Minutes of the AAUP Meeting of the Executive Committee, December 12, 2009,
10:00 a.m., held. in Memorial Union, N234
Those present included: Victoria Johnson, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, David
Robinson, Galen Suppes, Eddie Edelstein, Leona Rubin, Andrew Twaddle, Keith
Hardeman, Rainer Glaser, Sudershan Loyalka, Haskell Taub, and Phebe Lauffer.
Forsee’s town hall meeting was discussed at length. Executive Committee members
were particularly intent on maintaining faculty involvement in curriculum of on-line
educational efforts. It was the majority opinion that faculty should have
responsibility for curriculum, and as much as possible, maintain control over the
course content. It was pointed out that Columbia College was generating income
from on-line coursework. When Administration was questioned about how much of
MU on-line course monies were going to system, the information was not given?
Concern was that Administration would tap this source of income, and instruction
would suffer. Leona indicated that it was her understanding that 95% of the
generated income from on-line coursework would go to us, and 5% to system, it
could be used to hire structural designers for on-line coursework. Executive
members were concerned that decisions should not be solely driven by economies,
but rather quality of on-line courses should be the major deciding factor. It was
further stated that System Administration should not be responsible for decisions of
course content. Leona indicated that designing coursework required too much time,
and that there should be assistance in that effort. Her perception is that
Administrators are trying to make that available. But it was pointed out by AAUP
members that Administrators were making decisions that would be best left to
faculty. Further, concern was expressed that on-line coursework was the overall
direction of education, and it is incumbent on faculty to ensure it goes in the
direction they approve and quality is maintained throughout the life of the material.
Victoria expressed concern that Forsee’s statement implied that this is the way we
must go because of economic considerations. Further, it is a good way to cut back on
faculty, and Leona agreed that we must identify the faculty who are interested
because they will hire adjuncts to further the effort. Concern was expressed that an
erosion of tenure will result, and the budget will reflect this change as a matter of
course. Victoria pointed out that students attend a University on campuses for social
capital and other intangibles that are valuable for job searches. Leona agreed that
there will be students who want that experience, but there are students who cannot
come to campus, and would benefit from these on-line courses. Students who have
been successful with on-line coursework, and have achieved their goals, are great
proponents of students who cannot get here. Victoria expressed concern that
wealthy students would benefit from on-campus experiences, and underprivileged
students would not. She expressed concern that it was a political decision and not an
educational one. David spoke to intellectual property issues, and mentioned that as
soon as the on-line class is placed it becomes University property. Collected Rules
must define the intellectual property rights of faculty, because they are nebulous
now.
Rainer said that initially on-line courses were frowned upon because they wanted
faculty to do research. So a publisher took the content but kept faculty name’s on the
websites and third-rate people update those and maintain control and content is
lost. He agrees that a person on campus w/legal expertise in intellectual property
rights would be a good step to maintain quality control
It was pointed out that if faculty participate, we must have control of content, and
maintain autonomy as is the case in the classroom. Leona indicated that this all
comes back to intellectual property; and the Dean has authority to sign that away.
System is working on initiating an intellectual property office and the option of
giving away the rights of your course will be less likely. But right now, any part of
the coursework is the faculty members’ property; and Galen would like that to be
quite apparent with on-line coursework. Leona said that if we accept system input
we must negotiate w/them in ADVANCE to ensure it. Rainer indicated that we
should hire grant students to work with grant money, and there would be no
question that the work was owned by the faculty. Eddie suggested that the on-line
coursework graciously be accepted, but require that faculty maintain control of the
material and intellectual property rights. He thought it best that faculty recognize
times are changing and openly accept it. He pointed out that faculty interact
w/students and impact their lives; and that is important, though not necessarily
measureable. Galen wanted to expand on the grant based comments. The five areas
of promotion recommended by Administration include $8,000 grants for on-line
coursework. Galen asked at the Forsee meeting if it was available and access was
indicated in the affirmative, but only for the “advantage areas”. The Provost has
identified the administrative positions for the “advantage areas”, and faculty need to
inquire what it will mean to take the $8,000. If the on-line courses are not
maintained, they are useless in three years. Carnegie creates modules and they
distribute the courses and any autonomy or control of the material is lost. Rainer
sought amendment to Eddie’s position, stating that an educator, sociologist and
attorney represent faculty to ensure rights are afforded. Andrew Twaddle believes it
requires policy be written, because this is not just campus driven. Eddie indicated it
is purposely vague, and Leona said that Administration is attempting to clarify it.
Writing a book is the same as writing on-line coursework, and should be protected
as such. Stephen pointed out that Jason does quite a bit of this type of work, and is a
good resource. They have dealt w/these issues, and he is associated with ECMO.
Victoria believes the Committee should put their concerns to paper, and contact
national to see if anything is being done at that level. David has connections; he will
see what he can determine.
Concerns about shared governance were expressed again – do we want to write
something, ask for a meeting, or go to Faculty Council? Should we approach
Administration about how we can have more involvement? We need to make sure
that faculty have total authority on content, quality and ownership; that dean’s don’t
by default, own the material, and find a way for faculty to receive the grants. Leona
indicated that it was her perception that Administrators were not opposed to any of
that. They are merely trying to get this in place, and the timing is right. Giving faculty
grants for coursework, w/the stipulation that it truly is a grant, and the faculty
control the content seems prudent. Until system comes back w/intellectual property
wording, AAUP members didn’t feel on-line coursework should be pursued.
David said Truman has hired web based people and faculty has been frustrated
w/their assistance. The first developer spent two years absorbing the salary, and
left with nothing of value. Stephen indicated that centralized hiring could be a
detriment to the quality of the outcome. Sudershan expressed concern that the
Administrative people were too far removed from the educational component.
Stephen indicated that it must be bottom up driven, not top down. The mindset of
the university is the top down construct, but bottom up is better in that educational
controls are maintained.
Victoria expressed that she would like to get faculty input on this, to ensure faculty
involvement. The time has come to move because we have been working on this for
some time. Andrew Twaddle suggested we contact national w/regards to quality
control, and FC could appoint a campus group to ensure systemic involvement. Do
we want to start on a forum to include a couple hundred people; and involve
students? Stephen said it was a prime time because student intellectual property
was on the table. Based on Collected Rules a student employed in English, even
though they generate intellectual property in Engineering, the property still belongs
to the Univ. It is “within the scope of their job” he said. Leona thought it went to
faculty; but Stephen stated that it does not go to faculty. Sudershan expressed that
student intellectual property discussions had been ongoing for 10 yrs, and it was yet
to be resolved. Leona likes the idea of having a forum, but does not believe it should
include students. A whole forum could be held on who owns content of on-line
coursework. Galen expressed that if we do a good job on the first forum, it would be
easy to do a second one for students. Rainer asked how the faculty could be
educated and have an environment where faculty are informed on their rights. It
should be part of freshman faculty orientation, but Eddie pointed out that the Rules
are so vague, they cannot educate. FC is waiting on feedback from students. Leona
asked for input, and only received one response on student intellectual property;
but many on faculty salaries. She is frustrated with faculty involvement.
Victoria summarized: David will contact national, Victoria will work on committee.
FC will work on intellectual property rights through Leona. And we should meet
w/Forsee to clarify what our position is. If faculty are going to move forward with
grants, autonomy should be the key.
Contingent faculty: Stephen expressed that there should be representatives on FC,
but it hasn’t been accomplished. Eddie said they are rather dysfunctional w/out
organization, and there is none. Victoria brought an article to indicate that a tenure
track for lecturer or researcher had been instituted at a number of institutions. If
we tried to organize around these templates, there would be a mechanism for
protection. If non-tenure faculty knew AAUP efforts were on-going, they might be
more apt to involve themselves.
Eddie believes the on-line coursework topic to be the best bargaining chip we have,
and all the rules must be changed. Admin would be so happy to find that they aren’t
facing a recalcitrant faculty, but a cooperative one. This is a package approach that
could benefit us immensely and would guarantee our control, quality and
intellectual property rights.. Leona said the Provost has interesting ideas about
tenure, and discussions have been driven by the interdisciplinary work. He’s ready
to look at tenure track teaching positions.
Andrew Twaddle knows of two people who were evaluated solely on teaching; not
research, so there is precedent. The faculty in each department write the rules, and
some make it impossible for their faculty to be on tenure track. Others do not. Last
year when Administrators had to cut 5%; they came to teachers and said they would
increase class size to make up those dollars. Each person who is contributing should
be rewarded. The committee should consider reinstating the merit system; and
Leona stated that Ohio State has a personal responsibility statement to which they
are evaluated by their teaching, and if they meet the goals they are awarded.
Victoria Johnson and Stephen Montgomery-Smith are on the committee, and
Stephen volunteered Jason Aubrey
It was pointed out that tuition on the Columbia campus does not go to system, and
we need to maintain that. It was suggested that Elson was dismissed because he
indicated he could do system work with less. When he was on Fiscal Affairs council
Andrew Twaddle said system cost as much as campus. Sudershan said it was the
transparency that concerned him – the money can be moved and dispersed in
novelty ways to hide the distribution of those dollars. Leona said it was negotiated
topic with the dean. Andrew Twaddle said “you can’t drop a dollar in at the top and
see how it comes out at the bottom”. It was pointed out that it appears the
accounting system is designed to obscure the outcome. Leona does not believe that
it is an attempt at deceit., but wondered why should we care when Engineering is
getting 90% to keep those faculty there. Eddie’s case is that standards should be in
place, because in the past, there have been distributions based on political
considerations, not merit. And when on-line course tuition dollars go to the system,
it is the ideal time to contain the damage of past fiduciary concerns. Leona agrees
that there are no uniformities; and the RIF distribution is a concrete example. When
RIF comes back, the faculty recognize salary savings; at the vet school if you
generate 90% of your S&W you get 45% back. So there are people making $200,000
and get back $100,000; and can use that and RIF monies to increase their salary.
Sudershan asked for transparency at the system level, not at the department level.
Shouldn’t the faculty have shared governance in this matter? Stephen pointed out
that individual units may not like having this transparency, but if someone is using
RIF monies to increase their salary, they can justify that. Andrew Twaddle said he
thought that accountability is pretty good at the department level, but it is
dependent on the Chair. From reviewing the general operating (G.O.), budgets, one
cannot tell where state money is going because of the shell game of money
movement. Stephen asked for transparency in the math department years ago, and
the new chair, after six months of examination recognized a $600,000 surplus.
Faculty lounge status: Leona stated they had discussions, but were concerned that it
would not be well used, and in a time of dwindling resources and space it would
look bad. Stephen will to go to the Provost with the request, and Galen suggested the
Lounge be at the University Club. Jackie Jones in the Provost office, said there had
been the same idea from two places. It is close to happening – let’s follow up! There
are two ways to make it happen; the provost pays for it, or the AAUP sponsors it.
Leona believes that the Provost will pay if we agree on a space; and that he would
stock it. She suggested Statlor Lounge – it’s a good central location.
Victoria asked Leona to follow-up, and she absolutely said she would. The next
meeting will be held in mid January. Place to be announced There being no further
business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at noon.
Respectfully submitted, Phebe Nichols Lauffer