First, thank you to Senators who notified me that this issue was on the March agenda and to President Kyr for agreeing to present my statement. I’m unable to attend because I’m teaching during the Senate meeting time.
My interest in this stemmed initially from a personal stake—that the five-years-as-full professor criterion would deprive me of emeritus status because I had contracted under the Tenure Reduction Program to retire this year with four years in rank. I appreciate the willingness of the drafters to add a “grandfather clause” and an exception for “extraordinary” cases in the future.
My concerns now are that the policy applies an unduly restrictive criterion for emeritus status, casts worthy retiring faculty into limbo, doesn’t eliminate the possibility of administrative arbitrariness, and offers no substantive new benefits to those receiving the title.
First, the motion sets forth a standard for granting emeritus status far more restrictive than any of our comparator universities. (I’ve compiled their statements and placed them in an appendix.) The five-years-in-rank standard rewards past but not recent accomplishment and certainly doesn’t reflect the “enduring excellence” that earlier drafts of the statement defined as its purpose.
Second, it leaves the status of non-emeritus retired faculty undefined. What will their titles be? Will they lose voting rights for the Senate and participation in the Assembly even when on the payroll? Will they be excluded from consideration for office space and other academic services when they’re teaching?
Third, the clause allowing the Provost to bestow emeritus status to those who don’t have five years in the top rank in “extraordinary” circumstances, while humanely intended, turns “difficult” cases back to administrative discretion with no standard for deciding whether a case is “extraordinary.”
Finally, I can find no new right or privilege granted to emeritus faculty in this statement, other than the dubious benefit of excluding some colleagues from the status that their counterparts had in the past.
In sum, the motion is at best superfluous and in all likelihood counterproductive to the aim of encouraging all retired faculty to take an active part in the academic life of the University. Please consider voting against the motion.
Daniel Pope Professor of History
Appendix: Emeritus status standards at UO Comparator Universities
I cut and pasted statements from websites of the universities that the Senate Budget Committee designated as our comparator institutions. I added the University of Kansas, former President Lariviere’s previous institution, for good measure. Here is a summary of the findings: 1) None of them reserve emeritus status for full professors; all provide for associate professors to receive the title; 2) Several use the word "automatic" in their description of how the rank is awarded; 3) In some cases, there are length of service requirements, but these are far less stringent than "five years as full."
University of Michigan:
Regular and clinical instructional faculty, research professors, research scientists, librarians, curators, and archivists may, upon retirement, be granted an emeritus or emerita title by the Board of Regents. (See also SPG 201.34-1 Classification and Appointment of Instructional Faculty.)
Such titles for regular instructional faculty, research professors, librarians, curators, and archivists are granted on the recommendation of the appropriate chair and the dean or director (Ann Arbor campus) or by the provost and chancellor (Dearborn and Flint campuses).
[The University of Michigan is the only comparator that seems to allow for any substantive review of the retiring faculty member's work as part of the process of granting emeritus status. There is no indication that the review is any more than pro forma and there are no rank restrictions. See http://hr.umich.edu/procedures/spg201-80.html ]
The honorary rank of professor emeritus or associate professor emeritus is conferred upon retiring faculty following nominations made to the Board of Visitors by the president for the following categories of employees: full or associate professors retiring after age forty-five after at least ten years of service; chair holders retiring after age forty-five with five years continuous service; former full or associate professors who have previously retired after age forty-five after ten years service. The rank attained prior to retirement usually governs the emeritus rank. Upon recommendation of the President, associate professor candidates who have evidenced outstanding teaching or public service performance may be elected to the rank of Professor Emeritus.
The title Professor Emeritus shall be conferred, upon retirement, on every Professor and Associate Professor. The title suffix Emeritus for positions held at the time of retirement shall be conferred, upon retirement, on every member of the Academic Senate. With the approval of the President, Emeritus status shall be conferred, upon retirement, on every academic appointee who is not a member of the Academic Senate but who meets specific criteria established by the President.
According to the Faculty Handbook, "Upon retirement, any administative officer or any professional member of the faculty, in accordance with normal faculty review procedures or by approval of the Board of Regents, may be allowed to retain his/her title with the description 'emeritus.'"
The Chair writes a letter to the Dean, requesting emeritus status for the retiring faculty member, including a department vote. The request is sent to the Dean's office, the Dean concurs, and then the request is sent to Faculty Affairs. When the request has been approved by Faculty Affairs, Arts and Sciences get a copy back and the HR Center codes the emeritus status onto PeopleSoft. A copy of the approved request is sent to the department chair and the staff assistant.
There is no particular timeline that must be followed for requesting emeritus status. The request may be made either before or after the time of retirement. The effective date will be as of the retirement date.
b. Automatic conferral of emeritus faculty status. The following shall be accorded emeritus faculty status automatically when they retire from the University under honorable circumstances, including permanent disability sick leave, after serving the University for a significant period of time: 1) regular faculty, and 2) central administrative officers, deans, and directors, provided they also hold regular faculty status.
[In the full version of the statement, regular faculty are defined as "tenured faculty or salaried clinical track faculty of the rank of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor." The "significant period" is defined as ten years.]
The emeritus appointment is recommended by departmental action for a regular, WOT, research or clinical faculty member who has retired under the UW Retirement Plan or is receiving benefits as if he or she retired under another state of Washington retirement plan and whose scholarly, teaching, or service record has been meritorious. Such a recommendation requires approval by the college dean and the President of the University. The normal criteria for appointment with the emeritus title are at least ten years of prior service as a member of the faculty and achievement of the rank of professor or associate professor. Under certain circumstances the President may grant emeritus status to an administrator at the level of dean or vice president, or at other levels if deemed appropriate.
University of Kansas Policy: At the University of Kansas, Lawrence, retiring members of the faculty and administrators automatically receive emeritus status if they are at least 55 years of age, have a minimum of ten years of full-time continuous service at the University of Kansas, and are determined by the University to be in good standing at the time of retirement. Emeritus faculty are expected to observe in retirement the same standards of professional ethics as in their active careers (See Articles IV and V of the Faculty Code). Emeritus status is not normally recommended for persons who are leaving the university in order to accept full-time service at another higher education institution, even if the age and service criteria are met. A member need not hold a full-time appointment at the time of retirement as long as the requirement for ten years of continuous full-time service was met earlier in his/her career.
Procedures: When a faculty member or administrator who is eligible for emeritus status provides his or her chairperson/director with written notice of intent to retire, the chair or director automatically will forward a recommendation for emeritus status to the Provost through the appropriate administrative channels (dean or vice provost). The Provost will make the appropriate recommendation to the Chancellor. Should a retiree be denied emeritus status, he/she may appeal the denial to the Chancellor.
CAMPUS FORUM: OPEN DIALOGUE ON FACULTY UNIONIZATION Hosted by the University Senate; Robert Kyr, moderator (Senate President)
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 4 to 6 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom
A PANEL DISCUSSION WITH QUESTION-AND-ANSWER WILL FEATURE A WIDE RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES. PANEL MEMBERS ARE:
Tina Boscha, Career Instructor Jeff Hurwit, Professor, Art History Alec Murphy, Professor, Geography Scott Pratt, Professor, Philosophy Gina Psaki, Professor, Romance Languages Michael Raymer, Professor, Physics
As President of the Senate, I urge you to attend this important Campus Forum, which was requested by a large number of individuals from the statutory faculty (both TTF and NTTF), who feel that they have not yet heard a wide enough range of viewpoints on the topic of faculty unionization. As you know, we are currently in the period of a card check, and if enough signed cards are collected, then the collective bargaining process will proceed, leading to faculty unionization.
Before each of us considers whether to sign a card, it is crucial that he or she has a full range of information, so that a wise decision can be made. It is clear that faculty unionization will change our university, and based on available information, each of us must decide whether he or she believes that is will be for better or for worse.
The February 21st Campus Forum has been designed to help us in our decision-making process by offering a wide range of crucial information and a variety of viewpoints about the topic of faculty unionization. The event is structured as an open dialogue that features discussion among the panelists in response to questions from the audience. The forum will be as interactive as possible, allowing for maximum participation by the attendees.
All members of the statutory faculty which includes all tenure-track faculty (TTF) and non tenure-track faculty (NTTF) are strongly urged to attend this important forum, which will be the only one of its kind during the current card check period that is part of the effort to unionize the University of Oregon faculty.
The following topics will be the focus of discussion:
I wish to formally challenge the current election for the Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee. The current election has four Officers of Administration on the ballot. There no officers of instruction, i.e. teaching faculty, on the ballot.
The OAR which describes the composition of the FGAC is OAR 571-003-0007. Here is the relevant subsection:
OAR 571-003-0007 Composition of Faculty Grievance Appeal Committees
(2a) The committee shall have its five members elected by the non-students eligible to vote at meetings of the University Assembly;
(2b) Committee members shall be unclassified academic employees with faculty rank. The Committee on Committees shall insure a slate of at least two candidates each year for each open position. Candidates may also be nominated by petition which must be signed by at least ten valid signatures of voting faculty. Petitions shall be distributed by the Secretary of the Faculty. Ballots shall contain candidates nominated by the Committee on Committees and those nominated by petition;
2a refers to the University Assembly, a governance group that no longer exists. In fact, it does not exist because the Department of Justice issued a ruling in November 2008 specifically stating that it was an illegal governance body because its membership included people who were not teaching faculty, i.e. those with faculty rank.
2b specifies that the Committee members shall be people with faculty rank, not faculty status. It is my understanding that OAs do not have faculty RANK. Lorraine Davis told me that when she was assistant provost she changed the contracts of OAs so that they no longer had faculty rank only faculty status.
The University official salary and appointment list (http://ir.uoregon.edu/sites/ir/files/Unclassified%20060111%20to%20083111.pdf; see attached) for all unclassified employees includes each of the 4 FGAC candidates. Not one is listed as having faculty rank. Indeed, each is listed as having "no rank". In addition, none of the four are designated as "faculty" in the employment category entitled "EEO category"; one is listed as "secretary/clerical" and other three as "other professionals".
When taken together, the salary book information and OAR 571-003-0007 provide strong evidence that officers of administration cannot run for the FGAC or vote in the FGAC election.
There is also an ethical reason to not have OAs on the FGAC. The FGAC is a highly sensitive committee that must at times go against the decisions made by the administration. An OA who has a one year contract and can be fired at will with 90 days notice will likely not going to risk his/her livelihood and his/her family's well being by going against the will of the administration. This is a clear conflict of interest and we would do well not to ever place an OA in such a position.
Thus for legal and ethical reasons, I formally protest the current election for the open positions on the FGAC and ask that the election be nullified and repeated with candidates drawn from the ranks of the Statutory Faculty.
In your response, I ask that you explicitly state the University's definition of "faculty rank", including the legal basis for this definition. I also formally request a ruling from the Department of Justice and not from General Counsel on whether it is appropriate to use the membership of the now-decommissioned University Assembly as the basis for justifying the inclusion of OAs in this election given the DoJ November 2008 ruling which deemed the University Assembly as an illegal governance body.
TO: Christopher Prosser, Executive Coordinator of the Statutory Faculty
FROM: Richard W. Lariviere, President
As you are aware, a faculty member submitted an objection to the recent election for the Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee. The objection was based on an assertion that the definitions of the electorate and of the qualifications for candidacy were incorrect.
I have been informed by the University's General Counsel that the electorate and eligibility definitions used in this election for service on, and voting for, the Faculty Grievance Appeal Board were correctly interpreted. They reflected the definitions of the University Assembly in place at the time of the issuance of the OAR 571 003 0007 governing that matter.
I understand that all individuals who were eligible to serve were notified of that opportunity and of the process for nomination. Four individuals, qualified to serve, came forward.
I therefore certify that the election just completed to fill two openings on the FGAC was correctly administered and that the results will stand.
Oregon State Board of Higher Education Chancellor of the Oregon University System 1800 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 520 Portland OR 97201
Dear President Donegan, Chancellor Pernsteiner, and Members of the State Board:
First, I would like to thank the Board for inviting me to give testimony at the meeting during which you will consider terminating the contract of Richard Lariviere, the sixteenth President of the University of Oregon. We are all aware that today’s meeting is a challenging one for all concerned and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve as an “Invited Witness.”
I am here today to give testimony on behalf of the University of Oregon Senate, which is composed of faculty, students, Officers of Administration, Officers of Research, and classified staff. It is the only university legislative body of its kind in the country, since it includes not only faculty, but all of the stakeholder groups within our community. As such, it exemplifies the principle of shared governance that is a primary aspect of our identity, and that dates back to the University of Oregon’s Charter of 1872 and remains embedded in state legislation today.
Over the past two and a half years, I have been fortunate to get to know Richard Lariviere through my work in the University Senate. As part of our shared governance system, I personally meet with the President on a monthly basis, and I sit on the Faculty Advisory Council, which meets with him and our senior administrators every week for two hours to discuss vital university issues. The University of Oregon has a long-standing tradition of consultation and shared decision-making between our President and the five stakeholder groups that I represent.
On Friday, November 25, the faculty members of the University of Oregon Senate Executive Committee issued the following statement in order to convey our strong and unwavering support for the renewal of President Lariviere’s contract:
“President Lariviere has vocally and publicly aligned his vision for the UO with Governor Kitzhaber’s efforts to develop creative, innovative solutions to the problems besetting our entire education system. Under President Lariviere’s bold and dedicated leadership, the UO has begun to close the previously widening gap that separated it from nearly all of its national peers. In student enrollments, faculty research grants, diversity, the quality of the freshman class, and private giving, the UO has improved while many of the country’s leading public research universities have suffered setbacks. This is compelling evidence of President Lariviere’s tangible record of success during a brief tenure of two and a half years, a remarkable achievement in light of ongoing state disinvestment in higher education.
“The spontaneous and widespread outcry of support for President Lariviere—including more than 6,000 signatures on a Senate petition as of today—demonstrates that he inspires deep and passionate commitment among those who carry out and support UO’s teaching and research missions. His departure will shatter morale at the UO, cause many of its employees to leave the state for positions elsewhere, and make it difficult to recruit new academic talent. This will compromise the university’s ability to serve Oregon’s citizens and to stimulate its economy now and in the future. The damage will be both short- and long-term. The deterioration and destabilization of the UO will lead some of Oregon’s most promising and deserving high school graduates to seek their education in other states, where the cost of tuition will be much higher. The inability to attract and educate our best and brightest here at home will cause a brain drain with exceptionally negative consequences for Oregon.
“The State Board’s plan to remove President Lariviere without first consulting the university community demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about UO’s educational mission. It reveals an appalling disregard for the intelligence and expertise of our dedicated and hard-working faculty, students, and staff. The process by which it has occurred will harm the recruitment of leaders in all public universities in Oregon, marking the state system as one in which pursuing excellence is a risk to one’s career.
“Due to the efforts of our current President, the UO has been put on an upward academic and fiscal trajectory. This momentum will be lost and it will be extremely difficult to regain without him.
“In the strongest possible terms, we urge the State Board to halt its efforts to remove Richard Lariviere as the President of the University of Oregon. Furthermore, we implore the Governor and the Legislature to help ensure his retention, not merely for the benefit of the University of Oregon, but for the present and future well-being of all Oregonians.”
In addition to a copy of this statement, which has been co-signed by every dean and department head at the university, I am also submitting additional materials, as follows: first, a volume of media coverage from November 22nd through November 27th; second, a volume of letters of support, and finally, the Senate petition, which has been signed by more than 6,000 individuals.
On Sunday, November 27, two days after our letter was sent to the State Board, we were heartened to read a strong endorsement of President Lariviere by 19 state legislators, including those from our own region and beyond. In their powerful and compelling statement, they assert:
“President Lariviere is a world-class university president with exceptional leadership capabilities. We believe that your pending action sends the wrong message to the public, to the academic community, to policy makers, and to other university presidents, both current and future. Whether intended or not, the result of this action is a message that the charge of university leaders is not to lead a university to the best of their ability.
“This is the exact opposite of what our state needs right now. In the wake of the great recession, the challenges of managing our public institutions demand bold, innovative leadership. We believe President Lariviere’s strong advocacy on behalf of Oregon’s students and on behalf of the University of Oregon is exactly the type of leadership that is needed during these times.
“In the last few years the UO has greatly increased enrollments – both from Oregon and outside – while also increasing the proportion of student retention. Both research grants and private gifts to the University have grown, as has the University’s global reputation (as witnessed by parents from outside Oregon and the United States willing to pay a high price for their children to gain a UO education).
“Comments from UO faculty and alumni strongly suggest this is due to President Lariviere’s strong and visible leadership. This is the type of innovation and leadership Oregon institutions desperately need if we are to prosper and prepare our young for a bright future.
“We have heard that this is a personnel matter, not about policy. We disagree, as it appears that this is a disagreement about policy choices and how President Lariviere acted to protect and move the University of Oregon forward, in both academic excellence and long-term fiscal soundness. We believe that retaining Richard Lariviere as the University of Oregon President is in the University’s and State’s long-term best interest in order to allow the university to continue its drive to deliver world class education, research, and innovation for the state of Oregon. We respectfully ask for the board to reconsider your pending decision and retain Richard Lariviere.”
On behalf of the University Senate, I would like to publicly thank the nineteen legislators who co-signed this statement in support of our President and for their support of our commitment, and I quote, “to deliver world class education, research, and innovation for the state of Oregon.” We commend them for their leadership in issuing this important statement about the future of education in Oregon.
It is clear that the events of the past week have shaken us to the core, in large part because the process of decision-making regarding contract renewal has taken place with virtually no consultation and with little understanding of our system of shared governance. We have been forced to ask: How can it be that an employer considers the renewal of a contract without adequately consulting those whose lives will be most directly affected by their decision? Every well-managed organization, including universities, considers the views of its most important stakeholders. This is especially true at the University of Oregon.
How can it be that the State Board of Higher Education has shown so little understanding of a university that it oversees—its mission, values, people, and needs?
Please do not misconstrue my remarks. We understand that you have a difficult decision to make here today and this vote will become an indelible part of Oregon’s history. However, there is more at stake than the employment status of President Lariviere, which he is the first to point out.
Last night, in a message to our faculty, staff, students, and alumni, President Lariviere made the strongest possible case for how we must move forward. He wrote, “I came here because the University of Oregon is a model for how public universities fulfill their mission in troubling times. I came here because the state of Oregon is a place so often at the forefront of change, a crucible where innovators, dreamers, mavericks and fair-minded citizens devise new solutions to old problems. I still believe this is true.
“The conflicts that resulted in my termination are a symptom of the broken system of governance and funding in Oregon higher education that desperately needs changing if the state of Oregon is going to achieve the greatness we all aspire to…
“…Your cause must be how Oregonians will be educated. Your cause must be how institutions like the University of Oregon can be strong in a state with weak public resources.”
As members of the University of Oregon community, our cause is and always will be how Oregonians are educated. We are educators, administrators, and staff, all of whom have dedicated our lives and careers to the University of Oregon and its mission of educating our students, who are the future of this state.
Regarding meaningful policy reform, we draw your attention to the fact that the Governor and Legislature have taken actions this year to put forward a new governance structure for education in Oregon at all levels. Now it is time for the next step, which is to create a powerful institutional governing board for the University of Oregon and for each of the institutions within our system, according to the particular mission and needs of each university. In the 21st century, one size does not fit all, and education in Oregon can only thrive if we support the unique abilities of each institution to educate its specific population according to its deepest values and needs.
Through consultation and collaboration, which are fundamental to the identity of the University of Oregon, we are committed to working with you to achieve these goals that are now within our reach. In the spirit of shared governance, we look to you for guidance, wisdom, and leadership. We want to work together with you to create the brightest future for our students, for our university, and for the people of Oregon.
In closing, we implore you to vote for the renewal of President Richard Lariviere, who we trust with absolute confidence. He is the leader who will inspire and enable us to achieve our greatest potential, as we strive to best serve the educational needs of our students and the state of Oregon.
This Thanksgiving weekend, your deans and faculty senate have been organizing to do all that they can to reverse the decision to fire our President Richard Lariviere. Many of you have done the same, while many more of you may have questions or concerns about what is happening and why.
The movement to reinstate Lariviere began when his dismissal was handled in a highly unusual way and announced right before the holiday. On Monday, the OUS Board will meet in Portland to officially determine President Lariviere’s status as UO President.
President Lariviere’s dismissal has mobilized faculty from every corner of campus to work together—on short notice, amidst a holiday, and on the edge of finals. This level of response makes this a significant moment within our community. We want to be sure that you know what is happening and have the chance to voice your questions, concerns, and opinions.
Your faculty—whether working to reinstate Lariviere or not—are deeply committed to providing you with a premium education at an affordable rate. We work hard because we believe that your education is invaluable. Whatever happens on Monday, this commitment will not change. Innovative programs like Cinema Studies (which unites AAA, CAS, and SOJC) have thrived under Lariviere’s watch, but it is the energy of our faculty and students that will maintain that momentum.
If you’d like to learn more about what has been happening, information links are provided below.
Kathleen Karlyn, Director of Cinema Studies
Priscilla Peña Ovalle, Acting Associate Director of Cinema Studies
The following resources cannot fully represent the views of any department, program, or faculty member, but they have been helpful touchstones re: what is happening and why.
From: Robert Kyr, University Senate President University Senate Executive Committee
Petition for the Reinstatement of President Richard Lariviere Please sign no later than noon on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
On behalf of the university community, the Senate has formulated a petition for the reinstatement of President Richard Lariviere, which demands that faculty, officers of administration, students, classified staff, and officers of research be significantly involved in decision-making at this level. I strongly urge you to sign this petition which you can access through the following link (and which will also be posted on the Senate webpage):
If you wish to see an excel sheet listing everyone who has signed the petition, then please follow these instructions: 1) Use the link above to access the petition and fill it out, then click “submit”; 2) Click the “results” tab (to the right of the “view” tab); 3) Click “Download”; 4) Another page will appear, and under “Export Format,” click “Microsoft Excel”; 5) Finally, click “Download” (in the box) at the bottom of the page.
The results of the petition will be sent to the list of individuals printed at the end of this email. In addition to signing the petition, I strongly encourage you to write your own letter to as many of these individuals as possible. Furthermore, please show your support by joining the following Facebook page (by clicking “Like” at the top of the page):
Please be aware that the Senate Executive Committee will meet today in emergency session, and within the next 24 hours, we will announce a series of Senate actions that will involve our entire university community. These plans for action will be posted on the Senate webpage:
The Senate Executive Committee met yesterday and formulated the following plan for the upcoming week:
1) YESTERDAY (WEDNESDAY): The Senate Executive Committee issued the petition on reinstating President Lariviere that many of you have seen and signed. As of 11:50 pm this evening, 2,890 people have signed the petition.
We also strongly encourage community members to write letters to the Governor, State Board and local legislators.
2) FRIDAY: The Senate Executive Committee will issue a strongly worded public statement on behalf of the university community denouncing the State Board decision with an explanation of why the decision is so detrimental to our university.
3) MONDAY: The State Board will hold a hastily scheduled meeting in Portland solely on President Lariviere's contract. It is expected that the Board will follow the lead of the Governor and Chancellor and terminate his contract.
The Senate President Robert Kyr will be allowed to speak at that meeting. We are asking as many faculty, students and staff as possible to attend the meeting to show support for President Lariviere. We have been told that the meeting will likely commence at 3 pm (check State Board web site on Friday for an official announcement; http://www.ous.edu/state_board) and will be held in PSU's Academic & Student Recreation Center, Suite 515 (1800 SW 6th Avenue, Portland).
The Senate Exec will help set up carpools if anyone has space in his/her vehicle or if someone needs a ride. Please contact N. Tublitz at email@example.com.
4) TUESDAY: The Senate and CAS Department Heads will sponsor a teach-in/rally here on campus. Senate President Kyr will report on the State Board meeting. Several faculty from across campus will also speak. There might also be a march. This will be the first campuswide community gathering since the President's firing. Time is likely to be noon to 2 pm. Location TBA.
5) WEDNESDAY: 2:45 pm University Senate meeting for the purpose of calling a Statutory Faculty meeting.
3:00-5:00 pm Statutory Faculty meeting. All community members are invited to attend. Governor Kitzhaber, Chancellor Pernsteiner and State Board Chairman Donegan are to be invited and will be given an opportunity to speak. Following their presentations, there will be an extended question and answer period.
At around 4:30 pm there will be two motions presented to the Statutory Faculty for adoption. The first will be a motion in support of retaining President Lariviere. The second will be a motion of no confidence in the Chancellor and the State Board. The location of the Senate and Statutory Faculty meetings will be determined and announced as soon as possible.
Updates on these activities will be posted on the University Senate website (http://senate.uoregon.edu/). Additional events will be scheduled depending on the outcome of the events in the next week.
Our heartfelt thanks to all of you who have contributed to this important effort.
Senate President Robert Kyr and the Senate Exec Committee
A possible faculty governance proposal. This was presented to the Faculty Governance Committee by P. Gilkey 24 September 2009 and represents a document which was circulated last spring. It is neither endorsed nor recommended by P. Gilkey and is only presented in the interests of an open debate.
Lecture "what is the role of the Senate on a unionized campus - the SUNY Buffalo experience" by Ezra Zubrow - Wednesday 7 October 1600-1720 Knight Library Brousing Room. Sponsored by the UO Chapter of the AAUP.
Email 5 November 2009 from P. Gilkey re US09/10-8.
Remarks by Carl Bybee (President UO Chapter AAUP) to the UO Senate October 2009
Report by the Faculty Governance Committee to the UO Senate 11 November 2009.
Report to the UO Senate 11 November 2009 by the General Counsel concerning the patriot act.
Report to the UO Senate 11 November 2009 on sustainability/greenhouse gasses.
Memo 10 November 2009 -- a note of clarification on practices that have been followed to organize the interaction between the provost and his staff with the FPC. This either does or does not relate to US09/10-8
Emails 10 November 2009 to Frank Stahl and to the Senate Rules Committee re US09/10-8.
Information from OUS concerning enrollment 2009 Enrollment data and Fall 2009 enrollment fact sheet presented to the 2009/10 UO Senate.
Information given by M. Grier concerning the extent to which the Oregon Public Meetings Law is applicable to the UO Senate.
Email from Senate President Gilkey requesting information concerning recent use of public information requests.
Email from Frank Stahl 16 November 2009 relating to a previous Memo from M. Grier concerning the extent to which the Oregon Public Meetings Law is applicable to the UO Senate.
Email 9 April 2009 from John Bonine concerning voting status of Emeritus Faculty in the Assembly. Followup 16 November 2010 by Frank Stahl. Further followup 17 November 2010 by Frank Stahl.
Memo of 17 November 2009 to UO President Lariviere concerning Senate Actions taken in October and November 2009.
Email as of 28 November 2009 from Professor Harbaugh concerning US 09/10-7 and postponing consideration until February 2010.
Report Of the internal governance committee to the UO Senate 2 December 2009.
Email 2 December 2009 from John Bonine concerning Faculty Governance.
Letter from UO Senate President Gilkey to UO President Lariviere concerning actions taken by the UO Senate at the 2 December 2009 UO Senate meeting.
Email 6 December 2009 from Peter Gilkey to the UO Senate concerning US09/10-9, US09/10-10, and the possible of organizing a townhall meeting.
Document given by Senate President Gilkey to the OA Council 9 December 2009.
Documents given by Senate President Gilkey to the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Public Access 9 December 2009.
Email 9 December 2009 from Dev Sinha concerning the first meeting of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Public Access to Scholarly Materials.
Email correspondence 4 Dec 2009 and subsequent between Senate President Gilkey and the General Counsel concerning a freedom of information act request re US09/10-7. See also Correspondence from Gilkey 10 Dec 2009 and Correspondence between GIlkey and Harbaugh 10-11 Dec 2009.
Email 4 Dec 2009 from Robert Melnick to the Campus Community solicitying comments on the Draft Conflict of Commitment report by the Conflict of Commitment Working Group. Updated 10 December 2009 -- see also Draft.
Presentation by Robin Holmes (Vice President Student Affairs) to the UO Senate 2 Dec 2009.
Email 12 December 2009 transmitting US09/10-12 to the Senate Rules Committee.
Some emails from Peter Gilkey to various people relating to a possible townhall meeting concerning unionization.
Email 20 December 2009 and Email 22 December 2009 from Bill Harbaugh concerning US09/10-7.
Email 4 January 2010 from Peter Gilkey pursuant to US09/10-10 appointing a Senate Working Group to implement US08/9-8.