An ad hoc committee to discuss solutions to problems with the growing campus was created Monday at the Faculty Senate meeting.

The senate created the committee in response to a resolution first presented at the Sept. 12 meeting.

The resolution requested that the senate oppose the relocation of undergraduate chemistry courses to the chemistry building planned to be built on the corner of state Highway 9 and Jenkins Avenue.

The resolution was voted down with only two supporting votes by the senate. The three-member ad hoc committee was assigned the task of looking at the larger picture and coming up with options for how to deal with the future of this issue.

Some picketers showed their support of the resolution outside Jacobson Hall as the meeting began.

"As a freshman, the last thing students should have to worry about is getting to class," said Mehdi Quazilbash, chemical engineering senior. "That was the main reason I lived in the dorms. Moving (the courses) there is not feasible."

The students said they felt a responsibility to make their opinions known even though the building will not be finished until after their expected graduation dates.

"If they move it down there it creates more stress and strain for the students," said Michael Frow, chemical engineering senior. "As a student leader I had to be involved now."

Nancy Mergler, senior vice president and provost, said she thinks everyone involved is doing the best they can in planning the new building.

"It's hard in planning that happens over several academic years to keep everyone informed," Mergler said. "I think up to this point we have made all the right decisions. There's no one perfect answer to change, just continued conversation."

Five speakers, aside from members of the senate, were allowed to voice their opinions about the resolution at the meeting.

Supporters of the resolution included Roger Harrison, engineering professor, and Susan Kerr, engineering senior.

"The main reason for this resolution is the impact (that) moving chemistry instruction to the south campus will have on undergraduate students," Harrison said.

Scheduling is also an important issue to students, Kerr said.

"(The administration) is just increasing the chances of us being tardy," she said.

She said students are excited about the new building, but they want to be sure its location doesn't negatively affect their education.

Glenn Dryhurst and George Richter-Addo, chemistry professors who have been involved in the planning committee for the building, also spoke.

The current building plans are the most feasible option, Dryhurst said.

"(The committee) considered such things as a renovation of existing space, new space and additions to existing space," he said. "It was decided that we needed a new building."

He said that although research facilities and instructional labs will be moved to the new location, no plans exist to move lecture classes to the new building.

Phil Klebba, chemistry professor, said he thinks the resolution is shortsighted in regard to future growth of OU. He said the issues of a "walking campus" and maintaining a 10-minute interval between classes aren't necessarily in the best interest of OU.

He said it is more important to keep teaching laboratories close to research laboratories than it is to keep them on the main campus.

The presentations of these speakers were followed by a discussion time among the senators. Several senators expressed concern that the resolution did not adequately address the bigger issue.

"I think to broaden the issue is what needs to happen, especially for a future plan," said Catherine Hobbs, English professor.

In other business, the senate approved committee nominations to fill vacancies. Also, the network policy proposed by the Information Technology Council was tabled for the next meeting.
hello there & you too