Author: Daniel Sweet

In an unprecedented move, student representatives from the Wesleyan Council on Student Affairs (WCSA) and The Transcript were denied access to the Nov. 16 faculty meeting.

For the short period of time that students were outside Merrick Hall’s third floor meeting space, the monthly gathering of OWU faculty and staff simmered with controversy. Following the usual invocation, Provost Chuck Stinemetz moved to allow the student guests to enter the room.

After the motion was seconded, professor Bart Martin of the geology department raised his hand with a comment.

Citing the recent publication of Transcript articles in the Delaware Gazette reporting on faculty business, Martin asked that his colleagues consider barring student entry to the Monday meeting in the interest of confidentiality.

Martin’s speech was immediately condemned by an impassioned Paul Kostyu, an associate professor in the journalism department. He reminded the faculty that “we are members of the Delaware community,” and that “they have a right to know what goes on here.”

Kostyu also added that the faculty serves the students and that everything discussed at the faculty meeting “becomes public eventually.”

Professor Chris Wolverton of the botany department stood up to rebut this claim. “It is not unreasonable for faculty members to be allowed to make comments without fear of it being published in the newspaper the next day,” he argued.

As the tension grew between colleagues, one non-faculty member weighed in on the controversial motion. Deborah Peoples, head of collection services for Beeghly Library, said she supported Wolverton’s sentiment.

“I am thinking we deserve a place to air our feelings in relative safety where we are not feeling that it is going to be on the front page the next day,” Peoples said.

Peoples continued, suggesting that, “there are ways to make The Transcript widely accessible to every student and faculty member on this campus in its online form without having to make it accessible to the whole community.”

Sensing the emotion driving both sides of the argument, professor Thomas Wolber of the department of modern foreign languages noted that the issue at hand was indeed contentious.

“We have to find the right balance between transparency and valid argument,” Wolber reasoned, “but we also need to protect the integrity of the institution and the privacy of faculty.”

“I would recommend we not make a quick motion on this issue,” Wolber concluded. “I think somebody should study the issue carefully, weigh the pros and cons and come up with a decision that is rational and logical and that we can defend to the public.”

But professor Carol Neuman De Vegvar of the fine arts department objected to the idea that the faculty’s already precious time be further diminished. And if the faculty open the meeting to students, she argued, the entire Delaware community should be invited to sit in.

“Why don’t we just open the meeting to the entire township,” De Vegvar said. “Why don’t we put it on video and immediately broadcast it as it is happening. The answer is plain: we have business to do as a faculty, we admit people on vote. It is not a matter for the entire community.”

During the brief pause in debate that followed De Vegvar’s suggestion, Stinemetz interjected with a call for remaining comments. When no faculty members raised their hand, he requested a vote.

The faculty were at first asked to speak “yea” or “nay” on the motion to allow student representatives into the meeting, but with the sides being so close, a vote-by-hand was required.

After a silent minute, the motion to allow students into the faculty meeting failed.

With that announcement, Kostyu collected his coat and hat and walked out of the meeting.

As he left the building, Kostyu said his “principles prevent me from being a part of this.”

For the members of WCSA in attendance, the decision to bar their entry was a disappointment.

Junior Jessica Choate, president-elect of WCSA, hoped that her future “communication with the faculty can be open.”

Seniors Emma Drongowski, vice president of WCSA, and Jerry Lherisson, president of WCSA, reported similar feelings.

Speaking on both of their behalf, Drongowski said, “I am very disappointed that students were not granted access to the faculty meeting today. We believe that it is important for students to fully understand decisions that faculty members make, as it directly impacts us as students and as members of the OWU community. We sincerely hope that we, as students, will be included in these meetings and conversations in the future.”

Is it financially sustainable?

That question guided discussion at the Oct. 19 faculty meeting, underlying many of the talking points on the agenda. With enrollment declining, departmental budgets have been cut, book orders for the library reduced, staff laid off, teaching positions remain unfilled, faculty and staff benefits changed and retiree benefits slashed.

President Rock Jones said he and the Board of Trustees discussed, earlier this month, ways to maintain OWU’s liberal arts core in the university’s current economic climate.

“We want to continue the conversation about the importance of our mission as a residential liberal arts institution and to discuss what strategies can help us fulfill that and whether those strategies are sustainable financially, in the 21st Century.”

“We need to be careful,” Jones warned. “If we were to have three or four years of classes that looked like the classes this fall, that would require dramatic action and would threaten our ability to fulfill our mission.”

Provost Charles Stinemetz followed Jones at the podium, and in theme. He told faculty he had been working on a project lately “to estimate the appropriate size of the faculty in relation to student enrollments.”

As hands began to raise, Stinemetz clarified, “The question is, we have a decline in enrollment, how many faculty do we need to serve those students?”

Zach Long, associate professor of English, was the first to speak after this explanation. “Where’d the idea of coming up with an appropriate number of faculty members come from? What was the origin of it?”

Long repeated the question when he wasn’t satisfied with the answers he got from Stinemetz.

Chris Wolverton, chair of the University Governance Committee and a professor of botany-microbiology, tried to help Stinemetz.

“It is the charge of the Governance Committee in the faculty handbook to look at the appropriate size of the faculty,” he said. “This initiative was taken by the Governance Committee.”

Though the investigation is only just beginning, Stinemetz said, “We are far away from having a final model or number. We have had some preliminary discussions with the committees involved, which have brought up some very good points.”

Those committees contributing are the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) and the Academic Policy Committee (APC). Suggestions or data generated by these bodies will eventually be reported back to the Governance Committee, Stinemetz said.

After the floor was turned over for committee reports, Wolverton elaborated on what Stinemetz introduced.

“The Governance Committee is tasked with determining the appropriate size of the faculty and administration,” Wolverton said. “So one measure taken was to assemble a working group.”

“That group met and made the recommendation to freeze open faculty positions,” said Wolverton. “That was the outcome. That was what we did.”

When asked by Randolph K. Quaye, associate professor of black world studies, if the hiring freeze is “temporary or permanent,” Wolverton suggested that it remains to be seen.

“One of the variables that has a strong impact is the size of the student body. Now we have several hundred fewer students in our student body.” But, Wolverton suggested, “I would argue that the freezing is going to be temporary.”

Wolverton stressed the importance of cooperation between committee members in making decisions about the number of faculty and administrators OWU can sustain.

“The Governance Committee wants to see a representative of our committee and APC and FPC get as many variables on the table as possible and to see how these variables interact.”

At this point, Wolverton moved to begin an executive session, a period in which all non­-voting members of those present, including The Transcript and members of WCSA, had to leave the room. Wolverton said he wanted the closed meeting so faculty would feel comfortable talking about the economic issues facing the university without their views being made public. The vote to close the meeting was not unanimous.

The closed session ended in about 30 minutes.

When N. Kyle Smith, associate professor of psychology and chair of the APC took the podium, to have faculty vote on a new course and other measures, it was discovered not enough faculty were in attendance for a quorum. As a result, faculty could not vote.

Smith announced that at the faculty’s next meeting in November, he would move for a vote to make UC160, an 0.25 unit course, a requirement of all freshmen.

“Overall, UC160 has been shown to increase the retention rate, to make students more aware of possibilities available to them and to make students more engaged with the university,” Smith said.

But many professors did not seem to share this sentiment.

Karen Fryer, professor of geology­geography, said that for high performing freshmen “who hit the ground running, they simply don’t need it.”

Carol Neuman De Vegvar, professor of fine arts, said that “before we even have a discussion about this, we need to be sent information about the class as it already exists. We don’t really have a sense of the shape of it. This needs to be widespread knowledge before we are in a position to talk about this.”

Expanding UC160 to all freshmen would require a considerable expansion of the number of sections offered, which would mean adding to the faculty workload or hiring adjuncts to teach the sections. Given a tightening budget, faculty said they we were concerned about the added cost.

Earlier in the meeting, Jones said a current goal of his administration is to focus renovation efforts on University Hall. But assessments show that the initial estimate of $10 million for the work won’t be enough to foot the bill.

“We need to put everything on the table,” Jones said. “What are the best uses of that building for the future and what is the cost of allowing that building to serve those purposes?”

Jones also announced that long­time supporters of the University, Phillip J. and Nancy Meek, both members of the class of 1959, recently pledged $10 million to added to the $10 million the Meek family has already donated to the University.