Subject: Postpone Statutory Faculty Meeting
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009
Pursuant to discussion in the UO Senate at the close of the meeting yesterday, I am writing to you to recommend that the meeting of the Statutory Faculty which is at present scheduled for Wednesday 18 November 2009 be postponed. I feel that there needs to be further discussion of the matter before this would be a productive meeting.
Peter B Gilkey
President of the UO Senate (2009/10)
Subject: Open Enrollment
To: Frances Dyke
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:45:53
Could you pass along to whomever is responsible for this email copied below that I am grateful. This is exactly the sort of proactive reaching out that makes an enormous difference to everyone here at the UO. This is a super idea. Well done.
Peter B Gilkey
UO Senate President (2009/10)
Subject: [PEBB] Open Enrollment Help Session
From: Human Resources
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:21:04
Need help completing your online open enrollment? Come to the Knight Library, room 267b.
UO benefits staff will be available until 1:00pm to assit you with the process.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:26:11
Dear Senate Rules Committee:
I am attaching to this email a PDF file I received earlier this morning from the Office of the General Counsel since the memo is "Re Fiscal Impact of Public Records Requests for US09/10-7" and since US09/10-7 is currently before the Senate Rules Committee. I shall be transmitting this memo to Bill Harbaugh and to the entire Senate membership a bit later today, but I wanted you to have an advance copy.
As always, I am grateful for your efforts in this regard. The SRC is essential for the smooth functioning of the UO Senate.
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:57:42
Dear Fellow Members of the UO Senate
I have received a memo " Fiscal Impact of Public Records Requests for US09/10-7 Motion" from the Office of the General Counsel. I am forwarding it on to you all as a FYI as we will be taking up Motion US09/10-7 at the 2 December UO Senate Meeting. In brief, US09/10-7 is a " MOTION TO INCREASE OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY AND SHARED GOVERNANCE BY IMPROVING FACULTY ACCESS TO INFORMATION" and is sponsored by Professor W. Harbaugh, Department of Economics. Further details on this motion are available on the web http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/US090-7.html
Subject: Faculty Governance Committee Motion
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009
I attended the meeting of the Faculty Governance Committee this morning. Pursuant to a discussion with the committee chair, I am forwarding on to you a motion which was passed by the FGC today -- as a non-participant, I ended up with the only set of notes of the text of the motion!
"This committee recommends to President Richard Lariviere tht the meeting of the statutory faculty, originally scheduled for 18 November 2009, be postponed until notice of preparedness for that meeting is received from this committee" (Passed by the Faculty Governance Committee 15 October 2009).
The Faculty Leadership Meeting is jointly hosted by the UO Senate and the Faculty Advisory Council. If you wish to attend, please send an email so indicating to UO Senate President Peter Gilkey email: email@example.com. The following gives information concerning the meeting.
The Faculty Leadership Meeting will be held Tuesday 22 September 2009 from 10:30 to 13:00 in Room 122 of the Knight Library. Below is a list of topics for discussion, reflecting immediate and longer-term matters on which we would like your input. The list is not intended to be exclusive, so if you have concerns not yet on the list, please feel free to raise them by sending us a message. The agenda for the meeting will be rather informal as we want a free-flowing discussion and exchange of ideas. This list of topics will be a guideline for the discussion.
Changes in health insurance
University Budget - projections and implications
Raises in this biennium
Revisions to the governance structure
Preparations and concerns regarding H1N1 (including attendance policies)
The role of the FAC and its relationship to the Senate
The following email was received Friday 8 January 2010
An Election Reminder from the Office of the General Counsel
Just a reminder -- state law prohibits use of public funds to advocate for or against a ballot measure or candidate and prohibits state employees from requiring other employees, on the job or off, to support or oppose a ballot measure. This means:
YOU CAN provide balanced, objective informational background on ballot measures, but
YOU CAN'T spend work time advocating or opposing a ballot measure or candidate.
YOU CAN use your own time, including lunch hours or coffee breaks for political work, but
YOU CAN'T use state resources (copying machines, faxes, computers, postage) for political work on a ballot measure or to help a candidate.
YOU CAN wear campaign buttons at work, but
YOU CAN'T post political posters or flyers in public work spaces or facing out on doors or windows.
YOU CAN write letters expressing your opinion on ballot measures and candidates, but
YOU CAN'T use your university title in a way that suggests you represent the University's position.
YOU CAN discuss your political opinions with co-workers during breaks or away from work, but
YOU CAN'T require or coerce those who you supervise to take a position or participate in political activities.
Subject: Information for Senate Rules Committee
To: "Debra Donning" firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
From: "Peter B Gilkey"
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:54:54
Dear Debra and Melinda
This is to confirm in writing a conversation I had a few minutes ago with Debra. As President of the UO Senate, I would be most grateful if you could transmit copies of the documents that I saw yesterday (which relate to requests made recently under the Freedom of Information Act) to the Chair of the Senate Rules Committee Tracy Bars (AAA Dean's Office). I believe they would be very helpful to her as she works with the maker of US 09/10-7 (the Harbaugh motion). The information for Tracy is not for posting on the web but solely for the confidential use by her in her capacity as Chair of the Senate Rules COmmittee. She has a "need to know" -- in particular as it comes to dealing with the financial impact statement that is required for all UO Senate motions. So I should be most grateful if this information (and any related information you think might be reasonable and proper for her to have) could be transmitted as expeditiously as possible should you concur in this regard.
Subject: Fwd: VP election
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 14:00:56 -0700
Peter. Thanks. Please post
Begin forwarded message:
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: May 29, 2009 12:00:49 PM PDT
To: "John E Bonine \(UO\)"
Your letter inadvertently illustrates a fundamental problem faced by the Senate -- a problem for which no one seems willing to obtain an authoritative settlement. Is the internal governance of UO subject to State Laws other than those in the University Charter, or not? If not, we can all presumably agree that the conduct of meetings is to be in accord with the Charter (which says nothing on this score, then the UO governance document and then Robert's Rules. Then we must recognize that, whether or not internal governance is subject to further State Law, the Faculty on 6 May 2009 declared the Senate subject to the provisions of the Oregon Public Meetings Law, as declared on the now properly ratified governance document of 1996.
It would be an unforgivable disservice to the incoming president for the University to leave these issues open.
I have written elsewhere my reasons for believing that internal governance at UO is subject only to the Charter, the IMDs of the State Board, and whatever rules we lay down in our governance document. The reasons are technical but we all can appreciate that "School Boards are subject to the Oregon Public Meetings Law but Teachers' meetings are not."
On Thu, 28 May 2009 10:05:29 -0700, Franklin Stahl firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
A funny thing happened at the Senate meeting on 27 May 2009. A vote for VP as taken, and, instead of announcing the result, the Senate President (Paul van Donkelaar) announced that the vote was invalid on the grounds that "there wasn't a quorum." (Of course there was a quorum. It is understood that Senate meetings don't start until there is a quorum. The fact that their were only 23 votes is, by parliamentary convention, an indication that there were some abstentions. At one meeting this year a vote of 9 to 7 was found acceptable by President van Donkelaar.)
This is the first occasion in my now rather extensive observation of the UO Senate that a quorum has been called AFTER a vote was taken. To clear the air it would be appropriate for former Senate President van Donkelaar to explain his unprecedented behavior.
Other relevant links.
Email of 29 May 2009 from Senate President Paul van Donkelaar concerning the VP Senate Elections.
Subject: Shared Governance
From: "John E Bonine
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:35:58
Dear fellow Senators and President Lariviere,
At the last meeting of the University Senate I expressed my disappointment with legal advice rendered by the General Counsel.
With respect to all involved, I have now formulated my views in writing and am attaching them to this message. If I have made any errors in my analysis, I will welcome feedback and be happy to adjust it accordingly.
With best regards,
John E. Bonine
Professor of Law
Dean's Distinguished Faculty Fellow
1221 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403 USA
The Oregon LL.M. in Environmental
and Natural Resources Law
1. Faculty legislation gives voting rights in the University Assembly to all emeritus faculty and recognizes that department and minor faculties may extend the franchise at the local level."
While you were correct in your suggestion at the Senate meeting yesterday that "retired" faculty members are not, per se, voting members of the faculty, those retired faculty members who have status as "emeritus faculty" do have voting rights, by faculty legislation. They have had that status for more than 60 years, as far as I can tell.
Sixty years ago, a report of the Regular Meeting of the Faculty of January 5, 1949, stated that when the question was raised, "The chairman ruled that persons with emeritus status, if otherwise qualified under faculty legislation, are voting members of the faculty." The report further notes that this ruling was based on existing practice, in which the chairman "stated that emeritus professors are included in the list of the voting faculty compiled each year in the President's Office." http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/AssemblyRecordsVol4/Assembly-Vol4.html In other words, the inclusion of emeritus professors in the voting faculty predated even that 1949 meeting.
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Faculty on October 2, 1968, noted the following:
" VOTING FACULTY. The secretary read the definition of the voting faculty of the University, as follows: The voting faculty includes (1) all persons holding, in the University, the academic rank of professor, associate professor, or assistant professor; and (2) persons holding the academic rank of instructor or senior instructor who are employed in the full-time teaching of courses, giving instruction exclusively in schools, colleges, and tepartments that offer work for University credit. Persons with "visiting" or "emeritus" status have been ruled to be voting members, if otherwise eligible." http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/Assembly1968-1969ALL.html
As the University Assembly has recognized, faculty legislation that explicitly included emeritus faculty in the University Assembly was passed at a meeting of the University Assembly on May 2, 1984. http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirA834/A02May84-1.html This stemmed from a motion originally drafted by (famed) Biology Professor Sanford Tepfer, presented at a meeting the previous month. http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirA834/Assembly9Apr84.html It was part of a "governance package" that was debated and acted upon during the fall of 1983.
The status of emeritus faculty as voting members of the University Assembly was noted as recently as the notice of the Assembly meeting on February 28, 2003, from Gwen Steigleman, Secretary of the Faculty. http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/28Feb03assembly.html
Unless there is a motion depriving emeritus professors of their voting status on the faculty that I have not found, it seems clear that they do have that status. Is there anything I am missing in this? Or do we have the same understanding?
John E. Bonine, Professor of Law, Dean's Distinguished Faculty Fellow, 1221 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA, +1-541-346-3827.