A very serious and protracted case under this rule was finally resolved. During this case, an OSU Committee A member was verbally abused by an university representative. It was very complicated and important case, and while AAUP worked hard for a favorable outcome, the faculty member did not prevail and lost tenure. Another case was unresolved after becoming trapped in a rules dilemma in the Senate. In this case, a denial of tenure was heard by CAFR and referred to the Senate Hearing Committee for review and recommendation. The Hearing recommendation for a de novo review led to a prejudicial letter from the Provost to the department, so the new review was formally done, but meaningless. The question of how to conduct a de novo review without prejudice when a department acts as a “faculty of the whole” has not been answered (the rules dilemma referred to above; see the Hearing Committee Report, this issue). This case lay festering until the faculty member found alternative employment within the university that seems to have made the denial of tenure moot. One case involved the alteration of a failing grade (given after the Committee on Academic Misconduct—COAM—proceeding determined the students involved cheated) to a passing grade by the Provost’s office without knowledge of or consultation with the department or the faculty member. Committee A recommended that this matter be brought to the attention of CAFR. Three cases involved accusations of sexual harassment or lack of civility. In all three, the resolution favored the faculty member, but one of these was a pre-tenure candidate who was told not to expect to receive tenure. This faculty member had another job offer and decided to leave Ohio State. Several cases shared the common theme of tenured professor feeling that the chair’s behavior violated academic freedom. In each of these cases, discussions with the faculty member led to resolutions satisfactory to the faculty member. Two cases were about unfair compensation, but Committee A was able to resolve only one in favor of the faculty member. OSU’s Committee A has had a record of positive outcomes over the years. We offer good offices and have a history of good relations in clarifying disputes and negotiating outcomes. Committee A’s rate of success is, as usual, largely dependent on how early on in the process faculty members contact us. Committee A members who participated included Gordon Aubrecht, Keith Kilty, John Blackburn, Gerry Winer, Susan Fisher, Dana Wrensch (Chair), with input from others including Doug Macbeth, Lynne Olson, and Dave Patton. Dana L. Wrensch, Chair OSU Committee A Return me to the Table of Contents The 2008 Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee Report and Recommendations [abridged] BACKGROUND According to the University By-Laws (3335-5-4812), it is the responsibility of the Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee to “(s)tudy the adequacy and other attributes of the university’s policies and provisions for : (i) salaries, outside professional services and supplemental compensation; and (ii) retirement benefits, hospitalization, medical insurance, and other health benefits, life insurance, other insurance, travel reimbursement, educational benefits, recreational benefits, and other perquisites, benefits, and conditions of faculty employment.” Adequacy, of course, is not an objective criterion… Ohio State… has historically measured adequacy, at least with regard to salaries, by three criteria: (i) average salaries at OSU compared with those of other CIC institutions; (ii) average salaries at OSU compared with those at a select group of “benchmark institutions”; and (iii) average salaries at OSU compared to the salary levels it would take to get the university to the 30th position in the AAU salary rankings. The universities falling in each of these comparison groups are identified in the tables appended to this report… Last year’s FCBC report summarized the large number of areas in which Ohio State has made significant advances in the last decade, including moving into the US News and World Report’s top 20 public universities, jumping from 39th to 24th in federally sponsored research and coming to rank 9th among public universities in total research expenditures. President Gee himself has observed that “this is a much different institution than I left in 1997...” (onCampus, 6-4-2008), indicating that he recognizes the significant advances in the university’s academic standing and reputation that have been made over the last decade. Moreover, insofar as a “focus on faculty success” is one of the six strategic goals that he hopes will make “the coming years Ohio State’s time,” he also explicitly recognizes the key role of the faculty in shaping the university’s past, present and future and the importance of rewarding them adequately. “We must do everything we can to retain, attract, and reward world-class teachers and researchers in all academic areas of the university”… We begin with the comparison with the other CIC institutions. By way of qualification, it must be emphasized at the outset that we present only average salaries broken down for the most part by rank. There is also considerable variation across the university within and between ranks so that any conclusions drawn from the data presented in the appendix to this report do not apply uniformly to faculty overall or to faculty in particular ranks. The picture presented is a university-wide one and care must be taken to interpret it that way. SALARIES CIC Institutions There are 12 CIC institutions, and two of them, Chicago and Northwestern, are private universities. There are tables and histograms in the appendix that present a ten-year salary history for all 12 individual CIC institutions. Data are presented in the form of overall average salaries and averages for assistant, associate and full professors separately. There is some fluctuation in salary rankings, with the years 2000-01 to 2002-03 being particularly bad for all ranks at OSU. University salaries, and especially those for assistant and full professors, then rebounded in 2003-04. The improvement stopped there, however, with the result that OSU faculty salaries are no better within the CIC in 2007-08 than they were ten years ago. Indeed, associate professor salaries experienced a considerable drop – from 6th position in 1997-98 to 10th in 2007-08… Benchmark Institutions A second comparison group for OSU salaries is constituted of nine other similarly large public universities, namely, Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Penn State, Texas, UCLA, Washington and Wisconsin. This group is smaller than the 12-member CIC and it is arguably a more appropriate comparison group since all are public universities with similar profiles to Ohio State. This salary comparison reveals a similar trend to that for the CIC and that is one of stasis. Indeed, if anything, it is slightly more negative. Looking at all ranks combined, while OSU’s 7th-ranked status over 10 years placed it roughly at the mid-point of the 12 CIC universities, the same combined average places it at the same 7th place among the 10 peer institutions, which is firmly in the lower half of the distribution. Average salary increases for assistant professors over the ten-year period rank fourth, while those for associate and full professors rank 8th and 9th respectively. As well, unlike in the CIC where the all ranks combined figure has shown no change in ranking over the last 10 years, this same figure represents a drop of one place over the same period in the smaller number of peer institutions. Again, the point has to be emphasized that this drop has taken place at the same time that Ohio State has improved markedly as an institution. AAU Institutions The final comparison group is the Association of American Universities (AAU), which describes itself as “an association of the 62 leading research universities in the United States.” It provides a target to which OSU aspires rather than a group of institutions with which direct salary comparisons can fruitfully be made. For some time now, Ohio State has been committed to the goal of reaching the rank of 30th best-paying among AAU institutions. Again, data presenting an historical perspective on OSU’s performance relative to this goal are presented in the appendix. A very similar picture of middling status at best and lack of progress over the period of OSU’s academic advancement emerges. Take salary levels for all ranks combined first. OSU ranks 38th out of 6o this year, up from 39th last year. Five benchmark institutions are above us and three below. As for the CIC, six are above us and five below us. The trend in OSU salaries in recent years is more encouraging insofar as we have moved from 46th position in 2001-03 to 38th in 2007-08. This improvement, however, still places us below our 32nd ranking in 1996-97 and only brings us back to where we were (38th) in 1994-95. In terms of salary ranking at least, the impression to emerge once again is that OSU continues at best to hold its ground. It is clearly not making competitive gains against many of the universities we have to overtake, and are overtaking in terms of quality and reputation, if we are to place 30th in the AAU salary rankings… PENDING … The outstanding remaining agenda item at this point concerns the salaries of faculty at the regional campuses of The Ohio State University. These faculty members are tenured in the university and are expected to meet their units’ expectations for quality research, while faculty members at the regional campuses of other universities in the state have lower research expectations. But a 2007 FCBC sub-committee review of regional campus salaries showed that no OSU regional campus has the highest average salary, at any rank, among the state’s 23 regional campuses for all Ohio universities combined. OSU ranked as low as ninth for full professors and as low as tenth for associate and assistant professors. The subcommittee recommended that regional campus salaries at The Ohio State University be raised so that they are the highest at all ranks among the state’s regional campuses. The full committee will debate this report next academic year. (See sidebar, p. __ [Eds.]) RECOMMENDATIONS The repeatedly confirmed salary goal of the university is to achieve 30th position in the AAU salary rankings. Last year’s FCBC report recommended a strategy to realize this goal over seven years that comprised specific short-term and long-term targets. It recommended an average 4.5% average salary increase for 2007-2008, and the university made a good faith effort to meet this target, but was able to come up with only an average 3.8% increase. The committee determined that last year’s strategy remains a reasonable and viable one and so has decided to update and reiterate it this year. We therefore again propose a two-tiered strategy over seven years: First, we recommend an initiative to achieve annual increases that produce by 2010 an overall average salary that is no more than 0.5% below those of our benchmarks (OSU’s 2004-05 levels). Assuming a continued average increase of 4.44% for the benchmarks, we would anticipate the need for two annual increases adding up to 11.5% (just over 5.5% per year) to get OSU back to its 2004-05 position. Virtually any combination of increases adding up to 11.5% will meet this target. Second, since AAU average increases have been below those of our benchmarks over the last three years (an AAU average of 3.65% compared to a benchmark one of 4.44%), the university’s longer-term compensation target of 30th in the AAU is less daunting. FCBC estimates the need to fund salary raises of 4% per year to reach this position by 2015. Average raises of 5% per year would get us to 30th by 2010-11. To repeat, the background to this salary raise strategy is that OSU as a whole has failed to make any competitive gains at all, never mind gains commensurate with the undoubted increase in its academic standing and reputation. It is FCBC’s strongly held view that the university administration has to change focus from annual percentages to the bigger picture of (i) how is Ohio State to improve the image of being a low-paying institution that must surely come from currently being in the bottom half of the CIC and benchmark institutions against which the university chooses to compare itself and pretty much in the bottom third of all AAU institutions; and (ii) how is it to improve the salary structure so as to be able to offer salaries that will allow the university, in President Gee’s words, “to retain, attract, and reward world- class teachers and researchers in all academic areas of the university.” A holistic strategy is called for and FCBC recommends that the administration read this report in conjunction with the recently released Budget System Advisory Committee’s Final Report. We applaud this thoughtful and thorough document and fully align FCBC’s short-term goals and long-term aspirations with the letter and spirit of its recommendations. In particular, its Section IV draws attention to the unlikelihood of being able to realize the objectives of the Academic Plan, including those concerning faculty excellence and salary, without improved alignment of academic and budgetary policies and/or without generating additional resources. This is surely the greatest challenge facing this second Gee administration. No amount of exhortation or wishful thinking will sustain the university’s continued improvement as long as OSU salaries remain stagnant in relative terms and uncompetitive in absolute terms with those of the universities we aspire to displace as we move up the rankings. Sidebar—COLAs: An idea whose time has come, again? In considering the 2008 FCBC report, and one finds very similar figures and recommendations going back several years, it is helpful to have a snapshot of the Merit system of Annual Review in our recent history. For those faculty new to the University, a system of Merit–only reward was instituted during President Gee’s first term of service in the mid-1990s. Among its innovations was the end of across-the-board awards, or ‘cost of living adjustments’. In matters of annual salary increments, we were to be a meritocracy. There is much to be said and debated about efforts to operationalize meritocracies. As those efforts in the world of finance suggest, they have a tendency to cultivate excess, preference, and abuse. Indeed, over the years, including this year, AAUP has received many anecdotal and first–person accounts of how the merit system of review can also operationalize patronage, or a system of likes and dislikes. In January, OSU/AAUP canvassed our membership on their experiences with the Merit system of annual review. We have approximately 200 members, and the response rate–so–far has been low (about 20%). And of course every such survey reflects a self-selection. But we report it here as a prod to our thinking. The responses showed interesting variation. Nearly 60% replied that they were either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with the system (40% were “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”; no one was neutral about it.) Yet 60% also reported that they had personally experienced a review based on considerations other than merit. And nearly two thirds reported such experiences from colleagues. Turning to ‘how often’ they hear and/or experience such reports, a third replied they were “rare”; a third reported they were “occasional”; and a third reported they heard of such cases on a “regular/annual basis”. Tentative though they are, these responses could reasonably be grounds for concern. Our Merit system sounds like a polarizing exercise. We think the question deserves a more thorough inquiry, perhaps through the purview of a survey sponsored by Faculty Council. Pending the effort, we have enclosed our simple survey in this issue of the Newsletter. The Newsletter is mailed to all faculty of the University, and we urge you to respond. But the infirmities of the Merit system of annual review are not the immediate concern of this sidebar. Our concern is rather the same concern expressed by the FCBC Report: our competitive standing with respect to salary, and its implications for faculty (and staff). Specifically, when we examine the Merit Salary Pools of the last 10 years, we are not only falling behind our peer institutions, dramatically so in some ranks, we are also barely running ahead of costs of living increases. The ‘we’ here are faculty and their families. Note further how low annual increments fuel salary compression and shape our fortunes in retirement. (We have programs and colleges within the University in which newly minted assistant professors are being hired at rates in excess of full professors with 20 years of service, in the same unit.) These things are well known, but little discussed. Circumstances are changing, however, that may make this discussion more urgent. Low increments are tolerable in times of low inflation. And inflation, as seen in the CPI figures below has been low in the recent past. As the numbers show, our annual increments, if we receive full merit awards, have been running not quite three-quarters of one percent ahead of inflation, punctuated by marginal advances and declines. But, one can say, it could be worse. The figure for 2008 suggests that ‘worse’ may be in our future. (The CPI in September 2008 was 5.4%; the market collapse reduced the end of year figure.) It may be a first installment on a period of rising inflation that many economists are projecting, in light of the current economic crisis. Against a 5, 6 or 7% inflation rate, a 3.5% increment means our salaries are diminishing in the most practical terms of everyday living expenses. And of course not all faculty get the full Merit measure; many many get less. (FCBC has no figures for the modal award in any year.) Note further that ‘deflation’ is the greater worry for some—a general reduction in the value of goods and commodities, and often a precursor to deflationary spirals and economic depression. But both ‘flation’ forms are economic shocks. It would seem that we are in for one or the other, if not a potent sequence. It is hard for anyone to see a clear path through the thicket of economic difficulties the State—and the University—now suffer. President Gee has assured us that his first value is preserving jobs, and we completely endorse and appreciate his commitment. Which brings us to our modest proposal: At no cost to the University, only a re-assessment of its values in these uncertain times, we wish to point out that the re-establishment of a baseline of cost-of-living adjustments will not jeopardize our goals, or our budgets. We could, for example, assign 50% of any annual salary pool to across–the–board increments, the other half to merit assessments, for faculty and staff alike. Such a move would stem the destructive effects of a seemingly invidious system, wherein good faith and morale are expended on very small sums. It would address the equities of all parties, and show the confidence and regard the University holds for its faculty and staff who have leveraged so much progress for the institution. It will also address the hard economic realities facing our community of staff and scholars. And it would do so at not cost. We can see the wave coming. There will no place to say that we have been caught by surprise.
[CPI figures from Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/CPI/]
Note: The OSU/AAUPdate is reproducing abridged versions of two annual reports of Senate committees as a public service. Such reports are available, but seldom accessed. We hope that the 2008 Annual Report of the Faculty Compensation and Benefits Committee and the 2008 Annual Report of the Faculty Hearing Committee will be informative of some of the issues facing the University and us, its faculty. We hope in the future to reprint excerpts from other reports of the Senate’s standing faculty committees, to inform the University community of the serious work of governance, and encourage your participation in the decisions. [Eds.] Professor Ken Lee of the Department of Food Science & Technology in FAES was chair of the Hearing Committee in 2007-2008, and wrote the committee 2008 final report. The Hearing Committee is the standing Committee of the Senate that hears grievances and disputes. (The receive them on the recommendations of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.) Professor Lynne Olson of the Department of Veterinary Biosciences in the College of Veterinary Medicine was chair in 2006-2007 and wrote the 2007 final report. The full Hearing reports may be found at http://senate.osu.edu/committees/Hearing/FacHearing.html. Faculty Hearing Committee Report, 2008 (abridged) The prior [20]07 annual report contained several “lessons” and possible remedies, so subcommittees were formed in [20]08 to advance these conversations. [See below for some of these, ed.] Subcommittee actions Business in Progress Hearing Complete Hearing Pending … Proposed simple revisions to 04 language Important note: This proposal was discussed extensively at our 2/11/08 meeting and by email exchange. It has not advanced beyond discussion. It is included here for ease of reference and to help further evolution of the ideas. None of these proposed changes were forwarded for consideration. Strikethrough indicates deleted words and underline indicates inserted words, 3335-5-04(A) (11) Allegations of gross or serious incompetence shall be judged by a faculty member’s failure to meet obligations with respect to teaching, service, and or research. 3335-5-04(A) (12) Allegations of grave misconduct shall be judged on the basis of acts or omissions which seriously impair a faculty member’s effectiveness in meeting teaching, research, and or service obligations. Rationale: The current wording requires there to be proof of failure or serious impairment of effectiveness in meeting all three types of obligations, in teaching, in service, and in research. Incompetence or misconduct in only two areas, or only one area, would therefore not be sufficient grounds for dismissal. This would allow the absurd result that a faculty member could refuse to teach or do research at all, but could perform satisfactorily in service assignments and thus not be incompetent in all three areas (thus not subject to dismissal). The language of 33355-04(B)(3) “A complaint shall state facts to support an allegation that a faculty member has failed to meet his or her teaching, service, or research obligations” supports the conclusion that the original intent was to establish incompetence in any one of these areas as grounds for dismissal. 3335-5-04(G) (4) An appeal by the respondent must be in writing and must be filed with the chair of the faculty hearing committee within twenty-one days after notice of the provost’s decision was mailed. Rationale: The faculty hearing committee is an abstract body of 24 faculty members, not a specific individual, and has no email, campus mail, office or phone number that a respondent can refer to in physically filing an appeal. A respondent may delay the process by failing to file a written appeal as required by the rules, on the grounds that the rules do not specify what individual specifically the appeal is filed with, and leaves open the inference that the appeal is filed with the provost. This clarification states to which person the appeal must be given. 3335-5-48.10(C) (2) At the judgment of the chair of the hearing committee, a member shall be replaced on a hearing panel if there is a relationship to one of the parties or a prior involvement with the issues which may introduce prejudice. Rationale: The current rules do not state who makes the final determination whether such a prejudicial relationship exists, allowing for open-ended disputes over alleged prejudicial relationships; nor do they state to whom such an alleged prejudicial relation is to be reported. This revision corrects this by stating a final arbiter of this question. 3335-5-48.10(C) (3) A hearing panel shall select a person, who need not be a member of the faculty hearing committee, to serve as presiding officer. The presiding officer shall direct the proceedings, rule on matters involving the introduction of evidence, and advise the panel members on such issues of law and procedures as they may deem necessary. The presiding officer, if not a member of the committee panel, shall not participate in substantive deliberations with the panel nor vote on decisions by the panel. Rationale: The current language conflicts with the intent expressed in 3335-5-48.10(C) (1) (“The chair shall select three members of the committee to sit on each hearing panel”) that the panel, the body which deliberates and decides the individual case, be composed of three committee members. Ordinarily, the presiding officer would be one of those three panelists. The final sentence of 3335-5-48.10(C) (3) allows the situation where a fourth member of the committee could function on the panel as presiding officer and may participate as a deliberating and voting member. The proposed language change corrects this by allowing a non-panelist to (exceptionally) function strictly as presiding officer, and uniformly not gain deliberative and voting rights thereby. 3335-5-04(H) (1) Within thirty days of receipt of an appeal from a respondent the faculty hearing committee which is established by rule 3335-5-48.10 of the Administrative Code, shall convene a hearing panel to consider the complaint. The respondent and the provost or designee may each make one peremptory challenge to the seating of one person on the hearing panel and one peremptory challenge to the selection of a presiding officer if that presiding officer is not a member of the panel. A peremptorily removed panelist may not serve as presiding officer on that matter. Rationale: The current rule which allows independent peremptory challenges to panel membership and presiding-officer selection has been misinterpreted as meaning that a challenged presiding office is then removed from the panel. The multiple challenges seriously impedes the panel’s ability to hear a case by introducing significant delays the sequence of challenges, and does not result in a more impartial panel or otherwise serve the purpose of justice. The revision allows parties to additionally challenge the presiding officer if the opportunity did not exist to challenge participation as a panelist, and otherwise allows the parties a single peremptory challenge (separate from the “prejudice challenges” allowed by 3335-5-48.10(C)(2)). 3335-6-08(B) These standards of notice need not apply in cases of termination for cause pursuant to rule 3335-5-04 of the Administrative Code. Rationale: The addition clarifies what constitutes “for cause”, limiting the exceptions to standards of notice to dismissals “in demonstrated cases of gross or serious incompetence, grave misconduct or nontrivial financial fraud” as specified in 3335-5-04. “For cause” is a specialized legal expression, and faculty should understand that it is not equivalent to “for a reason.” Observer Rule Proposal At the Faculty Hearing Committee meeting, it was agreed that language should be added to the university rules so that if a case is remanded, as part of the procedure of assuring a new, fair and impartial evaluation, a participant from the remanding panel (normally the chair) would serve as an observer for the re-evaluation. The salient university rules at present are: 3335-5-05 (C) (6) At the conclusion of a hearing, the hearing panel shall: (7) If a decision is remanded under paragraph (C)(6)(b) of this rule, it shall be reconsidered promptly. Within thirty days of the receipt of the hearing panel’s decision, the executive vice president and provost shall respond in writing to the hearing panel and the president, stating what action has been taken and the reasons therefor. (D) The president. (1) Upon receipt of a report under paragraph (C)(7) of this rule, the president shall review the matter and take whatever action the president deems appropriate. Comment 1: I had not previously focused on what this says, nor had I noticed that the rules are written in ungrammatical English. Notice that (b) states that if the panel finds improper evaluation, “The executive vice president...shall take such steps ... to assure a new, fair, and impartial evaluation”, that is, the language presupposes that there shall (not may) be a re-review, and then describes its nature. My understanding of the wording is that (D) is not directly relevant to the hearing committee, thus 3335-5-05 (C) (6) (b) is the paragraph needing modification. My first proposal for suggested change in wording is as follows: 3335-5-05 (C) (6) (b): revision 1 “When it has found that an improper evaluation has been made, the panel shall submit its findings to the dean of the college in which the complainant is a member and to the executive vice president and provost. The executive vice president and provost, in consultation with the hearing panel and the chair of the faculty hearing committee, shall take such steps as may be deemed necessary to assure a new, fair, and impartial evaluation. Such steps shall include the presence of a member of the hearing panel, normally the presiding officer of the panel, as a non-voting observer, at any meetings of the tenure initiating unit, College and University Promotion & Tenure Committees which reconsider the case. A copy of the hearing panel’s findings shall also be sent to the president.” Comment 2: The notion of an “observer” for re-evaluation by a chair, dean or provost is nonsensical, and I think it is wise to explicitly ward off inferences that we are proposing something nonsensical. This change cannot address the problem of unfair evaluation by deans or chairs; it also mandates an observer on TIU, College and University committee re-reviews even when the particular committee was not found to have conducted an improper evaluation. The alternative wording below fixes that: 3335-5-05 (C) (6) (b): revision 2 When it has found that an improper evaluation has been made, the panel shall submit its findings to the dean of the college in which the complainant is a member and to the executive vice president and provost. The executive vice president and provost, in consultation with the hearing panel and the chair of the faculty hearing committee, shall take such steps as may be deemed necessary to assure a new, fair, and impartial evaluation. Such steps shall include the presence of a member of the hearing panel, normally the presiding officer of the panel, as a non-voting observer, at any meetings of the tenure initiating unit Promotion & Tenure Committee which reconsider the matter in case that committee has been found to have conducted an improper evaluation, of the College Promotion & Tenure Committee in case that committee has been found to have con ducted an improper evaluation, and of the University Promotion & Tenure Committee in case that committee has been found to have conducted an improper evaluation. A copy of the hearing panel’s findings shall also be sent to the president. Because, in my experience, the University committee provides virtually no information on their evaluations other than a very brief executive summary and a decision, I would be surprised if it is possible to find that a University committee engaged in improper evaluation, but I included that possibility for completeness. I personally would suggest the second revision, but this may be a point needing discussion. Endnote from the chair: Please consider the simpler text below. This says the hearing panel reports its findings in all cases; proper or improper. It makes it clear that reconsideration only takes place if there was an improper review at that level. Finally, it enables us to add more important points to the list for improper cases. 3335-5-05 (C) (6) At the conclusion of a hearing, the hearing panel shall either dismiss or remand the complaint if it determines the evaluation was proper or improper, respectively, and submit this finding to the provost with copies to the dean of the affected college and to the president. (7) If a decision is remanded under paragraph (C)(6) of this rule, it shall be reconsidered promptly. Within thirty days of the receipt of the hearing panel’s decision, the provost shall respond in writing to the hearing panel stating both actions and reasons. (D) The president. (1) Upon receipt of a report under paragraph (C)(7) the president shall review the matter. ## Some notes from the 2007 Hearing Final Report (abridged) Academic Misconduct Case from 2005/06. Lessons: • The opportunities for challenge and appeal provided in 3335-5-04, coupled with scheduling difficulties when private legal counsel is involved can result in significant delays in resolving a case. Allegation of Improper Evaluation 2006/07: Case #1 Lessons: It is critical that chairs and deans understand the rules and procedures for non-renewal of tenure-track faculty appointments prior to the fourth year of service, so that affected faculty are given accurate information regarding their rights and responsibilities. Of note, non-renewal of tenure-track appointments prior to the fourth year require that the procedures for a fourth year review be followed, but do not require input from or action by the Office of Academic Affairs. Return me to the Table of Contents Been Evaluated Lately? Planning on Getting a Raise this Year? I recently received my annual evaluation letter from my Department Chair, in which he acknowledged my accomplishments and made suggestions for improvement. I had submitted the information that he used for the evaluation earlier in the year. That information included student evaluations of my teaching and indirect peer evaluation of my scholarly work, as reflected in a successful mini-grant and a publication in press. I don’t know whether my performance has merited a raise, but that information is forthcoming. Not a “360” degree evaluation but at least a “180”. So what about your dean? Do you think your dean plans on getting a raise this year and if so, based on whose evaluation of what information? I mention this as a faculty member in a college that is once again searching for a dean. The former dean served three years and then decided to step down. In those three years, I was never asked to evaluate his performance. This hasn’t always been the case. Beginning in 2004 and ending in 2005, the Faculty Council of the University Senate piloted a project that permitted faculty to evaluate the performance of their college or regional campus dean. The questions were generated by a subgroup of faculty councilors and included some minimal demographic questions. The individual deans were given the opportunity to include two college-specific questions of their choosing. Plans were to offer the senators the same option in the next round of evaluations if the project was deemed successful. Faculty Council was updated on the survey and survey-process regularly. The survey was conducted at the end of the 2005 academic year. Later in the year all results (open response and forced-choice) along with some cross-tabulated data were shared with the deans and the college numerical results were shared with the college senators. Numerical results for all colleges were shared with the Faculty Council. At the time that the survey was conducted one of the 21 deans evaluated was serving in an interim capacity and a search was in progress for a second. As of this date, only 5 of those 21 deans are still serving. All the lowest-ranking deans in the survey have been replaced; the other deans were replaced, searches are ongoing, or the positions have been eliminated in the recent restructuring. In reflecting on the process and outcome of the evaluation process, we learned that:
At the conclusion of the project, Faculty Council discussed whether to continue to evaluate the performance of deans but could not agree on a timeframe. Every year seemed too often, but lack of continuity in Faculty Council leadership makes it difficult to sustain momentum for projects that have a longer frequency. If anyone is interested in utilizing the numerical results or the survey instrument, please contact Lynne Olson at olson.3@osu.edu. Lynne Olson, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine Return me to the Table of Contents Return me to the OSU AAUP home page. |
