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
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:19:40
Dear Senate Rules Committee.
I just received notice of motion from Frank Stahl. I have titled the motion US09/10-12. It states:
"With respect to procedures for promotion and/or tenure, the Senate directs the Provost as follows: At the time that candidates for promotion and/or tenure receive notice of the Provost's decision, the Provost shall notify the Faculty Personnel Committee of actions taken with respect to their recommendations."
for the motion which contains links to other pages which either are or which are not relevant to the matter at hand. In particular, I have linked the 2008/9 FPC final report, a previous motion by Frank Stahl on a related subject, and a note of clarification by Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Russ Tomlin. Said document states "In Spring of 2007, we made the decision to stop copying the FPC chair after a review of OAR 571-030-0025, which governs personal records restrictions on access...." A link to OAR 571-030-0025 also appears on the motion web page. A link to ORS 351 060 als appears. I respectfully ask you to brouse the links on US090-12.html.
I should be grateful if you could follow the usual methods and procedures to deal with the motion. In addition, as it may well come up during the debate on the motion, I should be most grateful if you could consider the following questions and provide me with your advice thereunto appertaining:
Question 1. Do you think that either OAR 571-030-0025 or ORS 351 060 does in fact render it impermissible for the Provost to copy the FPC chair with detailed information concerning decisions, and thus the motion would require actions contrary to OAR or ORS?
Question 2. Do you think that the UO Senate has the power to direct (as opposed to request) the Provost to take the actions mandated by the motion?
I shall copy this to Melinda, to Jim, to Russ, and to Frank to afford them the opportunity to weigh in on the matter. I will post any responses I receive in this regard on the web and link them from the motion page. I am going to be away on professional business during the break so my email responses may occasionally be a bit delayed.
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: firstname.lastname@example.org. 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" email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
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: 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.
Email on May 27, 2010 from Nathan Tublitz (Senate President) to the University Senate re conclusion of academic year in the University Senate
On May 27, 2010, Nathan Tublitz wrote:
Many thanks for concluding a successful academic year in the University Senate. We accomplished much important work including but not limited to adopting policies on academic free speech (US09/10-18) and facilities use (US09/10-19), to establishing a Senate Public Records Review Committee (US09/10-07) to denouncing the hateful speech expressed at the Pacifica Forum. A complete list of issues covered and motions passed this academic year can be found on the Senate Home page (http://senate.uoregon.edu) Other notable advances by the Senate include the Senate going paperless and having our meetings streamed live on the web as well as archived for later viewing.
Perhaps our greatest achievements are having respectful dialogues on contentious issues at Senate meetings and working closely with the University Adminstration to achieve common goals. The latter is due to our new administration's concerted effort to collaborate closely with the Senate and make our campus governance system work as smoothly as possible. I thank the University President Richard Lariviere, Provost Bean, and Vice Provost Tomlin for their efforts. It is my hope that we have set the foundation for advances on both fronts next year.
The Senate could not run without a battery of talented people. Tami Oar from Academic Affairs took minutes and help organize the meetings. Marilyn Skalberg stepped in mid year to take over the Senate Webmaster's position and has done a superlative job. Paul Simonds did his usual terrific work as Senate Parliamentarian. We also could not have been as successful as we were without the hard work in front and behind the scenes by our interim Senate VP, Peter Keyes. Thanks to you all!
I must pay special tribute to Gwen Steigelman, our amazing Senate and Statutory Faculty Secretary. Gwen is retiring this year and yesterday was her final Senate meeting as Secretary. Gwen has done a fabulous job for 14 years in this position and has been the glue that has held the Senate together. On behalf of all of us, I thank her from the bottom of my heart for all her efforts. You have been fantastic in every respect Gwen and we will miss you.
Although Gwen is truly irreplaceable, the University President and myself are excited to announce that we have jointly appointed Heather Briston, the current University Archivist to be the next Senate and Statutory Faculty Secretary. Heather brings a unique and superb skill set to this job and we are very pleased she has decided to accept the position. Please join me in welcoming Heather next time you see her.
Finally, thanks to all of you for making this year so successful. I especially want to thank those Senators who are rotating off the Senate. I deeply appreciate your commitment to campus governance and hope you will consider running again for the Senate in future years.
With the implementation of the new campus goveranance document approved last week by the Statutory Faculty, our governance system will only continue to improve and be strengthened. I look forward to working with you all next year to make us proud of our governance system.
A happy end of term and summer to you all!
Professor of Biology
Institute of Neuroscience
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon USA 97403
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 email@example.com 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.