LINKS
Home
Up
In Memoriam
What's the Buzz?
Embezzlement in Athletic Department
OU Sports Financials 2005-2006
Equity in Athletics - Great Lakes Chapter
Big Collegiate Sports vs All Other Sports
Reporting Suspected Violations
Title IX Information
AD Boeh: OU Compliant with Title IX
Unanswered Letters
Important Info for Athletes
Rallies and Other Actions
We're Organized - Join Us!
HELP US TAKE ACTION!
$277,550 Over Budget Spent In Mobile
VA Legislators Angry
The Issues
Developments
Reactions
Articles and News Reports
Who are these dropped athletes?
Class, Dignity & Competitive Spirit
Lacrosse
Swimming & Diving
Track & Field
"Vision Ohio"
Reinstatement Success Stories
Parallel Efforts at Other Universities
Resources
OU Compliance
Links
PETITION
Please
sign our petition to save dropped OU sports. Click
here. If
your current circumstances or position with Ohio University do not require
anonymity, we
request that you sign with your name rather than as "Anonymous"
as some have. Thank you and thanks to the Women's Lacrosse blog
for setting up this petition.
MORE
LINKS
EMAIL
CONTACT FOR THIS SITE: SaveOUSports ATgmailDOTcom
| |
Faculty Senate Concerns About OU
Management
From Faculty Senate web pages on OU
website
[In text bold (except for paragraph headings, names, and
other original document emphasis) and bracketed language inserted by Save OU
Sports.org]
Excerpts
from:
Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
April 17th, 2006
Margaret M. Walter Hall, Room 235
Regular
Meeting
Appendix B, Item 3
Professional Relations Committee
Resolution on University
Standing Committees
April 17, 2006
For First
Reading
- Whereas
there is a breadth and depth of existing standing university committees that
represent the faculty and university communities and provide an intuitional
memory, and
- Whereas
the committees are designed to recommend policies and procedures on behalf
of that academic community, and
- Whereas
by virtue of the selection process through the Committee on Committees many
of these committees serve to reinforce the best of shared governance, and
- Whereas
the existing committees have not been appropriately or fully utilized by
current administration and have been replaced by or overlapped with ad hoc
committees appointed by the administration, e.g., a newly created
Graduate Education and Research Board which overlaps the responsibilities of
Graduate Council and Council for Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity
and the President’s Cabinet which has reconstituted the Policies and
Procedures Review Committee.
Be It Resolved:
- Existing
standing committees appointed by the Committee on Committees or the
Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate will be utilized for studying and
recommending actions relevant to all matters concerning the academic life of
Ohio University.
- No
new committees should be generated until it is clear that existing
committees are unable to accomplish the task as determined by the Committee
on Committees. In the rare
event that an ad hoc body must be appointed, it will have a lifetime of no
longer than one year and include a substantial number of faculty appointed
by the Faculty Senate. If the
assignment relates to academic or curriculum matters, the ad hoc body must
consist of a majority of faculty members appointed by the Executive
Committee of the Faculty Senate or the Committee on Committees.
APPENDIX: LIST
OF STANDING UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES
-
Committee
on Committees
-
Baker
Fund
-
Ecology
and Energy Conservation
-
Enrollment
Management Advisory Committee
-
General
Education Council
-
Intercollegiate
Athletics
-
Kennedy
Lecture
-
Library
-
Parking
and Vehicle Violation
-
Policy
and Procedure Review
-
Post
Publishing Board
-
Radiation
Safety
-
Research
-
Council
for Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity
-
Student
Code of Conduct: Review and Standards
-
University
Curriculum Council
-
University
International Council
-
Ad
Hoc
Appendix B, Item 4
Finance and Facilities Committee
RESOLUTION
FOR FACULTY IMPROVEMENT GOALS IN VISION OHIO
April 17,
2006
For first
reading
Whereas
AAUP recommends that tenured and tenure-track faculty at doctoral-granting
campuses constitute no less that 85% of total instruction.
Whereas on
April 18, 2000, Ohio University approved a policy to “make every effort to
meet this AAUP recommendation.”
Whereas
the proportion of instructional credit hours taught on the Athens campus by
Group I faculty has actually decreased from 56.8% in 2000 to 52.6% in 2004. This
means that 430 new Group I faculty would be needed to meet Ohio University’s
policy (with no change in other faculty levels).
Whereas a major
goal of Vision Ohio is to maintain quality instruction and faculty, yet no
specific Group I hiring plan or metric to increase Group I instruction exists
within Vision Ohio.
Let it be
resolved that Vision Ohio formally incorporate written goals to:
-
Establish a comprehensive Group I faculty hiring program to bring Group 1
instruction on the Athens campus to the AAUP guideline of 85%.
§
Increase Group I faculty by 43 per year to accomplish this goal in
10 years.
§
Track percent Group I faculty instruction as a metric of the
success of the “Quality, Diversity, and Prominence for Faculty, Staff, and
Students” goals in each section of Vision Ohio.
These goals should be added to Vision Ohio as the
first item under “Quality, Diversity,
and Prominence for Faculty, Staff, and Students”
Appendix C, Item 1
For Information
Copy of Letter Sent to the Faculty Senate Chair from the Ohio
University Chapter of the AAUP; Copy of AAUP Petition
Appendix C, Item 2
For Information
Full Text of Statement of Emeritus Professor Francine Childs
Regarding the AAUP Petition for Annual Evaluation of the President and Provost
by the Faculty
Certain elements of Ohio University's
faculty are bound and determined to prevent or undo the visionary work begun by
President Roderick McDavis when he assumed leadership of this university in
September 2004. He enunciated his goals of raising the institution to national
prominence at a public forum during his spring 2004 interview for the position.
During that interview, a professor in the College of Communication asked
questions that might most charitably be characterized as rude and belligerent.
Soon after the Board of Trustees announced that they had selected McDavis as the
best among the three outstanding national candidates for the job as president of
OU, the same journalism professor began his campaign to foment dissention and
cause disharmony at Ohio University.
This same professor and others are now engaged in an
effort to destroy the presidency of Roderick McDavis by calling upon the Faculty
Senate of OU to pass a resolution of "no confidence" in McDavis and
his administration. The same cabal would ultimately also like the Board of
Trustees to authorize faculty to evaluate annually the performance of the
president and provost, something that has never been done in the history of OU.
One is compelled to ask, "Where were these 'concerned faculty' when the
problems inherited by the McDavis administration were created during the Glidden
administration?"
During Robert Glidden's administration, budget deficits
were allowed to roll over from year to year to the extent that nearly $9 million
in indebtedness was inherited by the McDavis administration. Where were
"concerned faculty" then? When the Glidden administration hired huge
numbers of administrators at a time when Group 1 faculty were replaced with
Group 2 and Group 4 faculty "to save money," where were these
"concerned faculty"?
When administrators received increasingly higher salaries
each year, while faculty were grudgingly given embarrassingly small salary
increases, where were these "concerned faculty"? When the executive
committee of Faculty Senate ignored the abuse of faculty rights and the
principles of shared governance that routinely occurred during the Glidden
administration, where were these "concerned faculty" then?
President Roderick McDavis has a vision of Ohio
University that encompasses academic excellence for faculty and students; sound
financial planning to ensure the long-term achievement thereof; diversity of
class, country, culture, gender, intellect and race; service; and harmonious and
productive relations between our campus and community.
With all that he has accomplished in his short time here
and with all he hopes to achieve on behalf of OU, his alma mater, one must ask,
"Why has Dr. Roderick McDavis encountered such unrelenting and unwarranted
ad hominem and programmatic attacks?"
Is it because he is attempting to dismantle the
"good ol' boys network" that has long ruled at OU and that does not
share his values or vision of accountability, fairness, and inclusiveness? Or
could there be a darker reason?
Francine C. Childs, EdD., Th.D.
OU Professor Emeritus of African American Studies
Excerpts from
the:
Ohio University Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
Monday, April 24th, 2006
Margaret M. Walter Hall, Room 235
[Full
minutes may be found at this
link]
________________________________________________________________________
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
In Attendance:
Arts & Sciences: T.
Anderson, K. Brown, J. Duerr, S. Gradin, A. Hughes (for Y. Helm), D. Ingram, S.
Lopez, M. McMills, M. Morris, S. Reilly, C. Coski (for K. Uhalde),
J. Webster, T. Young
Business: D. Deeter,
J. Roberson (for M. Tucker)
Communication: P.
Bernt, N. Pecora, R. Stewart
Education: V.
Conley (for A. Howley), T. Leinbaugh
Engineering: D.
Gulino, H. Pasic, T. Sexton
Fine Arts: C.
Cardenas, A. Reilly, M. Scott, D. Thomas
Health and Human Services:
A. Graham, D. Matthews
Osteopathic Medicine: P.
Coschigano, M. Simpson
Group II: C.
Naccarato, M. Thomas
Chillicothe:
Eastern: T. Flynn
Lancaster: J.
Becker
Southern: M.
Crawford
Zanesville:
Excused: T.
Hale, J. Miller, G. Lush, V. Parker
Absent: D.
Drabold, D. Lassiter, S. Sarnoff, W. Gist, R. Mittelstaedt, D. Stroh,
K. Heineman, J. Benson, R. Shriver
________________________________________________________________________
Minutes of the Meeting
I.
Roll Call
II.
Chair’s Report (P. Bernt)
- Bernt
informed the Senate that Gregory Lush
had resigned from the Senate; she explained that two additional nominees had
been added to the Arts & Sciences Senate ballot and that a new ballot
will be sent out shortly.
- Bernt
reminded the Senate that the AAUP referendum ballot will be sent out in the
next couple of days and ballots will be counted on May 10; Bernt
explained how the ballots will be counted and security measures that have
been put in place with regard to the ballots.
- Bernt
reported that she spoke with Greg
Browning, the chair of the Board of Trustees, and asked him if he could
attend a future Senate meeting.
- Bernt
reported that the Senate Executive Committee will meet with Executive
Committee of the Board of Trustees on May 12th to offer faculty
input on the evaluation of the President.
III.
Statement by Charles Naccarato (Group II Senator)
- C.
Naccarato (Group II) read a statement regarding the current budget
realignment process and its effect on non tenure-track faculty.
This statement expressed concern with respect to contingent faculty
who are nearing retirement being cut off from retirement benefits.
It also expressed concern for a perceived lack of shared governance
with respect to Group II faculty. Naccarato
said that Group II faculty members are being laid off to enable budget
cuts in some departments and he lamented the fact that the Senate has not
crafted a resolution addressing this issue.
- D.
Thomas supported Naccarato’s call for a resolution on this issue.
- M.
Thomas agreed that important contributions are being lost as a result of
this process.
- It
was generally agreed that the Finance and Facilities Committee (FFC) will
work on a resolution regarding this issue for the next regular Senate
meeting.
IV.
Faculty Classification Initiative (P&T and PRC)
- Promotion
and Tenure Committee chair Annette
Graham introduced the draft Faculty Classification Initiative submitted
jointly by PRC and P&T. She
explained that the goal of the discussion at this meeting is to go through
each section of the draft document in order to understand the level of
agreement or disagreement with the language in the document on the part of
Senators.
- 1.
Tenure-Track Faculty (Currently Group I):
there was a short discussion of whether current Group II faculty
should be allowed to serve on university committees (such as UCC); after
discussion and some amendments there was general agreement on the wording
in this category by the majority of the Senators.
- 2.
Non Tenure-Track Faculty (Currently Group II and III):
there was an extended discussion of how to protect those under .49
FTE with respect to benefits, the merits of the option for non
tenure-track faculty to opt out of benefits, problems with pro-rating
benefits, and the need to address workload definitions of the various
faculty categories; after discussion, it was generally agreed that more
work is needed on the language in this section of the document.
- 3.
Non Tenure-Track: Visiting Professors (Currently Group IV):
there was general agreement on the wording in this section.
- 4.
Non Tenure-Track: Clinical
Faculty (Currently in Group II): there
was general agreement on the wording in this section.
- 5.
Current Non Tenure-Track Faculty:
current faculty will be “grandfathered” into this section
- 6.
Possible Faculty Titles: there
was an extended discussion about possible titles for non tenure-track
teaching faculty; the majority of the Senators agreed on the titles
“instructor,” “lecturer,” and “senior lecturer.”
- Graham
and Cardenas asked Senators to contact them with any feedback and
comments at: grahama@ohio.edu or cardenas@ohio.edu.
V.
Resolution on Shared Governance for Second Reading and Vote (K. Brown)
- K.
Brown clarified his reasons for bringing the resolution forward.
He said that he believes that there is a “disconnect” between
faculty and administration with regard to shared governance and that this is
an opportunity for the faculty to define what they mean by “shared
governance.” The
resolution calls for the addition of a non-voting faculty member on the
Board of Trustees, for the addition of a faculty member to the President’s
Cabinet, and that standing committees be used as much as possible rather
than creating ad hoc committees.
- R.
Stewart suggested a change in wording which was accepted as a friendly
amendment by Brown.
- C.
Coski suggested a change in wording which was accepted as a friendly
amendment by Brown.
- D.
Thomas observed that many universities have faculty representatives on
the Board of Trustees and argued that there are precedents for this at other
universities.
- C.
Cardenas suggested that Thomas’s point be added to the resolution.
- M.
Scott and S. Gradin both suggested using language that “requests”
this as a goal, rather than “demanding” something from the Board of
Trustees.
- P.
Bernt said that she was concerned with the “process” of this
resolution because it was not at all clear how a non-voting member could be
added to the Board of Trustees, and she suggested that it might be useful to
talk to people at other institutions in Ohio where this has occurred.
- R.
Stewart said that he agrees with M.
Scott and S. Gradin.
- J.
Roberson expressed concern with the fact that this resolution may ask
the Board of Trustees to do something that they cannot do.
- D.
Matthews suggested that the Senate find out if indeed the Board of
Trustees can (by law) appoint a non-voting faculty member to the Board.
- D.
Ingram suggested an amendment inserting the words “the faculty asks .
. . “.
- S.
Lopez suggested an amendment in wording which was accepted as a friendly
amendment by Brown.
- S.
Gradin said that she was not convinced at all that this resolution is
needed right now and that there are too many questions left unanswered.
- V.
Conley agreed that the Senate needs to do more fact gathering before the
resolution is put forward for a vote.
- M.
Thomas disagreed, arguing that it is important to bring this forward now
given the present “climate” at the university.
- M.
Scott reiterated her opinion that the faculty member on the board and on
the cabinet would be subject to being “co-opted.”
- S.
Gradin reiterated her opinion that this resolution is not the best way
to go forward.
- A.
Hughes argued that it is “better to be represented than not.”
K. BROWN MOVED
THE QUESTION
PASSED ON A MAJORITY HAND VOTE
D. Ingram moved
to adjourn the meeting (T. Anderson
second)
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Timothy G. Anderson, Secretary
Appendix A
Resolution on Shared Governance
Sponsored by Ken Brown
April 24, 2006
PASSED
Whereas the academic mission of Ohio
University is currently undergoing revision through the writing and
implementation of Vision Ohio, and
Whereas shared governance is an essential part of accomplishing a complete
stewardship of the university, requiring administration, faculty, classified
staff and students to all work together in order to effectively fulfill the
revised mission, and
Whereas historically, faculty representation has been included on university and
administrative boards, committees and in regular consultation with such offices
in order to negotiate and further Ohio University's mission, and
Whereas continued academic excellence at Ohio University, especially in a
time of budget crises, requires open communication and ongoing transparency at
all levels, and
Whereas by approving the Faculty Handbook (2005), the president indicated
his affirmation of shared governance, and
Whereas many universities,
including the University of Cincinnati and Cleveland State University, have
faculty members on their Boards of Trustees;
Be it resolved that the future of shared governance should be reconfirmed and
addressed alongside Vision Ohio by pursuing the following:
1. The
members of Ohio University Board of Trustees will work with the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee toward adding a member of the Faculty Senate as a non-voting
member of the board, to be chosen by the Faculty Senate at the first meeting in
September.
2. An
elected faculty member from the Faculty Senate will be chosen to be a non-voting
representative to the President's Cabinet.
3. Ordinarily
and most often, assignments for study and/or action recommendations made to
committees, commissions, councils, task forces, etc. will utilize existing
standing committees appointed by the Committee on Committees.
In the rare event that an ad hoc body must be appointed, it will have a
lifetime of no longer than one year and include a substantial number of faculty
appointed by the Faculty Senate. If
the assignment relates to academic or curriculum matters, the ad hoc body must
consist of a majority of faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate and be
chaired by a faculty member appointed by the Faculty Senate.
2006-06-12
By Jonathan Hunt
Athens NEWS Writer
The secretary of the Ohio
University faculty group that gave a poor rating to top OU administrators on
Friday defended the legitimacy of the group's survey against various charges on
Friday.
The OU chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) on
Wednesday announced results of the survey, which found that most respondents
"disagreed" or "disagreed somewhat" with giving votes of
confidence to President Roderick McDavis, Provost Kathy Krendl and Vice
President for Regional Higher Education Charles Bird.
The evaluation's methodology and motives were questioned Thursday on separate
fronts by OU professors claiming that its response rate of less than 50 percent
rendered it unscientific, or charging that it was marred by racist sentiment
against McDavis, an African American.
Guido Stempel, a distinguished professor emeritus of journalism and director of
the Scripps Survey Research Center, questioned the response rate, while
management systems professor Jessie Roberson leveled the racism charges on WOUB
Radio on Thursday.
In a Friday interview, OU-AAUP secretary Joseph Bernt, himself a journalism
professor, said the participation rate for the faculty ratings, which now stands
at 45.5 percent, has been impressive considering that the OU administration
"worked to make it not happen."
Bernt, who founded the Scripps Survey Research Center, said Stempel is well
aware that many public opinion surveys have been published with participation
rates lower than the recent OU-AAUP evaluation.
"Basically what we have here is a long-retired professor who is looking to
provide some sort of straw for the administration to grasp," Bernt said.
"Check (the OU-AAUP survey) number against numbers that come back for dean
evaluations, for instance."
While Stempel suggested that the OU-AAUP survey results would disproportionately
reflect dissatisfied faculty, because they would be more likely to respond,
Bernt said the opposite phenomenon is also at play, because many respondents
gave McDavis and/or the other administrators the highest ratings possible.
Two recent no-confidence votes for presidents at Case Western Reserve University
and Harvard University happened via lower response rates, Bernt claimed, and in
both cases the presidents resigned.
Asked if McDavis should resign, he said he would consider that action if he were
in the OU president's shoes.
Bernt said the AAUP chapter wanted to give faculty more options than a simple
yes or no vote, which led to the four-choice rating scale.
Some of Roberson's broadcast comments regarding the possible influence of racial
dynamics in the recent heavy criticism of McDavis were echoed Friday by another
black OU professor. Gary Kirksey, a visual communications professor, said he
agreed that race might have been a factor.
"Yes, it definitely could have played a role," said Kirksey, who is on
the executive team of the Caucus of Educators and Staff of African Descent (COESAD)
at OU.
"Past presidents had much worse track records, and there was no outcry to
publicly make this kind of statement of no confidence," he said. "Some
of the questions on the survey were geared to get the result they wanted."
Kirksey said he thinks many other COESAD members agree with him and Roberson,
but that he doesn't "want to put words in anyone's mouth."
COESAD president Vibert Cambridge, a professor of African-American Studies, is
in Leipzig, Germany, and could not be reached for comment. Roberson did not
return a call placed Friday. Cambridge has previously called for faculty to
stand behind McDavis.
According to Kirksey, much of the faculty discontent stems from fear of job
losses amid OU's present budget crunch, which he said was beyond McDavis'
control. The OU Board of Trustees is vested with control over university
finances by state statute.
"I'm supportive of Dr. McDavis, but the bottom line is he's had to carry
out the wishes of the Trustees," said Kirksey.
Kirksey cited faculty criticism of a small salary paid to Deborah McDavis, the
president's wife, and contrasted it with what he characterized as an absence of
criticism for the higher salary currently being drawn by former OU President
Robert Glidden for fund-raising efforts.
Meetings to support Krendl's diversity initiative were not well attended by
faculty, added Kirksey.
On a separate issue, when asked if the provost had given faculty opportunities
to participate in implementing the Vision OHIO strategic plan, Bernt said those
chances were insufficient. "Really they were just audiences where Krendl
presented PowerPoint displays," he said. Early Vision Ohio committees
included few faculty members and were timed for non-participation when school
was out of session, he claimed.
Bernt said he really doubts that many of the faculty members who gave McDavis
poor marks are racists, but he acknowledged that some probably are.
"The fact is we harassed the hell out of Glidden," recalled Bernt,
referring to numerous complaints in the former OU president's final years.
Bernt was also critical of Glidden's current salary, but asserted that
"Glidden is getting money because this president - McDavis - gave it to
him."
Under Glidden, according to Bernt, OU "misspent a lot of money" on
athletics and other projects.
Kirksey agreed about this, and said he thinks McDavis is trying to deal with the
financial condition Glidden left OU in.
Putting money into the Vision OHIO strategic plan is not the right approach
given the budget crunch, Bernt charged.
Asked if union organizing could play a role in faculty discontent, Bernt pointed
out that at a May AAUP chapter meeting, only about a third of those present
expressed interest in collective bargaining - the most central feature of union
representation.
Instead, Bernt said, the traditional mission of the AAUP - protection of tenure,
free speech, due process and academic freedom - is the focus of the OU chapter.
All the focus on OU's party-school reputation during McDavis's tenure is
suspicious, according to Bernt. "Why is he talking about it so much?"
he asked, suggesting that attention to the party-school reputation actually adds
to OU's appeal among some prospective students.
OU officials issued a general response to the faculty evaluations last week, but
apparently will not directly address the finding of no confidence in McDavis,
Krendl and Bird. The university has been stressing the inclusion of faculty
input in the Trustees' ongoing evaluation of McDavis.
| |
DROPPED
TEAMS
2006
Women's Lacrosse Team
Swimming
and Diving
and
Track
and Field
|
