Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Kelsey Emard, Colin Johnson, Matthew Kennedy, Michelle McAllaster, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, Justin St. Germain, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Jack Istok, Randy Rosenberger
Ex-officio members present: Academic Programs & Assessment – Heath Henry; Difference, Power & Discrimination – Nana Osei-Kofi; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: Pat Ball, John Edwards, Michael Jefferis, Caryn Stoess
Policy Discussion
-
Non-OSU instructors
-
We have received proposals with thin OSU proxies for non-OSU actors who would be hired upon successful accession to the bacc core.
-
Pros
-
GenEd should not consider contingent offers of employment
-
Units can propose courses as they see fit
-
Avoids perception that we are taking pitches for courses from potential new employees
-
Cons
-
Circumvention units would simply hire people
-
Units should be allowed to hire outside contractors/vendors to deliver instruction
-
Proposals of this type are so weak they would never pass
-
This is a once-a-decade level issue.
-
It is bad HR practice to make contingent offers based on secondary committee process.
-
Vendor products are legitimate but should be used by OSU people in context (such as google 360 certificates) not as a replacement.
-
General agreement that only current OSU employees are eligible to serve as instructor of record for gen ed courses/proposed courses.
-
Do courtesy faculty have access to CIM to propose new gen ed courses?
-
Non-OSU could not be assigned to a course. They must have an ONID, FERPA training, etc.
-
Teaching Assistants have been tasked to manage CIM on behalf of a unit, which can circumvent this
-
Would this policy have an adverse effect at other campuses?
-
The OSU-Cascades representative does not believe there would be any negative effects from this policy.
-
How do we define ‘faculty’? Does it fall under the committee’s purview to dictate hiring practices for units?
-
Associate and Assistant Professors would fall under the definition of faculty.
-
For the vast majority of proposals, the instructor would not be listed, making it unclear whether or not the instructor is an OSU faculty member.
-
This policy is being proposed as a result of a particular course that came through involving a courtesy faculty member who would get a course accepted and thus be on the OSU payroll. The course had multiple issues and the faculty member had questionable credentials.
-
Is this proposal enough of an outlier that a policy is not really needed?
-
The committee elected not to set a policy and to just address this issue as it arises.
-
GenEd courses by non-Baccalaureate units
-
Can Veterinary Medicine, Pharmacy, Student Affairs, Athletics, and University Housing & Dining Services (UHDS) offer courses?
-
Pros
-
Avoids misperceptions about Baccalaureate Core Committee as a budget committee
-
Enterprise Resources should follow curriculum, not the other way around
-
Curriculum is driven by academic units, not by those with physical assets
-
Expertise from other units should be brought in on an adjunct basis
-
Cons
-
We shouldn’t box in units in case the budget model changes
-
There may be substantial underutilized expertise in these other units
-
Budget choices may force some options to fade from academic colleges, creating new units in Student Affairs is a refuge
-
This is really a cluster of two distinct groups: non-baccalaureate academic colleges and athletics/auxiliaries
-
The most recent versions of these ideas were blocked or channeled away from bcc early in their administrative lives, do we want to codify an easy answer?
-
What about new categories, such as Transitions, which is zero credits? Could UHDS offer a Transitions course?
-
The LOCR committee is leaning towards making the Transitions courses being four credits.
-
Beyond OSU is a zero-credit category.
-
Based on the previous discussion, should a policy be put in place? Courses should be judged based on their curricular merit, rather than on who is teaching it.
-
If another unit, such as Athletics, wanted to propose a course, it would still have to be tied to an academic home.
-
Is this another question that falls out of the committee’s purview?
-
The committee elected not to set a policy and to just address this issue as it arises.
-
Non-sponsored WIC/DPO courses
-
The committee will discuss this topic during the February 1, 2023 meeting.