May 17, 2006

200 BRICKER HALL

MAY 17, 2006

3:00-5:00PM

MINUTES

Present:

Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Richard Gunther, Kay Halasek, Ramond Noe (Chair), Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco, Brian Winer

Student Members: Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council); Jane Evans and Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students); and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government).

Guests: Professor Robert Bahnson, Chair, Department of Surgery, and Professor Robert Bornstein, Senior Associate Dean, College of Medicine; and Jed Dickhaut, Associate Registrar, Office of University Registrar.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF APRIL 19 AND MAY 3, 2006

Vaessin moved approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of April 19 and May 3, 2006, Freeman seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESOR RAYMOND A. NOE

There were no comments

COMMENTS FROM THE VICE-CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

Council will hold an extra meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, in 1039 Derby Hall to review proposals for which University Senate action will be needed on June 1, 2006, if they are to be implemented for the 2006-7 academic year: merge the College of Human Ecology and the College of Education; establish the Master of Laws Degree Program (LL.D.) in the Moritz College of Law; establish a Ph.D. in Dance Studies in the College of Arts; and create the School of Earth Sciences, in the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

Two of the proposals (college merger and the new school) need to be reviewed by Faculty Council on May 25, 2006, the day after Council meets.

This sequencing led to an objection that Faculty Council would review the proposals after Council had acted. It is a question of preserving the integrity of the process and Council’s role and placement in it. Reynolds suggested that Council could discuss the two proposals at its meeting and take an electronic vote after Faculty Council had met. This was endorsed as an appropriate approach.

Smith announced that he had received a request from the College of Medicine to establish small “c” centers in two clinical areas: the Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair, and The Ohio State University Contact Dermatitis Center. There are plans for the College to come back later and establish the former as an academic center. Council members had had no objections. Smith will send these requests to the Board of Trustees for action at the Board’s June 2, 2006 meeting.

REVISION TO THE REGULAR CLINICAL FACULTY PROPOSAL, FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH, VICE CHAIR

Smith commented that the Council’s vote on the revised proposal was tabled at the May 3, 2006 meeting, until a college-wide faculty vote could be taken. He has now received an e-mail message from Professor Stephen Mangum, Senior Associate Dean, Fisher College of Business (copies distributed to Council at this meeting), indicating that the faculty had since voted (May 12, 2006): 33 in favor; 3 opposed.

One Council member questioned why Council had even asked for a college-wide vote given that such responsibility should be with the Department Chairs and the faculty of the College to determine what courses should be taught. It was a question of academic freedom. Other Council members said they had only meant to follow the current Rule. In question were some courses, normally taught by regular tenure-track faculty, that were going to be taught by clinical track faculty.

There are no constraints when a course is taught by adjunct faculty: why pose so many constraints in this instance? Council members argued that currently, by Rule, Council does have such authority to approve the courses. Others argued that perhaps the Rule should be changed first, and then colleges could come back with requests such as this. Subcommittee B had been in favor of changing the Rule. Smith noted that if we imposed the latter approach on this College, the current faculty appointments – the ones related to this proposed change -could not be made for two more years. Others agreed that there was no need to hold up the individual courses associated with this proposal and micromanage the process in this case. Council members decided to vote on this proposal and then return with a proposed Rule change next academic year.

Subcommittee B recommended approval, Gunther seconded the motion, and it carried with 10 in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE – JANE EVANS, SUBCOMMITTEE B

Evans noted that the proposal is to move the current division of urology to department status. Urology medicine has evolved substantially over the years from treating urological disorders with surgery to expanding treatment plans that do not involve surgery. It was clear that the argument for becoming a department was logical. She elaborated on the review process noting that this would be an exception to the current Rule that 10 faculty are required to establish a department. The Subcommittee had also looked at past similar proposals from this College in recent years, to determine whether suggestions about faculty expansion in those proposals had occurred. They had. Given that the area of urological medicine has grown significantly and getting departmental status would attract individuals to the program, Subcommittee B recommended approval.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR ROBERT BAHNSON, CHAIR, DIVISION OF UROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY, AND PROFESSOR ROBERT BORNSTEIN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

Bahnson provided background on the proposal indicating that urology medicine had grown dramatically over the years. In the past, surgical procedures were the only appropriate treatment for urological disorders. Now multiple methods of treatment have developed that do not always involve surgery – as in the treatment of prostate cancer for example. Increasingly divisions were becoming departments. Bahnson commented that naming a Department of Urology at Ohio State would help attract the best faculty. The faculty in the Department of Surgery had been supportive of the separation. Plans are to double the number of faculty if a department is established.

Can you say how many faculty are in the Urology Departments at other universities? Is the faculty pool significantly larger? The Urology Department at the Cleveland Clinic has 36 faculty members. At other universities there are anywhere from seven to fifteen faculty members in the department.
When Faculty Council reviewed the proposal, it took no vote but it did have questions about full time faculty. What is the distribution? There are eight Board-certified surgeons (listed on page 17) in the Division, but appointments are different from regular faculty appointments. There are also junior faculty that will go through promotion and tenure. There are auxiliary faculty (listed on page 18) who are Board-certified urologists. Bornstein and Smith clarified that for clinical departments, there are not the same limits on proportion of regular clinical faculty that exist elsewhere in the University.

Subcommittee B moved approved, Vaessin seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON CENTERS (2003) – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH, VICE CHAIR

Smith said that an Ad Hoc Committee on Centers, chaired by then-Council member Professor John Wilkins, had made recommendations, in 2003, for substantial changes in the process for the establishment and review of academic centers, but there has yet to be a Rule change to implement those recommendations.

There remains a very strong sentiment from the faculty that getting centers approved takes too long. The ad hoc committee had recommended classifying centers into three types with only those that cross colleges and have some level of central funding/oversight, going through the more elaborate Council-based review. The other two, those created within a college, and those that are seen as start-up, would not need such an initial review. There is an equally strong sentiment among faculty and administrators that, no matter what type of center it is, today or in the future, there needs to be a periodic, thorough, meaningful review that leads to specific outcomes – either continuing the center, or eliminating it.

Smith noted that the current rule has been in effect since the late 1990s and about 12 centers/institutes have been approved since then following the relevant guidelines. Council is about to review the first set of those centers soon. Gunther, Paskett, and Reynolds have agreed to be involved in the process. However, all centers developed/approved prior to the current Rule, have not been subjected to any review by the Council, and there is currently no plan to do so. Any Rule change would apply to future centers, but its applicability, in the review process, for established centers would need to be determined.

Smith commented that recently he has been advising faculty who are expressing interest in center development, to wait until Council has had a chance to address the rule issue.

Several Council members agreed that Council should not be concerned with centers established within a College and funded by the Dean, particularly in the current college-based budget model. However, the concept of “start up” centers needs further elaboration. What is a start-up center? Who is the reviewing body? To whom do these centers report? Should we not be asking about academic quality? It seems there should be distinctive guidelines for establishing start-up centers and how they are funded. What might these centers develop into? There needs to be a mechanism to review “start-up” centers that are initiated through special funds or grants. What if they are not productive and are draining funds? How does this affect the University budget overall?

Gunther noted that this situation raises broader issues about fiscal oversight. Currently the Senate Fiscal Committee (SFC), as part of its new mandate, has been reviewing central service facilities, but there could be a problem in it reviewing academic programs. Smith concurred that with regard to centers, for example, currently approximately 12 report to the Office of Research, but there has been no routine review process of them though that Office, and neither this Council nor SFC has been involved in reviewing them in any way.

All agreed that this Council now needs to be more heavily involved in center development/review through a revised Rule. Smith will get the Council additional information on the ad hoc committee report. The Council will discuss this again at a Summer 2006 meeting and will return to it as a major agenda item for the 2006-07 academic year.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35pm.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Randy Smith

Lakshmi Dutta

Joyce Rankin