Minutes

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator.

Present: J. Brubaker, C. Bybee, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Good, D. Healey, G. Hockstatter, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, M. Nippold, B. Powell, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, R. Rejaie, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-MacMillan, Y. Tan, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams

Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, I. Fielding, M. Henney, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, P. Southwell, L. Sugiyama, E. Thomas, P. Walker, P. Warnek

Excused: T. Bars, J. Bonine, H. Gangadharbatla, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, T. Minner-Engle, J. Piger,

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for April 13, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes. Minutes of the 9 March 2011 regular meeting of the Senate

A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Seeing no corrections the minutes were approved with one abstention.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Before moving to the State of the University, Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate body that the microphone system in the Harrington Room has been synced with the hand held microphones used by Senators while speaking at Senate meetings. He also informed the Senate body that the Senate meeting was being broadcast live over the internet and Senators should be aware of this while commenting on various issues.

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

Senate President Tublitz welcomed President Lariviere to the floor to discuss the State of the University. President Lariviere thanked Senate President Tublitz and then launched into an update on the New Partnership Proposal and Governor Kitzhaber's agreement previously announced with surprising endurance in the media. According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has a new proposal for integrating education responsibility in the state. The Governor is using the terms preschool through twenty to describe the students affected by this proposal. President Lariviere stated that it has been recommended that this description be changed to preschool through graduate school. This proposal represents more than half the state's budget. After speaking with Governor Kitzhaber several times regarding this new proposal, President Lariviere stated that he likes Governor Kitzhaber's thinking on this new proposal because it is not a governance structure but a policy structure and he believes the policy has the best interest of the state in mind. President Lariviere is optimistic that the Governor is thinking in the right way about his approach to education in Oregon.

According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has very explicitly stated throughout his campaign and since he has been elected that he intends to do away with both the state board of education and the state board of higher education and integrate the policy functions of those agencies into his Education Investment Board. This plan matches very closely to what President Lariviere has proposed with regard to the governance of the University of Oregon. The President stated that if you eliminate the state board of higher education and the state board of education, then preschool through twelfth grade are governed by local school boards, community colleges are governed by community college boards, and state universities are left with no governance. President Lariviere's governance proposal (New Partnership) matches exactly with what the Governor is proposing in regard to the governance of higher education. According to President Lariviere, the governance structure of higher education needs to be done in such a way as to allow the individual universities to flourish given their idiosyncratic structures, mission, etc…

President Lariviere stated that the reason why his administration has opted to make a formal push for approval of the New Partnership bills in the 2012 legislative session that begins in February, is purely and simply inside baseball politics. It has nothing to do with the Governor's enthusiasm or lack thereof in the policy, but is allowing more time for the Governor to accumulate a small number of supporters in major leadership positions to support both his policy and the New Partnership simultaneously. The President believes that in order for the New Partnership to gain appropriate support, the policy should be addressed during the legislative session in February of 2012. He stated that the Governor's Education Investment Board must be watched very closely and carefully and asked for help from the Senate body in doing so. At this stage, the Governor's proposals have been in the form of conversations only and no one has seen actual legislation. President Lariviere remarked that it is hard to overstate the importance of the engagement of the Senate body and their representative constituencies evaluating these matters. According to the President, there are no perfect pieces of legislation, and hopefully, this process leads to improvement. The President again asked the Senate body to stay engaged on this issue, and informed the Senate that there will likely be an interim work group that focuses on the Governor's proposal. The Senate and its constituencies therefore must be ready to articulate their needs and wants to that group starting in July.

The President went on to say that he along with alums, trustees, and representatives of the Senate and of the faculty at large, recently gave testimony in front of the House subcommittee on higher education. He stated that the committee was very surprised at how many people are paying attention to these matters. When Professor John Chalmers (Finance) and Senator I. McNeely (History) discussed their process of evaluation regarding the New Partnership, and presented their views on the Proposal, it brought the committee up short. According to President Lariviere, people who are particularly opposed to the New Partnership are interested in making this a personality issue and that is why the Senate's continued engagement is crucial regarding this matter.

After discussing the New Partnership, President Lariviere stated that he had just returned from a meeting of the Presidents of the AAU (Association of American Universities) in Washington. The President stated that to say it was not a uniform happy gathering of University Presidents would be an understatement. He believes that the University of Oregon is in an oddly strong position in comparison to other public universities because the UO has essentially gone through and survived everything that their colleagues are currently enduring. He used the metaphor that the UO has been living on bread and water for so long that we have learned how to build muscle mass on this diet. In one year, Pennsylvania has had a proposed fifty-three percent cut to their higher education budget. California has had a significant cut built into their current budget which could possibly double if a budget resolution is not found between California Democrats and Republicans. The President then stated jokingly that he came away from the AAU meetings depressed, but thought that it was a rare moment for the UO. If we are able to generate private investment in the way that he believes is possible, the UO will be in a very strong position in the future. President Lariviere then asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first comment was from Professor Gordon Sayre (English). Professor Sayre stated that it was widely know that the April Senate agenda was changed the night before today's Senate meeting and the proposal for endorsement of the New Partnership was withdrawn. He believes this was the right decision and requested an opportunity to raise questions about the New Partnership from President Lariviere. Professor Sayre stated that he emailed President Lariviere four questions the night before and looks forward to an opportunity to discuss those questions. He also stated that the town hall meeting held in January was in the right spirit for the type of discussion he is looking for. Many of the questions posed at the town hall were from students and community members and he believes that faculty did not have enough opportunity to engage the President in a dialogue on the New Partnership. President Lariviere stated that Professor Sayre was right and he welcomes the opportunity to engage more questions from faculty regarding the New Partnership once schedules could be arranged. He went on to say that the more engagement from the Senate on the New Partnership the better for all involved and that there are no hidden agendas. According to the President, the only uncomfortable aspect of this process is trying to get everyone to recognize where everyone stands and what the consequences of policies have been in the past.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for his remarks and stated that Senators had received an email stating that the Senate would not be discussing the New Partnership Proposal at the April Senate meeting. The Senate Executive Committee, who is the sponsor of the motion, decided to withdraw the motion because there was a general feeling that there are still several unanswered questions concerning the New Partnership. With the introduction of the Governor's proposal on education and higher education, and the simple fact that the Senate Executive Committee does not know what changes will come to the New Partnership during the coming months, the sponsors felt uneasy about endorsing a proposal that was not clearly defined and thus have decided to withdraw the motion. He then asked for confirmation from members of the Senate Executive Committee. Seeing no objections Senate President Tublitz stated that he believes the motion will return to the Senate body for discussion at a later date when the New Partnership is more clearly defined. He then asked for questions from the Senate body and seeing none he again asked Senators to submit their questions regarding the New Partnership to him. Senate President Tublitz then requested that the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) review the New Partnership in detail to try and address Senator's questions which would then be posted to a page on the Senate website.

A statement was made by Senator M. Vituli (Mathematics). She remarked that some of the questions that have and will be posed are not financial in nature, and because of this, she does not think it proper to limit the questions to the purview of the SBC. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that the SBC does not only focus on budgetary items, but on various implications of budgetary items and the effects those items have on the University. He went on to say that if the SBC feels that they cannot answer the questions or if the Senate does not like the answers they have given, then other answers will be provided. Senate President Tublitz felt it should be sent to the SBC first and was uncomfortable with setting up a new ad-hoc committee that would have to go through the New Partnership from the beginning. If many questions were submitted from the Senate and the University community, he would be willing to pursue this ad-hoc committee route.

Senator I. McNeely (History) stated that if Senate President Tublitz deemed it appropriate, as chair of the Academic Council (AC), he would be happy to discuss the New Partnership and field questions from Senators and their constituents through the AC. He stated that the AC's purview encompasses anything related to the academic values of the University and he thought that his colleagues on the AC would be willing to answer any New Partnership questions. Senate President Tublitz agreed to Senator McNeely's suggestion and thanked him for offering to help. Seeing no other questions or comments, Senate President moved to begin the new business portion of the meeting.

3. New Business

3.1 Motion US10/11 - 10: Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal

Motion US10/11-10 was withdrawn at the request of the Senate Executive Committee who sponsored the motion.

3.2 Motion US10/11 - 11a, b, c: Motions on grade culture from the Undergraduate Council, Ian McNeely, chair

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to discuss each motion separately and vote on each motion separately as well. He then invited Senator McNeely to the floor to provide an introduction to each motion. Senator McNeely stated that the three grade culture motions were approximately five years in the making and reiterated that the Undergraduate Council was not out to knock down student grades and conquer or reverse grade inflation. The UC's findings are not predicated on any particular findings regarding causes of grade inflation, at least not in a laborious statistical sense, instead they take grade inflation and a host of related problems like grade compression, as symptoms of a deeper problem which is the loss of meaning surrounding grades. These motions are designed to start conversations about grades, share information about grades, to make faculty more mindful when assigning grades, and to make students and transcript users more capable of relying on the grades they have been given. According to Senator McNeely, the UC tried to craft these motions in a way that would respect and promote the values of academic freedom. Each motion is designed independently to fill a specific informational vacuum and to provide information to students, faculty, and transcript users. Due to their specific rationales, each motion will be voted on separately.

After providing background information on the motions, Senator McNeely gave a brief overview of each motion beginning with 11A. He stated that when instructors post a policy, as is currently done, that says A equals excellent, B equals good, C equals satisfactory, etc… students are not receiving the tools to properly understand the ways in which modern universities organize. With 11A, the UC is asking each department and undergraduate program to formulate a rationale for its grading practices and post these practices on its official website. According to Senator McNeely, there is nothing in motion 11A that is compulsory, that requires instructors to adhere in any way to these rationales. The A+ grade should be given specific attention in these departmental rationales due to the UC's findings that assigning an A+ grade accounts for a large part of what is perceived as grade inflation. Because of this, these grades should be specifically defined by each department. The UC will provide online access to these rationales. Senator McNeely then stated that there was no financial impact in implementing motion 11A; it merely requires a series of discussions about grades whose outcomes will be posted online. Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator McNeely for his introduction on Motion 11A and moved to begin a discussion on the motion. Before discussion could begin, Senate parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that the committee who sponsored the motion must move for approval of that motion. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely if the UC moves the motion for approval and Senator McNeely stated that the Undergraduate Council moves for the approval of Motion 11A. Senate President Tublitz then thanked Senator McNeely for moving the motion and parliamentarian Simonds for his point of order, and added that the motion does not need a second because it is being sponsored by a committee and not an individual. He then opened the floor to conversation on motion 11A.
The first comment was from Senator M. Nippold (Education). She stated that the principle of Motion 11A was fine, but it also assumes that there must be agreement within a department as to what constitutes an A+ grade or an A grade. It was her feeling that this might not be so easily codified, and that faculty members within each department might have disagreements as to the specific meaning of grades. Senator McNeely responded by stating that that was a judgment call that each department would have to make on their own. He believes that, regardless of potential disagreements, they should be asked to do so in whatever terms deemed appropriate to that department. He also stated that instructors have the choice of opting out for principle pedagogical reasons.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) asked what Senator McNeely meant by the word disciplines. He was not sure if Senator McNeely was referring to the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a specific major, or a subgroup within a major. Senator McNeely stated that the word disciplines meant every individual department in the undergraduate program whether they are a part of CAS or not. Several departments harbor within themselves several different subject codes and disciplines. There exists a different teaching style within departments, for example language and literature within French. In those cases, Senator McNeely believes it would be helpful for students to know what those differences are.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was asked to read a comment from Professor John Nicols (History) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Professor Nicols' comments in their entirety:

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

I am in class during the meeting of the UO Senate so cannot be present for the discussion in the UO Senate. I would like to urge the UO Senate to table the motion for reconsideration at a later date. I write this letter as someone who has served on all the curricular committees over the years and chaired most of them. Moreover, I am not averse to making changes and proposed a similar motion on general education requirement several years ago. I recognize, as we all do, that there is a problem with grade inflation, and I welcome the work done by the undergraduate council to reflect on the nature of the problem and to suggest some methods for dealing with the trend. Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons for moving slowly:

1.) Grading is an intensely personal issue and the grading culture varies significantly by program and department, and by school and college. I suspect that many here would agree that the problem is best regulated at the local level. So my first question is: has enough been done in departments and programs to monitor the trend and to establish guidelines for faculty? Has enough been done to alter student expectations about grades? I know that some, like Karen Sprague, have worked to change expectations, but believe the issues have not yet been addressed in most departments. And if departments have failed to address the problem, we need to know why? The top down approach offered here strikes me as premature, given that little has been done at the department level to alter expectations of faculty and students.

2.) I am very skeptical of adding notations to the transcript that inform about the number of (for example) As awarded in a class. If I were a student who had worked hard for a grade I would find it very troubling to see a remark that 88% of the other students in the class also received an A. Such a notation would serve to promote bottom fishing and that cannot be construed as an improvement.

3.) Moreover, to claim that the cost of reprograming the transcript and adding the information to DARS does not strike me as cost neutral or even as something that can be implemented in the near future. That is, even if approved, the changes will take considerable time and effort to implement (My informants in the Registrar's office indicate a significant degree of skepticism on this component). This proposal needs a serious budget estimate of the real costs.

Hence my conclusion: I recommend that the motion be tabled and reconsidered only after the UC has provided departments, programs and colleges with suggestions to manage the problem, and taken up again ONLY when it has proven impossible to manage the situation locally.

Senator McNeely stated that Professor Nicols was a colleague of his and that this was the first time he had heard these remarks from him. He again reiterated that the three Grade Culture Motions were five years in the making, and that 11A was specifically designed to provide a framework to manage the problem locally. Senator McNeely mentioned that he brought this motion to his own department for discussion. He was not sure if Professor Nicols was at the meeting, but he did so at the initiative of the UC. He again reiterated that 11A provides a framework for all departments to have discussions regarding grades and to adopt whatever policies they see fit. He then stated that he would defer commenting on transcripts until his discussion of 11C. Finally, he remarked that his informant in the registrar's office is the registrar herself who has assured Senator McNeely repeatedly that these policies are cost neutral. She is allowed to determine programming priorities within her own budget of current staff and has stated several times that implementing these polices will be cost neutral. He then stated that he resisted tabling the motion per Professor Nicols request.

Senate President Tublitz then read comments on the Grade Culture Motions from Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (School of Music) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Senate Vice President Kyr's comments in their entirety:

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

First, my apologies for my absence from today's Senate meeting (April 13, 2011). As chair of the composition department in the School of Music and Dance, I was asked to give a master class at the Hult Center for the Eugene Symphony, which offers the Laura Avery Master Class Program. John Harbison, a renowned American composer who is the composer-in-residence for the orchestra, fell ill and could not travel to Eugene from Boston. Consequently, I was asked to give the master class in his place, since I had prepared all of the student composers and performers who are participating in this public event.

I am asking Nathan Tublitz to read this statement on my behalf in order to request that a motion be made to table the three motions (US 10/11 abc) related to improving grade culture. Although I realize that grade inflation is an important issue, I do not believe that the motions as proposed will achieve the desired result of improving grade culture, and I do not believe that they will be without financial impact on the university.

Therefore, I propose that the three motions be tabled until the following is achieved by the Undergraduate Council, at which time a reconsideration of the motions might be more appropriate:

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

First, I propose that the Undergraduate Council works directly with departments, colleges, programs and academic units in order to suggest concrete ways to improve grade culture as appropriate for specific disciplines. One size does not fit all and it is important for the council to interact at the local level with departments in order to understand their needs and to suggest ways that our grade culture can be improved within the contexts of specific disciplines.

My first point relates directly to the charge for the Undergraduate Council, which states that it is authorized to do the following: “Participate, on behalf of the University faculty, in planning the development and improvement of the undergraduate instructional program of the institution, in consultation with the University President, officers of administration and with relevant departmental heads and program directors.” Please note that the Undergraduate Council is not given a charge to administer or implement general policies, but it is asked to participate in the development and improvement of undergraduate education with relevant department heads and program directors.

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

Second, I propose that the council works in conjunction with the appropriate offices to prepare a specific report regarding the costs of enacting the motions, if it still wishes to pursue them. In regard to paying for administrative time alone, it is not possible that the changes to transcripts are “cost neutral.” A considerable amount of work will be done in order to affect the proposed changes and we must be apprised of the exact cost before these motions are considered, including the number of work hours and the corresponding dollar amount to pay for “administrative time.” The changes that are being proposed will require an enormous amount of labor to enact and are not the result of a simple “button press” as was stated at our last Senate meeting. Personally, I want to see a specific, line-item budget before I will feel ready to vote on any of these motions.

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

Finally, any addition to or alteration of transcripts must not put our students at a disadvantage on a regional or national basis as they apply to pursue their studies at the master's or doctoral levels. It is my belief that the proposed alteration to transcripts will present our students in a bad light that will not improve their chances for acceptance at the best graduate institutions in the nation. We will be creating an unequal playing field in which our own students will be ill served and placed at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment.

Thank you for considering my appeal to table the three “grade culture motions” in light of the issues that I have raised.

Senator McNeely responded to Senate Vice President Kyr's comments by stating that these opinions were not new to him. At the March Senate meeting, Senate Vice President Kyr raised these same points and since that time, Senator McNeely sent Senate Vice President Kyr a two page email in which he parsed the charge of the UC. Senator McNeely believes that these motions are within the purview of the UC and went on to say that he received no response from Senate Vice President Kyr despite numerous attempts by Senator McNeely to engage in discussion. He then stated that Senate Vice President Kyr's first point was very well taken. Developing appropriate solutions for specific disciplines and resisting a unilateral approach is precisely the intent of Motion 11A, and because of this, Senator McNeely did not understand Senate Vice President Kyr's objection. He then discussed Kyr's questioning of the UC's charge and stated that the UC would have no administrative power. The Senate would be delegating the registrar to implement changes, and he again reiterated that the registrar has assured Senator McNeely that implementing these changes would be cost neutral.

He then remarked that he trusts the registrar's professional judgment and is not in the position to question her. Senator McNeely continued to address the charge of the UC and stated that in his email to Senate Vice President Kyr, he specifically brought up points one, three, five, and six of the UC's charge that give the UC specific powers to monitor and respond to general academic policies of the university. Point five in particular establishes criteria and outcomes to determine the success of the overall undergraduate program. According to Senator McNeely, it is the UC's belief that grades ought to be criteria by which to evaluate the success of the overall undergraduate program. Rising grades ought to mean enhanced success, and those rising grades are now unreliable. Point six requires the UC to monitor the academic coherence quality and standards of the undergraduate academic program to insure that quality and rigor of instruction and evaluation are consistent across the curriculum. Senator McNeely stated that point six specifically requires the UC to look at evaluation practices. He stated that this is what these motions are doing and reiterated that the UC has no ability to overrule or interfere with the rationales for grading practices that will be posted on departmental websites, and he specifically would reject that power if it were offered to the UC.

Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) commented on Senator McNeely's remarks and stated that in his opinion, having the UC suggest specific changes for each department seems more top down and intrusive than asking departments to develop their own metrics for evaluation. As a student, he felt that would be helpful and remarked that he had been in classes where grading policies were not clear. If departments could develop a clear and simple grading metric, it would be a great help to students, and to him, it does not seem intrusive. He then stated that motions 11A and B appear to be vehicles to start conversations between departments and that motion 11C was different but was not currently being discussed.

The next comment was from Senator L. Middlebrook (Comparative Literature). She seconded Senator Stark-MacMillan's points and thanked the UC for their wording of the three Grade Culture Motions. She stated that these items are represented in the spirit of education, information and transparency and she believes they will be very helpful to students and faculty. With great respect for every voice being heard, she thinks that the personal nature of grading is slightly problematic, and to encourage departments to discuss more uniform standards and to have a language that keeps grading from being binding to individual instructors really shows the benefits of five years of considering a plan. She then spoke on behalf of her two departments that, according to her, are horribly beleaguered due to their own administration, and thanked the UC for providing the language of the motions and for not meeting with her departments. She believes that another set of meeting would be overly taxing.

Professor Thomas Wheeler (Journalism and Communication) stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he was a member of the UC and supported the three Grade Culture Motions. He then provided background on behind the scenes discussions on the motions, and stated that he very much appreciated the thoughtful and detailed memos that were sent from Professor Nicols and Senate Vice President Kyr. He stated that he agreed with Professor Nicols first point that not enough has been done on the local and departmental level which was the impetus behind motion 11A. He took exception to the characterization of the top down aspect mentioned by Professor Nicols. At no time in their discussions was there any pretense that the criteria developed by different departments would be similar. The UC's intent was to keep these criteria at the local level and to foster discussions on grades. Professor Wheeler then stated that there were some comments in the memos that referred exclusively to motion 11C which should be tabled until that part of the discussion. In his view, motion 11A is not a top down policy, but is simply a conversation starter at the departmental level.

Senator M. Williams (Romance Languages) stated that she supports motion 11A. Her department is comprised of teaching faculty and many teaching graduate students, and she believes that motion 11A could be useful to such a diverse groups of teachers. She then expressed her concern that the end of fall term 2011 might be too ambitious as a timeline for implementing motion 11A. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC was not wedded to that date, but would like to get the process going and was open to suggestions regarding the timeline.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz asked for additional comments and seeing none, moved for the Senate body to vote on Grade Culture Motion US10/11-11A. He reminded the Senators that they would be voting on 11A only. Senate President Tublitz called for a voice vote and after the vote was taken, he stated that according to his ear, the ayes were in the majority. He then asked the Senate body if anyone would like to see a hand count, and seeing none, Motion 11A was passed.

The Senate then began a discussion on Motion 11B, Comparative Statistics Available to Instructors.

Senate President Tublitz asked Senator McNeely if he would like to provide a brief introduction to this motion. Senator McNeely responded that he would and also offered a friendly amendment to motion 11B. He stated that the Grade Culture Motions were sent to the Academic Council (AC) to be independently vetted. Since Senator McNeely is the chair of the AC, he excused himself from their deliberations. In their report, the AC revised the language of Motion 11B, which Senator McNeely believes is better than the current wording of the Motion. He suggested replacing the current wording with the language used by the AC in their report on Motion 11B. Senator McNeely stated that the AC endorsed all three Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that the University Senate will make comparative statistics available to instructors starting in the fall of 2011. Each time an undergraduate course is taught, the registrar will present professors with a standard set of statistics giving grade distributions for relevant courses at any moment, probably September 15 of the fall term. It was determined by the AC that those statistics should not be reported as a mean and Z score distribution, but that a bar graph would more clearly represent the comparative statistics. As an example, Senator McNeely used his course, History 105, and stated that an instructor could log on to DuckWeb and see past distributions of As, Bs, Cs, and D, etc… for History 105, for 100 level classes in History, for all classes in History, and for all classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.

When an instructor finishes teaching his or her course, right before they submit their final grades on DuckWeb, they will be given the mean grade distribution for that course. This was founded on a specific calculation, a pessimistic one, about how deeply faculty members could be expected to engage with grading. According to Senator McNeely, the one moment when every single faculty member has to think about grades is when they are obligated to submit them. At that moment, the UC felt they could trust faculty members not to go back and hastily change grades having seen their distribution. They would be shown the distribution which could help them in error detection, but the UC did not feel that the distribution would influence instructors in such a way as to rethink or redo their completed grades. He then stated that there was a great deal of concern as to who would have access to the statistics. The AC suggested that these statistics be widely publicized to the faculty and possibly the general public. People were also concerned that the statistics could be used against people who had received a grade too leniently or too harshly. As a compromise, the UC decided to fold the statistics into the official course record which is roughly equivalent to the class list shown on DuckWeb. Those statistics would be accessible to people with those course lists, which is by and large limited to faculty members who teach those courses themselves, though department heads, if they wish, can find that information in some cases. The UC will work with the registrar to serve these statistics. The registrar has volunteered her computing resources and has a great deal of insight into the proper DuckWeb formatting guidelines, and Senator McNeely has spoken with the registrar regarding privacy concerns and which metrics are proper for comparative purposes.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that Motion 11B must be moved to the floor for discussion and a vote. Senator McNeely then requested that the Motion be moved. After the Motion was moved, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was feeling a little uncomfortable, and asked Senator McNeely if the AC's edits were indeed the entire motion. Senator McNeely stated in the affirmative that the edits were indeed the motion. Senate President Tublitz then said that more than half of Motion 11B has been changed and this was the first time that Senators were seeing this change. Under normal circumstances when a motion undergoes a change of wording, an amendment is submitted and a vote is taken on that amendment. According to Senate President Tublitz, this change is more substantial and he believes the Senate should vote to accept the amended changes to Motion 11B so that Senators could then vote on the Motion as amended or vote that they need more time to consider the changes. He then stated that the UC has spent many years developing these motions and does not want to delay a vote on them, but he also feels a responsibility to the Senate and believes that they should be given enough time to carefully consider every item that they vote on. Senate President Tublitz then acknowledged that the amended items are probably minor at which point Senator McNeely stated that the substantive difference is that statistics will now be made available before a class begins. In the previous version, which Senator McNeely would be happy to revert to if it would expedite the proceedings; statistics were made available after grades had been submitted. Senate President Tublitz then asked the Senate to vote to accept the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B so that it could then be brought to the floor for discussion. A vote was taken and the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B was accepted with two abstentions.

Discussion on the amended wording of Grade Culture Motion 11B began with a comment from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She wanted to make sure she understood what Senator McNeely meant by the statistics being part of the record, and asked, for a particular course, what the timeframe would be for the percentages of grades displayed. She also wanted to know who would have access to the statistical information be it instructors teaching that particular course, deans, department heads, etc… Senator Vitulli then stated that she wanted to better understand what Senator McNeely was proposing. Senator McNeely responded by making a distinction between the individual CRN statistics and the comparative statistics. For an individual CRN, the only items that can be bundled with that class list are the distribution of grades for that particular class. Elsewhere on DuckWeb, instructors would be able to pull up the comparative statistics designed by the UC in collaboration with the registrar. The first set of statistics would only be available to instructors who can already access the class for a given CRN. The comparative statistics would be available to others who are linked to that class. Senator Vitulli again asked what time period these statistics would cover. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the time period would be designed in collaboration with the registrar and there have been suggested periods of two, three, and five years. It is a technical problem, and the UC would be open to guidance from the Senate.

The next question came from Senator R. Rejaie (Computer and Information Science). His question was regarding the basic goal that Senator McNeely and the UC were trying to achieve. He stated that the UC is providing statistical information to himself as a member of the faculty so he knows where his grades stand relative to a group norm, or put another way, how different his grading is in comparison to others. On the one hand, Senator Rejaie's grading distribution may differ from previous years and instructors, etc… He then stated that in seeing these differences, Senator Rejaie is presumably supposed to react to them by fixing something if he believes something needs to be fixed. He then referred to Senator McNeely's earlier comment that the UC would assume that faculty members would not react to these statistics because they had just completed their grading and would therefore not change their grading after viewing these statistics. Senator Rejaie stated that he was trying to reconcile these two notions in order to determine the goal of Motion 11B. He believes that instructors may subconsciously adjust their behavior after viewing these statistics and was not sure if that was a good thing. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC does hope instructors will react at more leisurely moments for example when designing their courses or after they go back and look at their course evaluations. According to Senator McNeely, there is no implied norm or standard that the presentation of these statistics involves. Instructors can look at the statistics and decide to act or not act on them as they see fit. Senator McNeely then mentioned a personal example and stated that he noticed that he gave a large number of Bs in comparison to his colleagues and as a result, when he designs a new syllabus, he might consider tweaking his assignments in order to spread out that distribution. Senator Rejaie then asked if it was a good thing that after two or three years, the number of Bs an instructor gives end up aligning with the average in his department. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there was no way to know if the number of Bs would align with departmental averages. It all depends upon the individual instructor‟s behavior. The UC is simply giving instructors information and letting them decide how to act on that information.

Senator Nippold (Education) offered her reasoning for why she was going to vote nay on Motion 11B. She stated that the Motion seemed like a modern form of peer pressure using technology. By showing instructors statistics before they submit their grades, the UC is promoting conformity and control over how instructors are grading.

The next comment came from Senator G. Waddell (Economics). He stated that he had a few concerns with Motion 11B. He thought it was interesting that the Motion starts with small groups and instructors are given statistics right before they submit grades. He stated that if you get to that level of detail, on average we should find that we grade the same way; there is no grade inflation for the same class over time. According to Senator Waddell, the inflation we are seeing is an aggregate. As students select across different classes with different grading standards, the average grade tends to rise. He predicted that when looking at the same class over time, instructors grade the same. His second point was that now that Motion 11A has been past, he wondered if Motion 11B was jumping the gun. By passing 11A, faculty are anticipating conversations on these issues, and through these discussions, better and more appropriate ideas might arise. He thought more time was needed to allow ideas to begin to develop through conversation and mentioned that for several years now the Economics department has been distributing a similar set of statistics to instructors at the end of every term via email. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC wants to give all departments a set of statistics similar to those already being distributed in the Economics department. He believes those statistics will inform departmental conversations.

Senator L. Van Dreel (School of Music) posed a question about the relevance of Motion 11B. She stated that most of the courses that she teaches have one to three students enrolled, and did not understand how those statistics would be meaningful to her and her courses. Senator McNeely stated that they probably would not be very meaningful and he expected that she would ignore them.

The next comment came from Senator D. Healey (American English Institute – Linguistics). She stated that she liked the idea of seeing the statistical information ahead of time, but saw little point in viewing it before instructors submit final grades as it could send the wrong message. The more information instructors have to prepare for their classes the better, but according to her, there is a peer pressure implication for not grading like your colleagues. She wanted to know what the relevant courses were and how the number of students in a particular course impacted the relevance of the Motion. She agreed with Senator Waddell‟s sentiment and thought Motion 11B would require more thought. Senator McNeely responded by stating that he would at the least hope to provide statistics at the beginning of the term.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) stated that one thing that concerned him regarding Motion 11B was that he did not feel it was accomplishing what Senator McNeely was hoping to accomplish as far as grade inflation was concerned. If grade inflation is a rising mean, this motion seems to push instructors grading practices towards that mean. He believes this will make the problem of grade inflation and grade compression even worse. It seems counter intuitive to try and push instructors towards a mean. He understands that that was not the intention of the Motion, but he believes it will be the end result. Senator McNeely stated Senator Powell was right. Motion 11B was not created to push instructors towards a mean or to reverse grade inflation.

A question was then raised by Senator Stark-MacMillan. He wanted to know if instructors will have to look at the distribution of their colleague's grades, or will that simply be an option to pursue if they so choose. Senator McNeely stated that it would be their option and could be viewed on DuckWeb. Instructors would not be forced to look at the statistics. Only the individual distribution for your particular course would have to be viewed before submitting grades. An instructor could choose to ignore the distributions entirely.

Senate President Tublitz asked the Senate body for final questions and comments before moving to a vote on Motion 11B. Seeing none, a voice vote was taken. Due to the similar number of aye and nay responses, Senate President Tublitz was unable to aurally determine the outcome of the voice vote and asked for a hand count. Assisted by Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) and Senate Executive Coordinator Christopher Prosser (Classified Staff), a hand count was taken. The hand count vote resulted in ten ayes, thirteen nays and two abstentions. With thirteen nays, Motion 11B did not pass.

After voting on Motion 11B, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin discussion on Motion 11C, Contextual Information on Transcripts. He briefly asked Senator McNeely if there was any change to the Motion and Senator McNeely replied that there was no change. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely to move the motion to the floor for discussion and Senator McNeely consented. The Senator then gave a brief introduction on Motion 11C and stated that the idea of the Motion was to reformat transcripts. Next to each grade merited by a student, a percentage of A range grades for that course will be included. The exceptions are for courses with fewer than twenty students because a normal distribution is not expected from classes with so few enrolled, and any course for which the release of the A grade percentage may violate federal law, specifically the FERPA law. Motion 11C would go into effect at the beginning of fall term 2013 which would allow Motion 11A to firmly establish itself. Senate President Tublitz then called for a discussion on Motion 11C.

The first comment was from Senator Glen Waddell (Economics). He stated that, in the case of Motion 11C, more information can be harmful, and thought that the Senate should be cautious regarding the introduction of this information on transcripts. One issue he had against the Motion 11C was that currently, there is a lack of empirical evidence on what Universities expect to see in response to changing transcripts in this way. The literature is growing, but current evidence is mixed. He then referred to a current working paper from Cornell University's Economics department on the same issue.

Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) was interested in hearing what Senate Vice President Kyr had mentioned regarding graduates being negatively judged on this change to transcripts. Senate President Tublitz reminded Senators that Senate Vice President Kyr was concerned about the impact of having A grade percentages on UO graduates transcripts who are applying to graduate programs in competition with other graduates whose transcripts do not include these percentages.

Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC's basic thought is that transcript users already make these judgments subconsciously. Senator McNeely stated that he has made similar judgments in evaluating transcripts for Phi Beta Kappa. The UC is not dictating how information should be used, but are providing one encapsulating statistic that enables people to correct their prejudices where appropriate. There are a few universities who are enacting similar transcript changes.

Senator Brian Powell stated that the only students he feels will benefit from Motion 11C are top students making As in all their courses. At the same time, an A grade might diminish in value if a course receives a higher percentage of A grades. He also stated that by only placing the percentage of As on transcripts, no one knows what a B grade means, and the students who are receiving A grades probably need the least amount of help. Finally, he believes that UO students who are not at the top of their class will be at a greater disadvantage than they already are when competing with students from other institutions who do not have A percentages listed on their transcripts.

The next comment was from Senator Michael Price (Mathematics). He asked Senator McNeely why the UC had decided to only include the percentage of A grades on transcripts. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there is not enough room on transcripts to include other grades. The A was chosen because it is on the rise. That is where grade compression exists, and Motion 11C provides a means to put that disparity into context.

Senate President Tublitz asked if there were any more comments on Motion 11C and seeing none, moved to vote on the Motion. A voice vote was taken, and Motion 11C did not pass. There was one abstention. Senate President Tublitz then stated that even though two of the three Grade Culture Motions did not pass, he believes there is a real sentiment that this is an important issue and then thanked the UC for their years of work developing these Motions. He then stated that he wanted to send a message to all the members of the UC. After hearing the discussions that had just taken place, he believes that the Senate is not against implementing these policies altogether, but there is a sentiment against implementing them now until Motion 11A has had sufficient time to run its course. He asked Senator McNeely to tell the UC that the Senate is basically tabling Motions 11B and C and asked him to return to the Senate after more time has passed.

Senate President Tublitz then moved to begin the Open Discussion portion of the meeting and invited ASUO Senate President, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, to the floor to discuss what is and is not working with the UO's system of shared governance.

4. Open Discussion: Shared governance: what is and is not working? Facilitators: Nathan Tublitz, Senate President; Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President; Zachary Stark-MacMillan, ASUO Senate President

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to talk about shared governance because it is essential to the University. Previously, he asked Senators to send him a few words about what shared governance meant to them. He then listed words he had received which included: faculty, voice, commitment, focus, and listening. The reality is that shared governance is the basis for the Universities way of life, and he asked Senators three questions in regards to shared governance; what do we have now, what is missing, and how do we get to where we want to go. He asked the Senate body to tell him, and mentioned that the President and Provost were also in attendance, and that the meeting was being streamed live, what their thoughts were on the current system of shared governance at the UO.

The first comment came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). He remarked that the Charter of the University of Oregon states that the faculty shall govern the University and it defines the faculty as the professors and the President. That philosophy is well embodied in the UO Constitution which was drawn up by a faculty committee and approved by the President. Professor Stahl stated that he was unaware what shared governance meant. The UO has a faculty that is supposed to govern and an administration whose responsibility is to carry out the policies established by that faculty. He does not think this is happening. Senate President Tublitz then asked for more opinions to be voiced from the Senate body, and asked Senators; what needs to be done to improve shared governance.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) stated that, historically, he did not think that most universities were governed by their faculty. Governing boards and administrators appropriately had the majority of administrative power and he felt that that model had worked well in the United States for at least a century. He believes that faculties and Senates need to focus on academic matters, and he was grateful for the work that was accomplished today in the Senate regarding the Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that he was not in any way miffed at the outcome, and that what took place today is what the UO Senate needs to be doing. Administrative matters should be left to administrators and board matters should be left to boards. Senate President Tublitz then offered up a point of clarification and history. For five years he served as President of the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is comprised of a group of faculty senates from around the country.

As a result of that experience, he learned that University of Oregon is unique to other faculty senates across the country in two ways. The first way is that the UO has a Charter, as mentioned by Professor Stahl, which officially and unequivocally states what the governance position is of the faculty and the President; very few, if any universities have such a document. The second reason that the UO is distinct from other universities is that the UO Senate is not a faculty Senate. It is a Senate of all the stakeholder groups on campus ranging from the faculty, officers of administration, classified staff, and students. Next year, an additional Senate seat will be added from the officers of research. As of next year, every constituency, including non-tenure track instructional faculty, will be represented in the Senate, and he believes that this is something that everyone should be very proud of.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) stated that from the student side of shared governance, the ASUO has the Clark Document, which was signed by Robert D. Clark, which gives students some authority over the student incidental fee and is the heart of the student autonomy and power on campus. Throughout the years, students have been added to almost every faculty committee, including the Senate, and he believes the UO is in a fairly good position, especially in comparison to other schools, but there is always room for improvement. He believes GTFs are missing from the University Senate. The ASUO has only two graduate school representatives and they are a definite constituency group which could add another voice to the University Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he has had private conversations with many people who feel the UO's system of shared governance needs improvement. He then gave an example and mentioned an email he sent to the Senate body asking for nominees for the upcoming Senate election. One email recipient called Senate President Tublitz and asked to be placed in the running. This individual had been at the UO for four months and asked Senate President Tublitz why he should run for the University Senate, and did the Senate have any power. This individuals understanding was that the President had all the power at the UO, and Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that that was both true and untrue. The UO has a governance system where the Senate can pass legislation focusing on issues of curriculum, student conduct, and some policies. If a motion is passed by the Senate it becomes University law unless the President chooses not to sign it or decides to veto it. On other issues, the Senate acts as an advisory to the administration that can then choose to take or not take the Senate's advice. This is what he relayed to this individual and he then stated that there is an impression that the voices of the faculty are not being heard on a wide range of issues.

Speaking as one of the first classified staff employees to be elected to the University Senate, Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff) stated that the Senators representing classified staff have taken their position very seriously. They have met with their constituency and have discussed a wide variety of topics including the New Partnership. The classified staff Senators have attended as many Senate meetings as possible in an attempt to educate themselves on the many issues that are taking place on campus, as they take these issues very seriously. To her, having a vote and a voice and being able to participate in shared governance has been an amazing experience. Senate President Tublitz then stated that the classified staff voice has not only been much appreciated, but it has been invaluable.

Senator Peter Keyes (Architecture) stated that as someone who has been involved with several governance issues at the UO, and in talking about what needs to be improved, he feels that many people are biding their time until a better opportunity comes around. He thinks it is a two way street. People do not feel they have a strong voice and are more interested in and committed to their own research which is what gets them promotions and raises and more job offers to places with more money. They do not see how a benefit will come to them from participating in shared governance. Time spent in participating in service to the University takes away from time spent pursuing research. He did not say that this was a good thing, but that it was a part of the culture especially with younger faculty growing up in a more cynical market driven environment. Senate

President Tublitz stated that Senator Keyes point was well taken and he expanded upon not just serving in the Senate, but on participation in the whole global nature of the UO's governance system. It is not just a matter of getting more people to run for the Senate, but how can the Senate become more integral in the lives of people on campus. He then stated that five percent of the people do ninety five percent of the work because no one is getting promoted for the work that goes on in the Senate. He wanted people to think about ways to make the Senate a stronger institution and to try to get others to respect the Senate more than they currently do.

The next comment on shared governance came from Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages). She had a personal statement, a question and a suggestion. Her personal statement was in regards to the UO Mission. She said that if everyone was working toward that Mission then she did not understand why there was a need for shared governance. According to her, everyone should be working towards the goals stated in the UO Mission. Her question, which she asked for responses from Senate President Tublitz and University President Lariviere, was; what is and is not working in our system of shared governance. Her suggestion was regarding the New Partnership Proposal. Since it involves every constituency on campus, she feels that everyone should be working together on this Proposal. She recommended that every constituency at the UO create its own committee and work together with the administration on the New Partnership Proposal. The change that we will be making does not only affect us, but also our children who may be attending the UO, and because of this, everyone should be working together for the best possible outcome. Senate

President Tublitz turned to President Lariviere and asked if he would like to go first in answering Senator Khalsa's question on shared governance. The President jovially replied, no. Therefore, Senate President Tublitz responded to Senator Khalsa's question by stating that in the previous administration he felt that nothing was working. In the current administration there have been improvements due to the attitude and atmosphere of President Lariviere. This was the only reason Senate President Tublitz ran for Presidency of the Senate. He then addressed what was not working with our system of shared governance, and stated that he does not think enough progress has been made in really listening to all the constituent voices that exist at the University of Oregon. He believes that decisions are still being made that are not in conjunction with the current system of governance and that fall outside shared governance. This is a major source of frustration for himself and for many others at the UO. He stated that sometimes there are good reasons for these things, because democracy is messy and slow, but there is a cost of doing things the right way. Another important aspect of these decisions that is not often talked about is its impact on students. Senate President Tublitz stated that he is here for his students. He is not here to be Senate President, but has a commitment to the job that he does. Often times he believes that the disagreements that take place on campus only focus on those disagreements rather than focusing on areas of common interest and working towards agreement in those areas. This is what he thinks everyone can do a better job of.

Senate President Tublitz then handed the microphone to President Lariviere who thanked Senate President Tublitz for running for Senate President because he was the President of the University. That was one of the nicest things anyone had ever said to him. President Lariviere stated that he has been at several universities during his career, and the issues around shared governance are shared among institutions. One of the points of enormous frustration for everyone is the slowness in which things get done. He then mentioned as an example the Pacifica Forum. President Lariviere felt an obligation, particularly as a new University President, to do something. The President pressured the Provost, faculty, and others involved to come up with a solution. According to President Lariviere, this group of people dropped everything in their lives and came up with an elegant solution within six weeks. In order to affect that solution, it was necessary for it to be approved by the Senate. He then asked when it was approved and Senate President Tublitz stated that it was approved twice to which President Lariviere stated that answer reinforced his sentiment.

According to the President, given the nature of democracy one must inevitably have those kinds of delays between the need, identification, and implementation of a solution, but he does think that these kinds of delays contribute to people's reluctance to make the decisions that were discussed by Senator Keyes. He then stated that that was not a flaw of this particular mode of governance, but it contributes to a perception that the University Senate may not be a venue for action but for something else. He did not mention what that something else might be. The President stated that he was encouraged by the three Grade Culture Motions, not that he had a particular stake in any of the outcomes of Motions A, B, or C, but he was struck by the extended engagement that the Undergraduate Council had taken in drafting these motions. He was also struck by the notion that after working on these motions for five years, someone would offer up the objection that it was too soon to implement them. According to President Lariviere, this objection does not reinforce the notion that the Senate body is focused on the expeditious implementation of necessary changes in a very dynamic institution. That might be the nature of democratic representation, but it is something that he has to deal with regularly from a number of constituents, including faculty and staff, about the functioning of the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to respond to the President's comments to which President Lariviere stated that his comments were not meant to be responded to, but Senate President Tublitz should respond if he so chose. Senate President Tublitz then remarked he did choose to respond and that President Lariviere's comments could basically be summarized by stating that the Senate moves too slowly. According to Senate President Tublitz, on both issues that President Lariviere raised, the Senate has moved very quickly. With regards to the Facilities Use Policy that was brought before the Senate, it was voted on within one month of being received. With regards to the Grade Culture Motions, the Senate has discussed them and voted on them over the course of two meetings. It was the UC who developed them over the course of five years. It is Senate President Tublitz's personal belief that the University Senate acts very quickly and thoughtfully on very precise and important issues, and for President Lariviere to denigrate the Senate body by saying that it is slow and that the Senate is not very good at what it is supposed to be doing, undermines the Universities entire system of governance, and he does not think that is right. The system of governance at the UO has been designed for a set of intelligent people who have to deal with important problems, and he thinks they do a damn good job. In his year and a half as Senate President and in the ten years that he has been involved in campus governance, the University Senate has responded very quickly to everything that has been brought before it. Senate President Tublitz stated that he thinks the current system of governance does work, but when decisions are made outside of the system, people become upset. The more open conversations that take place during Senate meetings on all issues, the better our system of governance will be.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) remarked that there was no question in his mind that if he had invested his time writing articles instead of presenting the Grade Culture Motions to committee after committee, he would be coming up for promotion to full professor. He stated that his comments were not casting aspersions on the process that had just taken place regarding Motions 11A, B, and C. He personally went to six or seven committees and lobbied people even when they did not respond to his efforts, and used Senate Vice President Kyr as an example. Senator McNeely stated that he spent a great amount of time in this process but believes there has got to be a better way to do it. He came away with full endorsements of Motions 11A, B, and C from every committee he visited but he feels there was not enough time to go into the valid concerns that people raised in the Senate. He stated that he respects those concerns, but wishes he had heard them six, fifteen, or eighteen months ago when he became involved in the process. Because of this, Senator McNeely stated that he was very sympathetic to the notion of things moving too slowly.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) responded to President Lariviere's comments regarding the Facilities Use Policy. He stated that the Facilities Use Policy, which was hastily drawn up at the President's request, was brought to the Senate floor and was passed by the Senate. It was an abomination and the Senate realized it was an abomination, and it could not stand. Committees worked to revise it and they did so conscientiously working through the summer. After two revisions, they brought an admirable document to the Senate, and the revised policy was accepted.According to Professor Stahl, the Facilities Use Policy preserves the ideals of academic freedom which were rather stomped upon by the first edition of the motion. He did not think the Senate was at all lazy or unduly slow in the passing of this motion, rather they acted thoughtfully and correctly.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan stated that the Student Senate meets every week. A two hour meeting would be considered a very short meeting of the Student Senate. He thinks that one reason for things taking as long as they do is that the University Senate meets for only two hours once a month and there is only so much that can be discussed in two hours. If the University Senate met more frequently or met for a greater length of time, more things would get done.

The next comment was made from Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus). Parliamentarian Simonds stated that in 1995-96, the Senate passed a document called Faculty Rewards and Development. When the document first came before that Senate, it was almost exclusively research and included a small section on teaching but nothing on service. Before the Senate passed it, the document was modified so that it included more information on teaching and something on service. As far as he could tell, the document was never implemented even though it was passed by the Senate. He then asked the question; why should we continue to serve if our service does not count? He believes that service should have some component in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, because service, as part of our collegial system of shared governance, is an important part of how the whole system really works and the aura of being a participant in this University. The members of the 1995-96 Senate saw a necessity for giving rewards for service and he thinks that this document should be implemented even though it has been fifteen years since it was passed.

Professor Frank Stahl stated that he would like to address an ongoing problem that appears to unnecessarily diminish through all of the Senate regarding the Policy Library. In order to receive proper accreditation, the University was called upon to assemble its policies in a centralized location, and the Provost's office is to be commended for undertaking that job and doing what is by and large a useful task. There are some fundamental problems. On this campus, the Senate is the governing body, and to govern means to set policy. According to Professor Stahl, University of Oregon rules take precedent over university policy statements. University policy is appropriately set by the Senate regarding academic matters of the university. Oregon Rules, also called Oregon Administrative Rules are things drawn up by administrators, and in stating that Administrative Rules take precedence over policy, anytime the administration wants to snuff a policy, they can write an Administrative Rule. He then stated that this has to be changed. Administrative Rules are explanations of how policies will be carried out; therefore they are subservient to policies. The second problem Professor Stahl mentioned regarding the Policy Library was that the University Senate's role in the development of University Policy was not mentioned anywhere in the University Policy development process found in the Policy Library. He feels this is very discouraging and stated that anyone who might want to run for the Senate and wondered what role the Senate plays in developing University Policies will come up with the answer; zilch! According to Professor Stahl, the third problem with the Policy Library is the statement that the University of Oregon policy statements published elsewhere are not considered official, as they may not represent the most current revisions or editions. He stated that the University Senate makes policy statements, and each time they pass a legislative motion, it is a policy statement. According to the University of Oregon Constitution, under which the University operates, those policy statements become effective sixty days after they are passed unless otherwise specified or unless vetoed by the President. Currently, there are a number of appropriate academic related policies that were passed by the Senate which should be in the policy library because they were passed more than sixty days ago and were not vetoed by the President. He believes that because of this, these policies should be effective and the Policy Library should draw attention to those policies and reference them with a link to the Senate website. More perfectly, those policy statements passed by the Senate should be cut and passed into the Policy Library at the appropriate place. He went on to say that until the Policy Library, which is the major window that people have into University policy and how the University is run, gives the Senate its fair due, then no one is going to run for the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Stahl for his comments and stated that he let this conversation go on longer than the allotted time because he felt it was important and also because the only other agenda item was a report on Non-tenure track faculty, which is a very important report. He wanted to give it the time it deserves to be presented before the Senate body and therefore, the report will be added to the May Senate meeting agenda. Senate President Tublitz then apologized to Senator A. Emami (Finance) and the rest of the members of the NTTF committee, and was about to move to adjourn the April Senate meeting when President Lariviere asked to respond to the comments made during the open discussion.

President Lariviere stated that in listening to Senate President Tublitz and to Professor Frank Stahl in particular, he detected a certain level of mistrust or if not mistrust, then a level of impatience, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness. He then said that this is something that he might not ever be able to do away with because those emotions come from a variety of sources, but he thinks he would be letting down the institution and his obligations to all if he did not state that if these emotions are driven by a pervasive sense of an us verse them mentality, then the President is on the Senate's side against some mythical opponent. He then stated that the Senate is not the University, and the President is also not the University. According to President Lariviere, we are all the University, and the Senate represents an important component of the UO. He then stated that the Senator's constituents are also not the University because there are one hundred eighty thousand people who feel very strongly that the UO is their University. As such, there are many voices that need to be heard. The fact that there is a document that says this is the only place where the official records are kept is right. There needs to be one place where everyone can find policy documents, and if those documents are not posted in a timely manner then that procedure needs to be fixed. He stated that the issues raised by Professor Stahl are not a part of some grand conspiracy to prevent Professor Stahl from having his voice heard, and President Lariviere is very impatient with the simple notion that all problems that confront us can be laid at the feet of the incompetent management of the Senate President of the Senate or the President of the University. These problems are very often an accumulation of circumstances. If we can get past this notion of grand conspiracy, as far as he is concerned, there is no conspiracy, between the administration and the Senate, he believes that everyone could move with much greater alacrity and effectiveness. From the President's perspective, the Senate's voice was very important. The President stated that he will respond to the Senate by taking them seriously and he expects and demands that the Senate be well informed and have grounds for their views and opinions. The Senate has a responsibility, as do all who are in positions of authority, to be well informed. The better informed the Senate is, the more their views will be driven by understanding, and the better this institution will be. He then stated that Senate President Tublitz was right in that the UO has an unusual governance structure, because faculty, classified staff, officers of administration and students all come together in the Senate to address issues that confront the University. That is a huge responsibility which requires Senators to know why they feel the way they feel about a particular issue before giving voice to that issue. Voting no because you do not understand something may be a safe bet, but it would be better to have an understanding of what you are voting for before you cast your vote. He reiterated that all he asks of the Senate is that they vote based on being well informed, and if you are not well informed, ask questions. Having a well informed Senate is crucial for the UO moving forward. He personally believes that one of the reasons why public education has fallen on such hard times is because people have not been well informed. The faculty has not been informed about the political circumstances universities find themselves in, and the public has not been informed about what goes on in the Senate. What results from these misinformed parties is a finger pointing of ignorance. The President then asked for help from the Senators and their constituents and apologized for his lengthy response. Professor Stahl then thanked President Lariviere for his kind words.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to end the Senate meeting with a brief statement. He remarked that it may be an overreach to say that our system of governance at the University was similar to that of the federal government. The UO had an executive and legislative branch and sometimes those two branches came into conflict. According to Senate President Tublitz, that conflict was not a bad thing, but in his year and a half as Senate President, and having spoken to many thousands of people on campus, everyone was very glad that Richard Lariviere was President of the University of Oregon.

5. Reports

5.1 Report on Non-tenure track faculty, Ali Emami and Michele Henny, NTTF committee co-chairs and Russ Tomlin, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

The report on non-tenure track faculty was tabled until the May Senate meeting.

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

After making his final comments, Senate President Tublitz adjourned the April 13, 2011 meeting of the University Senate at 5:04PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator.

Present: J. Brubaker, C. Bybee, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Good, D. Healey, G. Hockstatter, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, M. Nippold, B. Powell, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, R. Rejaie, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-MacMillan, Y. Tan, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams

Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, I. Fielding, M. Henney, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, P. Southwell, L. Sugiyama, E. Thomas, P. Walker, P. Warnek

Excused: T. Bars, J. Bonine, H. Gangadharbatla, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, T. Minner-Engle, J. Piger,

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for April 13, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes. Minutes of the 9 March 2011 regular meeting of the Senate

A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Seeing no corrections the minutes were approved with one abstention.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Before moving to the State of the University, Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate body that the microphone system in the Harrington Room has been synced with the hand held microphones used by Senators while speaking at Senate meetings. He also informed the Senate body that the Senate meeting was being broadcast live over the internet and Senators should be aware of this while commenting on various issues.

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

Senate President Tublitz welcomed President Lariviere to the floor to discuss the State of the University. President Lariviere thanked Senate President Tublitz and then launched into an update on the New Partnership Proposal and Governor Kitzhaber‟s agreement previously announced with surprising endurance in the media. According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has a new proposal for integrating education responsibility in the state. The Governor is using the terms preschool through twenty to describe the students affected by this proposal. President Lariviere stated that it has been recommended that this description be changed to preschool through graduate school. This proposal represents more than half the state‟s budget. After speaking with Governor Kitzhaber several times regarding this new proposal, President Lariviere stated that he likes Governor Kitzhaber‟s thinking on this new proposal because it is not a governance structure but a policy structure and he believes the policy has the best interest of the state in mind. President Lariviere is optimistic that the Governor is thinking in the right way about his approach to education in Oregon.

According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has very explicitly stated throughout his campaign and since he has been elected that he intends to do away with both the state board of education and the state board of higher education and integrate the policy functions of those agencies into his Education Investment Board. This plan matches very closely to what President Lariviere has proposed with regard to the governance of the University of Oregon. The President stated that if you eliminate the state board of higher education and the state board of education, then preschool through twelfth grade are governed by local school boards, community colleges are governed by community college boards, and state universities are left with no governance. President Lariviere‟s governance proposal (New Partnership) matches exactly with what the Governor is proposing in regard to the governance of higher education. According to President Lariviere, the governance structure of higher education needs to be done in such a way as to allow the individual universities to flourish given their idiosyncratic structures, mission, etc…

President Lariviere stated that the reason why his administration has opted to make a formal push for approval of the New Partnership bills in the 2012 legislative session that begins in February, is purely and simply inside baseball politics. It has nothing to do with the Governor‟s enthusiasm or lack thereof in the policy, but is allowing more time for the Governor to accumulate a small number of supporters in major leadership positions to support both his policy and the New Partnership simultaneously. The President believes that in order for the New Partnership to gain appropriate support, the policy should be addressed during the legislative session in February of 2012. He stated that the Governor‟s Education Investment Board must be watched very closely and carefully and asked for help from the Senate body in doing so. At this stage, the Governor‟s proposals have been in the form of conversations only and no one has seen actual legislation. President Lariviere remarked that it is hard to overstate the importance of the engagement of the Senate body and their representative constituencies evaluating these matters. According to the President, there are no perfect pieces of legislation, and hopefully, this process leads to improvement. The President again asked the Senate body to stay engaged on this issue, and informed the Senate that there will likely be an interim work group that focuses on the Governor‟s proposal. The Senate and its constituencies therefore must be ready to articulate their needs and wants to that group starting in July.

The President went on to say that he along with alums, trustees, and representatives of the Senate and of the faculty at large, recently gave testimony in front of the House subcommittee on higher education. He stated that the committee was very surprised at how many people are paying attention to these matters. When Professor John Chalmers (Finance) and Senator I. McNeely (History) discussed their process of evaluation regarding the New Partnership, and presented their views on the Proposal, it brought the committee up short. According to President Lariviere, people who are particularly opposed to the New Partnership are interested in making this a personality issue and that is why the Senate‟s continued engagement is crucial regarding this matter.

After discussing the New Partnership, President Lariviere stated that he had just returned from a meeting of the Presidents of the AAU (Association of American Universities) in Washington. The President stated that to say it was not a uniform happy gathering of University Presidents would be an understatement. He believes that the University of Oregon is in an oddly strong position in comparison to other public universities because the UO has essentially gone through and survived everything that their colleagues are currently enduring. He used the metaphor that the UO has been living on bread and water for so long that we have learned how to build muscle mass on this diet. In one year, Pennsylvania has had a proposed fifty-three percent cut to their higher education budget. California has had a significant cut built into their current budget which could possibly double if a budget resolution is not found between California Democrats and Republicans. The President then stated jokingly that he came away from the AAU meetings depressed, but thought that it was a rare moment for the UO. If we are able to generate private investment in the way that he believes is possible, the UO will be in a very strong position in the future. President Lariviere then asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first comment was from Professor Gordon Sayre (English). Professor Sayre stated that it was widely know that the April Senate agenda was changed the night before today‟s Senate meeting and the proposal for endorsement of the New Partnership was withdrawn. He believes this was the right decision and requested an opportunity to raise questions about the New Partnership from President Lariviere. Professor Sayre stated that he emailed President Lariviere four questions the night before and looks forward to an opportunity to discuss those questions. He also stated that the town hall meeting held in January was in the right spirit for the type of discussion he is looking for. Many of the questions posed at the town hall were from students and community members and he believes that faculty did not have enough opportunity to engage the President in a dialogue on the New Partnership. President Lariviere stated that Professor Sayre was right and he welcomes the opportunity to engage more questions from faculty regarding the New Partnership once schedules could be arranged. He went on to say that the more engagement from the Senate on the New Partnership the better for all involved and that there are no hidden agendas. According to the President, the only uncomfortable aspect of this process is trying to get everyone to recognize where everyone stands and what the consequences of policies have been in the past.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for his remarks and stated that Senators had received an email stating that the Senate would not be discussing the New Partnership Proposal at the April Senate meeting. The Senate Executive Committee, who is the sponsor of the motion, decided to withdraw the motion because there was a general feeling that there are still several unanswered questions concerning the New Partnership. With the introduction of the Governor‟s proposal on education and higher education, and the simple fact that the Senate Executive Committee does not know what changes will come to the New Partnership during the coming months, the sponsors felt uneasy about endorsing a proposal that was not clearly defined and thus have decided to withdraw the motion. He then asked for confirmation from members of the Senate Executive Committee. Seeing no objections Senate President Tublitz stated that he believes the motion will return to the Senate body for discussion at a later date when the New Partnership is more clearly defined. He then asked for questions from the Senate body and seeing none he again asked Senators to submit their questions regarding the New Partnership to him. Senate President Tublitz then requested that the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) review the New Partnership in detail to try and address Senator‟s questions which would then be posted to a page on the Senate website.

A statement was made by Senator M. Vituli (Mathematics). She remarked that some of the questions that have and will be posed are not financial in nature, and because of this, she does not think it proper to limit the questions to the purview of the SBC. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that the SBC does not only focus on budgetary items, but on various implications of budgetary items and the effects those items have on the University. He went on to say that if the SBC feels that they cannot answer the questions or if the Senate does not like the answers they have given, then other answers will be provided. Senate President Tublitz felt it should be sent to the SBC first and was uncomfortable with setting up a new ad-hoc committee that would have to go through the New Partnership from the beginning. If many questions were submitted from the Senate and the University community, he would be willing to pursue this ad-hoc committee route.

Senator I. McNeely (History) stated that if Senate President Tublitz deemed it appropriate, as chair of the Academic Council (AC), he would be happy to discuss the New Partnership and field questions from Senators and their constituents through the AC. He stated that the AC‟s purview encompasses anything related to the academic values of the University and he thought that his colleagues on the AC would be willing to answer any New Partnership questions. Senate President Tublitz agreed to Senator McNeely‟s suggestion and thanked him for offering to help. Seeing no other questions or comments, Senate President moved to begin the new business portion of the meeting.

3. New Business

3.1 Motion US10/11 - 10: Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal

Motion US10/11-10 was withdrawn at the request of the Senate Executive Committee who sponsored the motion.

3.2 Motion US10/11 - 11a,b,c: Motions on grade culture from the Undergraduate Council, Ian McNeely, chair

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to discuss each motion separately and vote on each motion separately as well. He then invited Senator McNeely to the floor to provide an introduction to each motion. Senator McNeely stated that the three grade culture motions were approximately five years in the making and reiterated that the Undergraduate Council was not out to knock down student grades and conquer or reverse grade inflation. The UC‟s findings are not predicated on any particular findings regarding causes of grade inflation, at least not in a laborious statistical sense, instead they take grade inflation and a host of related problems like grade compression, as symptoms of a deeper problem which is the loss of meaning surrounding grades. These motions are designed to start conversations about grades, share information about grades, to make faculty more mindful when assigning grades, and to make students and transcript users more capable of relying on the grades they have been given. According to Senator McNeely, the UC tried to craft these motions in a way that would respect and promote the values of academic freedom. Each motion is designed independently to fill a specific informational vacuum and to provide information to students, faculty, and transcript users. Due to their specific rationales, each motion will be voted on separately.

After providing background information on the motions, Senator McNeely gave a brief overview of each motion beginning with 11A. He stated that when instructors post a policy, as is currently done, that says A equals excellent, B equals good, C equals satisfactory, etc… students are not receiving the tools to properly understand the ways in which modern universities organize. With 11A, the UC is asking each department and undergraduate program to formulate a rationale for its grading practices and post these practices on its official website. According to Senator McNeely, there is nothing in motion 11A that is compulsory, that requires instructors to adhere in any way to these rationales. The A+ grade should be given specific attention in these departmental rationales due to the UC‟s findings that assigning an A+ grade accounts for a large part of what is perceived as grade inflation. Because of this, these grades should be specifically defined by each department. The UC will provide online access to these rationales. Senator McNeely then stated that there was no financial impact in implementing motion 11A; it merely requires a series of discussions about grades whose outcomes will be posted online. Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator McNeely for his introduction on Motion 11A and moved to begin a discussion on the motion. Before discussion could begin, Senate parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that the committee who sponsored the motion must move for approval of that motion. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely if the UC moves the motion for approval and Senator McNeely stated that the Undergraduate Council moves for the approval of Motion 11A. Senate President Tublitz then thanked Senator McNeely for moving the motion and parliamentarian Simonds for his point of order, and added that the motion does not need a second because it is being sponsored by a committee and not an individual. He then opened the floor to conversation on motion 11A.
The first comment was from Senator M. Nippold (Education). She stated that the principle of Motion 11A was fine, but it also assumes that there must be agreement within a department as to what constitutes an A+ grade or an A grade. It was her feeling that this might not be so easily codified, and that faculty members within each department might have disagreements as to the specific meaning of grades. Senator McNeely responded by stating that that was a judgment call that each department would have to make on their own. He believes that, regardless of potential disagreements, they should be asked to do so in whatever terms deemed appropriate to that department. He also stated that instructors have the choice of opting out for principle pedagogical reasons.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) asked what Senator McNeely meant by the word disciplines. He was not sure if Senator McNeely was referring to the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a specific major, or a subgroup within a major. Senator McNeely stated that the word disciplines meant every individual department in the undergraduate program whether they are a part of CAS or not. Several departments harbor within themselves several different subject codes and disciplines. There exists a different teaching style within departments, for example language and literature within French. In those cases, Senator McNeely believes it would be helpful for students to know what those differences are.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was asked to read a comment from Professor John Nicols (History) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Professor Nicols‟ comments in their entirety:

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

I am in class during the meeting of the UO Senate so cannot be present for the discussion in the UO Senate. I would like to urge the UO Senate to table the motion for reconsideration at a later date. I write this letter as someone who has served on all the curricular committees over the years and chaired most of them. Moreover, I am not averse to making changes and proposed a similar motion on general education requirement several years ago. I recognize, as we all do, that there is a problem with grade inflation, and I welcome the work done by the undergraduate council to reflect on the nature of the problem and to suggest some methods for dealing with the trend. Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons for moving slowly:

1.) Grading is an intensely personal issue and the grading culture varies significantly by program and department, and by school and college. I suspect that many here would agree that the problem is best regulated at the local level. So my first question is: has enough been done in departments and programs to monitor the trend and to establish guidelines for faculty? Has enough been done to alter student expectations about grades? I know that some, like Karen Sprague, have worked to change expectations, but believe the issues have not yet been addressed in most departments. And if departments have failed to address the problem, we need to know why? The top down approach offered here strikes me as premature, given that little has been done at the department level to alter expectations of faculty and students.

2.) I am very skeptical of adding notations to the transcript that inform about the number of [for example] As awarded in a class. If I were a student who had worked hard for a grade I would find it very troubling to see a remark that 88% of the other students in the class also received an A. Such a notation would serve to promote „bottom fishing‟ and that cannot be construed as an improvement.

3.) Moreover, to claim that the cost of reprograming the transcript and adding the information to DARS does not strike me as „cost neutral‟ or even as something that can be implemented in the near future. That is, even if approved, the changes will take considerable time and effort to implement [My informants in the Registrar‟s office indicate a significant degree of skepticism on this component]. This proposal needs a serious budget estimate of the real costs.

Hence my conclusion: I recommend that the motion be tabled and reconsidered only after the UC has provided departments, programs and colleges with suggestions to manage the problem, and taken up again ONLY when it has proven impossible to manage the situation locally.

Senator McNeely stated that Professor Nicols was a colleague of his and that this was the first time he had heard these remarks from him. He again reiterated that the three Grade Culture Motions were five years in the making, and that 11A was specifically designed to provide a framework to manage the problem locally. Senator McNeely mentioned that he brought this motion to his own department for discussion. He was not sure if Professor Nicols was at the meeting, but he did so at the initiative of the UC. He again reiterated that 11A provides a framework for all departments to have discussions regarding grades and to adopt whatever policies they see fit. He then stated that he would defer commenting on transcripts until his discussion of 11C. Finally, he remarked that his informant in the registrar‟s office is the registrar herself who has assured Senator McNeely repeatedly that these policies are cost neutral. She is allowed to determine programming priorities within her own budget of current staff and has stated several times that implementing these polices will be cost neutral. He then stated that he resisted tabling the motion per Professor Nicols request.

Senate President Tublitz then read comments on the Grade Culture Motions from Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (School of Music) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments in their entirety:

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

First, my apologies for my absence from today‟s Senate meeting (April 13, 2011). As chair of the composition department in the School of Music and Dance, I was asked to give a master class at the Hult Center for the Eugene Symphony, which offers the Laura Avery Master Class Program. John Harbison, a renowned American composer who is the composer-in-residence for the orchestra, fell ill and could not travel to Eugene from Boston. Consequently, I was asked to give the master class in his place, since I had prepared all of the student composers and performers who are participating in this public event.

I am asking Nathan Tublitz to read this statement on my behalf in order to request that a motion be made to table the three motions (US 10/11 abc) related to improving grade culture. Although I realize that grade inflation is an important issue, I do not believe that the motions as proposed will achieve the desired result of improving grade culture, and I do not believe that they will be without financial impact on the university.

Therefore, I propose that the three motions be tabled until the following is achieved by the Undergraduate Council, at which time a reconsideration of the motions might be more appropriate:

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

First, I propose that the Undergraduate Council works directly with departments, colleges, programs and academic units in order to suggest concrete ways to improve grade culture as appropriate for specific disciplines. One size does not fit all and it is important for the council to interact at the local level with departments in order to understand their needs and to suggest ways that our grade culture can be improved within the contexts of specific disciplines.

My first point relates directly to the charge for the Undergraduate Council, which states that it is authorized to do the following: “Participate, on behalf of the University faculty, in planning the development and improvement of the undergraduate instructional program of the institution, in consultation with the University President, officers of administration and with relevant departmental heads and program directors.” Please note that the Undergraduate Council is not given a charge to administer or implement general policies, but it is asked to participate in the development and improvement of undergraduate education with relevant department heads and program directors.

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

Second, I propose that the council works in conjunction with the appropriate offices to prepare a specific report regarding the costs of enacting the motions, if it still wishes to pursue them. In regard to paying for administrative time alone, it is not possible that the changes to transcripts are “cost neutral.” A considerable amount of work will be done in order to affect the proposed changes and we must be apprised of the exact cost before these motions are considered, including the number of work hours and the corresponding dollar amount to pay for “administrative time.” The changes that are being proposed will require an enormous amount of labor to enact and are not the result of a simple “button press” as was stated at our last Senate meeting. Personally, I want to see a specific, line-item budget before I will feel ready to vote on any of these motions.

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

Finally, any addition to or alteration of transcripts must not put our students at a disadvantage on a regional or national basis as they apply to pursue their studies at the master‟s or doctoral levels. It is my belief that the proposed alteration to transcripts will present our students in a bad light that will not improve their chances for acceptance at the best graduate institutions in the nation. We will be creating an unequal playing field in which our own students will be ill served and placed at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment.

Thank you for considering my appeal to table the three “grade culture motions” in light of the issues that I have raised.

Senator McNeely responded to Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments by stating that these opinions were not new to him. At the March Senate meeting, Senate Vice President Kyr raised these same points and since that time, Senator McNeely sent Senate Vice President Kyr a two page email in which he parsed the charge of the UC. Senator McNeely believes that these motions are within the purview of the UC and went on to say that he received no response from Senate Vice President Kyr despite numerous attempts by Senator McNeely to engage in discussion. He then stated that Senate Vice President Kyr‟s first point was very well taken. Developing appropriate solutions for specific disciplines and resisting a unilateral approach is precisely the intent of Motion 11A, and because of this, Senator McNeely did not understand Senate Vice President Kyr‟s objection. He then discussed Kyr‟s questioning of the UC‟s charge and stated that the UC would have no administrative power. The Senate would be delegating the registrar to implement changes, and he again reiterated that the registrar has assured Senator McNeely that implementing these changes would be cost neutral.

He then remarked that he trusts the registrar‟s professional judgment and is not in the position to question her. Senator McNeely continued to address the charge of the UC and stated that in his email to Senate Vice President Kyr, he specifically brought up points one, three, five, and six of the UC‟s charge that give the UC specific powers to monitor and respond to general academic policies of the university. Point five in particular establishes criteria and outcomes to determine the success of the overall undergraduate program. According to Senator McNeely, it is the UC‟s belief that grades ought to be criteria by which to evaluate the success of the overall undergraduate program. Rising grades ought to mean enhanced success, and those rising grades are now unreliable. Point six requires the UC to monitor the academic coherence quality and standards of the undergraduate academic program to insure that quality and rigor of instruction and evaluation are consistent across the curriculum. Senator McNeely stated that point six specifically requires the UC to look at evaluation practices. He stated that this is what these motions are doing and reiterated that the UC has no ability to overrule or interfere with the rationales for grading practices that will be posted on departmental websites, and he specifically would reject that power if it were offered to the UC.

Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) commented on Senator McNeely‟s remarks and stated that in his opinion, having the UC suggest specific changes for each department seems more top down and intrusive than asking departments to develop their own metrics for evaluation. As a student, he felt that would be helpful and remarked that he had been in classes where grading policies were not clear. If departments could develop a clear and simple grading metric, it would be a great help to students, and to him, it does not seem intrusive. He then stated that motions 11A and B appear to be vehicles to start conversations between departments and that motion 11C was different but was not currently being discussed.

The next comment was from Senator L. Middlebrook (Comparative Literature). She seconded Senator Stark-MacMillan‟s points and thanked the UC for their wording of the three Grade Culture Motions. She stated that these items are represented in the spirit of education, information and transparency and she believes they will be very helpful to students and faculty. With great respect for every voice being heard, she thinks that the personal nature of grading is slightly problematic, and to encourage departments to discuss more uniform standards and to have a language that keeps grading from being binding to individual instructors really shows the benefits of five years of considering a plan. She then spoke on behalf of her two departments that, according to her, are horribly beleaguered due to their own administration, and thanked the UC for providing the language of the motions and for not meeting with her departments. She believes that another set of meeting would be overly taxing.

Professor Thomas Wheeler (Journalism and Communication) stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he was a member of the UC and supported the three Grade Culture Motions. He then provided background on behind the scenes discussions on the motions, and stated that he very much appreciated the thoughtful and detailed memos that were sent from Professor Nicols and Senate Vice President Kyr. He stated that he agreed with Professor Nicols first point that not enough has been done on the local and departmental level which was the impetus behind motion 11A. He took exception to the characterization of the top down aspect mentioned by Professor Nicols. At no time in their discussions was there any pretense that the criteria developed by different departments would be similar. The UC‟s intent was to keep these criteria at the local level and to foster discussions on grades. Professor Wheeler then stated that there were some comments in the memos that referred exclusively to motion 11C which should be tabled until that part of the discussion. In his view, motion 11A is not a top down policy, but is simply a conversation starter at the departmental level.

Senator M. Williams (Romance Languages) stated that she supports motion 11A. Her department is comprised of teaching faculty and many teaching graduate students, and she believes that motion 11A could be useful to such a diverse groups of teachers. She then expressed her concern that the end of fall term 2011 might be too ambitious as a timeline for implementing motion 11A. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC was not wedded to that date, but would like to get the process going and was open to suggestions regarding the timeline.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz asked for additional comments and seeing none, moved for the Senate body to vote on Grade Culture Motion US10/11-11A. He reminded the Senators that they would be voting on 11A only. Senate President Tublitz called for a voice vote and after the vote was taken, he stated that according to his ear, the ayes were in the majority. He then asked the Senate body if anyone would like to see a hand count, and seeing none, Motion 11A was passed.

The Senate then began a discussion on Motion 11B, Comparative Statistics Available to Instructors.

Senate President Tublitz asked Senator McNeely if he would like to provide a brief introduction to this motion. Senator McNeely responded that he would and also offered a friendly amendment to motion 11B. He stated that the Grade Culture Motions were sent to the Academic Council (AC) to be independently vetted. Since Senator McNeely is the chair of the AC, he excused himself from their deliberations. In their report, the AC revised the language of Motion 11B, which Senator McNeely believes is better than the current wording of the Motion. He suggested replacing the current wording with the language used by the AC in their report on Motion 11B. Senator McNeely stated that the AC endorsed all three Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that the University Senate will make comparative statistics available to instructors starting in the fall of 2011. Each time an undergraduate course is taught, the registrar will present professors with a standard set of statistics giving grade distributions for relevant courses at any moment, probably September 15 of the fall term. It was determined by the AC that those statistics should not be reported as a mean and Z score distribution, but that a bar graph would more clearly represent the comparative statistics. As an example, Senator McNeely used his course, History 105, and stated that an instructor could log on to DuckWeb and see past distributions of As, Bs, Cs, and D, etc… for History 105, for 100 level classes in History, for all classes in History, and for all classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.

When an instructor finishes teaching his or her course, right before they submit their final grades on DuckWeb, they will be given the mean grade distribution for that course. This was founded on a specific calculation, a pessimistic one, about how deeply faculty members could be expected to engage with grading. According to Senator McNeely, the one moment when every single faculty member has to think about grades is when they are obligated to submit them. At that moment, the UC felt they could trust faculty members not to go back and hastily change grades having seen their distribution. They would be shown the distribution which could help them in error detection, but the UC did not feel that the distribution would influence instructors in such a way as to rethink or redo their completed grades. He then stated that there was a great deal of concern as to who would have access to the statistics. The AC suggested that these statistics be widely publicized to the faculty and possibly the general public. People were also concerned that the statistics could be used against people who had received a grade too leniently or too harshly. As a compromise, the UC decided to fold the statistics into the official course record which is roughly equivalent to the class list shown on DuckWeb. Those statistics would be accessible to people with those course lists, which is by and large limited to faculty members who teach those courses themselves, though department heads, if they wish, can find that information in some cases. The UC will work with the registrar to serve these statistics. The registrar has volunteered her computing resources and has a great deal of insight into the proper DuckWeb formatting guidelines, and Senator McNeely has spoken with the registrar regarding privacy concerns and which metrics are proper for comparative purposes.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that Motion 11B must be moved to the floor for discussion and a vote. Senator McNeely then requested that the Motion be moved. After the Motion was moved, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was feeling a little uncomfortable, and asked Senator McNeely if the AC‟s edits were indeed the entire motion. Senator McNeely stated in the affirmative that the edits were indeed the motion. Senate President Tublitz then said that more than half of Motion 11B has been changed and this was the first time that Senators were seeing this change. Under normal circumstances when a motion undergoes a change of wording, an amendment is submitted and a vote is taken on that amendment. According to Senate President Tublitz, this change is more substantial and he believes the Senate should vote to accept the amended changes to Motion 11B so that Senators could then vote on the Motion as amended or vote that they need more time to consider the changes. He then stated that the UC has spent many years developing these motions and does not want to delay a vote on them, but he also feels a responsibility to the Senate and believes that they should be given enough time to carefully consider every item that they vote on. Senate President Tublitz then acknowledged that the amended items are probably minor at which point Senator McNeely stated that the substantive difference is that statistics will now be made available before a class begins. In the previous version, which Senator McNeely would be happy to revert to if it would expedite the proceedings; statistics were made available after grades had been submitted. Senate President Tublitz then asked the Senate to vote to accept the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B so that it could then be brought to the floor for discussion. A vote was taken and the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B was accepted with two abstentions.

Discussion on the amended wording of Grade Culture Motion 11B began with a comment from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She wanted to make sure she understood what Senator McNeely meant by the statistics being part of the record, and asked, for a particular course, what the timeframe would be for the percentages of grades displayed. She also wanted to know who would have access to the statistical information be it instructors teaching that particular course, deans, department heads, etc… Senator Vitulli then stated that she wanted to better understand what Senator McNeely was proposing. Senator McNeely responded by making a distinction between the individual CRN statistics and the comparative statistics. For an individual CRN, the only items that can be bundled with that class list are the distribution of grades for that particular class. Elsewhere on DuckWeb, instructors would be able to pull up the comparative statistics designed by the UC in collaboration with the registrar. The first set of statistics would only be available to instructors who can already access the class for a given CRN. The comparative statistics would be available to others who are linked to that class. Senator Vitulli again asked what time period these statistics would cover. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the time period would be designed in collaboration with the registrar and there have been suggested periods of two, three, and five years. It is a technical problem, and the UC would be open to guidance from the Senate.

The next question came from Senator R. Rejaie (Computer and Information Science). His question was regarding the basic goal that Senator McNeely and the UC were trying to achieve. He stated that the UC is providing statistical information to himself as a member of the faculty so he knows where his grades stand relative to a group norm, or put another way, how different his grading is in comparison to others. On the one hand, Senator Rejaie‟s grading distribution may differ from previous years and instructors, etc… He then stated that in seeing these differences, Senator Rejaie is presumably supposed to react to them by fixing something if he believes something needs to be fixed. He then referred to Senator McNeely‟s earlier comment that the UC would assume that faculty members would not react to these statistics because they had just completed their grading and would therefore not change their grading after viewing these statistics. Senator Rejaie stated that he was trying to reconcile these two notions in order to determine the goal of Motion 11B. He believes that instructors may subconsciously adjust their behavior after viewing these statistics and was not sure if that was a good thing. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC does hope instructors will react at more leisurely moments for example when designing their courses or after they go back and look at their course evaluations. According to Senator McNeely, there is no implied norm or standard that the presentation of these statistics involves. Instructors can look at the statistics and decide to act or not act on them as they see fit. Senator McNeely then mentioned a personal example and stated that he noticed that he gave a large number of Bs in comparison to his colleagues and as a result, when he designs a new syllabus, he might consider tweaking his assignments in order to spread out that distribution. Senator Rejaie then asked if it was a good thing that after two or three years, the number of Bs an instructor gives end up aligning with the average in his department. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there was no way to know if the number of Bs would align with departmental averages. It all depends upon the individual instructor‟s behavior. The UC is simply giving instructors information and letting them decide how to act on that information.

Senator Nippold (Education) offered her reasoning for why she was going to vote nay on Motion 11B. She stated that the Motion seemed like a modern form of peer pressure using technology. By showing instructors statistics before they submit their grades, the UC is promoting conformity and control over how instructors are grading.

The next comment came from Senator G. Waddell (Economics). He stated that he had a few concerns with Motion 11B. He thought it was interesting that the Motion starts with small groups and instructors are given statistics right before they submit grades. He stated that if you get to that level of detail, on average we should find that we grade the same way; there is no grade inflation for the same class over time. According to Senator Waddell, the inflation we are seeing is an aggregate. As students select across different classes with different grading standards, the average grade tends to rise. He predicted that when looking at the same class over time, instructors grade the same. His second point was that now that Motion 11A has been past, he wondered if Motion 11B was jumping the gun. By passing 11A, faculty are anticipating conversations on these issues, and through these discussions, better and more appropriate ideas might arise. He thought more time was needed to allow ideas to begin to develop through conversation and mentioned that for several years now the Economics department has been distributing a similar set of statistics to instructors at the end of every term via email. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC wants to give all departments a set of statistics similar to those already being distributed in the Economics department. He believes those statistics will inform departmental conversations.

Senator L. Van Dreel (School of Music) posed a question about the relevance of Motion 11B. She stated that most of the courses that she teaches have one to three students enrolled, and did not understand how those statistics would be meaningful to her and her courses. Senator McNeely stated that they probably would not be very meaningful and he expected that she would ignore them.

The next comment came from Senator D. Healey (American English Institute – Linguistics). She stated that she liked the idea of seeing the statistical information ahead of time, but saw little point in viewing it before instructors submit final grades as it could send the wrong message. The more information instructors have to prepare for their classes the better, but according to her, there is a peer pressure implication for not grading like your colleagues. She wanted to know what the relevant courses were and how the number of students in a particular course impacted the relevance of the Motion. She agreed with Senator Waddell‟s sentiment and thought Motion 11B would require more thought. Senator McNeely responded by stating that he would at the least hope to provide statistics at the beginning of the term.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) stated that one thing that concerned him regarding Motion 11B was that he did not feel it was accomplishing what Senator McNeely was hoping to accomplish as far as grade inflation was concerned. If grade inflation is a rising mean, this motion seems to push instructors grading practices towards that mean. He believes this will make the problem of grade inflation and grade compression even worse. It seems counter intuitive to try and push instructors towards a mean. He understands that that was not the intention of the Motion, but he believes it will be the end result. Senator McNeely stated Senator Powell was right. Motion 11B was not created to push instructors towards a mean or to reverse grade inflation.

A question was then raised by Senator Stark-MacMillan. He wanted to know if instructors will have to look at the distribution of their colleague‟s grades, or will that simply be an option to pursue if they so choose. Senator McNeely stated that it would be their option and could be viewed on DuckWeb. Instructors would not be forced to look at the statistics. Only the individual distribution for your particular course would have to be viewed before submitting grades. An instructor could choose to ignore the distributions entirely.

Senate President Tublitz asked the Senate body for final questions and comments before moving to a vote on Motion 11B. Seeing none, a voice vote was taken. Due to the similar number of aye and nay responses, Senate President Tublitz was unable to aurally determine the outcome of the voice vote and asked for a hand count. Assisted by Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) and Senate Executive Coordinator Christopher Prosser (Classified Staff), a hand count was taken. The hand count vote resulted in ten ayes, thirteen nays and two abstentions. With thirteen nays, Motion 11B did not pass.

After voting on Motion 11B, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin discussion on Motion 11C, Contextual Information on Transcripts. He briefly asked Senator McNeely if there was any change to the Motion and Senator McNeely replied that there was no change. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely to move the motion to the floor for discussion and Senator McNeely consented. The Senator then gave a brief introduction on Motion 11C and stated that the idea of the Motion was to reformat transcripts. Next to each grade merited by a student, a percentage of A range grades for that course will be included. The exceptions are for courses with fewer than twenty students because a normal distribution is not expected from classes with so few enrolled, and any course for which the release of the A grade percentage may violate federal law, specifically the FERPA law. Motion 11C would go into effect at the beginning of fall term 2013 which would allow Motion 11A to firmly establish itself. Senate President Tublitz then called for a discussion on Motion 11C.

The first comment was from Senator Glen Waddell (Economics). He stated that, in the case of Motion 11C, more information can be harmful, and thought that the Senate should be cautious regarding the introduction of this information on transcripts. One issue he had against the Motion 11C was that currently, there is a lack of empirical evidence on what Universities expect to see in response to changing transcripts in this way. The literature is growing, but current evidence is mixed. He then referred to a current working paper from Cornell University‟s Economics department on the same issue.

Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) was interested in hearing what Senate Vice President Kyr had mentioned regarding graduates being negatively judged on this change to transcripts. Senate President Tublitz reminded Senators that Senate Vice President Kyr was concerned about the impact of having A grade percentages on UO graduates transcripts who are applying to graduate programs in competition with other graduates whose transcripts do not include these percentages.

Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC‟s basic thought is that transcript users already make these judgments subconsciously. Senator McNeely stated that he has made similar judgments in evaluating transcripts for Phi Beta Kappa. The UC is not dictating how information should be used, but are providing one encapsulating statistic that enables people to correct their prejudices where appropriate. There are a few universities who are enacting similar transcript changes.

Senator Brian Powell stated that the only students he feels will benefit from Motion 11C are top students making As in all their courses. At the same time, an A grade might diminish in value if a course receives a higher percentage of A grades. He also stated that by only placing the percentage of As on transcripts, no one knows what a B grade means, and the students who are receiving A grades probably need the least amount of help. Finally, he believes that UO students who are not at the top of their class will be at a greater disadvantage than they already are when competing with students from other institutions who do not have A percentages listed on their transcripts.

The next comment was from Senator Michael Price (Mathematics). He asked Senator McNeely why the UC had decided to only include the percentage of A grades on transcripts. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there is not enough room on transcripts to include other grades. The A was chosen because it is on the rise. That is where grade compression exists, and Motion 11C provides a means to put that disparity into context.

Senate President Tublitz asked if there were any more comments on Motion 11C and seeing none, moved to vote on the Motion. A voice vote was taken, and Motion 11C did not pass. There was one abstention. Senate President Tublitz then stated that even though two of the three Grade Culture Motions did not pass, he believes there is a real sentiment that this is an important issue and then thanked the UC for their years of work developing these Motions. He then stated that he wanted to send a message to all the members of the UC. After hearing the discussions that had just taken place, he believes that the Senate is not against implementing these policies altogether, but there is a sentiment against implementing them now until Motion 11A has had sufficient time to run its course. He asked Senator McNeely to tell the UC that the Senate is basically tabling Motions 11B and C and asked him to return to the Senate after more time has passed.

Senate President Tublitz then moved to begin the Open Discussion portion of the meeting and invited ASUO Senate President, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, to the floor to discuss what is and is not working with the UO‟s system of shared governance.

4. Open Discussion: Shared governance: what is and is not working? Facilitators: Nathan Tublitz, Senate President; Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President; Zachary Stark-MacMillan, ASUO Senate President

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to talk about shared governance because it is essential to the University. Previously, he asked Senators to send him a few words about what shared governance meant to them. He then listed words he had received which included: faculty, voice, commitment, focus, and listening. The reality is that shared governance is the basis for the Universities way of life, and he asked Senators three questions in regards to shared governance; what do we have now, what is missing, and how do we get to where we want to go. He asked the Senate body to tell him, and mentioned that the President and Provost were also in attendance, and that the meeting was being streamed live, what their thoughts were on the current system of shared governance at the UO.

The first comment came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). He remarked that the Charter of the University of Oregon states that the faculty shall govern the University and it defines the faculty as the professors and the President. That philosophy is well embodied in the UO Constitution which was drawn up by a faculty committee and approved by the President. Professor Stahl stated that he was unaware what shared governance meant. The UO has a faculty that is supposed to govern and an administration whose responsibility is to carry out the policies established by that faculty. He does not think this is happening. Senate President Tublitz then asked for more opinions to be voiced from the Senate body, and asked Senators; what needs to be done to improve shared governance.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) stated that, historically, he did not think that most universities were governed by their faculty. Governing boards and administrators appropriately had the majority of administrative power and he felt that that model had worked well in the United States for at least a century. He believes that faculties and Senates need to focus on academic matters, and he was grateful for the work that was accomplished today in the Senate regarding the Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that he was not in any way miffed at the outcome, and that what took place today is what the UO Senate needs to be doing. Administrative matters should be left to administrators and board matters should be left to boards. Senate President Tublitz then offered up a point of clarification and history. For five years he served as President of the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is comprised of a group of faculty senates from around the country.

As a result of that experience, he learned that University of Oregon is unique to other faculty senates across the country in two ways. The first way is that the UO has a Charter, as mentioned by Professor Stahl, which officially and unequivocally states what the governance position is of the faculty and the President; very few, if any universities have such a document. The second reason that the UO is distinct from other universities is that the UO Senate is not a faculty Senate. It is a Senate of all the stakeholder groups on campus ranging from the faculty, officers of administration, classified staff, and students. Next year, an additional Senate seat will be added from the officers of research. As of next year, every constituency, including non-tenure track instructional faculty, will be represented in the Senate, and he believes that this is something that everyone should be very proud of.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) stated that from the student side of shared governance, the ASUO has the Clark Document, which was signed by Robert D. Clark, which gives students some authority over the student incidental fee and is the heart of the student autonomy and power on campus. Throughout the years, students have been added to almost every faculty committee, including the Senate, and he believes the UO is in a fairly good position, especially in comparison to other schools, but there is always room for improvement. He believes GTFs are missing from the University Senate. The ASUO has only two graduate school representatives and they are a definite constituency group which could add another voice to the University Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he has had private conversations with many people who feel the UO‟s system of shared governance needs improvement. He then gave an example and mentioned an email he sent to the Senate body asking for nominees for the upcoming Senate election. One email recipient called Senate President Tublitz and asked to be placed in the running. This individual had been at the UO for four months and asked Senate President Tublitz why he should run for the University Senate, and did the Senate have any power. This individuals understanding was that the President had all the power at the UO, and Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that that was both true and untrue. The UO has a governance system where the Senate can pass legislation focusing on issues of curriculum, student conduct, and some policies. If a motion is passed by the Senate it becomes University law unless the President chooses not to sign it or decides to veto it. On other issues, the Senate acts as an advisory to the administration that can then choose to take or not take the Senate‟s advice. This is what he relayed to this individual and he then stated that there is an impression that the voices of the faculty are not being heard on a wide range of issues.

Speaking as one of the first classified staff employees to be elected to the University Senate, Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff) stated that the Senators representing classified staff have taken their position very seriously. They have met with their constituency and have discussed a wide variety of topics including the New Partnership. The classified staff Senators have attended as many Senate meetings as possible in an attempt to educate themselves on the many issues that are taking place on campus, as they take these issues very seriously. To her, having a vote and a voice and being able to participate in shared governance has been an amazing experience. Senate President Tublitz then stated that the classified staff voice has not only been much appreciated, but it has been invaluable.

Senator Peter Keyes (Architecture) stated that as someone who has been involved with several governance issues at the UO, and in talking about what needs to be improved, he feels that many people are biding their time until a better opportunity comes around. He thinks it is a two way street. People do not feel they have a strong voice and are more interested in and committed to their own research which is what gets them promotions and raises and more job offers to places with more money. They do not see how a benefit will come to them from participating in shared governance. Time spent in participating in service to the University takes away from time spent pursuing research. He did not say that this was a good thing, but that it was a part of the culture especially with younger faculty growing up in a more cynical market driven environment. Senate

President Tublitz stated that Senator Keyes point was well taken and he expanded upon not just serving in the Senate, but on participation in the whole global nature of the UO‟s governance system. It is not just a matter of getting more people to run for the Senate, but how can the Senate become more integral in the lives of people on campus. He then stated that five percent of the people do ninety five percent of the work because no one is getting promoted for the work that goes on in the Senate. He wanted people to think about ways to make the Senate a stronger institution and to try to get others to respect the Senate more than they currently do.

The next comment on shared governance came from Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages). She had a personal statement, a question and a suggestion. Her personal statement was in regards to the UO Mission. She said that if everyone was working toward that Mission then she did not understand why there was a need for shared governance. According to her, everyone should be working towards the goals stated in the UO Mission. Her question, which she asked for responses from Senate President Tublitz and University President Lariviere, was; what is and is not working in our system of shared governance. Her suggestion was regarding the New Partnership Proposal. Since it involves every constituency on campus, she feels that everyone should be working together on this Proposal. She recommended that every constituency at the UO create its own committee and work together with the administration on the New Partnership Proposal. The change that we will be making does not only affect us, but also our children who may be attending the UO, and because of this, everyone should be working together for the best possible outcome. Senate

President Tublitz turned to President Lariviere and asked if he would like to go first in answering Senator Khalsa‟s question on shared governance. The President jovially replied, no. Therefore, Senate President Tublitz responded to Senator Khalsa‟s question by stating that in the previous administration he felt that nothing was working. In the current administration there have been improvements due to the attitude and atmosphere of President Lariviere. This was the only reason Senate President Tublitz ran for Presidency of the Senate. He then addressed what was not working with our system of shared governance, and stated that he does not think enough progress has been made in really listening to all the constituent voices that exist at the University of Oregon. He believes that decisions are still being made that are not in conjunction with the current system of governance and that fall outside shared governance. This is a major source of frustration for himself and for many others at the UO. He stated that sometimes there are good reasons for these things, because democracy is messy and slow, but there is a cost of doing things the right way. Another important aspect of these decisions that is not often talked about is its impact on students. Senate President Tublitz stated that he is here for his students. He is not here to be Senate President, but has a commitment to the job that he does. Often times he believes that the disagreements that take place on campus only focus on those disagreements rather than focusing on areas of common interest and working towards agreement in those areas. This is what he thinks everyone can do a better job of.

Senate President Tublitz then handed the microphone to President Lariviere who thanked Senate President Tublitz for running for Senate President because he was the President of the University. That was one of the nicest things anyone had ever said to him. President Lariviere stated that he has been at several universities during his career, and the issues around shared governance are shared among institutions. One of the points of enormous frustration for everyone is the slowness in which things get done. He then mentioned as an example the Pacifica Forum. President Lariviere felt an obligation, particularly as a new University President, to do something. The President pressured the Provost, faculty, and others involved to come up with a solution. According to President Lariviere, this group of people dropped everything in their lives and came up with an elegant solution within six weeks. In order to affect that solution, it was necessary for it to be approved by the Senate. He then asked when it was approved and Senate President Tublitz stated that it was approved twice to which President Lariviere stated that answer reinforced his sentiment.

According to the President, given the nature of democracy one must inevitably have those kinds of delays between the need, identification, and implementation of a solution, but he does think that these kinds of delays contribute to people's reluctance to make the decisions that were discussed by Senator Keyes. He then stated that that was not a flaw of this particular mode of governance, but it contributes to a perception that the University Senate may not be a venue for action but for something else. He did not mention what that something else might be. The President stated that he was encouraged by the three Grade Culture Motions, not that he had a particular stake in any of the outcomes of Motions A, B, or C, but he was struck by the extended engagement that the Undergraduate Council had taken in drafting these motions. He was also struck by the notion that after working on these motions for five years, someone would offer up the objection that it was too soon to implement them. According to President Lariviere, this objection does not reinforce the notion that the Senate body is focused on the expeditious implementation of necessary changes in a very dynamic institution. That might be the nature of democratic representation, but it is something that he has to deal with regularly from a number of constituents, including faculty and staff, about the functioning of the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to respond to the President's comments to which President Lariviere stated that his comments were not meant to be responded to, but Senate President Tublitz should respond if he so chose. Senate President Tublitz then remarked he did choose to respond and that President Lariviere's comments could basically be summarized by stating that the Senate moves too slowly. According to Senate President Tublitz, on both issues that President Lariviere raised, the Senate has moved very quickly. With regards to the Facilities Use Policy that was brought before the Senate, it was voted on within one month of being received. With regards to the Grade Culture Motions, the Senate has discussed them and voted on them over the course of two meetings. It was the UC who developed them over the course of five years. It is Senate President Tublitz's personal belief that the University Senate acts very quickly and thoughtfully on very precise and important issues, and for President Lariviere to denigrate the Senate body by saying that it is slow and that the Senate is not very good at what it is supposed to be doing, undermines the Universities entire system of governance, and he does not think that is right. The system of governance at the UO has been designed for a set of intelligent people who have to deal with important problems, and he thinks they do a damn good job. In his year and a half as Senate President and in the ten years that he has been involved in campus governance, the University Senate has responded very quickly to everything that has been brought before it. Senate President Tublitz stated that he thinks the current system of governance does work, but when decisions are made outside of the system, people become upset. The more open conversations that take place during Senate meetings on all issues, the better our system of governance will be.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) remarked that there was no question in his mind that if he had invested his time writing articles instead of presenting the Grade Culture Motions to committee after committee, he would be coming up for promotion to full professor. He stated that his comments were not casting aspersions on the process that had just taken place regarding Motions 11A, B, and C. He personally went to six or seven committees and lobbied people even when they did not respond to his efforts, and used Senate Vice President Kyr as an example. Senator McNeely stated that he spent a great amount of time in this process but believes there has got to be a better way to do it. He came away with full endorsements of Motions 11A, B, and C from every committee he visited but he feels there was not enough time to go into the valid concerns that people raised in the Senate. He stated that he respects those concerns, but wishes he had heard them six, fifteen, or eighteen months ago when he became involved in the process. Because of this, Senator McNeely stated that he was very sympathetic to the notion of things moving too slowly.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) responded to President Lariviere‟s comments regarding the Facilities Use Policy. He stated that the Facilities Use Policy, which was hastily drawn up at the President‟s request, was brought to the Senate floor and was passed by the Senate. It was an abomination and the Senate realized it was an abomination, and it could not stand. Committees worked to revise it and they did so conscientiously working through the summer. After two revisions, they brought an admirable document to the Senate, and the revised policy was accepted.According to Professor Stahl, the Facilities Use Policy preserves the ideals of academic freedom which were rather stomped upon by the first edition of the motion. He did not think the Senate was at all lazy or unduly slow in the passing of this motion, rather they acted thoughtfully and correctly.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan stated that the Student Senate meets every week. A two hour meeting would be considered a very short meeting of the Student Senate. He thinks that one reason for things taking as long as they do is that the University Senate meets for only two hours once a month and there is only so much that can be discussed in two hours. If the University Senate met more frequently or met for a greater length of time, more things would get done.

The next comment was made from Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus). Parliamentarian Simonds stated that in 1995-96, the Senate passed a document called Faculty Rewards and Development. When the document first came before that Senate, it was almost exclusively research and included a small section on teaching but nothing on service. Before the Senate passed it, the document was modified so that it included more information on teaching and something on service. As far as he could tell, the document was never implemented even though it was passed by the Senate. He then asked the question; why should we continue to serve if our service does not count? He believes that service should have some component in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, because service, as part of our collegial system of shared governance, is an important part of how the whole system really works and the aura of being a participant in this University. The members of the 1995-96 Senate saw a necessity for giving rewards for service and he thinks that this document should be implemented even though it has been fifteen years since it was passed.

Professor Frank Stahl stated that he would like to address an ongoing problem that appears to unnecessarily diminish through all of the Senate regarding the Policy Library. In order to receive proper accreditation, the University was called upon to assemble its policies in a centralized location, and the Provost‟s office is to be commended for undertaking that job and doing what is by and large a useful task. There are some fundamental problems. On this campus, the Senate is the governing body, and to govern means to set policy. According to Professor Stahl, University of Oregon rules take precedent over university policy statements. University policy is appropriately set by the Senate regarding academic matters of the university. Oregon Rules, also called Oregon Administrative Rules are things drawn up by administrators, and in stating that Administrative Rules take precedence over policy, anytime the administration wants to snuff a policy, they can write an Administrative Rule. He then stated that this has to be changed. Administrative Rules are explanations of how policies will be carried out; therefore they are subservient to policies. The second problem Professor Stahl mentioned regarding the Policy Library was that the University Senate's role in the development of University Policy was not mentioned anywhere in the University Policy development process found in the Policy Library. He feels this is very discouraging and stated that anyone who might want to run for the Senate and wondered what role the Senate plays in developing University Policies will come up with the answer; zilch! According to Professor Stahl, the third problem with the Policy Library is the statement that the University of Oregon policy statements published elsewhere are not considered official, as they may not represent the most current revisions or editions. He stated that the University Senate makes policy statements, and each time they pass a legislative motion, it is a policy statement. According to the University of Oregon Constitution, under which the University operates, those policy statements become effective sixty days after they are passed unless otherwise specified or unless vetoed by the President. Currently, there are a number of appropriate academic related policies that were passed by the Senate which should be in the policy library because they were passed more than sixty days ago and were not vetoed by the President. He believes that because of this, these policies should be effective and the Policy Library should draw attention to those policies and reference them with a link to the Senate website. More perfectly, those policy statements passed by the Senate should be cut and passed into the Policy Library at the appropriate place. He went on to say that until the Policy Library, which is the major window that people have into University policy and how the University is run, gives the Senate its fair due, then no one is going to run for the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Stahl for his comments and stated that he let this conversation go on longer than the allotted time because he felt it was important and also because the only other agenda item was a report on Non-tenure track faculty, which is a very important report. He wanted to give it the time it deserves to be presented before the Senate body and therefore, the report will be added to the May Senate meeting agenda. Senate President Tublitz then apologized to Senator A. Emami (Finance) and the rest of the members of the NTTF committee, and was about to move to adjourn the April Senate meeting when President Lariviere asked to respond to the comments made during the open discussion.

President Lariviere stated that in listening to Senate President Tublitz and to Professor Frank Stahl in particular, he detected a certain level of mistrust or if not mistrust, then a level of impatience, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness. He then said that this is something that he might not ever be able to do away with because those emotions come from a variety of sources, but he thinks he would be letting down the institution and his obligations to all if he did not state that if these emotions are driven by a pervasive sense of an us verse them mentality, then the President is on the Senate's side against some mythical opponent. He then stated that the Senate is not the University, and the President is also not the University. According to President Lariviere, we are all the University, and the Senate represents an important component of the UO. He then stated that the Senator's constituents are also not the University because there are one hundred eighty thousand people who feel very strongly that the UO is their University. As such, there are many voices that need to be heard. The fact that there is a document that says this is the only place where the official records are kept is right. There needs to be one place where everyone can find policy documents, and if those documents are not posted in a timely manner then that procedure needs to be fixed. He stated that the issues raised by Professor Stahl are not a part of some grand conspiracy to prevent Professor Stahl from having his voice heard, and President Lariviere is very impatient with the simple notion that all problems that confront us can be laid at the feet of the incompetent management of the Senate President of the Senate or the President of the University. These problems are very often an accumulation of circumstances. If we can get past this notion of grand conspiracy, as far as he is concerned, there is no conspiracy, between the administration and the Senate, he believes that everyone could move with much greater alacrity and effectiveness. From the President's perspective, the Senate's voice was very important. The President stated that he will respond to the Senate by taking them seriously and he expects and demands that the Senate be well informed and have grounds for their views and opinions. The Senate has a responsibility, as do all who are in positions of authority, to be well informed. The better informed the Senate is, the more their views will be driven by understanding, and the better this institution will be. He then stated that Senate President Tublitz was right in that the UO has an unusual governance structure, because faculty, classified staff, officers of administration and students all come together in the Senate to address issues that confront the University. That is a huge responsibility which requires Senators to know why they feel the way they feel about a particular issue before giving voice to that issue. Voting no because you do not understand something may be a safe bet, but it would be better to have an understanding of what you are voting for before you cast your vote. He reiterated that all he asks of the Senate is that they vote based on being well informed, and if you are not well informed, ask questions. Having a well informed Senate is crucial for the UO moving forward. He personally believes that one of the reasons why public education has fallen on such hard times is because people have not been well informed. The faculty has not been informed about the political circumstances universities find themselves in, and the public has not been informed about what goes on in the Senate. What results from these misinformed parties is a finger pointing of ignorance. The President then asked for help from the Senators and their constituents and apologized for his lengthy response. Professor Stahl then thanked President Lariviere for his kind words.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to end the Senate meeting with a brief statement. He remarked that it may be an overreach to say that our system of governance at the University was similar to that of the federal government. The UO had an executive and legislative branch and sometimes those two branches came into conflict. According to Senate President Tublitz, that conflict was not a bad thing, but in his year and a half as Senate President, and having spoken to many thousands of people on campus, everyone was very glad that Richard Lariviere was President of the University of Oregon.

5. Reports

5.1 Report on Non-tenure track faculty, Ali Emami and Michele Henny, NTTF committee co-chairs and Russ Tomlin, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

The report on non-tenure track faculty was tabled until the May Senate meeting.

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

After making his final comments, Senate President Tublitz adjourned the April 13, 2011 meeting of the University Senate at 5:04PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator.

Present: J. Brubaker, C. Bybee, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Good, D. Healey, G. Hockstatter, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, M. Nippold, B. Powell, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, R. Rejaie, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-MacMillan, Y. Tan, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams

Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, I. Fielding, M. Henney, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, P. Southwell, L. Sugiyama, E. Thomas, P. Walker, P. Warnek

Excused: T. Bars, J. Bonine, H. Gangadharbatla, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, T. Minner-Engle, J. Piger,

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for April 13, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes. Minutes of the 9 March 2011 regular meeting of the Senate

A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Seeing no corrections the minutes were approved with one abstention.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Before moving to the State of the University, Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate body that the microphone system in the Harrington Room has been synced with the hand held microphones used by Senators while speaking at Senate meetings. He also informed the Senate body that the Senate meeting was being broadcast live over the internet and Senators should be aware of this while commenting on various issues.

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

Senate President Tublitz welcomed President Lariviere to the floor to discuss the State of the University. President Lariviere thanked Senate President Tublitz and then launched into an update on the New Partnership Proposal and Governor Kitzhaber‟s agreement previously announced with surprising endurance in the media. According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has a new proposal for integrating education responsibility in the state. The Governor is using the terms preschool through twenty to describe the students affected by this proposal. President Lariviere stated that it has been recommended that this description be changed to preschool through graduate school. This proposal represents more than half the state‟s budget. After speaking with Governor Kitzhaber several times regarding this new proposal, President Lariviere stated that he likes Governor Kitzhaber‟s thinking on this new proposal because it is not a governance structure but a policy structure and he believes the policy has the best interest of the state in mind. President Lariviere is optimistic that the Governor is thinking in the right way about his approach to education in Oregon.

According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has very explicitly stated throughout his campaign and since he has been elected that he intends to do away with both the state board of education and the state board of higher education and integrate the policy functions of those agencies into his Education Investment Board. This plan matches very closely to what President Lariviere has proposed with regard to the governance of the University of Oregon. The President stated that if you eliminate the state board of higher education and the state board of education, then preschool through twelfth grade are governed by local school boards, community colleges are governed by community college boards, and state universities are left with no governance. President Lariviere‟s governance proposal (New Partnership) matches exactly with what the Governor is proposing in regard to the governance of higher education. According to President Lariviere, the governance structure of higher education needs to be done in such a way as to allow the individual universities to flourish given their idiosyncratic structures, mission, etc…

President Lariviere stated that the reason why his administration has opted to make a formal push for approval of the New Partnership bills in the 2012 legislative session that begins in February, is purely and simply inside baseball politics. It has nothing to do with the Governor‟s enthusiasm or lack thereof in the policy, but is allowing more time for the Governor to accumulate a small number of supporters in major leadership positions to support both his policy and the New Partnership simultaneously. The President believes that in order for the New Partnership to gain appropriate support, the policy should be addressed during the legislative session in February of 2012. He stated that the Governor‟s Education Investment Board must be watched very closely and carefully and asked for help from the Senate body in doing so. At this stage, the Governor‟s proposals have been in the form of conversations only and no one has seen actual legislation. President Lariviere remarked that it is hard to overstate the importance of the engagement of the Senate body and their representative constituencies evaluating these matters. According to the President, there are no perfect pieces of legislation, and hopefully, this process leads to improvement. The President again asked the Senate body to stay engaged on this issue, and informed the Senate that there will likely be an interim work group that focuses on the Governor‟s proposal. The Senate and its constituencies therefore must be ready to articulate their needs and wants to that group starting in July.

The President went on to say that he along with alums, trustees, and representatives of the Senate and of the faculty at large, recently gave testimony in front of the House subcommittee on higher education. He stated that the committee was very surprised at how many people are paying attention to these matters. When Professor John Chalmers (Finance) and Senator I. McNeely (History) discussed their process of evaluation regarding the New Partnership, and presented their views on the Proposal, it brought the committee up short. According to President Lariviere, people who are particularly opposed to the New Partnership are interested in making this a personality issue and that is why the Senate‟s continued engagement is crucial regarding this matter.

After discussing the New Partnership, President Lariviere stated that he had just returned from a meeting of the Presidents of the AAU (Association of American Universities) in Washington. The President stated that to say it was not a uniform happy gathering of University Presidents would be an understatement. He believes that the University of Oregon is in an oddly strong position in comparison to other public universities because the UO has essentially gone through and survived everything that their colleagues are currently enduring. He used the metaphor that the UO has been living on bread and water for so long that we have learned how to build muscle mass on this diet. In one year, Pennsylvania has had a proposed fifty-three percent cut to their higher education budget. California has had a significant cut built into their current budget which could possibly double if a budget resolution is not found between California Democrats and Republicans. The President then stated jokingly that he came away from the AAU meetings depressed, but thought that it was a rare moment for the UO. If we are able to generate private investment in the way that he believes is possible, the UO will be in a very strong position in the future. President Lariviere then asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first comment was from Professor Gordon Sayre (English). Professor Sayre stated that it was widely know that the April Senate agenda was changed the night before today‟s Senate meeting and the proposal for endorsement of the New Partnership was withdrawn. He believes this was the right decision and requested an opportunity to raise questions about the New Partnership from President Lariviere. Professor Sayre stated that he emailed President Lariviere four questions the night before and looks forward to an opportunity to discuss those questions. He also stated that the town hall meeting held in January was in the right spirit for the type of discussion he is looking for. Many of the questions posed at the town hall were from students and community members and he believes that faculty did not have enough opportunity to engage the President in a dialogue on the New Partnership. President Lariviere stated that Professor Sayre was right and he welcomes the opportunity to engage more questions from faculty regarding the New Partnership once schedules could be arranged. He went on to say that the more engagement from the Senate on the New Partnership the better for all involved and that there are no hidden agendas. According to the President, the only uncomfortable aspect of this process is trying to get everyone to recognize where everyone stands and what the consequences of policies have been in the past.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for his remarks and stated that Senators had received an email stating that the Senate would not be discussing the New Partnership Proposal at the April Senate meeting. The Senate Executive Committee, who is the sponsor of the motion, decided to withdraw the motion because there was a general feeling that there are still several unanswered questions concerning the New Partnership. With the introduction of the Governor‟s proposal on education and higher education, and the simple fact that the Senate Executive Committee does not know what changes will come to the New Partnership during the coming months, the sponsors felt uneasy about endorsing a proposal that was not clearly defined and thus have decided to withdraw the motion. He then asked for confirmation from members of the Senate Executive Committee. Seeing no objections Senate President Tublitz stated that he believes the motion will return to the Senate body for discussion at a later date when the New Partnership is more clearly defined. He then asked for questions from the Senate body and seeing none he again asked Senators to submit their questions regarding the New Partnership to him. Senate President Tublitz then requested that the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) review the New Partnership in detail to try and address Senator‟s questions which would then be posted to a page on the Senate website.

A statement was made by Senator M. Vituli (Mathematics). She remarked that some of the questions that have and will be posed are not financial in nature, and because of this, she does not think it proper to limit the questions to the purview of the SBC. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that the SBC does not only focus on budgetary items, but on various implications of budgetary items and the effects those items have on the University. He went on to say that if the SBC feels that they cannot answer the questions or if the Senate does not like the answers they have given, then other answers will be provided. Senate President Tublitz felt it should be sent to the SBC first and was uncomfortable with setting up a new ad-hoc committee that would have to go through the New Partnership from the beginning. If many questions were submitted from the Senate and the University community, he would be willing to pursue this ad-hoc committee route.

Senator I. McNeely (History) stated that if Senate President Tublitz deemed it appropriate, as chair of the Academic Council (AC), he would be happy to discuss the New Partnership and field questions from Senators and their constituents through the AC. He stated that the AC‟s purview encompasses anything related to the academic values of the University and he thought that his colleagues on the AC would be willing to answer any New Partnership questions. Senate President Tublitz agreed to Senator McNeely‟s suggestion and thanked him for offering to help. Seeing no other questions or comments, Senate President moved to begin the new business portion of the meeting.

3. New Business

3.1 Motion US10/11 - 10: Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal

Motion US10/11-10 was withdrawn at the request of the Senate Executive Committee who sponsored the motion.

3.2 Motion US10/11 - 11a,b,c: Motions on grade culture from the Undergraduate Council, Ian McNeely, chair

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to discuss each motion separately and vote on each motion separately as well. He then invited Senator McNeely to the floor to provide an introduction to each motion. Senator McNeely stated that the three grade culture motions were approximately five years in the making and reiterated that the Undergraduate Council was not out to knock down student grades and conquer or reverse grade inflation. The UC‟s findings are not predicated on any particular findings regarding causes of grade inflation, at least not in a laborious statistical sense, instead they take grade inflation and a host of related problems like grade compression, as symptoms of a deeper problem which is the loss of meaning surrounding grades. These motions are designed to start conversations about grades, share information about grades, to make faculty more mindful when assigning grades, and to make students and transcript users more capable of relying on the grades they have been given. According to Senator McNeely, the UC tried to craft these motions in a way that would respect and promote the values of academic freedom. Each motion is designed independently to fill a specific informational vacuum and to provide information to students, faculty, and transcript users. Due to their specific rationales, each motion will be voted on separately.

After providing background information on the motions, Senator McNeely gave a brief overview of each motion beginning with 11A. He stated that when instructors post a policy, as is currently done, that says A equals excellent, B equals good, C equals satisfactory, etc… students are not receiving the tools to properly understand the ways in which modern universities organize. With 11A, the UC is asking each department and undergraduate program to formulate a rationale for its grading practices and post these practices on its official website. According to Senator McNeely, there is nothing in motion 11A that is compulsory, that requires instructors to adhere in any way to these rationales. The A+ grade should be given specific attention in these departmental rationales due to the UC‟s findings that assigning an A+ grade accounts for a large part of what is perceived as grade inflation. Because of this, these grades should be specifically defined by each department. The UC will provide online access to these rationales. Senator McNeely then stated that there was no financial impact in implementing motion 11A; it merely requires a series of discussions about grades whose outcomes will be posted online. Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator McNeely for his introduction on Motion 11A and moved to begin a discussion on the motion. Before discussion could begin, Senate parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that the committee who sponsored the motion must move for approval of that motion. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely if the UC moves the motion for approval and Senator McNeely stated that the Undergraduate Council moves for the approval of Motion 11A. Senate President Tublitz then thanked Senator McNeely for moving the motion and parliamentarian Simonds for his point of order, and added that the motion does not need a second because it is being sponsored by a committee and not an individual. He then opened the floor to conversation on motion 11A.
The first comment was from Senator M. Nippold (Education). She stated that the principle of Motion 11A was fine, but it also assumes that there must be agreement within a department as to what constitutes an A+ grade or an A grade. It was her feeling that this might not be so easily codified, and that faculty members within each department might have disagreements as to the specific meaning of grades. Senator McNeely responded by stating that that was a judgment call that each department would have to make on their own. He believes that, regardless of potential disagreements, they should be asked to do so in whatever terms deemed appropriate to that department. He also stated that instructors have the choice of opting out for principle pedagogical reasons.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) asked what Senator McNeely meant by the word disciplines. He was not sure if Senator McNeely was referring to the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a specific major, or a subgroup within a major. Senator McNeely stated that the word disciplines meant every individual department in the undergraduate program whether they are a part of CAS or not. Several departments harbor within themselves several different subject codes and disciplines. There exists a different teaching style within departments, for example language and literature within French. In those cases, Senator McNeely believes it would be helpful for students to know what those differences are.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was asked to read a comment from Professor John Nicols (History) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Professor Nicols‟ comments in their entirety:

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

I am in class during the meeting of the UO Senate so cannot be present for the discussion in the UO Senate. I would like to urge the UO Senate to table the motion for reconsideration at a later date. I write this letter as someone who has served on all the curricular committees over the years and chaired most of them. Moreover, I am not averse to making changes and proposed a similar motion on general education requirement several years ago. I recognize, as we all do, that there is a problem with grade inflation, and I welcome the work done by the undergraduate council to reflect on the nature of the problem and to suggest some methods for dealing with the trend. Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons for moving slowly:

1.) Grading is an intensely personal issue and the grading culture varies significantly by program and department, and by school and college. I suspect that many here would agree that the problem is best regulated at the local level. So my first question is: has enough been done in departments and programs to monitor the trend and to establish guidelines for faculty? Has enough been done to alter student expectations about grades? I know that some, like Karen Sprague, have worked to change expectations, but believe the issues have not yet been addressed in most departments. And if departments have failed to address the problem, we need to know why? The top down approach offered here strikes me as premature, given that little has been done at the department level to alter expectations of faculty and students.

2.) I am very skeptical of adding notations to the transcript that inform about the number of [for example] As awarded in a class. If I were a student who had worked hard for a grade I would find it very troubling to see a remark that 88% of the other students in the class also received an A. Such a notation would serve to promote „bottom fishing‟ and that cannot be construed as an improvement.

3.) Moreover, to claim that the cost of reprograming the transcript and adding the information to DARS does not strike me as „cost neutral‟ or even as something that can be implemented in the near future. That is, even if approved, the changes will take considerable time and effort to implement [My informants in the Registrar‟s office indicate a significant degree of skepticism on this component]. This proposal needs a serious budget estimate of the real costs.

Hence my conclusion: I recommend that the motion be tabled and reconsidered only after the UC has provided departments, programs and colleges with suggestions to manage the problem, and taken up again ONLY when it has proven impossible to manage the situation locally.

Senator McNeely stated that Professor Nicols was a colleague of his and that this was the first time he had heard these remarks from him. He again reiterated that the three Grade Culture Motions were five years in the making, and that 11A was specifically designed to provide a framework to manage the problem locally. Senator McNeely mentioned that he brought this motion to his own department for discussion. He was not sure if Professor Nicols was at the meeting, but he did so at the initiative of the UC. He again reiterated that 11A provides a framework for all departments to have discussions regarding grades and to adopt whatever policies they see fit. He then stated that he would defer commenting on transcripts until his discussion of 11C. Finally, he remarked that his informant in the registrar‟s office is the registrar herself who has assured Senator McNeely repeatedly that these policies are cost neutral. She is allowed to determine programming priorities within her own budget of current staff and has stated several times that implementing these polices will be cost neutral. He then stated that he resisted tabling the motion per Professor Nicols request.

Senate President Tublitz then read comments on the Grade Culture Motions from Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (School of Music) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments in their entirety:

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

First, my apologies for my absence from today‟s Senate meeting (April 13, 2011). As chair of the composition department in the School of Music and Dance, I was asked to give a master class at the Hult Center for the Eugene Symphony, which offers the Laura Avery Master Class Program. John Harbison, a renowned American composer who is the composer-in-residence for the orchestra, fell ill and could not travel to Eugene from Boston. Consequently, I was asked to give the master class in his place, since I had prepared all of the student composers and performers who are participating in this public event.

I am asking Nathan Tublitz to read this statement on my behalf in order to request that a motion be made to table the three motions (US 10/11 abc) related to improving grade culture. Although I realize that grade inflation is an important issue, I do not believe that the motions as proposed will achieve the desired result of improving grade culture, and I do not believe that they will be without financial impact on the university.

Therefore, I propose that the three motions be tabled until the following is achieved by the Undergraduate Council, at which time a reconsideration of the motions might be more appropriate:

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

First, I propose that the Undergraduate Council works directly with departments, colleges, programs and academic units in order to suggest concrete ways to improve grade culture as appropriate for specific disciplines. One size does not fit all and it is important for the council to interact at the local level with departments in order to understand their needs and to suggest ways that our grade culture can be improved within the contexts of specific disciplines.

My first point relates directly to the charge for the Undergraduate Council, which states that it is authorized to do the following: “Participate, on behalf of the University faculty, in planning the development and improvement of the undergraduate instructional program of the institution, in consultation with the University President, officers of administration and with relevant departmental heads and program directors.” Please note that the Undergraduate Council is not given a charge to administer or implement general policies, but it is asked to participate in the development and improvement of undergraduate education with relevant department heads and program directors.

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

Second, I propose that the council works in conjunction with the appropriate offices to prepare a specific report regarding the costs of enacting the motions, if it still wishes to pursue them. In regard to paying for administrative time alone, it is not possible that the changes to transcripts are “cost neutral.” A considerable amount of work will be done in order to affect the proposed changes and we must be apprised of the exact cost before these motions are considered, including the number of work hours and the corresponding dollar amount to pay for “administrative time.” The changes that are being proposed will require an enormous amount of labor to enact and are not the result of a simple “button press” as was stated at our last Senate meeting. Personally, I want to see a specific, line-item budget before I will feel ready to vote on any of these motions.

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

Finally, any addition to or alteration of transcripts must not put our students at a disadvantage on a regional or national basis as they apply to pursue their studies at the master‟s or doctoral levels. It is my belief that the proposed alteration to transcripts will present our students in a bad light that will not improve their chances for acceptance at the best graduate institutions in the nation. We will be creating an unequal playing field in which our own students will be ill served and placed at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment.

Thank you for considering my appeal to table the three “grade culture motions” in light of the issues that I have raised.

Senator McNeely responded to Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments by stating that these opinions were not new to him. At the March Senate meeting, Senate Vice President Kyr raised these same points and since that time, Senator McNeely sent Senate Vice President Kyr a two page email in which he parsed the charge of the UC. Senator McNeely believes that these motions are within the purview of the UC and went on to say that he received no response from Senate Vice President Kyr despite numerous attempts by Senator McNeely to engage in discussion. He then stated that Senate Vice President Kyr‟s first point was very well taken. Developing appropriate solutions for specific disciplines and resisting a unilateral approach is precisely the intent of Motion 11A, and because of this, Senator McNeely did not understand Senate Vice President Kyr‟s objection. He then discussed Kyr‟s questioning of the UC‟s charge and stated that the UC would have no administrative power. The Senate would be delegating the registrar to implement changes, and he again reiterated that the registrar has assured Senator McNeely that implementing these changes would be cost neutral.

He then remarked that he trusts the registrar‟s professional judgment and is not in the position to question her. Senator McNeely continued to address the charge of the UC and stated that in his email to Senate Vice President Kyr, he specifically brought up points one, three, five, and six of the UC‟s charge that give the UC specific powers to monitor and respond to general academic policies of the university. Point five in particular establishes criteria and outcomes to determine the success of the overall undergraduate program. According to Senator McNeely, it is the UC‟s belief that grades ought to be criteria by which to evaluate the success of the overall undergraduate program. Rising grades ought to mean enhanced success, and those rising grades are now unreliable. Point six requires the UC to monitor the academic coherence quality and standards of the undergraduate academic program to insure that quality and rigor of instruction and evaluation are consistent across the curriculum. Senator McNeely stated that point six specifically requires the UC to look at evaluation practices. He stated that this is what these motions are doing and reiterated that the UC has no ability to overrule or interfere with the rationales for grading practices that will be posted on departmental websites, and he specifically would reject that power if it were offered to the UC.

Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) commented on Senator McNeely‟s remarks and stated that in his opinion, having the UC suggest specific changes for each department seems more top down and intrusive than asking departments to develop their own metrics for evaluation. As a student, he felt that would be helpful and remarked that he had been in classes where grading policies were not clear. If departments could develop a clear and simple grading metric, it would be a great help to students, and to him, it does not seem intrusive. He then stated that motions 11A and B appear to be vehicles to start conversations between departments and that motion 11C was different but was not currently being discussed.

The next comment was from Senator L. Middlebrook (Comparative Literature). She seconded Senator Stark-MacMillan‟s points and thanked the UC for their wording of the three Grade Culture Motions. She stated that these items are represented in the spirit of education, information and transparency and she believes they will be very helpful to students and faculty. With great respect for every voice being heard, she thinks that the personal nature of grading is slightly problematic, and to encourage departments to discuss more uniform standards and to have a language that keeps grading from being binding to individual instructors really shows the benefits of five years of considering a plan. She then spoke on behalf of her two departments that, according to her, are horribly beleaguered due to their own administration, and thanked the UC for providing the language of the motions and for not meeting with her departments. She believes that another set of meeting would be overly taxing.

Professor Thomas Wheeler (Journalism and Communication) stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he was a member of the UC and supported the three Grade Culture Motions. He then provided background on behind the scenes discussions on the motions, and stated that he very much appreciated the thoughtful and detailed memos that were sent from Professor Nicols and Senate Vice President Kyr. He stated that he agreed with Professor Nicols first point that not enough has been done on the local and departmental level which was the impetus behind motion 11A. He took exception to the characterization of the top down aspect mentioned by Professor Nicols. At no time in their discussions was there any pretense that the criteria developed by different departments would be similar. The UC‟s intent was to keep these criteria at the local level and to foster discussions on grades. Professor Wheeler then stated that there were some comments in the memos that referred exclusively to motion 11C which should be tabled until that part of the discussion. In his view, motion 11A is not a top down policy, but is simply a conversation starter at the departmental level.

Senator M. Williams (Romance Languages) stated that she supports motion 11A. Her department is comprised of teaching faculty and many teaching graduate students, and she believes that motion 11A could be useful to such a diverse groups of teachers. She then expressed her concern that the end of fall term 2011 might be too ambitious as a timeline for implementing motion 11A. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC was not wedded to that date, but would like to get the process going and was open to suggestions regarding the timeline.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz asked for additional comments and seeing none, moved for the Senate body to vote on Grade Culture Motion US10/11-11A. He reminded the Senators that they would be voting on 11A only. Senate President Tublitz called for a voice vote and after the vote was taken, he stated that according to his ear, the ayes were in the majority. He then asked the Senate body if anyone would like to see a hand count, and seeing none, Motion 11A was passed.

The Senate then began a discussion on Motion 11B, Comparative Statistics Available to Instructors.

Senate President Tublitz asked Senator McNeely if he would like to provide a brief introduction to this motion. Senator McNeely responded that he would and also offered a friendly amendment to motion 11B. He stated that the Grade Culture Motions were sent to the Academic Council (AC) to be independently vetted. Since Senator McNeely is the chair of the AC, he excused himself from their deliberations. In their report, the AC revised the language of Motion 11B, which Senator McNeely believes is better than the current wording of the Motion. He suggested replacing the current wording with the language used by the AC in their report on Motion 11B. Senator McNeely stated that the AC endorsed all three Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that the University Senate will make comparative statistics available to instructors starting in the fall of 2011. Each time an undergraduate course is taught, the registrar will present professors with a standard set of statistics giving grade distributions for relevant courses at any moment, probably September 15 of the fall term. It was determined by the AC that those statistics should not be reported as a mean and Z score distribution, but that a bar graph would more clearly represent the comparative statistics. As an example, Senator McNeely used his course, History 105, and stated that an instructor could log on to DuckWeb and see past distributions of As, Bs, Cs, and D, etc… for History 105, for 100 level classes in History, for all classes in History, and for all classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.

When an instructor finishes teaching his or her course, right before they submit their final grades on DuckWeb, they will be given the mean grade distribution for that course. This was founded on a specific calculation, a pessimistic one, about how deeply faculty members could be expected to engage with grading. According to Senator McNeely, the one moment when every single faculty member has to think about grades is when they are obligated to submit them. At that moment, the UC felt they could trust faculty members not to go back and hastily change grades having seen their distribution. They would be shown the distribution which could help them in error detection, but the UC did not feel that the distribution would influence instructors in such a way as to rethink or redo their completed grades. He then stated that there was a great deal of concern as to who would have access to the statistics. The AC suggested that these statistics be widely publicized to the faculty and possibly the general public. People were also concerned that the statistics could be used against people who had received a grade too leniently or too harshly. As a compromise, the UC decided to fold the statistics into the official course record which is roughly equivalent to the class list shown on DuckWeb. Those statistics would be accessible to people with those course lists, which is by and large limited to faculty members who teach those courses themselves, though department heads, if they wish, can find that information in some cases. The UC will work with the registrar to serve these statistics. The registrar has volunteered her computing resources and has a great deal of insight into the proper DuckWeb formatting guidelines, and Senator McNeely has spoken with the registrar regarding privacy concerns and which metrics are proper for comparative purposes.

At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that Motion 11B must be moved to the floor for discussion and a vote. Senator McNeely then requested that the Motion be moved. After the Motion was moved, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was feeling a little uncomfortable, and asked Senator McNeely if the AC‟s edits were indeed the entire motion. Senator McNeely stated in the affirmative that the edits were indeed the motion. Senate President Tublitz then said that more than half of Motion 11B has been changed and this was the first time that Senators were seeing this change. Under normal circumstances when a motion undergoes a change of wording, an amendment is submitted and a vote is taken on that amendment. According to Senate President Tublitz, this change is more substantial and he believes the Senate should vote to accept the amended changes to Motion 11B so that Senators could then vote on the Motion as amended or vote that they need more time to consider the changes. He then stated that the UC has spent many years developing these motions and does not want to delay a vote on them, but he also feels a responsibility to the Senate and believes that they should be given enough time to carefully consider every item that they vote on. Senate President Tublitz then acknowledged that the amended items are probably minor at which point Senator McNeely stated that the substantive difference is that statistics will now be made available before a class begins. In the previous version, which Senator McNeely would be happy to revert to if it would expedite the proceedings; statistics were made available after grades had been submitted. Senate President Tublitz then asked the Senate to vote to accept the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B so that it could then be brought to the floor for discussion. A vote was taken and the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B was accepted with two abstentions.

Discussion on the amended wording of Grade Culture Motion 11B began with a comment from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She wanted to make sure she understood what Senator McNeely meant by the statistics being part of the record, and asked, for a particular course, what the timeframe would be for the percentages of grades displayed. She also wanted to know who would have access to the statistical information be it instructors teaching that particular course, deans, department heads, etc… Senator Vitulli then stated that she wanted to better understand what Senator McNeely was proposing. Senator McNeely responded by making a distinction between the individual CRN statistics and the comparative statistics. For an individual CRN, the only items that can be bundled with that class list are the distribution of grades for that particular class. Elsewhere on DuckWeb, instructors would be able to pull up the comparative statistics designed by the UC in collaboration with the registrar. The first set of statistics would only be available to instructors who can already access the class for a given CRN. The comparative statistics would be available to others who are linked to that class. Senator Vitulli again asked what time period these statistics would cover. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the time period would be designed in collaboration with the registrar and there have been suggested periods of two, three, and five years. It is a technical problem, and the UC would be open to guidance from the Senate.

The next question came from Senator R. Rejaie (Computer and Information Science). His question was regarding the basic goal that Senator McNeely and the UC were trying to achieve. He stated that the UC is providing statistical information to himself as a member of the faculty so he knows where his grades stand relative to a group norm, or put another way, how different his grading is in comparison to others. On the one hand, Senator Rejaie‟s grading distribution may differ from previous years and instructors, etc… He then stated that in seeing these differences, Senator Rejaie is presumably supposed to react to them by fixing something if he believes something needs to be fixed. He then referred to Senator McNeely‟s earlier comment that the UC would assume that faculty members would not react to these statistics because they had just completed their grading and would therefore not change their grading after viewing these statistics. Senator Rejaie stated that he was trying to reconcile these two notions in order to determine the goal of Motion 11B. He believes that instructors may subconsciously adjust their behavior after viewing these statistics and was not sure if that was a good thing. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC does hope instructors will react at more leisurely moments for example when designing their courses or after they go back and look at their course evaluations. According to Senator McNeely, there is no implied norm or standard that the presentation of these statistics involves. Instructors can look at the statistics and decide to act or not act on them as they see fit. Senator McNeely then mentioned a personal example and stated that he noticed that he gave a large number of Bs in comparison to his colleagues and as a result, when he designs a new syllabus, he might consider tweaking his assignments in order to spread out that distribution. Senator Rejaie then asked if it was a good thing that after two or three years, the number of Bs an instructor gives end up aligning with the average in his department. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there was no way to know if the number of Bs would align with departmental averages. It all depends upon the individual instructor‟s behavior. The UC is simply giving instructors information and letting them decide how to act on that information.

Senator Nippold (Education) offered her reasoning for why she was going to vote nay on Motion 11B. She stated that the Motion seemed like a modern form of peer pressure using technology. By showing instructors statistics before they submit their grades, the UC is promoting conformity and control over how instructors are grading.

The next comment came from Senator G. Waddell (Economics). He stated that he had a few concerns with Motion 11B. He thought it was interesting that the Motion starts with small groups and instructors are given statistics right before they submit grades. He stated that if you get to that level of detail, on average we should find that we grade the same way; there is no grade inflation for the same class over time. According to Senator Waddell, the inflation we are seeing is an aggregate. As students select across different classes with different grading standards, the average grade tends to rise. He predicted that when looking at the same class over time, instructors grade the same. His second point was that now that Motion 11A has been past, he wondered if Motion 11B was jumping the gun. By passing 11A, faculty are anticipating conversations on these issues, and through these discussions, better and more appropriate ideas might arise. He thought more time was needed to allow ideas to begin to develop through conversation and mentioned that for several years now the Economics department has been distributing a similar set of statistics to instructors at the end of every term via email. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC wants to give all departments a set of statistics similar to those already being distributed in the Economics department. He believes those statistics will inform departmental conversations.

Senator L. Van Dreel (School of Music) posed a question about the relevance of Motion 11B. She stated that most of the courses that she teaches have one to three students enrolled, and did not understand how those statistics would be meaningful to her and her courses. Senator McNeely stated that they probably would not be very meaningful and he expected that she would ignore them.

The next comment came from Senator D. Healey (American English Institute – Linguistics). She stated that she liked the idea of seeing the statistical information ahead of time, but saw little point in viewing it before instructors submit final grades as it could send the wrong message. The more information instructors have to prepare for their classes the better, but according to her, there is a peer pressure implication for not grading like your colleagues. She wanted to know what the relevant courses were and how the number of students in a particular course impacted the relevance of the Motion. She agreed with Senator Waddell‟s sentiment and thought Motion 11B would require more thought. Senator McNeely responded by stating that he would at the least hope to provide statistics at the beginning of the term.

Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) stated that one thing that concerned him regarding Motion 11B was that he did not feel it was accomplishing what Senator McNeely was hoping to accomplish as far as grade inflation was concerned. If grade inflation is a rising mean, this motion seems to push instructors grading practices towards that mean. He believes this will make the problem of grade inflation and grade compression even worse. It seems counter intuitive to try and push instructors towards a mean. He understands that that was not the intention of the Motion, but he believes it will be the end result. Senator McNeely stated Senator Powell was right. Motion 11B was not created to push instructors towards a mean or to reverse grade inflation.

A question was then raised by Senator Stark-MacMillan. He wanted to know if instructors will have to look at the distribution of their colleague‟s grades, or will that simply be an option to pursue if they so choose. Senator McNeely stated that it would be their option and could be viewed on DuckWeb. Instructors would not be forced to look at the statistics. Only the individual distribution for your particular course would have to be viewed before submitting grades. An instructor could choose to ignore the distributions entirely.

Senate President Tublitz asked the Senate body for final questions and comments before moving to a vote on Motion 11B. Seeing none, a voice vote was taken. Due to the similar number of aye and nay responses, Senate President Tublitz was unable to aurally determine the outcome of the voice vote and asked for a hand count. Assisted by Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) and Senate Executive Coordinator Christopher Prosser (Classified Staff), a hand count was taken. The hand count vote resulted in ten ayes, thirteen nays and two abstentions. With thirteen nays, Motion 11B did not pass.

After voting on Motion 11B, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin discussion on Motion 11C, Contextual Information on Transcripts. He briefly asked Senator McNeely if there was any change to the Motion and Senator McNeely replied that there was no change. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely to move the motion to the floor for discussion and Senator McNeely consented. The Senator then gave a brief introduction on Motion 11C and stated that the idea of the Motion was to reformat transcripts. Next to each grade merited by a student, a percentage of A range grades for that course will be included. The exceptions are for courses with fewer than twenty students because a normal distribution is not expected from classes with so few enrolled, and any course for which the release of the A grade percentage may violate federal law, specifically the FERPA law. Motion 11C would go into effect at the beginning of fall term 2013 which would allow Motion 11A to firmly establish itself. Senate President Tublitz then called for a discussion on Motion 11C.

The first comment was from Senator Glen Waddell (Economics). He stated that, in the case of Motion 11C, more information can be harmful, and thought that the Senate should be cautious regarding the introduction of this information on transcripts. One issue he had against the Motion 11C was that currently, there is a lack of empirical evidence on what Universities expect to see in response to changing transcripts in this way. The literature is growing, but current evidence is mixed. He then referred to a current working paper from Cornell University‟s Economics department on the same issue.

Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) was interested in hearing what Senate Vice President Kyr had mentioned regarding graduates being negatively judged on this change to transcripts. Senate President Tublitz reminded Senators that Senate Vice President Kyr was concerned about the impact of having A grade percentages on UO graduates transcripts who are applying to graduate programs in competition with other graduates whose transcripts do not include these percentages.

Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC‟s basic thought is that transcript users already make these judgments subconsciously. Senator McNeely stated that he has made similar judgments in evaluating transcripts for Phi Beta Kappa. The UC is not dictating how information should be used, but are providing one encapsulating statistic that enables people to correct their prejudices where appropriate. There are a few universities who are enacting similar transcript changes.

Senator Brian Powell stated that the only students he feels will benefit from Motion 11C are top students making As in all their courses. At the same time, an A grade might diminish in value if a course receives a higher percentage of A grades. He also stated that by only placing the percentage of As on transcripts, no one knows what a B grade means, and the students who are receiving A grades probably need the least amount of help. Finally, he believes that UO students who are not at the top of their class will be at a greater disadvantage than they already are when competing with students from other institutions who do not have A percentages listed on their transcripts.

The next comment was from Senator Michael Price (Mathematics). He asked Senator McNeely why the UC had decided to only include the percentage of A grades on transcripts. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there is not enough room on transcripts to include other grades. The A was chosen because it is on the rise. That is where grade compression exists, and Motion 11C provides a means to put that disparity into context.

Senate President Tublitz asked if there were any more comments on Motion 11C and seeing none, moved to vote on the Motion. A voice vote was taken, and Motion 11C did not pass. There was one abstention. Senate President Tublitz then stated that even though two of the three Grade Culture Motions did not pass, he believes there is a real sentiment that this is an important issue and then thanked the UC for their years of work developing these Motions. He then stated that he wanted to send a message to all the members of the UC. After hearing the discussions that had just taken place, he believes that the Senate is not against implementing these policies altogether, but there is a sentiment against implementing them now until Motion 11A has had sufficient time to run its course. He asked Senator McNeely to tell the UC that the Senate is basically tabling Motions 11B and C and asked him to return to the Senate after more time has passed.

Senate President Tublitz then moved to begin the Open Discussion portion of the meeting and invited ASUO Senate President, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, to the floor to discuss what is and is not working with the UO‟s system of shared governance.

4. Open Discussion: Shared governance: what is and is not working? Facilitators: Nathan Tublitz, Senate President; Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President; Zachary Stark-MacMillan, ASUO Senate President

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to talk about shared governance because it is essential to the University. Previously, he asked Senators to send him a few words about what shared governance meant to them. He then listed words he had received which included: faculty, voice, commitment, focus, and listening. The reality is that shared governance is the basis for the Universities way of life, and he asked Senators three questions in regards to shared governance; what do we have now, what is missing, and how do we get to where we want to go. He asked the Senate body to tell him, and mentioned that the President and Provost were also in attendance, and that the meeting was being streamed live, what their thoughts were on the current system of shared governance at the UO.

The first comment came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). He remarked that the Charter of the University of Oregon states that the faculty shall govern the University and it defines the faculty as the professors and the President. That philosophy is well embodied in the UO Constitution which was drawn up by a faculty committee and approved by the President. Professor Stahl stated that he was unaware what shared governance meant. The UO has a faculty that is supposed to govern and an administration whose responsibility is to carry out the policies established by that faculty. He does not think this is happening. Senate President Tublitz then asked for more opinions to be voiced from the Senate body, and asked Senators; what needs to be done to improve shared governance.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) stated that, historically, he did not think that most universities were governed by their faculty. Governing boards and administrators appropriately had the majority of administrative power and he felt that that model had worked well in the United States for at least a century. He believes that faculties and Senates need to focus on academic matters, and he was grateful for the work that was accomplished today in the Senate regarding the Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that he was not in any way miffed at the outcome, and that what took place today is what the UO Senate needs to be doing. Administrative matters should be left to administrators and board matters should be left to boards. Senate President Tublitz then offered up a point of clarification and history. For five years he served as President of the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is comprised of a group of faculty senates from around the country.

As a result of that experience, he learned that University of Oregon is unique to other faculty senates across the country in two ways. The first way is that the UO has a Charter, as mentioned by Professor Stahl, which officially and unequivocally states what the governance position is of the faculty and the President; very few, if any universities have such a document. The second reason that the UO is distinct from other universities is that the UO Senate is not a faculty Senate. It is a Senate of all the stakeholder groups on campus ranging from the faculty, officers of administration, classified staff, and students. Next year, an additional Senate seat will be added from the officers of research. As of next year, every constituency, including non-tenure track instructional faculty, will be represented in the Senate, and he believes that this is something that everyone should be very proud of.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) stated that from the student side of shared governance, the ASUO has the Clark Document, which was signed by Robert D. Clark, which gives students some authority over the student incidental fee and is the heart of the student autonomy and power on campus. Throughout the years, students have been added to almost every faculty committee, including the Senate, and he believes the UO is in a fairly good position, especially in comparison to other schools, but there is always room for improvement. He believes GTFs are missing from the University Senate. The ASUO has only two graduate school representatives and they are a definite constituency group which could add another voice to the University Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he has had private conversations with many people who feel the UO‟s system of shared governance needs improvement. He then gave an example and mentioned an email he sent to the Senate body asking for nominees for the upcoming Senate election. One email recipient called Senate President Tublitz and asked to be placed in the running. This individual had been at the UO for four months and asked Senate President Tublitz why he should run for the University Senate, and did the Senate have any power. This individuals understanding was that the President had all the power at the UO, and Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that that was both true and untrue. The UO has a governance system where the Senate can pass legislation focusing on issues of curriculum, student conduct, and some policies. If a motion is passed by the Senate it becomes University law unless the President chooses not to sign it or decides to veto it. On other issues, the Senate acts as an advisory to the administration that can then choose to take or not take the Senate‟s advice. This is what he relayed to this individual and he then stated that there is an impression that the voices of the faculty are not being heard on a wide range of issues.

Speaking as one of the first classified staff employees to be elected to the University Senate, Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff) stated that the Senators representing classified staff have taken their position very seriously. They have met with their constituency and have discussed a wide variety of topics including the New Partnership. The classified staff Senators have attended as many Senate meetings as possible in an attempt to educate themselves on the many issues that are taking place on campus, as they take these issues very seriously. To her, having a vote and a voice and being able to participate in shared governance has been an amazing experience. Senate President Tublitz then stated that the classified staff voice has not only been much appreciated, but it has been invaluable.

Senator Peter Keyes (Architecture) stated that as someone who has been involved with several governance issues at the UO, and in talking about what needs to be improved, he feels that many people are biding their time until a better opportunity comes around. He thinks it is a two way street. People do not feel they have a strong voice and are more interested in and committed to their own research which is what gets them promotions and raises and more job offers to places with more money. They do not see how a benefit will come to them from participating in shared governance. Time spent in participating in service to the University takes away from time spent pursuing research. He did not say that this was a good thing, but that it was a part of the culture especially with younger faculty growing up in a more cynical market driven environment. Senate

President Tublitz stated that Senator Keyes point was well taken and he expanded upon not just serving in the Senate, but on participation in the whole global nature of the UO‟s governance system. It is not just a matter of getting more people to run for the Senate, but how can the Senate become more integral in the lives of people on campus. He then stated that five percent of the people do ninety five percent of the work because no one is getting promoted for the work that goes on in the Senate. He wanted people to think about ways to make the Senate a stronger institution and to try to get others to respect the Senate more than they currently do.

The next comment on shared governance came from Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages). She had a personal statement, a question and a suggestion. Her personal statement was in regards to the UO Mission. She said that if everyone was working toward that Mission then she did not understand why there was a need for shared governance. According to her, everyone should be working towards the goals stated in the UO Mission. Her question, which she asked for responses from Senate President Tublitz and University President Lariviere, was; what is and is not working in our system of shared governance. Her suggestion was regarding the New Partnership Proposal. Since it involves every constituency on campus, she feels that everyone should be working together on this Proposal. She recommended that every constituency at the UO create its own committee and work together with the administration on the New Partnership Proposal. The change that we will be making does not only affect us, but also our children who may be attending the UO, and because of this, everyone should be working together for the best possible outcome. Senate

President Tublitz turned to President Lariviere and asked if he would like to go first in answering Senator Khalsa‟s question on shared governance. The President jovially replied, no. Therefore, Senate President Tublitz responded to Senator Khalsa‟s question by stating that in the previous administration he felt that nothing was working. In the current administration there have been improvements due to the attitude and atmosphere of President Lariviere. This was the only reason Senate President Tublitz ran for Presidency of the Senate. He then addressed what was not working with our system of shared governance, and stated that he does not think enough progress has been made in really listening to all the constituent voices that exist at the University of Oregon. He believes that decisions are still being made that are not in conjunction with the current system of governance and that fall outside shared governance. This is a major source of frustration for himself and for many others at the UO. He stated that sometimes there are good reasons for these things, because democracy is messy and slow, but there is a cost of doing things the right way. Another important aspect of these decisions that is not often talked about is its impact on students. Senate President Tublitz stated that he is here for his students. He is not here to be Senate President, but has a commitment to the job that he does. Often times he believes that the disagreements that take place on campus only focus on those disagreements rather than focusing on areas of common interest and working towards agreement in those areas. This is what he thinks everyone can do a better job of.

Senate President Tublitz then handed the microphone to President Lariviere who thanked Senate President Tublitz for running for Senate President because he was the President of the University. That was one of the nicest things anyone had ever said to him. President Lariviere stated that he has been at several universities during his career, and the issues around shared governance are shared among institutions. One of the points of enormous frustration for everyone is the slowness in which things get done. He then mentioned as an example the Pacifica Forum. President Lariviere felt an obligation, particularly as a new University President, to do something. The President pressured the Provost, faculty, and others involved to come up with a solution. According to President Lariviere, this group of people dropped everything in their lives and came up with an elegant solution within six weeks. In order to affect that solution, it was necessary for it to be approved by the Senate. He then asked when it was approved and Senate President Tublitz stated that it was approved twice to which President Lariviere stated that answer reinforced his sentiment.

According to the President, given the nature of democracy one must inevitably have those kinds of delays between the need, identification, and implementation of a solution, but he does think that these kinds of delays contribute to people's reluctance to make the decisions that were discussed by Senator Keyes. He then stated that that was not a flaw of this particular mode of governance, but it contributes to a perception that the University Senate may not be a venue for action but for something else. He did not mention what that something else might be. The President stated that he was encouraged by the three Grade Culture Motions, not that he had a particular stake in any of the outcomes of Motions A, B, or C, but he was struck by the extended engagement that the Undergraduate Council had taken in drafting these motions. He was also struck by the notion that after working on these motions for five years, someone would offer up the objection that it was too soon to implement them. According to President Lariviere, this objection does not reinforce the notion that the Senate body is focused on the expeditious implementation of necessary changes in a very dynamic institution. That might be the nature of democratic representation, but it is something that he has to deal with regularly from a number of constituents, including faculty and staff, about the functioning of the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to respond to the President's comments to which President Lariviere stated that his comments were not meant to be responded to, but Senate President Tublitz should respond if he so chose. Senate President Tublitz then remarked he did choose to respond and that President Lariviere's comments could basically be summarized by stating that the Senate moves too slowly. According to Senate President Tublitz, on both issues that President Lariviere raised, the Senate has moved very quickly. With regards to the Facilities Use Policy that was brought before the Senate, it was voted on within one month of being received. With regards to the Grade Culture Motions, the Senate has discussed them and voted on them over the course of two meetings. It was the UC who developed them over the course of five years. It is Senate President Tublitz's personal belief that the University Senate acts very quickly and thoughtfully on very precise and important issues, and for President Lariviere to denigrate the Senate body by saying that it is slow and that the Senate is not very good at what it is supposed to be doing, undermines the Universities entire system of governance, and he does not think that is right. The system of governance at the UO has been designed for a set of intelligent people who have to deal with important problems, and he thinks they do a damn good job. In his year and a half as Senate President and in the ten years that he has been involved in campus governance, the University Senate has responded very quickly to everything that has been brought before it. Senate President Tublitz stated that he thinks the current system of governance does work, but when decisions are made outside of the system, people become upset. The more open conversations that take place during Senate meetings on all issues, the better our system of governance will be.

Senator Ian McNeely (History) remarked that there was no question in his mind that if he had invested his time writing articles instead of presenting the Grade Culture Motions to committee after committee, he would be coming up for promotion to full professor. He stated that his comments were not casting aspersions on the process that had just taken place regarding Motions 11A, B, and C. He personally went to six or seven committees and lobbied people even when they did not respond to his efforts, and used Senate Vice President Kyr as an example. Senator McNeely stated that he spent a great amount of time in this process but believes there has got to be a better way to do it. He came away with full endorsements of Motions 11A, B, and C from every committee he visited but he feels there was not enough time to go into the valid concerns that people raised in the Senate. He stated that he respects those concerns, but wishes he had heard them six, fifteen, or eighteen months ago when he became involved in the process. Because of this, Senator McNeely stated that he was very sympathetic to the notion of things moving too slowly.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) responded to President Lariviere‟s comments regarding the Facilities Use Policy. He stated that the Facilities Use Policy, which was hastily drawn up at the President‟s request, was brought to the Senate floor and was passed by the Senate. It was an abomination and the Senate realized it was an abomination, and it could not stand. Committees worked to revise it and they did so conscientiously working through the summer. After two revisions, they brought an admirable document to the Senate, and the revised policy was accepted.According to Professor Stahl, the Facilities Use Policy preserves the ideals of academic freedom which were rather stomped upon by the first edition of the motion. He did not think the Senate was at all lazy or unduly slow in the passing of this motion, rather they acted thoughtfully and correctly.

Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan stated that the Student Senate meets every week. A two hour meeting would be considered a very short meeting of the Student Senate. He thinks that one reason for things taking as long as they do is that the University Senate meets for only two hours once a month and there is only so much that can be discussed in two hours. If the University Senate met more frequently or met for a greater length of time, more things would get done.

The next comment was made from Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus). Parliamentarian Simonds stated that in 1995-96, the Senate passed a document called Faculty Rewards and Development. When the document first came before that Senate, it was almost exclusively research and included a small section on teaching but nothing on service. Before the Senate passed it, the document was modified so that it included more information on teaching and something on service. As far as he could tell, the document was never implemented even though it was passed by the Senate. He then asked the question; why should we continue to serve if our service does not count? He believes that service should have some component in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, because service, as part of our collegial system of shared governance, is an important part of how the whole system really works and the aura of being a participant in this University. The members of the 1995-96 Senate saw a necessity for giving rewards for service and he thinks that this document should be implemented even though it has been fifteen years since it was passed.

Professor Frank Stahl stated that he would like to address an ongoing problem that appears to unnecessarily diminish through all of the Senate regarding the Policy Library. In order to receive proper accreditation, the University was called upon to assemble its policies in a centralized location, and the Provost‟s office is to be commended for undertaking that job and doing what is by and large a useful task. There are some fundamental problems. On this campus, the Senate is the governing body, and to govern means to set policy. According to Professor Stahl, University of Oregon rules take precedent over university policy statements. University policy is appropriately set by the Senate regarding academic matters of the university. Oregon Rules, also called Oregon Administrative Rules are things drawn up by administrators, and in stating that Administrative Rules take precedence over policy, anytime the administration wants to snuff a policy, they can write an Administrative Rule. He then stated that this has to be changed. Administrative Rules are explanations of how policies will be carried out; therefore they are subservient to policies. The second problem Professor Stahl mentioned regarding the Policy Library was that the University Senate's role in the development of University Policy was not mentioned anywhere in the University Policy development process found in the Policy Library. He feels this is very discouraging and stated that anyone who might want to run for the Senate and wondered what role the Senate plays in developing University Policies will come up with the answer; zilch! According to Professor Stahl, the third problem with the Policy Library is the statement that the University of Oregon policy statements published elsewhere are not considered official, as they may not represent the most current revisions or editions. He stated that the University Senate makes policy statements, and each time they pass a legislative motion, it is a policy statement. According to the University of Oregon Constitution, under which the University operates, those policy statements become effective sixty days after they are passed unless otherwise specified or unless vetoed by the President. Currently, there are a number of appropriate academic related policies that were passed by the Senate which should be in the policy library because they were passed more than sixty days ago and were not vetoed by the President. He believes that because of this, these policies should be effective and the Policy Library should draw attention to those policies and reference them with a link to the Senate website. More perfectly, those policy statements passed by the Senate should be cut and passed into the Policy Library at the appropriate place. He went on to say that until the Policy Library, which is the major window that people have into University policy and how the University is run, gives the Senate its fair due, then no one is going to run for the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Stahl for his comments and stated that he let this conversation go on longer than the allotted time because he felt it was important and also because the only other agenda item was a report on Non-tenure track faculty, which is a very important report. He wanted to give it the time it deserves to be presented before the Senate body and therefore, the report will be added to the May Senate meeting agenda. Senate President Tublitz then apologized to Senator A. Emami (Finance) and the rest of the members of the NTTF committee, and was about to move to adjourn the April Senate meeting when President Lariviere asked to respond to the comments made during the open discussion.

President Lariviere stated that in listening to Senate President Tublitz and to Professor Frank Stahl in particular, he detected a certain level of mistrust or if not mistrust, then a level of impatience, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness. He then said that this is something that he might not ever be able to do away with because those emotions come from a variety of sources, but he thinks he would be letting down the institution and his obligations to all if he did not state that if these emotions are driven by a pervasive sense of an us verse them mentality, then the President is on the Senate's side against some mythical opponent. He then stated that the Senate is not the University, and the President is also not the University. According to President Lariviere, we are all the University, and the Senate represents an important component of the UO. He then stated that the Senator's constituents are also not the University because there are one hundred eighty thousand people who feel very strongly that the UO is their University. As such, there are many voices that need to be heard. The fact that there is a document that says this is the only place where the official records are kept is right. There needs to be one place where everyone can find policy documents, and if those documents are not posted in a timely manner then that procedure needs to be fixed. He stated that the issues raised by Professor Stahl are not a part of some grand conspiracy to prevent Professor Stahl from having his voice heard, and President Lariviere is very impatient with the simple notion that all problems that confront us can be laid at the feet of the incompetent management of the Senate President of the Senate or the President of the University. These problems are very often an accumulation of circumstances. If we can get past this notion of grand conspiracy, as far as he is concerned, there is no conspiracy, between the administration and the Senate, he believes that everyone could move with much greater alacrity and effectiveness. From the President's perspective, the Senate's voice was very important. The President stated that he will respond to the Senate by taking them seriously and he expects and demands that the Senate be well informed and have grounds for their views and opinions. The Senate has a responsibility, as do all who are in positions of authority, to be well informed. The better informed the Senate is, the more their views will be driven by understanding, and the better this institution will be. He then stated that Senate President Tublitz was right in that the UO has an unusual governance structure, because faculty, classified staff, officers of administration and students all come together in the Senate to address issues that confront the University. That is a huge responsibility which requires Senators to know why they feel the way they feel about a particular issue before giving voice to that issue. Voting no because you do not understand something may be a safe bet, but it would be better to have an understanding of what you are voting for before you cast your vote. He reiterated that all he asks of the Senate is that they vote based on being well informed, and if you are not well informed, ask questions. Having a well informed Senate is crucial for the UO moving forward. He personally believes that one of the reasons why public education has fallen on such hard times is because people have not been well informed. The faculty has not been informed about the political circumstances universities find themselves in, and the public has not been informed about what goes on in the Senate. What results from these misinformed parties is a finger pointing of ignorance. The President then asked for help from the Senators and their constituents and apologized for his lengthy response. Professor Stahl then thanked President Lariviere for his kind words.

Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to end the Senate meeting with a brief statement. He remarked that it may be an overreach to say that our system of governance at the University was similar to that of the federal government. The UO had an executive and legislative branch and sometimes those two branches came into conflict. According to Senate President Tublitz, that conflict was not a bad thing, but in his year and a half as Senate President, and having spoken to many thousands of people on campus, everyone was very glad that Richard Lariviere was President of the University of Oregon.

5. Reports

5.1 Report on Non-tenure track faculty, Ali Emami and Michele Henny, NTTF committee co-chairs and Russ Tomlin, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

The report on non-tenure track faculty was tabled until the May Senate meeting.

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

After making his final comments, Senate President Tublitz adjourned the April 13, 2011 meeting of the University Senate at 5:04PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 25, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 25 May 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Nathan Tublitz (Biology) called the meeting of the University Senate for May 25, 2011 to order at 3:03PM in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center. He informed the Senate that a catered reception was taking place immediately after the meeting and invited all in attendance to join him for refreshments.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the 11 May 2011 Meeting

Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate that the minutes of the May 11 meeting were still in the process of being transcribed, and would be formally approved by the Senate at the October 2011 meeting. He then introduced President Lariviere to present his remarks.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

President Lariviere thanked Senate President Tublitz for the opportunity to speak to the Senate. He expressed his gratitude to the Senate for their hard work on a variety of issues, many of which seemed to be perennial. He then welcomed all newly elected Senators, and commented that the Senate was one of the most important organizations in the shared governance structure of the university. He commented that the decisions made by the Senate affected a great deal of people in the university and throughout the community. President Lariviere thanked the governance committee who had been working on revisions to the UO Constitution. The governance committee was very close to completing their work, and the President was grateful for the process. He expected that the final revision would be ready for adoption during the fall term.

President Lariviere asked the Senate to formally adopt two policies; the Policy on Research Misconduct, and the Officer of Administration Contracts Policy. According to the President, those policies had been thoroughly vetted by all parties and were ready to be implemented. He then mentioned three other policies that were being sent back to the Senate for further refinement. These policies were not in agreement with Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) and Statutes, but work had already begun, and he asked the Senate to work with David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) to insure that these policies were implemented expeditiously.

President Lariviere mentioned that he was very encouraged regarding the discussions of policies in general. He believed that progress was being made towards better communication and that less time would be wasted in the future on these matters.

The President informed the Senate that a search was underway for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the UO. Currently, the university did not have a CFO and President Lariviere believed the university desperately needed one. He stated that due to this need, he was expediting the search process, which meant that most candidates would interview for the position during the summer months. The President stated that he did not like doing this, but he believed that it was urgent that the university have a CFO and would be moving forward with the hire.

President Lariviere commented that the UO had had a very productive year of working out answers to pressing questions, and in making sure that proper consultation had taken place in the development of policies and practices. His administration would continue to work on this, and stated that very soon; all policies would be posted to the online policy library, which was where everyone should go to view all policies, both approved and those being developed.

He thanked Senate President Tublitz for his leadership as Senate President over the last two years, and commented that he was very much looking forward to working with his successor Vice President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance). He then stated that he was very please that Shelley Elliott (Biology), Carla McNelly (Undergraduate Studies), and Senator John Bonine (Law) were being recognized as the recipient of the Senate Awards for their fine work.

After concluding his remarks, President Lariviere asked for questions from the Senate body.

Senate President Tublitz provided background information to the Senate body before asking his question, which was regarding the President’s comments on policies. Senate President Tubliz stated that it was not until President Lariviere became President that policies would ever come before the Senate. They had always been the domain of Johnson Hall. This was not the sentiment of President Lariviere, and Senate President Tublitz had been working on the proper way to involve the Senate on all issues regarding policies. He then stated that the Senate had passed five policies that year, and President Lariviere had signed two policies and was returning three of them back to the Senate for further work. Senate President Tublitz stated that sending the policies back without a specific set of requests as to what was wrong with each policy made it difficult for the Senate to know how to move forward and repair the policies. He asked that someone put in writing what the problems were for each policy and what the Senate needed to do to fix them, to which President Lariviere replied that this was currently taking place.

Senate President Tublitz jokingly stated that he could send all responses to President Elect Robert Kyr (Music & Dance). Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for his remarks, and commented that he was extremely pleased that Richard Lariviere was the President of the University of Oregon.

3. NEW BUSINESS

Senate President Tublitz stated that earlier in the year, the Senate, in its wisdom, decided to initiate two awards. One of the awards was for Officers of Administration, who according to Senate President Tublitz, worked tirelessly for the university and not for a lot of money. The second award was for Classified Staff, who also worked tirelessly for the university and often for even less money. He then stated that it was the Senate’s pleasure to award the first two awards to two individuals on campus.

Before presenting the Senate Awards, Senate President Tublitz was informed that agenda item 3.1 Motion US10/11-17 had not been address. He admitted that he was excited to present the awards and had overlooked 3.1

3.1 Motion US10/11-17: Legislation to Award Degrees

Senate President Tublitz stated that every year the university had to award degrees, and the Senate had to confirm those degrees en masse. He then read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

He then called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. He then proceeded to the presentation of the Senate Awards.

3.2 Presentation of the Senate Officers of Administration Award to Shelley Elliott, Biology by OA Council Representative & Senator Tracy Bars

Senate President Tublitz asked Senator Tracy Bars (Officer of Adminstration) to present the inaugural Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration to Shelley Elliott (Office and Business Manager, Biology Department).

Senator Bars asked Ms. Elliott to stand before the Senate floor. She stated that Ms. Elliott worked in the Biology Department and was known by all officers of administration because she toiled endlessly on their behalf. She then stated that on behalf of the Officers of Administration Council (OAC) and OA Senators, it was her pleasure to announce her as the inaugural recipient of the University of Oregon Senate Award for Officers of Administration Leadership and Service. Her nomination materials spoke to her extraordinary university leadership and her service on behalf of OAs across campus. She stated that Ms. Elliott was a mentor, an inspiration, a cheerleader, and a role model having served on a wide variety of committees and elected positions during her ten years at the UO. She led by example and sought out and accepted responsibilities above and beyond her normal job duties in order to advocate and advance OAs and the university as a whole. She had been instrumental in gaining the recognition of OAs as a professional administrative backbone on campus and had fostered regular professional development opportunities as a key element for OA growth and success. She was a stellar example of how one person could make a difference across an entire campus and was very deserving of the award. Senator Bars then thanked Ms. Elliott on behalf of all Officers of Administration.

After a standing ovation and an extended round of applause, Ms. Elliott offered the following remarks of thanks to the Senate body:

Thank you very much for the UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration. I am deeply honored to have been nominated and selected as the first recipient of this award. To me, it represents support and validation from my peers for the countless hours I have spent over the past several years representing OAs on a number of fronts. One area in particular where I feel much progress has been made is  the effort to make sure OA input is included at the table at all levels. With over a 1,000 OAs employed by the UO, this input is significant, important, and necessary to foster a campus climate of inclusiveness and respect. I am proud to say I have been a part of this effort and others on behalf of OAs through my service on the OA Council and the Faculty Advisory Council. I am a big believer in fulfilling a service component to the UO beyond my position in the Department of Biology, and would encourage all OAs to consider serving on either of these committees. It is time well spent.

Thank you again for this award.

Shelley Elliott

Senate President Tublitz (Biology) stated that Ms. Elliott was his department’s administrative assistant and that she was fantastic and was a very strong advocate for all Officers of Administration. All OAs should be proud that she was their spokesperson.

3.3 Presentation of the Senate Classified Staff Award to Carla McNelly by Senators Theo Ko Thompson and L. Jane Brubaker

To present the next award, Senate President Tublitz invited Senator Theodora Ko Thompson (Classified Staff) and Senator L. Jane Brubaker (Classified Staff) to the Senate floor to present the inaugural Senate Leadership and Service Award for Classified Staff to Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff). Senator Ko Thompson introduced herself to the Senate body and invited Ed Singer (Office of the Registrar) to the Senate floor to also present the award.

Senator Ko Thompson thanked Senate President Tublitz for his leadership and stated that there were many deserving individuals for the award. The key element in defining the recipient was the term “change agent.” For the Classified Staff Sentors, Carla McNelly was the embodiment of a change agent. She then stated that it was her pleasure to present the inaugural Senate Leadership and Service Award for Classified Staff to Senator Carla McNelly.

After receiving her award, Senator McNelly offered the following remarks to the Senate body:

Thank you, Theo and Jane. I need to move over to the podium. I think as an agent of change, I probably have something to say. Are any other past UO Senators representing Classified Staff here? Ed, Cheri, Mandy, Star, Janny, Lexy, Sue Plummer, Sue Martinez?? Please stand. I’d like to say, that each one of the folks standing is deserving of this award as well! Each one of these Classified Staffhas held me up when I stumbled or fell down. They have seen me at my worst, and helped pick up the slack of what needed to be done! I’d especially like to recognize Ed who stood with me and worked tirelessly for 8 years with everyone standing as well to get equal voting rights on the UO Senate for Classified Staff. It’s a group effort to make change. I don’t do the work alone!

Next, I’d like to take a moment to thank Nathan for involving the Classified Staff in the UO Senate each of us have taken this office seriously and are proud to serve OUR University. If it weren’t for Nathan, we wouldn’t be on the UO Senate. Thank you for all you do Nathan! Thank you! I’d like to also thank the folks who nominated me for this award, Jason and others, thank you for recognizing the work that we do together! Now, I’d like to say Hi to my parents who are joining us from Indiana via the internet. Love you Mom and Dad, it’s your little girl Carla up here!

One of our fellow Past UO Senators, Star Holmberg, always tells people that if you’re happy about something, get involved! Star is right! So, I did! I got involved! For a number of years, our UO Senate talking points for Classified Staff have been Professional Development, Diversity, and Respectful Workplace Environment. I would like to spend some time talking today talking about Respectful Workplace. Working somewhere is not just about the money, whereas a raise is always nice. It’s about respect and the way we are treated!

So, when I tell you that...

O         Many of us are fearful of retaliation, verbal or physical threats as we enter our       workplace every day
O         Many of us are harassed and bullied on a daily basis at work
O         Some of us have been physically assaulted in our workplace
O         Many of us are asked to go above and beyond the call of duty by being asked to do things that are illegal, unethical, and immoral
O         Many of us have not been “made whole”
O         Many of us have had our confidentiality betrayed when we report the abuses we face
O         Many of us have asked for help from multiple sources on campus
O         Many of us have had our jobs threatened for speaking up against the corruption in our units
O         Some of us have even lost our jobs for speaking up

Talking with one of my colleagues yesterday, she reminded me, what if we reframed the discussion regarding a respectful workplace to a discussion about class or gender or age or religion or race and ethnicity? Would the conversation with administration for help change? Would we be heard? Would we get the help we need? Oh, but the conversation of a respectful workplace is all about class, gender, age, religion, race and ethnicity. It is! It is all of these things!

President Lariviere, on the first week you arrived on campus, a group of Classified Staff shared with you that there is a campus wide problem with regards to all three of our issues; Professional Development, Diversity, and especially Respectful Workplace. It’s gotten worse, and we need your help! Many of us are trying to make a difference from the bottom up, but we need your staff to meet us in the middle from the top down. We have asked to have a committee of Classified Staff and administrators to work together on this specific issue of respectful workplace and we have been turned down. Whereas the Labor Management Committee per our Article 57 is talking about the subject, it’s not enough! Human Resource’s solution is to have people come to HR and tell them about their hostile work environments, but people are scared. I personally, as one steward of many, am working with three Classified Staff members that are afraid to come forward and report what’s happening in their workplace. There is no trust! They’re sacred of retaliation! They’re scared of losing their job, because of what they’ve seen happen to others. We need your help to make our workplaces a good place to be! There are several folks in administration that I can think of off the top of my head that would be great people to work together as a team for a more respectful workplace for Classified Staff. Dave Hubin, you’re one of them. And there’s Tim Black and Brian Smith; all three examples of upper administrators who treat all people with kindness and respect. So, please, please!! We need your help from the top down President Lariviere! We’re working hard from down here, and we need your help from up there! Hopefully, you hear our plea!

In closing, I want to recognize the other two awardees,–Shelley and John, it’s my pleasure to be sandwiched between both of you today. A special thanks to the FAB 4, your forever love, friendship, and support keeps me going! To my cohort in the CSSE program, it’s my privilege for to learn with you and from you!

To the THIRTY! Keep finding your bliss! Go out into the world and make positive change! To the OMAS front desk staff, you may not realize, it is because of all of you that I keep coming to work each day! ¡Besos y abrazos! That is why we, Classified Staff, come to work each day, for you, the students! If you’re a Classified Staff person here today, please stand up. This is for all of you, and for those of you that can’t get away from your desk and watching streaming live, this is for you too. We are over 1500 strong on our campus!

Lastly, I’d like to thank my parents! Emilio, dije que no lloro yo, pero tú me conoces. Thank you Mom and Dad for passing down the foundation from my grandparent through both of you, of service to others!

Senate President Tublitz stated that the UO was honored to have Carla McNelly as a Senator and as a member of the university community. He then moved on to the presentation of the Wayne Westling Award.

Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate that Wayne Westling was a law professor at the university and a devout believer in campus governance. According to Senate President Tublitz, Professor Westling worked tirelessly to improve campus governance at the UO. He was taken at an early age, and Senate President Tublitz established the award in 2001 for faculty leadership and service, and the award had been given out annually since that time.

Senate President Tublitz invited Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) to the Senate floor to present the Wayne Westling Award to Professor and Senator John Bonine (Law).

3.4 Presentation of the Wayne T. Westling Award to Professor John Bonine by Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President and chair of the Committee on Committees

Senate Vice President Kyr stated that it was with great pleasure that John Bonine was awarded the Wayne Westling Award. Senate Vice President Kyr informed the Senate that Professor Bonine was a pioneer in Environmental Law in the United States of America, and the passion that he brought to common interest law was devoted to shared governance. Senate Vice President Kyr stated that he had served on many committees with Professor Bonine and he lived what he believed in a way that served the highest good for all concerned. He then presented the Wayne T. Westling Award to Professor John Bonine.

Professor Bonine thanked Senate Vice President Kyr for his words, and also thanked Carla McNelly and Shelley Elliott for their extraordinary work on campus. He then thanked Senate President Tublitz for his astounding leadership and stated that because of the work that Senate President Tublitz had done, Professor Bonine believed that the UO Senate and faculty governance could truly make a difference. He then offered the following remarks to the Senate body:

Is the University of Oregon Charter Viable in the 21st Century?

Wayne Westling Award Acceptance Speech

John E. Bonine
B.B. Kliks Professor of Law
University of Oregon

            Thank you, University of Oregon Senate, for bestowing upon me the 2011 Wayne Westling Award for University Leadership and Service.

            I want to thank my wife, Professor Svitlana Kravchenko, who is very much responsible for giving me the support for what I do. I also want to thank Nathan Tublitz, our Senate President, for great leadership in faculty governance this year. And I want to thank Shelley Elliott and Carla McNelly for their significant service to the University.

            This award bears the name of one of the most generous persons I have known. Wayne Westling spent the best years of his professional career here at our University and he worked hard to make it better, giving deep meaning to the terms “leadership” and “service.”

            Wayne’s energy was always engaged on behalf of all of us. Wayne was taken from this Earth by illness at much too young an age. He is no longer here to instruct us by example in what it means to love this University through action.

            I believe that an important part of what makes the University of Oregon a special place to work and live is action – in the form of participation in “governance.”

            It is not as exciting to talk about governance as to talk about academic freedom or what can happen to the green spaces along the Willamette River. But having an impact on any of those issues is related to governance.

            Each of us on the faculty, on the staff, or in the student body knows about governance when she labors for days, weeks, months inside or outside the Senate, on the committees of this institution, or in meetings in our various schools and departments.

            Each of us knows about governance when you take up an issue on your own—without it having been assigned to you in the job description, employment contract, course syllabus, or committee assignment.

            Our university is not a corporation or a business, although the pressures surely push the institution in that direction. Each of you is part of the push-back. I want to ask you this question: “Is the University of Oregon Charter Viable in the 21st Century?”

            Let me to read the most salient words of the Charter, enacted in 1876:

            ORS § 352.010 The president and professors constitute the faculty [of the University]             and as such have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein. .             . .

            This language came directly from Section 14 of the law enacted by the State Legislature 135 years ago.

            A second provision delineates the power of the President:

            ORS § 352.004 The president [of the University] . . . is also president of the faculty . . . ;          . . . [The] president has authority to control and give general directions to the practical        affairs of the institution.

            So the University has both matters that involve the “immediate government and discipline of it” and other matters, which are those of “practical affairs.” Matters in the first category belong to the faculty (which consists of the president and the professors) and matters in the second category simply belong to the president and his or her Administration. The president may choose to involve others beyond Johnson Hall in the second category.

            Those in the first category are mandated by law to be our business. They are in particular matters of “shared governance”--and they are shared even more widely with the delegation of governance to this University Senate.

            Shared governance between the Administration and this Senate and the faculty generally requires good faith and consultation on all sides, and a resolve by all not to press too hard on a precise drawing of the line.

            The winner in any line-drawing battle is likely to be the loser in a larger sense, in terms of loss of morale or face by colleagues who have lost.

            For example, denying to the faculty (and its delegate, the University Senate) its proper authority can lead to the departure of important members of the faculty and an inability to attract top talent. Our president knows this.

            For another example, insistence on Senate involvement in non-academic matters is a prescription for being sidelined. Ultimately it will lead to the loss of important faculty or Senate authority in areas where our participation is needed for the health of the institution. We in the Senate know this.

            Fortunately, a number of colleagues, including several here in the Senate, are working together and with the Administration to elaborate more carefully our governing procedures at the University of Oregon. Faculty, staff, and students will continue to play vital roles and have a real voice in the shared governance of this institution where it is appropriate to do so. That process will continue into the early Fall.

            But we do not get true shared governance merely by an action or decision in this Senate, in the Statutory Faculty, or in the Administration.

            Whatever we decide formally in documents must be reiterated and acted upon with the attention we pay and the work that some of you—indeed, all of you—are willing to undertake. Please keep your eyes open.

            Let me read the words of the University of Oregon Charter to you one more time:

            The president and professors constitute the faculty . . . and as such have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein. . . .

            You may have noticed that I have not answered my question: “Is the University of Oregon Charter Viable in the 21st Century?”

            That is up to you.

            Thank you.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Bonine for his words and stated that he was a stalwart of the institution and in particular of the Senate. He then commented that the university owed him a great debt of gratitude, and asked the outgoing ASUO President Amelie Rousseau to present her remarks.

3.5 Remarks by outgoing ASUO President Amelie Rousseau

Amelie Rousseau briefly listed the accomplishment that her administration had enacted during the past year. She commented that it had been a tough year and that there had been several difficult discussions regarding how education was governed in the State of Oregon. Her administration had built very strong alliances with faculty and staff regarding issues relating to the reform of the Department of Public Safety, and education reform and funding, among others.

Ms. Rousseau stated that her time spent on the UO Senate and Senate Executive Committee had been invaluable, especially when discussing issues related to the Riverfront Research Project, among others. Her administration created the Student Sustainability Center, a student driven vision that would become a vehicle/hub for greater environmental and sustainable activities on campus for students.

She was very excited that the UO would become a tobacco free campus, and was the first school in the PAC-12 to enact this legislation.

Her administration registered over six thousand students to vote and was very active in Salem getting students involved in the legislative process. Students had been at the table and were very strong stakeholders in conversations regarding education reform. She then introduced the incoming ASUO President, Ben Eckstein.

3.6 Remarks by incoming ASUO President Ben Eckstein

Incoming ASUO President Ben Eckstein stated that he looked forward to working with the UO Senate during the coming academic year. He had been apart of the ASUO since his freshman year and it was a central part of his involvement on campus and had allowed him to grow during his time at the university. Both previous ASUO administrations that he had witnessed shared a commonality, which was a great commitment to shared governance, which according to Mr. Eckstein was embodied in the University Senate. He shared that commitment and his administration would work with faculty, staff, and administrators to ensure that all stakeholders had a voice at the table. He reiterated that he looked forward to working with the Senate and thanked them for their good work done this year. He then thanked Ms. Rousseau for her hard work.

Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate had made strides to develop greater ties with the ASUO, which he believed was essential. He then presented his outgoing remarks to the Senate body.

3.7 Remarks by outgoing Senate President Nathan Tublitz

Senate President Tublitz delivered the following outgoing remarks to the Senate body:

N. Tublitz
Senate talk
25 May 2011

On May 27, 2009 I came before this body to run for Senate President. I said at that time:

“We have failed to be included in most of the serious decisions being made on this campus and as a result we have lost the respect of our colleagues and co-workers across campus. It is time to reverse that trend and re-establish that respect by re-affirming the primacy of our shared governance system at the University of Oregon.”

Now it is two years later. What steps has the Senate taken to reaffirm the primacy of our shared governance system?

The Senate has changed the way it does business:
The new Senate now discusses and votes on motions at the beginning of its meetings.
The Senate now engages in serious in-depth discussions on topical issues nearly every meeting.
The Senate now reviews and if appropriate approves University Policies.
The Senate has new, more responsive processes and procedures.

These structural changes have resulted in the Senate having a new and significant impact on campus life and activities. In the past year and a half the Senate has passed an important motion on grade inflation. We ran a public forum on the new partnership proposal and sponsored a forum and survey on unionization. We spoke out against Pacifica Forum hate speech, passed an academic freedom policy, insisted that the provost report to the faculty personnel committee on tenure and promotions decisions, and formally supported the efforts of students to help undocumented students attend Oregon universities. And let’s not forget that the two Senate motions on the Riverfront Research Park that provided a foundation for the President’s recent decision to consider relocating the proposed ORI building to a site away from our precious riverfront.

To those who say that the Senate does nothing, I respectfully suggest they re-read the items on this list. It is clear that the Senate has started to become the center of our shared governance system. Note I did not say that the Senate is there yet. Far from it. However the Senate is moving forward.

This forward trajectory is a testament to the hard work of you, our University Senators and other campus colleagues who believe in shared governance and are committed to improving our governance system. I have been on the Senate for over a decade and this is the strongest, most thoughtful Senate in my memory. Thanks to each and every one of you: students, classified staff, OAs, non tenure track and tenure track faculty.

There is another group we must thank for improving our campus governance and that is the Administration, starting with our President Richard Lariviere. Richard has set the tone for openness, transparency and serious discussion. Our conversations are always honest, respectful and frank and of course we always agree. I thank Richard for setting this tone and the rest of his administration for following it. The Senate and our University is much better as a result of their efforts.

But let us not drown in an ocean of self-congratulation. We have much work in front of us. We are hanging on to our top tier research classification by the thinnest of hairs. The Carnegie Foundation recently returned us to their top research classification but we have been demoted by them before and we could easily find ourselves in that position again. We are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities but without substantial improvement our continued position in that elite organization may be questioned.

The status of our instructional mission is also tenuous. We have increased the number of students from 17,000 to 24,500 in the past 15 years, a 44% increase. During the same period, the number of full time tenure track faculty has increased by 5%. Our school occupies a unique niche among research universities: we are a top flight research institution that historically has delivered a quality undergraduate education. How can we continue to provide that quality when some classes exceed 400 students, when graduate students are teaching 400 level courses, when class sizes continues to grow across the board, when we are hiring non tenure track faculty at horrible wages, and when students cannot graduate in 4 years. We need more full time tenure track faculty and we need them now before our quality declines, not after.

The only way we will achieve the dual goals of maintaining research excellence and delivering a quality education is to develop a strong consensus across campus and our governance system is a crucial component of that effort. Unfortunately our governance system is not always called upon to help meet the challenges facing us. The Central Administration needs to value the work done by faculty and others within the governance system and to bring various stakeholder groups to the table before decisions are made, not after the fact. The Senate does important work – it is time that the Administration explicitly acknowledges that work. Faculty, staff and students must also accept the fact that not every administrator is Darth Vader and that most administrators hold the same goals and values as we do. The Senate and the Administration each have to work more closely with the Student Senate and ASUO executive.

Many believe our University governance system is broken and unworkable. Those people believe we are employees of a large corporation run by a CEO-led management team and that we need a union to address our problems. I respectfully beg to differ. We are not a corporation. We do not have customers or clients. We are a fundamentally different entity: we are an educational institution. Our goals are twofold: to add to the world’s knowledge base through scholarship; and to teach our students the skills to live in the complex world of today and to navigate through the world of tomorrow. We are all part of this effort and by we I mean every single person who works here from our outstanding classified staff and overworked OAs to our devoted non-tenured track and tenured-related colleagues. Western academia has a 700 year history of faculty governance, where the members of the Academy make consensus decisions about the direction of the University. The Senate is a direct descendent of that honored tradition. We must not surrender that tradition because of outside pressure to be a “business”.

We are not employees – we are the owners of the academic enterprise and the guardians of academic quality.

The keys to the future success of the University of Oregon are surprisingly simple:

1) Engage in respectful dialogue.
2) Listen to others, especially those you disagree with.
3) Stop speaking in “us” vs “them” terms.
4) Develop consensus.

All of these are essential to achieve our mission. But what exactly is our mission? How many of you have read the UO Mission? It is, in my opinion, the single best document ever written about our institution. Here it is:

University of Oregon Mission Statement

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive research university that serves its students and the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through the creation and transfer of knowledge in the liberal arts, the natural and social sciences, and the professions. It is the Association of American Universities flagship institution of the Oregon University System.

The university is a community of scholars dedicated to the highest standards of academic inquiry, learning, and service. Recognizing that knowledge is the fundamental wealth of civilization, the university strives to enrich the public that sustains it through

  • a commitment to undergraduate education, with a goal of helping the individual learn to question critically, think logically, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically
  • a commitment to graduate education to develop creators and innovators who will
    generate new knowledge and shape experience for the benefit of humanity
  • a recognition that research, both basic and applied, is essential to the intellectual
    health of the university, as well as to the enrichment of the lives of Oregonians, by

    energizing the state's economic, cultural, and political structure
  • the establishment of a framework for lifelong learning that leads to productive careers and to the enduring joy of inquiry
  • the integration of teaching, research, and service as mutually enriching enterprises that together accomplish the university's mission and support its spirit of community
  • the acceptance of the challenge of an evolving social, political, and technological environment by welcoming and guiding change rather than reacting to it
  • a dedication to the principles of equality of opportunity and freedom from unfair discrimination for all members of the university community and an acceptance of true diversity as an affirmation of individual identity within a welcoming community
  • a commitment to international awareness and understanding, and to the development of a faculty and student body that are capable of participating effectively in a global society
  • the conviction that freedom of thought and expression is the bedrock principle on which university activity is based
  • the cultivation of an attitude toward citizenship that fosters a caring, supportive atmosphere on campus and the wise exercise of civic responsibilities and individual judgment throughout life
  • a continuing commitment to affordable public higher education

Brilliant, isn’t it? We can achieve this mission but only if we work together. And our shared governance system, established in the original charter of the University and which includes the Senate, is an essential component of that effort.

It has been a true honor and a deep privilege to serve you as your President these past 17 months. I thank each and every one of you and ask only that you continue to work as collaboratively and closely with the next Senate President, Robert Kyr, as you have with me.

Thank you.

After concluding his remarks, Senate President Tublitz thanked Christopher Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) and Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) for their hard work during the past year. Gifts were exchanged and then Senate President Tublitz invited Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) to the Senate floor for the formal transfer of power for the office of the Senate President.

3.8 Formal Transfer of Senate Presidency

Senate President Tublitz relinquished the gavel of the Senate President to Senate Vice President Kyr and handed him a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order, confirming the formal transfer of power for the office of the Senate President.

3.9 Remarks by Incoming Senate President Robert Kyr

As his first official act as Senate President, Robert Kyr offered a commendation to Professor Nathan Tublitz. The commendation is below:

Dear Nathan,

In the spirit of shared governance, we are writing to you with our deep gratitude for your two years of service to the University of Oregon as President of the Senate, 2009 – 2011. Over the course of your presidency, the university has faced some of the greatest challenges since its founding. No matter how great the demands of your position, you have continually devoted yourself to strengthening our shared governance system, and you have been successful in encouraging greater cooperation between all constituencies of the Senate and the central administration.

We have all benefited from your tireless service and your devotion to improving our governance system in part through your participation in the revision process for the Senate Bylaws and the University Constitution. Today, as you complete your Presidency, we commend you for your vision and leadership, and look forward to working with you as you continue to serve as both a Senator and member of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)

Sincerely,

Richard Lariviere, University President

Robert Kyr, Incoming Senate President

He then handed Professor Tublitz a letter of commendation for his leadership and service.

Senate President Kyr then spoke the following words:

Something incredible has happened here today. Did you sense that? It happened when our award winners spoke to us, from the bottom of their hearts, from the depths of their intellect, sharing who they really are with us, and what really matters to them. Personally, I was deeply moved in a way that reaffirmed my love for this university and the reasons why we are all here together.

Today, I’m going to announce some initiatives regarding how we can further develop as a university, because I think that we need to reaffirm our commitment together. We often do this within our own constituencies, but we rarely do it as a single entity with a common purpose.

Earlier, we heard John Bonine [1] read part of our university charter about the responsibilities of the President and the faculty, we heard Carla McNelly [2] tell us about some very troubling matters in her area, and we heard Nathan Tublitz [3] talk about shared governance in compelling ways. Now, all of us must step up and do our part.

Today, I’m asking each and every one of you as colleagues and as friends to please join me in finding a way forward. I’m going to make every possible effort to bring us together in some new ways that will enable us to further mature as a university and as a single entity of many constituencies. In fact, we are a unity that can only be affirmed through meaningful and sustained action. But we can’t just proclaim it; we must participate together in this endeavor.

Since becoming President-elect, I’ve learned a great deal about this university and its most pressing challenges. When I spoke to you last October, I imagined that my first task would be to listen deeply in an engaged manner. As a musician and composer, I am trained to do that, so I spent countless hours listening to and talking with people from each of the constituencies. As a result, I experience our university as a unity that has many diverse yet related components. While each component is unique, all of them are profoundly interconnected.

Since October, I have spent a great deal of time listening about the needs of our community…and listening deeply in the way that I listen to a new composition, or to a piece by Bach, or to a Beethoven symphony. And what I have continually heard is something that moves me beyond anything that I can express to you today. I have discovered that everyone is speaking from a similar set of concerns, yet somehow we haven’t created the vehicles that will enable us to communicate clearly and effectively with each other.

Today, I’m going to propose several new initiatives, and I would like you to join with me to enact them over the next year. Taken together, they are “Declaration of Interdependence,” which is an affirmation of our interdependence as a unity of many constituencies. First, in conversations with President Lariviere and with Provost Bean, we have agreed that there is a need for greater communication between the central administration and all of the constituencies. So please understand: exactly what we were hearing earlier from our award winners was already recognized by our central administration. Richard invited me to meet with him monthly, and Jim the same, and they did this independently of each other.

I think that these invitations demonstrate their fundamental goodwill, which is so important to all of us. I’ve already had my first meeting with each of them, and it was truly helpful and constructive in both cases.

Richard and I agreed that we will have three President’s Forums next year—one each quarter—and all constituencies will be invited. I will moderate and the format will be “open and respectful dialogue.” And you have my promise that it will be open dialogue. I had the very same conversation with Jim—independently from the President—and Jim very much wants a Provost’s Forum. I am thrilled that we will also have three Provost’s Forums—one each quarter—and again, all constituencies will be invited and I will moderate. You have my word that there will be open and respectful dialogue between all constituencies and Jim, as well.

Finally, after much consideration, I’m announcing a new visioning process for the Senate and I’m asking you to join me in an endeavor that I believe will strengthen our university in some significant new ways. As you heard earlier from John Bonine, our university charter states that it’s the President and faculty that are charged with the governance of the university. Today, I’m announcing that we will do something that the Senate has never attempted before, that is, to co-create—as an entity of diverse stakeholders—a vision plan for the university that arises from the deepest concerns of all constituencies together. Please understand: not just from each constituency, but through open and respectful dialogue among all constituencies together. We will formulate a vision plan, then approve it and post it as a central set of guidelines for decision-making at our university.

Often, the Senate enacts legislation of various kinds, relating to one motion or one policy or another, but we don’t yet have a guiding vision that we have crafted together. This is intended to be especially helpful for our central administration. The entire visioning process will foster what I am calling “the four C’s”:

COMMUNICATION—and in particular, improved communication between the diverse constituencies of our university;

CONNECTIVITY—that is, between all of our constituencies;

COMMUNITY-BUILDING

CREATIVITY

Too often, the Senate has left that final “C” out of what it is doing, and as an artist, I’m particularly sensitive to this. We usually focus on many rules and other details, which sometimes inhibit us from being creative in seeking important new ways of doing things. As an essential part of the Senate visioning process, I am encouraging everyone to be as creative as possible in proposing and exploring new ways to accomplish our educational mission.

Today, I’m announcing that we will have a Senate Retreat—I believe, the first of its kind at this university—and it will be in the fall of 2011. Over the summer, I’ll be in touch with each of you about it. Not just to announce when and where we are going to have it, but to ask you how you would like it to unfold. You will be asked how the Senate Retreat should be structured and how we can best foster a climate of “open and respectful dialogue” within the context of the retreat.

During the course of the retreat, we will formulate our process for the development of a vision plan. All of this will be a completely transparent process that will be clearly and accurately represented on the Senate website, as an inspiration for those involved in the process, and as a historical record.

As Senators, you are representatives of all those who are part of our university community. Beginning now, I am appealing to you to hold yourself accountable for the communication of Senate business with your particular constituency. Let’s face it, we’ve had a rather weak record of reporting Senate business to each of the constituencies. In part, this has been because of the structure of the meetings within each unit. I’m asking each Senator to find a way within his or her context to build a place in the structure of your meetings for the concise reporting of Senate business. We must do this in order to truly connect our work in the Senate to each unit, and thus, to everyone who you serve.

So, I’d like to conclude by saying that I see this next year as one of great promise. Today, I’m asking you to please join me in working with all of your hope, your energy, and your determination. Let’s take this journey together in order to envision the university that we truly want, and then let’s work together to co-create and sustain it as a single entity composed of many different, yet deeply related, constituencies. I am thrilled to be taking this journey with all of you.

And now it’s time to celebrate the two years of Nathan’s presidency, and the hope and promise of the year to come. I very much look forward to our work together.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION: None

5. REPORTS: None

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notices of Motion(s)

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the May 25, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:23PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 9, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 9 March 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Executive Coordinator of the University Senate.

Present: T. Bars, J. Bonine, J. Brubaker, C. Bybee, K. Dellabough, J. Ellis, A. Emami, I. Fielding, R. Good, H. Gangadharbatla, D. Healey, G. Hockstatter, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, R. Kyr, P. Lambert, A. Laskaya, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, T. Minner-Engle, M. Nippold, J. Piger, B. Powell, M. Price, R. Rejaie, Z. Stark-MacMillan, E. Thomas, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams

Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, C. Ives, M. Hyatt, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, H. Lin, L. Middlebrook, N. Proudfoot, P. Southwell, L. Sugiyama, L. Van Dreel, P. Walker, P. Warnek

Excused: M. Henney, S. Runberg, Y. Tan

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for March 9, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center. Newly elected Student Senator Evan Thomas, (ASUO Student Senator) was briefly introduced and welcomed to the Senate body by Senate President Tublitz.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes.

Minutes of the 9 February 2011 regular meeting of the Senate

A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the February 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Before approving the minutes, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that the meeting was being recorded and streamed live over the internet, thus making it necessary to speak into a microphone. Senate President Tublitz asked the Senators if the minutes required any changes or updating. Senator Z. Stark-MacMillian (ASUO Student Senator) stated that his name was misspelled and asked that it be spelled correctly. Seeing no further changes, the minutes were approved unanimously.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate body that President Lariviere and Provost Bean were unable to attend the Senate meeting and therefore could not offer remarks regarding the state of the University. He also reminded the Senators that a discussion and vote on the New Partnership was supposed to occur at the March 9 meeting, but due to the absences of both the President and Provost, it was decided that the discussion and vote be tabled until the April 13 Senate meeting.

3. NEW BUSINESS

Before moving to new business, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that all new business is now addressed at the beginning of Senate meetings. He then welcomed Senator C. Bybee (Journalism and Communication), to the floor to discuss the Policy on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech.

3.1 Motion US10/11-12: Motion to adopt a Policy on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech, Carl Bybee, chair of ad hoc committee on Academic Freedom

As Senator Bybee was making his way to the floor, Senate President Tublitz briefly mentioned several sections of the Motion including the Preamble and sections on academic freedom and freedom of speech. Senator Bybee reintroduced himself to the Senate body and offered to hand out copies of the Motion and subsequent reports supporting the motion for Senators to follow along. With the assistance of Senate President Tublitz, reports were briefly distributed to the Senators. Senator Bybee began his presentation by introducing the members of the ad hoc committee on Academic Freedom. The members include Heather Briston (UO Libraries), Frank Stahl (Biology, Emeritus), Gene Stockard (Planning, Public Policy and Management) Senator T. Ko Thompson (Classified Staff), and Deborah S. Thurman (Human Resources Coordinator, Law School). According to Senator Bybee, it was important that the members of the committee be as diverse and representative as the Senate itself. He then acknowledged the committee members that were in attendance and thanked them for their energy and their thoughtful and timely work in preparing the Motion on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech.

Senator Byee stated that his committee was formed after a number of recent court decisions which created a degree of ambiguity regarding the status of academic freedom on public university campuses. Given the UO’s longstanding support of academic freedom it was clear to him and his committee, that it was time to review and update the University of Oregon’s Policy. The committee’s efforts were guided by two concerns. The first concern was the recognition that academic freedom cannot stand alone and is not a single concept that has a meaningful life of its own. The Senator mentioned a quote by Carrie Nelson, the current president of the American Association of University Professors which stated that academic freedom is only one leg of a three legged stool. Academic freedom, shared governance, and tenure together support the higher education system that has been in place for over half a century. All three of these components must be in place for there to be a meaningful sense of academic freedom. The second concern was that policies on academic freedom must be tailored to the unique history and structure of each institution of higher education, and consequently it is not possible to apply a template to each university. Senator Bybee went on to discuss the preamble of the motion and then took questions from the Senate body.

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that they would be voting on this motion momentarily. The first question was from Senator J. Bonine (Law). He asked if the committee would consider taking a friendly amendment, and stated that while the U.S. Constitution talks about freedom of speech, the Oregon Constitution talks about freedom of expression. Decisions of the Oregon Supreme Court have interpreted the freedom of expression as slightly more robust and broad than freedom of speech. He asked if the committee would consider changing the title of the Motion to freedom of speech and expression instead of just freedom of speech. He then stated that it might not be necessary, and that perhaps it might suffice to simply note in the minutes that discussions regarding freedom of speech also encompass the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Oregon Constitution. Senator Bonine stated that he wanted to make sure that when given a choice, the administration should follow the more liberal broad precedent of the Oregon Constitutional interpretation and try to avoid the possibility that there might be some restrictive federal interpretation. Senator Bybee responded by stating that he was not concerned with this addition delaying the passing of the motion, but that it might introduce a level of confusion when reading the motion. Senate President Tublitz asked Senator Bonine if he was comfortable with Senator Bybee’s response to which Senator Bonine responded that he was, as long as it was made clear that that was the intent of the movers of the motion. He went on to say that if any Senator had a problem with the broader interpretation, please state their concerns now on record. He felt that it might be understood, considering the legislative history of the motion, that said motion would be implicating the robust freedom of expression as defined by the Oregon Constitution. Senate President Tublitz stated that he agreed and asked for any comments and responses from the Senate body. Seeing no additional comments, Senator Bonine’s remarks were noted in the record. At this time, Senate President Tublitz asked for further questions from the Senate body. Seeing none he thanked Senator Bybee and his committee and moved to a vote on the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

3.2 Curriculum Committee, Winter Curriculum Report, Paul Engelking, Chair, Committee on Courses

Senate President Tublitz welcomed Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) to the floor to discuss the Winter Curriculum Report. Professor Engelking immediately asked for corrections to the Winter Curriculum Repot from the Senate body before offering several of his own. Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that occasionally last minutes changes occur with the preliminary curriculum report and these changes must be recorded before the report can be finalized. He also stated that the report was compiled three times a year. The first correction came from Professor Engelking acting as proxy for Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. His correction was in regards to Econ 427 – 527, Games and Decisions. Econ 427 – 527 has Math 111 or equivalent, Econ 311 or Econ 320 as prerequisites, and according to Senator Price, these prerequisites are redundant because students are unable to take Econ 311 or Econ 320 without first taking Math 111. Due to this redundancy, Senator Price requested removing Math 111 from the prerequisites. Professor Engelking then asked the Senators for their permission to remove the prerequisite. The second correction was again offered up by Professor Engelking and regarded the Other Curricular Matters section of the report. He stated that the Committee on Courses received an approval letter from the board. Here is the letter in its entirety:

Dear President Lariviere,

At the October 28, 2010 meeting of the academic strategies committee of the state board of higher education, the provost’s council submitted a recommendation for approval of the request by the University of Oregon to offer an instructional program leading to a PHD in Architecture. Following the committee’s review of the program, director Rosemary Powers made a motion to approve the proposal with director Preston providing the second. Those voting in favor were chair James Fransconi, unit directors Hannah Fisher, Rosemary Powers and Preston. Those voting in opposition were none.

Based on the results of this letter, Professor Engelking requested to add a short paragraph in the Winter Curriculum Report that contained the information provided in the letter excluding the vote count.

Lexi Lowman (CAS) offered two corrections to the report. Her first correction was to change the effective date of the Latin American Studies minor course requirements update from winter 2011 to spring 2011. Her second correction involved changing the effective date of the Theater Arts major course requirements from fall 2010 to fall 2011.

Professor Paul Engelking asked if there were any other corrections from the Senate body, and seeing none, Senate President Tublitz moved to a vote to adopt the Report with the recent corrections. The Winter Curriculum Report was adopted unanimously.

Before moving to the open discussion section of the Senate meeting, Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Engelking and the members of the Committee on Courses for their hard work in preparing the Winter Curriculum Report. He also thanked the Office of the Registrar for providing exceptional support.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION: Discussion on grade culture initiatives from the Undergraduate Council, Ian McNeely, chair

Before inviting Senator I. McNeely (History) to discuss grade culture initiatives, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that a vote will be taken on this issue at the April Senate meeting. Senator McNeely provided background information on the motions while waiting for his fellow presenters to arrive to the Senate meeting. He began by presenting an overview of how long the Undergraduate Council (UC) had been working on these motions. In 2005 – 2006, Mark Thoma (Economics) and other members of the council undertook the study of grade inflation which is a nationwide problem not specific to the UO. From 1992 – 2004, the percentage of A’s awarded in a representative selection of regularly offered UO courses increased from 31% to 42%. During that same time, the percentage of A’s and B’s together increased from 66% to 73%, while the average SAT scores, both math and verbal of entering UO freshman, did not increase significantly. This evidence suggests that grades are increasing in the absence of evidence of higher scholastic aptitude on the part of entering students. During subsequent years, the council widened their focus on grade inflation to include grade compression, the clustering of grades at the top of the spectrum, particularly for the A+ grade. As the president of Phi Beta Kappa, Senator McNeely reviews hundreds of transcripts yearly and believes there are vast discrepancies in the use or abuse of the A+ grade. These discrepancies exist among departments with some having very high average grades and some having very low average grades, while others use mandated policies to determine grade averages. Senator McNeely believes that there is a sense that grades have begun to lose their meaning and provided an anecdotal piece of evidence from Inside Oregon. Last month, Inside Oregon ran an unscientific survey asking readers to answer the question; do grades represent achievement, effort, or have no meaning at all? The last time he checked, the highest number of responders chose; no meaning at all. According to Senator McNeely, the UC’s most important issue was trying to figure out what to do with grade inflation. Speaking as a faculty member, the Senator stated that he did not want anyone telling him how he should assign grades. He believes this to be a widely shared instinct, and stated that if the faculty does not begin discussing this issue, others will begin to insert themselves into the discussion. Potentially, there are discussions being held by the State of Oregon, the UO Board of Directors, and various federal and state agencies asking; how well are we doing at the University of Oregon. There is a move to substitute grades with other types of performance measures which include assessment rubrics, assessment examinations, the national survey of student engagement, etc…Senator McNeely stated that he wanted to answer the question; how well are we doing with; we are doing very well because our grades are high, and we are improving because our grades are going up. He fears that presently, we cannot credibly make that claim because the UO has not clearly articulated what grades mean as a campus. The UC consulted with an extremely wide range of campus constituencies and committees. The UC gathered their data from an extremely wide range of campus constituencies and committee and Senator McNeely personally sent a mass email to over twenty-three thousand students directing their attention to a blog where they could comment on grade culture. After collecting all student responses, the UC formulated a report of the data and posted it to gradeculture.uoregon.edu.

Senator McNeely proceeded to summarize the collected data. The first and most important point was that people want to respect academic freedom by not interfering legislatively with the discretion of instructors to assign their own grades. Their second point was having a respect for disciplinary differences. There are problematic differences among disciplinary units across the University and there is a very powerful sense, both in the professional schools and in the various units of CAS (College of Arts and Sciences), that disciplines have very valid reasons for grading the way they do, and because of this no one standard should be imposed upon the entire faculty. His third point was that students should not be harmed in any way. Taking unilateral action would put students at a disadvantage relative to students elsewhere. While no policy can perfectly hold students harmless, he believes the UC has designed a policy to give information to students and to help them more effectively defend their transcripts once they take them out into the world, while avoiding an arbitrary process of reducing their grades. He believes that grades should clearly articulate standards of quality because they are one of the ways in which faculty can communicate to students how well or poorly they are doing, and will hopefully help students to perform at a higher level in the future.

At this point, Senator McNeely’s co-presenters had still not arrived, so he took questions from the Senate body. Senator M. Nippold (College of Education) thought it would be useful for Senator McNeely and the UC to examine and compare grade culture to other factors that were going on at the University like the rise of tuition, and the decrease of State support in the hopes of finding other correlations. She thought these correlations would be useful in determining more underlying factors that might be influencing grades and asked if Senator McNeely had explored these options. Senator McNeely responded by saying that he wished he could offer an answer and went on to say that there were social scientists that spend their careers trying to answer these questions. He then stated that in the 1960s, grades were raised to keep students from having to enter the military and in the 1990s, grades were raised due to the introduction of student evaluations of teacher performance. The Senator believes that there is not a unique set of causal explanations and stated that in an informational vacuum, a situation where there are no generally articulated standards for what a grade should mean, and in which students understandably have every incentive to lobby for higher grades and faculty do not have other resources to fall back on and may be tempted to raise those grades, according to Peter Gilkey (Mathematics) any situation that is characterized by an overall equilibrium, if there is a consistent incentive pushing it in one direction, it will gradually float in that direction. He believes that is the problem the University faces and is unsure if the specific solutions designed by the UC will solve the problem, but the results will be examined in the years to come. It is his hope that the motions will enhance the meaning of grades and not lower them. Senator Nippold followed up her comment by stating that faculty members need more support in terms of articulating to students what grades mean. She is not in favor of grade inflation and offered a simpler solution that involved including a statement in a syllabus to the effect that the University of Oregon discourages grade inflation for the reasons stated earlier by Senator McNeely and then to state what each grade means. Senator McNeely responded by saying that that is what these proposals are doing and asked Senate President Tublitz to forego with further questions as the other presenters had arrived.

After a brief introduction, UO junior Matt Villeneuve (History, Philosophy) discussed Motion 11A, Discipline-specific Rationales of Grading Standards. He stated that as a student, he was occasionally at a loss as to what grades mean, and asked the question; do grades reflect my ability to memorize information and recite it for a test or do they reflect effort and strength of schedule or are they awarded based on a percentage along a bell curve. He believes that these items along with the uncertainty of his professor’s views on grading add to a general sense of confusion from the student perspective. He was unsure if this transcended different departments or classes and then referred to the Student Manual’s definition of grades which, according to Mr. Villeneuve, was his only source for grade comprehension. Mr. Villeneuve then commented on his experience as a freshman interest group teaching assistant, and stated that there were strange notions of what grades meant due to a lack of understanding. In his opinion, establishing discipline specific rationales for grading standards, would give students a clearer understanding of what their assigned grades meant. Each department and undergraduate program would have a formulated rationale for their specific grading practices which would be posted to a website with that information being made available by the UC. He believes that as a student, these rationales would be very helpful in understanding the context of classroom performance and mastering the knowledge taught in the classroom. It would also provide a greater sense of grade comprehension at the UO. His most important point was that grade rationales should articulate the general standards of academic achievement in a given discipline and should not be formulated in a way that binds individual instructors. He went on to say that individual departments should devote specific attention to the A+ so that students know where their departments stand on that issue. Mr. Villeneuve concluded his comments by stating that there was not a crisis in the way that grades are issued, the real issue was regarding proactive grading reform. He believes that Motion 11A will go a long way to proactively shape grade culture at the UO. Mr. Villeneuve then excused himself from the Senate floor in order to attend his Biology class.

Senator McNeely turned the discussion over to his second presenter, Professor Karen Sprague (Biology) who discussed Motions 11B: Comparative Statistics Available to Instructors and 11C: Contextual Information on Transcripts. She began with Motion 11B, which provides mean grades and grade distributions to instructors for their courses. It also provides them with a set of informational grading statistics to self assess their grading practices. Beginning in the fall of 2011, instructors will be able to access this information through DuckWeb prior to submitting final grades. This information would remain in each CRN’s course record which faculty could view as a previous course listing in DuckWeb. In addition, following the submission of grades, faculty will be given access to a standard set of statistics allowing them to not only view their own set of statistics, but to compare them to distributions from relevant courses. She stated that work needs to be done to determine which comparative statistics would be most valuable to faculty, and the UC will be working with the registrar to determine this information. The data will allow faculty to compare their own grades through time and to their colleague’s grades. It will provide a data set to instructors for evaluating their grading practices and is meant to help them make decisions about changing or retaining those practices.

In Motion 11C, student transcripts will be altered to display the percentage of A grades given in a particular course. The A percentages would be recorded alongside the grade received by the student in that particular class. This information does not apply to courses with an enrollment of twenty or fewer due to the possible skewed distribution of grades. She gave an example of a higher division seminar class and stated that these courses generally have a higher distribution of A grades. The percentage information also does not apply to courses that would violate FERPA provisions. According to the registrar, publishing the percentages of A grades in classes with smaller enrollment sizes has the potential to allow some students to determine other students grades. The implementation of this program does not begin until fall 2013, and allows instructors sufficient time to change their grading practices if deemed necessary and to articulate these changes to their students, while allowing the registrar time to change the formatting of transcripts. She then stated that the main focus of this policy is grade compression; the large number of grades in the upper range due to the increasing number of A grades awarded at the UO. By providing this information, outside evaluators, in particular employers, graduate schools, and admissions committees, would have a more objective understanding of an applicant’s academic performance. She believes that this would better highlight students who perform well in more rigorous courses thus placing them in a more favorable light to external evaluators. According to Professor Sprague, this makes it easier to determine who is a stronger student. There is the possibility for students who receive A grades in a course with a higher percentage of As to be discounted, but she noted that individual evaluators already apply biases when evaluating transcripts, particularly in the area of graduate school applications. She then stated that other institutions have implemented this policy of placing the percentage of A grades on their transcripts including Columbia University, Indiana University, Dartmouth College, McGill University, and the University of British Columbia. Campus wide response was generally favored at these respective institutions.

After Professor Sprague concluded her remarks on Motions B and C, Senate President Tublitz asked for questions and comments from the Senate body. The first comment came from Senator G. Waddell (Economics). His comment referenced his and Professor Larry Singell’s (Economics) past work on grade retention. He stated that grades differ in at least two ways; across sections and across time. When using the term grade inflation there is a greater emphasis on the time aspect of grades, and in a given class, grades are rising over time. He stated that students have been chasing grades and there is a large compositional change on the student front regarding grades which can be seen by average grades changing quite considerably. He also commented that new programs and classes occasionally arise, and one way of attracting students to enroll in these classes is by having them come out of that class with a 4.0. According to Senator Waddell, most new classes launch themselves at a 4.0. He believes this is one reason for grade inflation and stated it was difficult to change grading policies especially for classes that launch themselves at a 4.0 in comparison to classes that launch at a 3.0 and come up. He encouraged Senators to consider grading across sections versus grading across time with respect to grade inflation.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator Waddell for his comments and handed the microphone to Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) who then asked the presenters how the UO compared to colleges and universities across the nation with respect to our overall grade point average as a university. Senator McNeely stated that the UO’s overall grade point average was 3.10 which is an average GPA in comparison to other public research level university. This average is lower than private universities that have higher grades. Senator Powell responded by asking if it was important to lower this average and thought that the implementation of these motions would put students at a disadvantage particularly if they are interested in attending graduate school. Senator McNeely stated that this was why the UC is taking a gingerly approach. He believes that the UC has been deliberate in designing a policy that does not push grades down. Some classes may go down while others go up and the UC is working with and sharing information with other universities in our category. Senator Powell then briefly commented on the three motions. He was not sure how he felt regarding Motion 11C, but thought that Motion 11B was great and would be very helpful in providing greater continuity to courses. He thought Motion 11A was problematic because a large majority of his grades come from writing essays. When a student is graded on essay writing there are inconsistencies between instructors, especially grad student instructors, when grading assignments. In response, Senator McNeely offered his experience as a History professor, whose students are also evaluated on graded essays, by stating that the new policies ask professors to perform assessment rubrics that describe in qualitative terms what is a good essay, realizing there will be a great deal of subjective variation. Professor Sprague then commented that Senator Powell brought up an important issue regarding GTFs grading student papers and the potential discrepancy between the instructors of record. She commented that this issue was raised by the UC and while it was not addressed in the policies she hopes the idea does not get lost. She believes that GTFs need more training as graders. Encouraging departments to discuss this issue when they welcome their GTFs and having a standard for grading around a specific discipline will help implement GTF grade training.

Senator D. Walton (UO Libraries) asked the presenters if there was a published distribution of class sizes with the intent of determining how many classes would be affected by the stipulation to not include grade percentages on transcripts from classes with an enrollment of twenty or fewer. Professor Sprague responded that there may be historical data, and then Susan Eveland (University Registrar) stated that this data does exists. The registrar does not publish this information, but it can be made available and is not difficulty to assemble. She then offered her services as a member of the UC to facilitate this process.

The next comment came from Senator R. Rejaie (Computer Science) and was regarding Motion 11C. He wanted to know why the percentages of grades listed on transcripts were limited to A grades only. Why not also include the percentage of grades B and C? Senator McNeely responded by stating that he wanted to provide the least amount of relevant information to make an effect. The A was chosen because that was the problem grade that was originally identified. Senator Rejaie stated that in his distribution, only ten percent of students receive As, but students that receive Bs are still good students and if we are using the transcript as a means of showing achievement, then B students deserve the same representation. He did not understand why there was a separation between the A grade percentage and other grade percentages. Senator McNeely stated that because Senator Rejaie gives a low percentage of As, his students will look better under the new policy. In response, Senator Rejaie again stated that B students need similar recognition. Senator McNeely again mentioned the need to provide as little amount of information as possible and that adding the B or C percentage category would take up too much physical space on student transcripts. Professor Sprague mentioned that the UC discussed the function of a transcript and concluded that it was a report of student performance. The student aspect of the transcript becomes hidden as the amount of data increases on transcripts. She said that some would argue a transcript should only be a record of grades and that adding more data would provide greater interpretive value, however the UC concluded that there were logistical and theoretical issues against including such data. Senator Rejaie again insisted on his point that B students are misrepresented under the current proposed policy.

For his second point, Senator Rejaie stated that it seemed to him that these policies were pushing the grade distribution toward standardization. He used the example of a class taught by two or more different instructors. There are many differences in teaching and testing methods between instructors and he wanted to know how these differences were accounted for. Senator McNeely stated that the statistics provided to instructors would simply offer another piece of information that instructors can use as they see fit. Senator Rejaie stated that although his teaching and grading methods might not change from year to year, the quality of students does and while these statistics might be helpful for his own personal review, they do not take these other variables into account. He concluded his comments by reiterating his first point that having the B percentage added to the transcript would benefit students.

Senate Vice President R. Kyr (Music) began his comments by commending Senator McNeely and the UC for taking on this issue; however he respectfully disagreed with many points. He sympathized with Senator Nippold’s previous comment that finding a simpler solution would be more beneficial. He also disagreed with the UC’s findings that there would be no financial impact in implementing these policies. He believes there will be many work hours spent to realize these changes and that possibly more administrative jobs will have to be created as a result. The Senate Vice President went on to say that these policy changes will affect how the UO is viewed by other institutions and that not enough data exists to properly measure the outcome of such a change. He then thanked Senator Powell for his comment regarding the true meaning of grades and offered a simpler solution of defining grades, coming to a general understanding of what they mean, and having faculty grade according to their own disciplines. He then brought up procedural issues and said that the UC is acting outside of their current charge of authority. According to Senate Vice President Kyr, the UC does not have the authority to implement, regulate, and enforce. Senator McNeely stated that the alternative would be to hire more administrators which faculty would then have to supervise. Senate Vice President Kyr responded that this would greatly increase the policies financial impact. He ended his comments by stressing that he was very concerned about the motions.

In response to Senate Vice President Kyr’s comment regarding the meaning of grades, Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) stated that Motion 11A does clearly define the meaning of grades. He went on to say that the policies were not overbearing, they merely provided more information. He does not believe the policies are trying to force professors to grade a certain way, but again are merely providing more information that instructors can do with as they see fit.

The next comment came from Senator I. Fielding (Student Senator). He began by thanking the presenters for their hard work, but expressed concern when, during the presentation, the comment was made that academically rigorous courses are determined by the percentage of As. He does not believe that this is always necessarily true. If a class is taught by a high quality instructor, he believes that can translate into more students performing well in that class. Alternatively, some classes have an unusually high number of over achieving students. He then commented on Motion 11C and stated that he felt the motion was giving contextual information that was only true in the sense that it was providing automated information in comparison to other students but did not appropriately take into context the academic strength of students or quality of instructor. Therefore he disagrees with Motion 11C but stated that he supports Motion 11A. He felt that Motion 11C will push professors and instructors towards grading harder or easier to match a curve. He believes this is dangerous and that instructors should be allowed to grade based on their student’s aggregate performance in their respective classes, not due to past or concurrent courses. Finally, he supported Senator Rejaie’s comment that there are many more variables that should be considered in determining a student’s grade, for example the percentage of Bs, and requested that this presentation be given again before the ASUO Student Senate. Senator McNeely responded that he does not think the policies are complex in design or in administrative implementation. It is very important, especially for the purposes of Motion 11A, to realize that these policies put power into the hands of faculty, not administrators. The program changes for implementing Motions 11B and C are relatively minimal. He stated that the policies were designed for gradual change and provide a couple of years for adjustment so that professors who are doing very well are not singled out for giving more As.

The next comment came from Senator A. Laskaya (English). She believes that these policies are very elegant and ethically sound, and stated that in essence, instructors are lying to the public if they do not explain the meaning of an A. If instructors are handing out many As to students and not differentiating, there is the potential for assessment to become influenced by outside businesses which will negatively impact the University. She believes that the implementation of these motions will not have a great deal of financial impact on the UO. The Senator then stated that it was imperative for faculty to be reflective about their grading. She does not see these motions imposing on grading practices, rather it allows for faculty members to clearly present grading standards to students. She is more concerned with outside entities interested in assessment possibly influencing academia, and has no issues whatsoever with Motion 11A, B, or C. In regards to Motion 11C, Senator Laskaya stated that having the A percentage on transcripts simplifies the process, and encourages reflection and honesty which increases instructor integrity.

At this point in the discussion, Senate President Tublitz remarked that it was time to move on in order to discuss other business items on the agenda. He thought the conversations were useful and very thoughtful and reminded the Senators that this issue was far from over and a vote will be taken on these Motions during the April Senate meeting. At that meeting, another discussion will ensue, and since it is such an important issue, he urged Senators to confer with their colleagues during the remaining time before the vote is taken. Finally, he thanked the UC for their hard work over many years in bringing their thoughtful proposals to the Senate floor. Before moving on to other business, Senator McNeely reminded Senators to email their comments to ugcproposals@uoregon.edu if they did not have a chance to comment due to time expiring. He also stated that the UC’s blog was open for review but closed to posting comments.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Report on the Oregon Model for Sustainable Development, Campus Planning Committee, Christine Thompson, Campus Planning and Real Estate Office

With the conclusion of the open discussion portion of the meeting, Senate President Tublitz invited Christine Thompson (Campus Planning and Real Estate), Christopher Ramey (University Architect), and Steve Mital (Environmental Studies) to the Senate floor to discuss the Campus Planning Committee’s (CPC) report on the Oregon Model for Sustainable Development.

Mr. Ramey began the presentation by introducing his co-presenters and stated that both he and his colleagues were eager to hear the Senators feedback and comments on the Oregon Model for Sustainable Development. He then discussed the Model’s background information and stated that ten years ago the University adopted a campus sustainable development plan. This plan was brought to the CPC and won a national award as one of the first sustainable development plans created for a university campus. The plan was widely copied throughout the country. Since that time, the CPC has been working very closely with faculty members, in particular those from AAA, who specializes in sustainable development and design including Charlie Brown (Architecture), John Reynolds (Architecture, Emeritus), Ihab Elzeyadi (Architecture), and Alison Kwok (Architecture). During that time, the CPC has built over one million square feet of new buildings on campus. He believes there is a great combination of research and hands on experience towards sustainable building at the UO and went on to say that several of the buildings included in the one million square feet addition have achieved the lead standard in energy efficiency and design, an award given by the U.S. Green Building Council. Last year, under Steve Mital’s leadership, the University adopted a climate action plan, which according to Mr. Ramey; several Senators may have participated in developing. Finally he stated that during his investiture, UO President Richard Lariviere discussed continuing their great leadership of sustainable development and challenged Mr. Ramey and his associates to take sustainable development to the next level. Currently, their goal is to become the industry standard for sustainability on a university campus. He believes this is a reachable goal and has given his department one year to accomplish it and will hopefully be meeting in June of 2011 with President Lariviere to discuss their proposal.

Mr. Ramey then discussed background information on his yearlong plan to become the industry standard. He began with a roundtable discussion which included faculty, students, staff, and practicing professionals from the greater Eugene and Portland areas. They began asking the questions; what is the next step in sustainable development, what are the questions they should be answering, and how can we get there. The advice they received was to leverage their abilities as a campus by not working building to building and start looking at the campus as an ecological district. They developed three areas of concentration: water, energy, and people. It was then determined that energy was the most important of the three areas, and that focusing on energy will have a greater impact on the environment than the other two. He then turned the discussion over to Steve Mital to explain the details of implementing their sustainability model.

Mr. Mital began his presentation with a story of how he added eight hundred square feet of room to his home when he found out he was becoming a father for the second time. He decided to implement sustainability goals to his home addition. The goal was to have no increase in energy consumption after the addition was complete. He accomplished his goal and stated that his EWEB bill is lower than it was when he was living in a smaller house. One year ago, Mr. Mital had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Ramey and Ms. Thompson among others in a design meeting for the Allen Hall addition. The design proportions are roughly the same as the proportions Mr. Mital had done to his home. His sustainability goal was then applied to the Allen Hall renovation. He stated that with a few caveats, the goal will be achieved. The next phase of their plan is to implement that goal at the campus level. He then displayed a map of the UO and said that currently there is about six million square feet of buildings that comprise the UO in Eugene. In the next ten years the CPC will probably build one million additional square feet of new buildings based on previous building trends. The proposal for the campus is no additional energy consumption for the potential one million square feet of new buildings. To achieve this goal, they have established a ceiling on campus energy consumption, and all new construction must meet the lead gold standard for new buildings. The next step is to provide capital to campus facilities that will look at the campus as a whole and invest that capital in energy retrofits that make the most sense for older buildings. The combined energy savings must equal the energy consumption of that building. If he is able to convince buildings to adhere to their advanced energy efficiency threshold, an internally designed set of criteria, then funds will be provided for retrofits elsewhere on campus from a central fund from Johnson Hall. If you build an efficient building, you do not have to pay for retrofits across campus.

He then discussed results concerning the water and people areas of concentration. Every time a new building is created, it pays its lifetime energy costs up front. He said it creates a rising tide because every time a new building is created it triggers new retrofits in existing twentieth century buildings bringing these buildings up to twenty first century standards. The city of Eugene has very strict storm water treatment requirements for all new construction. All existing construction is grandfathered in. This provides an opportunity to exceed code standards for no additional costs. The CPC is proposing to shift the money that would have been used to treat storm water on new buildings to improve existing impervious services including parking lots or streets on campus. Mr. Mital stated that at the end of the day, the same amount of acreage is treated on campus, but the water being returned to the Willamette is cleaner at no additional cost. Finally, if these proposals were put into place, Mr. Mital believes the UO would have a far more dynamic campus in terms of its sustainability features which would lead to great recruiting potential for prospective students, faculty, and staff. He then handed the discussion to Christine Thompson to discuss the costs of implementing their sustainability model.

Ms. Thompson began her presentation by asking the question how much added cost would this represent for this new project to move forward. She stated that the additional cost would be an increase of 0.5 – 0.6 percent. These costs are broken down into different categories including leads certification, training, meeting the advanced energy threshold, and the compensation needed to cover energy use by applying energy efficiency measure elsewhere. If this data is extrapolated to cover a ten year time frame, which is what the UO is considering, the total cost to implement these ideas would be a maximum of eighteen million dollars. She then provided examples of projects that were recently constructed or under construction and their energy usage. This concluded the CPC’s report on the Oregon Model for Sustainable Development.

Mr. Ramey then asked for question from the Senate body. The first comment was from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology, Emeritus). He stated that the presentation was very interesting and was glad to see that the CPC was looking at construction as a way to save on energy. He wanted to know how the committee will look at faculty and student behavior as a way of saving energy and gave as an example the possibility of intercampus communication seminars being done electronically instead of by air travel or athletic teams scheduling close to home, and or taking fewer people along on their trips. Mr. Ramey responded by stating that his presentation was limited to new building construction and the way that buildings operate. The people component to his work is how well the building operates. He thought that with the new changes to buildings people will become more aware of energy savings and this will provide an answer to Professor Stahl’s questions. They are also working on green initiatives to help improve the culture of the campus.

Then next comment was from Senator S. Midkiff (UO Libraries). She wondered about the possibility of eventually implementing a thermostat standard so that all building could maintain a set temperature. She also commented about dual flush toilets and thought that it was a lost opportunity that the Jaqua Center had not installed these models. Finally she mentioned timed lighting controls and wondered if that upgrade was being implemented across campus. Mr. Ramey stated that as new buildings are being designed; set points for thermostats are being taken under consideration as well as her other two comments. Christine Thompson also added that in an attempt to explore new energy issues and implications, they will be looking at energy efficiency measures and performing an assessment on a variety of buildings on campus including the law center.

Senator D. Healey (Linguistics) stated that she was very happy to see everything that was happening and commented that fifteen years ago the UO was notorious in their state energy planning and ignored meeting required energy standards. Her question was regarding buildings that were constructed outside of the UO and then donated to the University and how those buildings are controlled. Mr. Mital stated that this was a very commonly asked question, and they give downers the full price tag of what it costs to construct a building under their required standards. If a downer does not conform to these standards then it is up to the University to cover the additional costs of adhering to new building standards.

The next comment came from Senate President Tublitz. He stated that this was the first time he had heard this information and thought it was very exciting. He then asked the presenters if they thought their proposal should come before the Senate for to be voted on. Senate President Tublitz believes that an endorsement by the Senate would go a long way towards supporting the proposal. He strongly encouraged the CPC return to the Senate with a motion that the Senators would then vote on and then stated that this type of important work should involve the Senate because it affects the entire campus. Mr. Ramey responded by stating that he would work with Senate President Tublitz towards that effort, but their proposal is promulgated up through the Planning Committee who will then make a recommendation to President Lariviere regarding what the policy should be and will eventually become an amendment to the campus plan. He thought that because it will become an amendment to the campus plan he should it should take a more administrative route, to which Senate President Tublitz responded that the CPC reports directly to the Senate and all policies that affect the campus go through the Senate body. Therefore, he concluded that it should be presented as a motion to be voted on by the Senate. Seeing no further questions or comments, Senate President Tublitz thanked the presenters and moved to begin the announcements and communications from the floor portion of the agenda.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

Senate President Tublitz welcomed Senate Vice President Robert Kyr to the floor to offer several comments regarding shared governance and participation. He began by stating that next year, the Senate will be voting on some of the very most important issues that have ever faced the UO since its founding. He asked the Senators to reach out to their colleagues and invite an increased measure of participation in campus governance by signing up for appointed or elected committee service. For the convenience of all, an electronic form will be sent by email to submit your service requests. He then mentioned the tenth year review of UO standing committees and asked the chairs of each committee to please complete and submit the electronic template that will be sent out by email. Senate Vice President Kyr concluded his remarks and Senate President Tublitz then asked if there were any more announcements from the floor. Seeing none, he moved to adjourn the meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT

The March 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate was adjourned at 5:03PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 9, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 9 February 2011

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Executive Coordinator of the University Senate.

Present: T. Bars, C. Bybee, J. Brubaker, K. Dellabough, J. Ellis, A. Emami, H. Gangadharbatla, R. Good, D. Healey, M. Hyatt, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, M. Nippold, J. Piger, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, R. Rejaie, Z. Stark-MacMillan, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams

Excused: J. Bonine, G. Hockstatter, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, P. Lambert, T. Minner-Engle, L. Sugiyama, Y. Tan

Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, I. Fielding, M. Henney, C. Ives, L. Middlebrook, B. Powell, S. Runberg, P. Southwell, P. Walker, P. Warnek

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for February 9, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jacqua Academic Learning Center.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes.

Minutes of the 12 January 2011 regular meeting of the senate

A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the January 12, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. The minutes were approved unanimously.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere

Senate President Tublitz introduced President Lariviere to the Senate body. Before the President began his opening remarks, Senate President Tublitz briefly mentioned that the Senate meeting was being videotaped and that the video was being streamed live over the internet. As a result of the videotaping, all persons speaking in the Senate meeting must speak into a microphone.

President Lariviere began his remarks with an update on the New Partnership. According to the President, two bills have been put forward in the State Legislature regarding the Partnership proposal. The first, Senate Bill 559, is a statutory revision to the Oregon law that would allow for a local governing board for the University. The second, Senate Joint Resolution 20, refers to the public legislative bonding issue. This Resolution requires an amendment to the Oregon Constitution, and with public approval on the 2012 ballot, the legislature would have the authority, but not the obligation, to issue bonds. The President stated that a prediction on the actions of the legislature was expected around mid May.

President Lariviere opened the floor for questions. Senator I. McNeely (History) asked if
Senate Bill 559 would require a referendum or a referral from the voters. The President answered that it would not and reminded the Senate body that the bill requires the creation of a local governing board with all of the authority that currently resides in the state board of higher education to be vested in that governing board for the University of Oregon. The bill was drafted specifically for the University of Oregon and included a portion stating that Senate Bill 559 will serve as a template for any other university that desires a local governing board. President Lariviere also stated that Senate Joint Resolution 20 also applies to any university interested in partaking in the bond issuing proposal.

Seeing no further questions regarding the New Partnership, President Lariviere moved on to his next topic of discussion which was the DPS (Department of Public Safety) Police issue. This topic was previously discussed at the January Senate meeting and was a proposal from the Oregon University System that will affect the University of Oregon if passed. President Lariviere believes there are two main issues, the first being a transition from DPS’s current non-sworn public safety agency to a fully sworn state-certified police department. The second issue deals with the armament of those police officers. President Lariviere stated that he had a conservative outlook on arming police officers and would have to engage in a robust discussion amongst students, faculty, and staff before taking a firm position on the matter. After speaking with several members of student affairs, resident advisors, and other housing staff, the president believed there are solid arguments in favor of transitioning DPS to a fully sworn state-certified police department. DPS often acts as an intermediary between the EPD (Eugene Police Department) and this current relationship lengthens response time to criminal acts committed on campus.

President Lariviere opened the floor for questions, and seeing none, he informed the Senate of an upcoming reception in the Jaqua Academic Center on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:00PM. The purpose of the reception was to inform and prepare sophomore and junior students to apply for scholarships programs including the Marshall, Rhodes, and Goldwater scholarships. The president stated that the University of Oregon is underrepresented in these scholastic opportunities and believes there are many qualified applicants who are not being recognized for these awards. He stated that intense preparation is the key to obtaining a successful result with these awards and encouraged Senators to bring their students to the reception.

Finally, President Lariviere concluded his remarks by briefly sharing a story of having the opportunity to meet, talk, and share a meal with several colleagues after having three appointments cancel. He asked for a final round of questions, and seeing none, exited the Senate meeting.

After President Lariviere’s departure, Senate President Tublitz called for a move to the legislative portion of the agenda. He reminded the Senate that all important legislative business will be conducted at the beginning of the Senate meeting after President Lariviere’s address.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-07 to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy. Sponsor: Ad hoc Facilities Use Committee (Linda Ettinger, Education; John Bonine, Law; Kassia Dellabough, AAA; Marie Vitulli, Math)

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that this motion came before the Senate during the spring of 2010 and had undergone extensive revision in the following fall and winter terms. He then invited the members of the committee, Linda Ettinger (Education), Senator K. Dellabough (AAA), Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics), to discuss their revised policy. Senate President Tublitz briefly mentioned that Senator J. Bonine (Law) was traveling and thus unable to attend the meeting.

Linda Ettinger (Education) began by giving a brief summary of everyone who was involved in preparing the revised policy, including Senator Vitulli (Mathematics), F. Stahl (Emeritus, Biology), and Senator Bonine (Law). Ms. Ettinger stated that the policy was designed for a very large campus that incorporated a wide set of comprehensive and collaborative constituency interests. As such, the underlying principles of this policy addressed the respect for freedom of speech, acknowledgement of facilities on campus as a limited and controlled set of resources, and the need to support access to facilities consistently for everyone.

For their final round of revisions, the committee was asked to revise two issues. The first being the recognition of faculty groups in parallel to student groups, which was not included in the text of the previous policy, and the second being to revisit the definition of university entity. According to Ms. Ettinger (Education), the missing faculty groups have been added to the document, and the definition of university entity has been amended to include recognized faculty and student groups and included a new group category entitled self defined groups of three or more of the statutory faculty.

At this point in the presentation, Senator Dellabough (AAA) took the floor and thanked Ms. Ettinger for her hard work and commitment to their team and the Policy. Senator Dellabough brought up two issues she felt did not belong in the current document and asked the Senate to revisit and clarify these two items. The first issue was concerning the definition of recognized student and faculty groups. She did not believe that those definitions belonged in the document, but felt that it was an important initiative that should be revisited at a later time. The second issue was including a fair appeal process to the legislation. As with the previous issue, she felt the appeal process was an important issue that could use clarification and development, but it did not belong as a part of the current Policy.

Senator Vitulli (Mathematics) discussed two topics that were highly debated during the most recent revision of the Policy and asked for a discussion from the Senate body on those topics. She expressed her uncertainty on whether the committee should have included an amendment that allowed for a single member of the statutory faculty assembly in the definition of university entity thereby giving a single member of the statutory faculty the right to reserve, not just local, but any university facility. (This amendment was in an earlier draft of the Policy). The second topic was whether or not there should be mention of an OAR that would reflect this Policy, whether there should be a pointer to said OAR and an explanation that the OAR will reflect the Policy that is being developed by the committee.

Before fielding questions from the Senate body, Senate President Tublitz read aloud a speech from Senator Bonine (Law). Below is the Senator’s speech in its entirety.

John Bonine, Senator

Sent 09 Feb 2011

"Fellow Senators, as I am on sabbatical and out of town, I cannot participate in person in today's discussion on adopting a new Facilities Use Policy for the University. During my sabbatical, however, I have participated via e-mail in the formulation of the policy, as I did in person on our committee for the previous several months. I urge that the Senate vote to adopt this revised policy.

My request for an affirmative vote is based on these considerations:

First, the revised policy has been carefully written to advance freedom of speech and discussion and academic freedom at the University. I agreed last spring to serve on this committee precisely to advance those goals. We need to ensure that no one controlling the use of campus facilities can restrict such use because of the ideas that would be expressed. Until this new Policy is adopted, we do not have that guarantee. We have currently in place an insufficient policy.

The Policy protects free expression by being a policy for scheduling, not "use," and does not allow refusal on the basis of content of intended speech.

For most rooms on campus (those known as "locally scheduled facilities"), the Policy allows an individual faculty member to book as an individual as long as the room isn't being used at the scheduled time for a class, research, or the like. Some rooms on campus, which are likely to be in high demand, will be reservable by any recognized group including also any self-defined group of 3 faculty members. If you can't find two colleagues, you can still reserve a local facility by yourself.

Some may be concerned with this requirement of needing a small "group" before an individual faculty member can book a room in, for example, the EMU. But given the huge number of "locally scheduled facilities" on the campus, this is almost no restriction at all. I questioned the number "3" myself, but it was inserted to provide some priority system for allocating a limited resource, and I accept that.

I have also been concerned that the University Administration should not use a separate method -- the Oregon Administrative Rules process – to adopt another policy at variance with this Policy Statement. In fact, at the beginning of December an OAR was proposed that would, among other things, have done a number of unacceptable things, including designating a small area of campus as a "free speech area," with the obvious implication that other areas are not such areas. You may not have noticed, because it was put out during exam period. I wrote a 9-page legal analysis of that objectionable proposal and, among other things, objected that it was not being put through our Senate process.

That mistake was recognized, the OAR proposal was withdrawn, and we are back with policy on scheduling of facilities being adopted only through our Senate process. That is good. I believe the University Administration is both acting in good faith and correcting process mistakes like that. My support for adopting our Facilities Use Policy is contingent on the presumption that an OAR will not be adopted that varies from our Policy statement. If that assurance is not given, I would withdraw my support.

Finally, I urge your support because of the importance of co-governance, in which thisSenate is an important partner in policy formation with the University Administration. That shared governance can only work if we are willing to act as a legislative body, not a scientific body. Science and academia can debate something forever and, indeed, that is how truth emerges. A legislative body needs to act--and sometimes acting means not seeking perfection. Compromise is the order of the day in all successful legislative bodies. In fact, you can look at the U.S. Senate in the past four years and see that when one political party demands that policy not be set unless it is perfectly in line with that party's views, and uses the filibuster to frustrate reasonable compromise, the result is paralysis.

If our University Senate seeks only perfection in policy, its consequent inaction will yield all initiative and authority to an institution that is capable of more decisive action—the University Administration. Our present University Administration and our Senate President have crafted a process that allows us to maintain a substantial role. If we cannot uphold our part of that process, we can only blame ourselves for the result.

I urge adoption without change and, if any questions remain, that they be addressed after adoption through a revision process."

John

After reading Senator Bonine’s speech, Senate President Tublitz opened the floor for questions and discussion.

Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (ASUO Student Senator) offered up a statement and said that the ASUO had a group recognition process for student groups, but the process was fairly detailed. It was his opinion that future student groups would appreciate a shorter recognition process, and informed the Senate that the current waiting period to be recognized as a student group was six months.

Senator D. Walton (UO Libraries) expressed his concern regarding the appeal process and asked would the process cover new fledgling student groups that are not recognized by student government but that are interested in organizing and holding events. Senator Dellabough answered that the appeals process could cover those groups if Senator Walton joined that committee and took lead on said committee.

Senate President Tublitz asked for further comments from the Policy presenters and seeing none he thanked the presenters for their hard work and asked for a vote from the Senate body. Senate President Tublitz displayed the Motion on the projector for the Senate to view, but before the vote could be taken, Senator Dellabough thanked Senator Vitulli and Frank Stahl for speaking up at a prior Senate meeting and for joining the committee.

Before the vote was taken, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate that they were voting on the motion to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy and that if passed, the Senate would recommend that the Policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University. He also reminded the Senators that this voting process was agreed upon by the University Administration for important issues regarding policy, and that policy revision does not occur on the Senate floor, only a vote for, against or abstain. Senate President Tublitz then called for a voice vote and the Policy was passed unanimously.

3.2 Motion US10/11-09 to establish a Senate Leadership Award for UO Officers of Administration. Sponsors: OA Council Co-chair (speaking on their behalf, David Landurm, OA Council Chair and Tracy Bars, OA Senator, AAA).

Senate President Tublitz introduced this motion by reminding Senators that the Senate agreed to consider an OA Senate Leadership Award and spoke briefly about a similar award that was passed last month regarding Classified Staff. At this point, he introduced the authors of the Motion, Senator T. Bars (OA) and D. Landrum (OA Co-Council Chair).

Mr. Landrum gave a brief summary on how the Motion came into existence. He stated that Senate President Tublitz went before the council last year with a proposal for a new award during the time that the award for Classified Staff was being discussed. Mr. Landrum went on to say that over the past year, the OA has worked very hard with colleagues from the Senate in collaboration with HR (Human Resources) making sure there was no overlap between the University Senate OA Award and the current award being presented by HR. As a result of the impending establishment of the OA Senate Leadership Award, the HR Award was being reexamined in the hopes of strengthening the HR Award. Mr. Landrum stated that the proposal before the Senate was that members of the selection committee for the OA Senate Leadership Award be comprised of sitting Senate members. The Officers of Administration of the Senate and the OA Council will subsequently review the nominations and come before the Senate body with a proposal. Additionally, if during the course of the year, the OA Council receives several outstanding nominations, it is the intent of the Council to recognize those additional nominees during various OA functions held throughout the year.

After concluding his remarks, Senate President Tublitz suggested to Mr. Landrum that the nominees who were not selected for the award be placed in the running for the award in future years as is done for other awards on campus. Senate President Tublitz then displayed the Motion on the projector of the Senate body to view and called for discussion. Seeing no discussion, he thanked Mr. Landrum, Senator Bars, and the OA Council and moved for a vote on the Motion. After briefly reiterating that according to the motion the UO Senate body moved to create an annual UO Officers of Administration Leadership Award following the criteria contained within the Motion document, a voice vote was taken and the Motion was approved unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz then informed the Senate that the first award for both Classified Staff and UO Officers of Administration will be presented at the May Senate meeting, and Senators will be receiving, either from Classified Staff or the OA Council, a notice asking for nominations.

After concluding all new business, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin the Open Discussion segment of the Senate meeting, and reminded the Senators that during this portion of the meeting, no votes will be taken.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Enrollment Overview; Roger Thompson, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management

Senate President Tublitz welcomed Roger Thompson, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, to the Senate floor to discuss the process of Enrollment Management and what it means to the University both before and after students enter the University of Oregon.

After concluding his presentation, Mr. Thompson asked if there were any questions from the Senate body. Senator M. Nippold (Education) asked Mr. Thompson how he collected data while visiting various high schools around Oregon. Mr. Thompson responded by stating that most of his time was spent meeting with principals, guidance counselors, career counselors, and occasionally parents and support staff. He stated that he spent around an hour at each high school giving a quick overview of what was going on at the University of Oregon, and the rest of his time was spent listening. Mr. Thompson said that he was not out to empirically prove anything but wanted to provide an opportunity for people to give feedback and take away impressions and challenges offered by the University of Oregon. He then turned to Senator Nippold and asked if he had answered her question and then went on to say that he was not spending most of his time with high school students. Senator Nippold responded by stating that Mr. Thompson might find some very interesting information if he surveyed the students directly and offered various survey criteria to Mr. Thompson should he choose to pursue that avenue. In response to her statement, Mr. Thompson commented that he was trying to appeal to a wider pool of interested parties, and that a similar survey was distributed at orientation for incoming students and another survey developed by Larry Singell (College of Arts and Sciences) was distributed to students who chose not to attend the University of Oregon.

Senator R. Rejaie (CAS-Natural Sciences) asked Mr. Thompson what steps he was taking to achieve his goals, and if his work was relevant for graduate and international students. Mr. Thompson responded by saying that his number one priority in achieving his undergraduate enrollment goals was to better align our financial goals with our enrollment goals. According to Mr. Thompson, many scholarship and financial aid awards are made too late in the enrollment cycle to impact a decision and as a result; the University is confirming decisions instead of impacting decisions. He also stated that currently there was a perception that people do not care about students at the University of Oregon and that perception should be done away with. Finally, Mr. Thompson recommended increasing outreach activity particularly in Oregon high schools. He then encouraged Senators to visit his department’s website for more information on his strategic plan. Mr. Thompson answered the second part of Senator Rejaie’s question by stating that everyone in America is running to China for international students. He also believed there are untapped opportunities in India. With respect to graduate students, Mr. Thompson thought it was important to know where our graduate students come from. According to his data, one in five graduate students at the UO received their undergraduate degree from the University of Oregon. A large majority of graduate students come from west of the Rocky Mountains, and in order to increase enrollment from these areas, the University needs to have a greater presence in the UC, CSU, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Arizona systems.

After briefly mentioning his website again, Mr. Thompson fielded a question from Senator T. Bard (OA) in which she asked what percentage of the projected student enrollment figure were graduate students. Mr. Thompson stated that most of the growth was designed to be at the graduate level, and that it was important to address the needs of each academic program to determine their interest in expanding at the graduate or undergraduate level or both.

Mr. Thompson concluded his discussion by offering to go over any additional information and questions the Senators may have had and thanked them for their time.

Senate President Tublitz moved to begin the reports segment of the agenda and began by briefly describing the creation of the AC (Academic Council). He stated that the AC was a group that was formed as a result of the Constitution that was passed during the previous academic year. The group is comprised of chairs from all the major academic committees on campus including the undergraduate, graduate, FAC, Scholastic Review, and Academic Requirements committees, among others. According to Senate President Tublitz, the AC’s main responsibility was to observe and consider the impact of various issues that affected academics on campus from their particular vantage point. Senate President Tublitz asked the AC to write a report on the New Partnership to complement the report that was issued by the SBC (Senate Budget Committee) which focused primarily on finances. He then invited Senator I. McNeely (History), Chair of the AC, to present an overview of their report on the New Partnership to the Senate body.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Academic Council report on New Partnership; Ian McNeely, AC Chair.

Senator McNeely began by stating that the AC tried not to duplicate the work of the Senate Budget Committee, and that several developments occurred during the past three months that the Council tried to incorporate into their report. The first of these developments was Senate Bill 559, and the second was placing comparative attention to the way in which governance and accountability work in other universities in the United States in order to provide context thereby not having to evaluate the document on its own terms. Senator McNeely and the AC endorsed the idea that the Senate endorses the New Partnership. He remarked that the Senate was a crucial voice in the discussion but was not a decisive voice and that in the end; the legislature will have the final say.

According to Senator McNeely, the first section of the Partnership concerned the financial aspects of the plan. The AC revisited the analysis that had already been prepared by the SBC and found that if the endowment had been in place, the University would have benefitted in the long run. They also found that the State of Oregon was unable to fund the University at a sustainable level. He remarked that sustainability and stability are the two most important items for long term growth at any university.

In the AC’s report regarding governance, they looked at the new rule of the University of Oregon Board, which gives the Board a great deal of power, and asked if there will be a system of checks and balances. Senator McNeely and his committee looked at other university boards to compare board membership in order to determine what percentage of student and faculty members serve on those boards. He stated that it was uncommon for a faculty member to serve on a university board, either private or public, but that according to the New Partnership, the UO will have one faculty member serve on the Board. The AC found that it was common to have one student serve on the board of public universities, which is also a feature of the New Partnership governance.

Senator McNeely spoke briefly regarding the Oregon State University plan which was one of governance reform The OSU plan emphasized greater independence from the entire system in the state of Oregon and would give Oregon State independence from micromanagement by the state legislature and prevent the legislature from taking back funds that were already appropriated to the university. The AC believes it is a positive step forward and should be passed. The problem of financial instability was not addressed.

The AC raised the most questions on the third section of the Partnership which covered the topic of accountability, and according to Senator McNeely, was not very specific. In exchange for the flexibility and independence that the state would grant the university, the UO would be held to measureable performance benchmarks. The State Board of Higher Education would be responsible for setting those benchmarks and holding the university to them. How these benchmarks are determined and carried out was not indicated in the document. The AC Report offered two ways in which these benchmarks could be established and carried out. The first was to look at academic benchmarks already in place and ask the state to hold the University to those already established benchmarks. A second approach offered was to ask the state to hold the University accountable for keeping tuition affordable, diversity prominent, and to avoid discussion regarding academics (curriculum, degree programs, etc…) because that issue ultimately was the responsibility of the faculty.

Before Senator McNeely took questions from the Senate body, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators of a notice of motion that will come before the Senate in March to endorse the New Partnership Proposal.

The first question was from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She asked how the University could be held accountable if satisfying benchmarks were not tied to independent financial resources (bonds, investments, etc…) and the control was in the local board of directors rather than OUS. She then asked what the meaning of the benchmarks was. Senator McNeely responded by saying the legislation was weak and then said if the state board finds that the University does not meet the benchmarks they have the authority to recommend penalties to the legislature. What was unclear to Senator McNeely was how the legislature would carry out those penalties. He thought that if there were severe financial penalties written into the law, there would be great incentive to meet benchmarks. Benchmark enforcement would come through a financial mechanism and not a governance mechanism. At this point, Senate President Tublitz offered an answer to Senator Vitulli’s question and stated that the proposed UO governing board will be appointed by the Governor, and within that structure there existed the ability for our legislative and executive branches of the state to exert some measure of control, but the extent of control was undetermined. Senator McNeely commented that seven of the fourteen voting members would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State of Oregon Senate.

The next question came from Senator R Rejaie (CAS-Natural Sciences). He asked Senator McNeely to elaborate on the issues and concerns that might exist in the absence of checks and balances. Senator McNeely responded by saying that the UO Board would theoretically have the ability to open or close entire colleges, revise personnel policies for faculty, etc…He went on to explain that this immense power within a university board was a common occurrence at large universities, both public and private, around the country, and referenced the Association of Governing Boards website for more information.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz encouraged the Senate body to send him any additional questions that might arise, and he would forward them along to President Lariviere who would then answer them in writing to be posted to the Senate website.

Before the next report on purchasing was presented, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that it was important for the Senate to understand how the process of purchasing and contracting works and what changes have occurred to improve the purchasing system.

5.2 Update on Purchasing and Contract Services; Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration, Laura Hubbard, Associate Vice President for Budget and Finance

Ms. Hubbard began her presentation by informing the Senate body that all of the information discussed today could be found on her office website. She then asked why the University has a purchasing function. According to Ms. Hubbard, purchasing and contract services are working to serve the mission of the University and the academic enterprise and to support the faculty in their academic pursuits. She then discussed different types of departmental business purchases/transactions that transpire across campus.

According to Ms. Hubbard, it was important for her department to reinvigorate business services by better aligning them with the faculty and their academic pursuits. In looking at their business process, it was important to spend more time focusing on the entire purchasing process as a whole across the University. Several goals surfaced out of their investigation which Ms. Hubbard did not discuss, but referred the Senate to her department’s website for more information.

The next topic of discussion was contracting services, and Ms. Hubbard stated that this was the most controversial topic campus wide. Her department had collected three years of data on contracting services. According to her department’s data, contracting had increased dramatically on campus due to greater student enrollment and an increase in research from faculty and graduate students. It was important to identify the time of year in which contracting services increased and decreased to assist in staffing and to coordinate year end activities. Her department established benchmarks that outlined processing efficiency in order to understand the rate at which contracts are processed.

Ms. Hubbard then briefly discussed her department’s campus outreach and development initiative to create a dialogue for understanding working relationships between departments. She then defined strategic purchasing which was an effort to find more affordable prices for items purchased by the University and participating in outreach with the local vendor community. She mentioned the reverse vendor fair as an example of vendor outreach, which had been around for the past two years, and had been very well received by the local vendor community. Her department partnered with the education advisory board, a best practices consulting firm that works with higher education focusing in the procurement area of research institutions, in an effort to collaborate with peer research institutions to improve purchasing operations.

Finally, Ms. Hubbard stated that a key goal of her department was to update its policies and procedures in an effort to provide a better understanding of their operations.

At this point, Ms. Hubbard asked for questions from the Senate body. Senate President Tublitz stated that there was a general perception across campus that when working with the purchasing department it was harder to do things rather than easier despite all improvements. He wanted to know why this perception existed and what could be done to change that perception and to change the reality.

Ms. Hubbard responded by saying that the perception existed because of three criteria. The first was due to changes in processes that take an adjustment period for everyone involved, and according to Ms. Hubbard, there had been many areas of the University that were being reorganized and changed over. She did not list any other criteria. Seeing no further questions, Ms. Hubbard informed the Senate to contact her at any time if anyone had any more questions.

Senate President Tublitz moved to the announcements of motions segment of the agenda.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motions

6.1.1 Notice of Motion US10/11-10: Endorsement of New Partnership proposal, Senate Executive Committee (March meeting)

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that at the March Senate meeting the Notice of Motion of the Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal will be decided. He stressed the importance of this decision and again asked the Senators to send him their questions for distribution to President Lariviere’s administration.

6.1.2 Notice of Motion US10/11-11a,b,c: Adoption of proposals on grade culture (i.e. grade inflation), Undergraduate Council (April meeting)

After mentioning the New Partnership proposal, Senate President Tublitz remarked on the adoption of three proposals from the undergraduate council, chaired by Senator I. McNeely (History), that are up for decision in April. According to Senate President Tublitz, Senator McNeely or a representative of his committee will attend the March Senate meeting to discuss these proposals. The proposals involve implementing a set of processes at the University to deal with grade inflation and to possibly change the way grading is viewed at the University of Oregon. The three proposals, as well as several documents and reports, can be accessed through the University Senate homepage. A vote will be taken on these proposals during the April Senate meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, the February 9, 2011 Senate meeting was adjourned at 4:50PM by Senate President Tublitz.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 12, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate 12 January 2011

Present: T Bars, C Bocchicchio, J Brubaker, K Dellabough, J Ellis, H Gangadharbatla, D Healey, G Hochstatter, M Hyatt, H Khalsa, D Kennett, R Kyr, A Laskaya, H Lin, C McNelly, L Middlebrook, S Midkiff, T Minner-Engle, M Nippold, J Piger, M Price, N Proudfoot, S Runberg, Z Stark-Macmillan, L Sugiyama, T Thompson, N Tublitz, M Vitulli, V Vologodski, G Waddell, D Walton, M Williams

Excused: J Bonine, Y Tan, L Van Dreel

Absent: A Berenshtein, C Bybee, E Chan, A Emami, I Fielding, R Good, M Henney, C Ives, P Keyes, P Lambert, B Powell, R Rejai, P Southwell, P Walker, P Warnek

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for January 12, 2011 to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room, Jacqua Academic Learning Center.
A Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the 1 December 2010 regular meeting of the senate and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Senate President Tublitz introduced Chris Bocchicchio as a new student member of the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz reported he sent several letters regarding the campus Post Office closure, as discussed at the December 1st meeting. He received responses from both Representative Peter DeFazio and Senator Jeff Merkley. Senate President Tublitz forwarded those responses to the Postal Regulation Commission and they opened a file on this matter. He has also received several calls and emails from the Postal Service themselves stating they are in the process of reviewing our concerns.

Senate President Tublitz also reported that Denise Yunker, Human Resource Director for OUS, is asking for a nomination for someone to serve on their PERS Investment Committee.
He said there is only 1 faculty member from the OUS serving on that committee. If anyone is interested in nominating, contact Senate President Tublitz.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, asked if the opening was due to a former faculty resignation.

Senate President Tublitz reported this is a new committee serving the OUS.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Senate Motion US10/11-04, the Riverfront Research Park resolution, passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting.

Senate President Tublitz introduced President Lariviere who took the floor.

President Lariviere mentioned just returning from the BCS Bowl experience and said the representation of the university at the event was remarkable and something to be proud of. The thoughtfulness of the staff that put events together to keep the focus on the entire university was edifying. Roger Thompson, the new Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, put together a gathering prior to the BCS Pep Rally that hosted 342 prospective students who met with UO Deans. Most of these students did not come to Glendale, AZ for the game and some of the students traveled from as far away as CA to attend. It was a remarkable event. We learned from the Rose Bowl how to do things better and the staff did an extraordinary job. The Pep Rally was an astonishing event and the largest event Phoenix has ever seen, outside the stadium. 35,000 people attended and the game itself was the most watched event ESPN has ever handled. Our university was in some 20 million homes for four hours. That is a remarkable set of events. Your colleagues did a superb job. The City of Eugene is hosting a “Celebrating Champions” parade on January 22, 2011. The parade will celebrate champions across the breadth of the university and the community at large.

President Lariviere said the New Partnership continues to progress. The bills were submitted into this Legislative Session, both the Senate Bill 559 and the Joint Resolution 20 (a recommendation to refer amendment to a vote in the next election cycle). Media attention included a local Phoenix AZ newspaper who wanted to discuss the topic during the UO visit to Glendale. They have asked for all backup documentation as Arizona is going through similar circumstances and they are interested in reporting on our solution.

President Lariviere reminded the Senate of the upcoming Town Hall meeting on January 26th for an open campus wide discussion on the New Partnership.

The President informed the Senate that the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity Director’s search is underway. The request for applications has gone out and the Search Committee is chaired by Scott Coltrane, with Vice-Chair Robin Holmes.

President Lariviere’s final topic was the Riverfront Research Park, stating there has been no change since the last discussion. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been addressed very thoroughly by both the City and the UO. The President stated that yesterday at 4:00pm he received twelve questions with the expectation they be answered at today’s Senate meeting. The President conveyed that is not the type of communication relationship he wants to have with the Senate. He stated we should engage in conversations surrounding issues with the university and he hopes we can engage in the conversations in a manner that will move us forward.

Senate President Tublitz mentioned discussion surrounding the Research Park is due to the President’s veto of the Senate Motion US10/11-04 passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting and the Governance Constitution request he explain his veto.

President Lariviere stated he already provided explanation in the letter he presented to the Senate and nothing has changed. The Senate floor can ask questions, the President is a big fan of open transparency, but it will not change the outcome of the decision.

Senate Vice President Robert Kyr took the floor and said the list of twelve questions was just handed to him as he walked in the door. Who is asking these questions?

President Lariviere said he received them in an email from Senate President Tublitz yesterday afternoon at 4:00pm.

Senate Vice President Kyr asked if anyone on the floor knew who sent out the questions.

Senate President Tublitz explained that a graduate student, Paul Cziko, sent them to him on behalf of a number of people at the UO because they didn’t have an opportunity at the last Senate meeting to ask their questions.

Senate Vice President Kyr asked for refinement of how we handle these types of requests. When paperwork is handed out at a public meeting, the document owner should be identified in the document, and the recipient should be given adequate time to respond. He reiterated the President has previously made it clear we want open transparency at this university.

George Evans, Economics, told the Senate he had seen a draft of the questions recently and liked them. The land is clearly a significant public resource. This is the reason IGA set up procedures 20 years ago for public input before development. If the University intends to step away from Section 16, they should state so. Can the UO produce a signed document that the three parties agreed to absolve IGA? How can the UO justify short circuiting the plan to have public input?

President Lariviere responded that it is his understanding from others at the University and the City that the IGA has not been in effect for some time; it was abandoned under the terms of the agreement. You may disagree and are free to do so, but he is convinced that the IGA was terminated. There has been a process followed and agreed upon by the stakeholders. From a legal standpoint the IGA does not exist. Anytime you are convinced that you are absolutely right, there is some breakdown in communication. The hammering away that the IGA is still in effect is evidence of that. You may take objection to the process and the outcome but it doesn’t change the outcome at this point.

George Evans asked if the president didn’t believe there should be a public discussion.
President Lariviere responded that he didn’t know that there wasn’t one.

George Evans stated the spirit of the IGA should be implemented and is convinced it ended because nothing was going on.

President Lariviere let the Senate know he had a class to teach and needed to shortly leave the Senate floor.

Paul Cziko, Graduate Student, apologized that the questions arrived late and defended his action due to time he needed to spend in academics and research. He stated the Administration says the process has been followed. The IGA was set up between the City and University as a financial organization to foster development of the Research Park. The State Board of Higher Education set stipulations for periodic reviews. He can find only one review and the current development is at odds with the plan. Why isn’t the University following the State Board process?Mr. Cziko stated that he is not sure the State Board knows there is no longer an IGA.

President Lariviere said that was a question Mr. Cziko would have to take to the State Board as he didn’t know if Mr. Cziko’s assertion was the case or not. If the State Board has processes that we aren’t following, that is something Paul should take to the State Board. Asserting something didn’t happen doesn’t mean it should have happened or did not happen. A certain number of people don’t like the process the University has followed. The President said he understands that, but simply asserting something should have happened and saying it didn’t, isn’t adequate at this point. The President stated he has a fiduciary responsibility, bound by legal requirements, and nothing he’s heard has infringed on that responsibility. If something we should follow is discovered, we will follow it as our fiduciary responsibility. The President said he would like to see an investment of all this energy directed toward defining a process moving forward that is based on trust.

Paul Cziko suggested a process moving forward is compromised by not following the current processes put into place.

President Lariviere responded that the biggest challenge is getting people to recognize that we are where we are. The question is how are we going to go forward? Let’s invest our time and energy in moving forward.

Senate President Tublitz stated the University Constitution requires that, if the University President vetoes a motion, they must come to the Senate and explain why. He said the President has done that by letter and now by coming to the Senate. He believes the President told the Senate he would answer questions surrounding that decision and it was his hope the President will answer these questions at some point in time.

President Lariviere replied that he thought the questions had been answered. What we are doing here is engaging in an investment in everyone’s time that is not going to be productive.
Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for coming and the President left the Senate floor to teach his class.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-07: Motion to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy

Senate President Tublitz introduced the members of the Ad Hoc Committee who were asked to revise the facility use policy.

Kassia Dellabough took the floor and said she helped on the committee because she had concerns with the first version of the policy in terms of clarifying those who were actually able to schedule and what the process was to schedule space at the UO. She was afraid students would be left out. The purpose was to clarify the organization of the documentation with the intent to retain freedom of speech and separate the policy from the procedure. Another important aspect was to make certain the fees would be transparent & public.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, commended Kassia Dellabough, John Bonine, and Linda Ettinger for their detailed work and for allowing Russ to interact and work with them. He believes the document meets the needs everyone had with the prior document.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, moved to bring the motion to the floor for discussion and it was seconded.

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate that changes are not permitted to a Motion while it is on the floor. The Motion is to adopt the policy, not to change it. It must be voted down if the Senate does not like the Motion as it is written.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, said she had read the document and had some questions regarding the University entity mentioned at the end of the document. It doesn’t recognize faculty groups. Can any faculty group request use? Who recognizes the student and faculty groups?

Kassia Dellabough responded that there was a formal procedure to recognize student groups. It was the committee’s assumption that faculty groups would be working through their departmental support to schedule.

Linda Ettinger, Education, stated that the document spells this out; if you are part of a group, as a faculty member, you have a right to go to your department scheduler and schedule a meeting.
Marie Vitulli asked what the procedure is if a group is not a recognized departmental group? Where would legitimate faculty groups, such as AAUP, Concerned Faculty and Faculty Union groups, turn?

Kassia Dellabough said as a faculty member you would have a right to schedule as part of your professional development.

Marie Vitulli stated she would be more comfortable if they added “faculty groups” rather than just “departmental groups” to the document.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, took the floor and said he would be interested in knowing how Galileo would have been able to schedule the ballroom under this current policy. He urges the Senate to send this back to the committee to clarify.

Senate President Tublitz called for a vote on the policy as written.

Senate Vice President Kyr wanted to make sure everyone heard the various comments from the floor before voting.

Marie Vitulli was asked to restate her concerns so everyone could hear. She summarized her statements by saying she doesn’t think she should have to ask her department head for permission to schedule a facility. As it is currently written, student groups don’t have to ask so why should faculty?

Kassia Dellabough asked if the committee changed the wording to read “recognized faculty groups”, would that address the concerns from the floor.

Marie Vitulli thought that would work.

Chris Bocchicchio, Student Senate member, noted that the current draft of the policy does not allow student groups to be recognized other than those recognized by ASUO.

Frank Stahl believes the University policy should be set up to foster independent thinking. His main concern is that this policy squelches independent thinking and meeting.

Glen Waddell, Economics, asked if the intent of Professor Stahl’s statement was to allow that one person would constitute a “group”.

Frank Stahl said it should as far as he was concerned.

Senate President Tublitz asked for a vote on the motion.

Russ Tomlin made a technical observation that the committee made significant improvements. If the Senate turns this down, the previous policy would be in force. He urges the Senate to pass the Motion and then use the process to revise.

Marie Vitulli stated perhaps our hand shouldn’t have been forced to vote so there was time to make revisions from the floor.

Senate President Tublitz cautioned the Senate about amending from the floor and asked for a vote.

The Motion was defeated with a show of hands: 20 No, 8 Yes, and no abstentions.

Senate President Tublitz asked the committee to revise the document on the basis of comments heard here and bring it back to the Senate.

3.2 Motion US10/11-08: Motion to establish a Senate Leadership Award for UO Classified Staff.

Senate President Tublitz stated the Senate had informally agreed to create an award for classified staff that would be awarded by the Senate. He introduced the members of the classified staff committee that developed the criteria for the award.

Carla McNelly, Executive Support Specialist, thanked Senate President Tublitz and the Senate for including classified staff in their initiatives. The Committee worked on identifying what was important to recognize for such an award.

Theodora Ko Thompson, Admissions Evaluator, took the floor and mentioned two of the three main criteria the committee considered worthy of an award: Personal and professional development and a respectful work environment.

Jane Brubaker, Campus Operations, said she personally has served on the campus wide diversity committee and sees a need to include diversity as the third criteria. The award would recognize classified staff who demonstrate leadership that embraces and respects the differences in each of us.

Senate President Tublitz thanked the committee for putting this motion together and asked for a vote on the motion.

Marie Vitulli asked who actually chooses the recipient of the annual award.

Senate President Tublitz said it is detailed in UO Classified Staff Leadership Award Proposal under the Award Committee heading; all current Classified Staff senators along with all previous classified staff senators would be asked to participate in the selection process.

Senate President Tublitz asked for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz told the Senate that an Officers of Administration Award Motion will be presented at the next Senate meeting.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Proposal to upgrade Department of Public Safety to a police force.

Doug Tripp, Executive Director and Chief of Public Safety, and Carolyn McDermed, Assistant Chief, took the floor and thanked the Senate for the invitation to discuss the campus policing initiative. It is the appropriate time to talk. The current authority is Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 352.385 enacted in 1987 and allowing “probable cause arrest”. It was revised in 1995 to include an increase in the number of officers and a “stop and frisk” provision. Also Eugene City Ordinance (EOC) 4.035 enacted in 2005 allowing for the issuance of citations for certain violations occurring in the presence of officers; revised in 2009 to allow for the issuance of citations for certain misdemeanor crimes and violations occurring in the presence of officers; revised in 2010 allowing for the issuance of citations for certain misdemeanor crimes and violations based in probable cause.

In 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 658 was passed into law allowing OHSU to create a police department and hiring state certified police officers. It is the only police force on a campus in Oregon, but it created a unique classification -- it prohibits caring fire arms and the officers can’t participate in PERS.

Three primary bills have been introduced to the State Legislature this session:

SB116: OUS agency bill allowing firearms

SB406: Senate Judiciary bill

SB559: Part of University’s New Partnership bill

They are essentially the same legislation; all are considered enabling, with the primary difference relating to SB116. It includes participation in the State “police and fire” PERS program, allows an officer to strike, and enables the Board of Higher Education’s ability to determine use of firearms.
Chief Tripp said he is expecting wide spread dialogue with the UO and outside community. Since 1997 UO has worked to increase authority. The rationale for the transition is, as follows: the University is a city within a city, about the size of Grants Pass. 98% of similar sized public universities in the US, with student populations of 20,000 or greater, maintain their own campus police agencies. 32 of 33 AAU member public universities and 8 of 10 PAC12 members have their own police departments.

Over the past 3 years the UO Department of Public Safety (DPS) has professionalized dramatically on campus and in June 2010 we dropped the contract with the Eugene Police Department, adopting a new community oriented policing policy to build trust on campus. This provided great flexibility on campus by not having to bring in outside resources to help with issues.

The benefits of having a true police department are training, resources, community caretaking, efficiencies, enhanced response time, grants, information/intelligence, ownership of investigations, parity, recruit/retain qualified staff, and support the academic mission. The key issues for the community are accountability and oversight, community engagement, costs, and a proposed 5-7 year transition plan. The Statutes currently in front of the Legislature do not say we must have a police department, but rather it is advancing the ability to be able to have one if the University and the State Board decide to move in that direction.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Chief Tripp and opened the floor up for questions.

Nick Proudfoot, Mathematics, asked whether it would be good to have armed officers, is it appropriate and if so, can Chief Tripp provide an example of a recent incident that would have been different if they had been armed.

Chief Tripp said, yes, he believes arming officers is important to express authority and respond to life threatening acts. Several times the Eugene police have had to draw a weapon on campus. The first thing a person looks for on an officer is their weapons belt and they respond to authority based on what they see. The firearms issue is a big decision for the community. There was criminal mischief at Johnson Hall last year and two of those involved had weapons, with one of them positioned behind the officer. Less than 1 block from DPS someone was killed by a firearm. The risks are out there for current officers and without a firearm it is a greater risk. If we make the decision to have police we would like them to be armed.

Senate President Tublitz asked for clarification regarding the Bill presented to the Legislature. Is it asking for officers to be armed or would we have to go back and ask at a later date?

Chief Tripp said the current Bill empowers the State Board of Higher Ed to give UO approval to have our own police department if we want one. The Judiciary Bill is saying if we create police departments on universities, they will be the same as all other police departments.

Senate President Tublitz asked if we would be going to OUS immediately to ask for arms.

Chief Tripp said before they ask for arms, the UO community would need to agree to the proposed 5-7 year process toward having the police department armed.

Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, acknowledged positive reform in the last few years but students are concerned about the current movement. A 2007 estimate of the cost was $4 million a year. 4-year universities that do have police departments have 1 officer on duty for every 2,000 students. At that level we would end up with 46 officers and we currently have 18. She asked Chief Tripp to speak to the fiscal aspect of this bill. What would it do to the current DPS budget?

Chief Tripp said the $4 million was different legislation that was mandatory to have that many officers. Since 2007 and moving forward, the UO has restructured to minimize the cost by creating a scalable proposal and if it’s too expensive it won’t be approved. We aren’t creating new positions, we are enhancing current personnel. Staffing levels are regionally specific. Oregon is below the national standard and the City of Eugene is one of the lowest in the nation. Our target is 26 police officers and 9 security officers.

Amelie Rousseau mentioned other schools have other programs, such as laptop registration and after dark escorts. Aren’t there other options to promote safety so you have 25,000 watchful eyes, enhancing safety instead of relying on authority?

Chief Tripp said he brought his experience from Wisconsin with him to UO and has hired Captain Ed Rinne who has worked to develop prevention programs on campus. It is not exclusive, but an essential part of the entire policing approach. However, someone has to be able to respond to and resolve situations that will happen on campus. The critical risk management issue is to mitigate risks by having a normalized policing model in place.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, asked if our campus police authority would stop at the edge of campus.

Chief Tripp said currently it would. As a state sanctioned police department we would have statewide authority but our job would be to handle campus issues and let Eugene police handle the city. We are looking at protecting the campus community, not to police the city of Eugene.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Chief Tripp for having the conversation with the Senate as these were significant changes to carefully consider.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Frances Dyke, VP for Finance and Administration, postponed the update on the Purchasing and Contract Services until the next Senate meeting.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

There were no announcements or further communications from the floor.

7. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:59pm.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 01, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 1 December 2010

Present: A. Berenshtein, H. Lin, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, V. Vologodski, D. Kennett, L.Sugiyama, G. Waddell, D. Healey, H. Kaur Khalsa, M. Williams, P. Keyes, Y. Tan, R. Good, M. Nippold, C. Bybee, D. Walton, S. Midkiff, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Kyr, L. Van Dreel, T. Bars, T. Minner-Engle, S. Runberg, G. Hochstatter, B. Powell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, J. Brubaker, C. McNelly, T. Ko Thompson, N. Tublitz, I. McNeely

Excused: M. Vitulli, P. Lambert, L. Middlebrook, H. Gangadharbatla

Absent: R. Rejai, J. Piger, P. Southwell, P. Walker, A. Laskaya, P. Warnek, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, C. Ives, J. Bonine, M. Ann Hyatt, M. Henney, I. Fielding, L. Hinman

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President, Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for December 1, 2010 to order at 3:03pm. He welcomed all attendees and those joining the meeting
via the live streaming on the web.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes of the 10 November 2010 regular meeting of the senate were unanimously approved
with no comments, amendments, or changes to the minutes.

http://senate.uoregon.edu/sites/senate.uoregon.edu/files/Minutes20101110...

A new member of the Senate was introduced: Academic Council Chair, Ian McNeely, History.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean, including a response to Senate Motion US10/11-04, regarding the Riverfront Research Park resolution passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting.


Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate that the President is recovering from recent surgery
and could not make it today and the Provost was also unavailable. In their absence, Senate
President Tublitz announced that President Lariviere has followed the UO Constitutional
requirement to respond to a Senate Resolution when the President plans not to follow the advice
of the resolution. President Lariviere has submitted a written response plus several supporting
documents. These can be found on the Senate website on the Motion page under US10/11-04.
The President and his staff will respond to any comments submitted by members of the
University community.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, asked how to submit questions to the President’s response.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, replied that questions may be submitted to either the Senate
President or President Lariviere.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, suggested that the questions be submitted to Senate President
Tublitz and be posted for review.

Dave Hubin, Sr. Assistant to the President, approved of the suggestion from Robert Kyr
regarding the posting of responses.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, will accept all responses and will post them. This should not
be limited to the Senate and the Senate was asked to invite their constituents to send their
questions.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-02: Research Misconduct Policy – Lynette Schenkel.

Lynette Schenkel, AVP Response Conduct Research/Director of ORCR, introduced the motion
to adopt the Research of Misconduct Policy. She said that it had been worked on by a faculty
committee, with UO Senate representation. The issue that prevented its passage at the previous
Senate meeting on November 10th had to do with the absence of a signature line to reflect the
Senate adoption of this policy. That signature line has been included in the current version of the
policy which can be viewed at http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/motion-adopt-research-misconduct-policy

Motion US10/11-02 The University Senate adopts the updated Allegations of Research
Misconduct Policy and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on
behalf of the University.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reviewed the general process by which policies such as this
one will be developed. The initial draft of a policy will be written by an administrator or
committee and reviewed by a faculty review committee. It will then go out for comment to the
general University community, after which it will be revised and then sent to the Senate for
additional comments. The final version of the motion will come before the Senate for an up or
down vote without amendments.

A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.

3.2 Motion US10/11-03: Retired and Emeritus Faculty Policy, Frank Stahl

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology and Chair of the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Policy
Committee, took the floor to introduce Motion US10/11-03. He thanked the committee and Russ
Tomlin for their help. He said that the University had a long history of rights and privileges for
retired and emeriti faculty. The Committee he chaired recognized that the status of emeritus
faculty was significant. Rather than being given at the discretion of the Provost, it should be
given for scholarly intellectual accomplishments while the person was on the faculty. Emeritus
status would only be given to faculty who had been in rank at the highest level for at least 5
years. Professor Stahl went on to say that emeritus status was reasonable for senior faculty
considering that a person at the highest rank for at least 5 years would have already been
assessed several times, including when they joined the faculty, at promotion and tenure to
Associate Professor, and again when they were promoted to full professor. In each instance the
assessment included outside opinions. These considerations would also hold for the other
academic tracks. Anyone that has passed all of these reviews is presumably a person dedicated to
a life of scholarship, and therefore should be granted emeritus status with the hope that the
person would continue to participate in the intellectual, academic, and governance activities at
the University of Oregon.

Another issue raised by Professor Stahl was the perquisites that retired and emeritus faculty
would receive. In keeping with the idea of emeritus status, emeritus and retired faculty should be
encouraged to participate in campus scholarly and governance activities of the campus so far as
they are allowed to do so by their departments/units. Considering the infirmity of some of these
elderly people, the right to a free parking pass should be continued. Furthermore, following the
philosophy that a healthy mind requires a healthy body, emeriti and retired faculty will continue
to receive free use of the student health faculty. Professor Stahl emphasized the word
“continued” because the policy established in 1991 by the faculty assembly gave these rights to
the faculty. They have been somewhat eroded in the recent past. This revised policy reestablishes
those rights.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, said that the motion was now open for conversation. The
policy has 3 pages and was presented to the board for review.

Motion US10/11-03: The University Senate adopts the revised Retired and Emeritus Faculty
Policy 02.10.10 and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on
behalf of the University. The policy has been posted at http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/motion-adopt-revised-retired-and-emeri...

Motion is presented by the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Committee Jim Mooney, George Rowe,
Louis Osternig, Frank Stahl, (Chair) Ernie Pressman, and Russ Tomlin.

Peter Keyes, Architecture, asked for clarification of the statement in the Voting Rights section,
Part 2 of the policy. He proposed to change the wording to “A department may choose to extend
voting rights to emeriti during those terms when emeriti are not on the University payroll”. This
proposed amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment by Frank Stahl, the sponsor of the
motion.

Melanie Williams, Romance Language, raised the question about whether this policy included
retired persons in other, non-tenure-related academic tracks.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, said that academic tracks that qualify for Emeritus
status are: regular tenure related faculty, tenured senior instructors, and all career non-tenuretrack
faculty (NTTF) with at least 5 yrs of service at the highest rank.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice Provost Academic Affairs, spoke in support of the motion. He said
that practice has been ad hoc and not congruent with NTTF policy. Vice Provost Tomlin had
asked for a principled basis on which to make these decisions and this was the reason for
establishing the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Committee. The committee’s work addresses
unanswered questions from the NTTF policy; it allows for emeriti status for NTTF. Everyone
who has advanced to the highest rank available to them and who has served at the rank for five
years will automatically qualify for emeritus status.

Ali Emami, Finance, questioned whether Emeriti would be able to vote at the department level.
Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, stated it is clear that they will have the right to vote
during those periods when they are on the University payroll. It will be left to the discretion of
the department to decide whether these individuals have the right to vote when they are not on
the University payroll.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, said that at present most tenure related
faculty enter the retirement system, which is called the tenure reduction program. When they do
so, they have a contract that allows them to offer services for a maximum period of five years for
a reduced teaching load. In any quarter in which the faculty member holds an instructional
appointment of 0.50 FTE or greater, they retain the same standing they had as a tenured faculty
member. In the same manner, when NTTF choose to retire, they may be re-employed. Engaging
emeriti in departmental votes is up to the departments.

Peter Keyes, Architecture, raised the concern that extending voting rights to emeriti could bring
with it a large voting bloc which might influence departmental decisions.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied that departments could put in place any policy
regarding the emeritus faculty voting rights they choose as long as it concurred with the
stipulations in the proposed policy, if the policy is ultimately adopted.

Russ Tomlin, Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, clarified the question raised by Professor
Keyes and said that the proposed policy permits departments to make the decision whether or not
to give voting rights to emeriti faculty .

Ali Emami, Finance, asked why emeriti faculty should continue to have influence on
departmental issues.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, responded that the policy only speaks to when emeriti
are “on the payroll” which allows only limited departmental input unless the department has
granted it to them.

Ali Emami, Finance, stated that being on the payroll does not necessarily mean emeriti are
sufficiently engaged.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied that in his experience most faculty disappear
after they retire, however some do not and this policy officially encourages them to have their
voices heard. He said that emeriti have institutional memory and sufficient freedom from the
administration to allow for positions of chutzpah. Some will enjoy keeping the University of
Oregon on track. He stated the University Constitution does not allow emeriti the right to vote,
only to voice an opinion on the floor.

Ali Emami, Finance, called for “consultation” rather than voting.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reminded the Senate that the wording of the resolution cannot
be changed so that it must be voted up or down as written. He asked Professor Stahl if he would
be acceptable to a friendly amendment from Professor Emami.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied in the negative, saying he was unwilling to
accept the friendly amendment at this time.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed with
4 abstentions.

3.3 Motion US10/11-05 Ensuring Accuracy of the UO Policy Library, Frank Stahl

Motion US10/11-05 was brought to the floor by Professor Frank Stahl, Emeritus Biology,
and seconded by Senator Carla McNelly.

Professor Stahl began his remarks with some background. He said the statutory faculty has been
charged by the University Charter and UO Constitution with the responsibility of governing the
University. The University of Oregon Senate was established by the statutory faculty to exercise
the governance responsibilities of the faculty. The effective execution of University policies is
dependent on their accessibility, accuracy, and integrity. The on-line Policy Library, which was
established through the Provost office, is a very useful instrument. This Policy Library is only
useful if its pages accurately reflect Senate legislation that established each policy, including all
changes and updates. Each version of the policy page is a new public document making it
important that it be accessible to the public. This request was put in by the University Archivist,
who is responsible for archiving all university documents. The proposed legislation protects the
integrity of faculty governance, and the quality and usefulness of university records.

Motion US10/11-05: In the UO Policy Library, pages that relate to the academic mission of the
University shall reproduce verbatim the policies as passed by the UO Senate and shall provide
links to the Motions that established the policies. Relevant Administrative Rules should appear
on the page with the policy and be clearly distinguished from the policy itself. When any change
is made on a policy page, the change shall be dated and the old copy shall be retained and linked
from that page. This motion is posted on the Senate website at:
http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/ensuring-usefulness-uo-policy-library

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote and Motion US10/11-05 passed
unanimously.

3.4 Fall Curriculum report, Paul Engelking, chair of Committee on Courses

Paul Engelking, Chemistry and Chair of Committee on Courses,
came to the podium and announced a few minor corrections to the preliminary Fall Curriculum
report issued previously. All changes, except those noted, will be effective at the beginning of
Fall Term 2011. Changes in Chinese 440, 441, 442 Advanced Language Strategies will be
effective spring 2011. CAS 101 entitled “Reacting to the Past” will be effective Fall Term 2010
and was an emergency approval as of summer 2010. SPAN 308 will be effective Spring Term
2011.

Other changes included in the Fall Curriculum report: Women and Gender Studies, with
endorsement from the CAS curriculum committee and the CAS Dean, has proposed revised
requirements for both Women and Gender Studies and Queer Studies minors. The following
restrictions for the WGS minor “Courses applied to any major may not count for the WGS
minor” are to be removed. The following has been proposed to be added for both the WGS and
QS minors effective Winter Term 2011: “No more than 8 credits may count for both the minor
and the subject’s major”.

Latin American Studies, with endorsement from the CAS Deans, have proposed slight revisions
to the LAS minor. The changes include increasing upper division course requirement from 16 to
20 credits and decreasing comparative, global, and ethnic courses from 8 to 4 credits.

The University of Oregon has been authorized by the State Board of Higher Education’s
Academic Strategies Committee to establish an instructional program leading to a B.A./B.S.
degree in General Social Science, effective Winter Term 2011.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, asked if it is appropriate for the Academic Council to
weigh in on this.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, replied that the Chair of the Committee on Courses is a
member of the Academic Council and any potentially contentious issue can easily be brought to
the Academic Council via this route.

The motion to accept the Fall Curriculum report with the above changes was brought to the floor
for a voice vote and it passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz expressed his gratitude to Professor Engelking for his 15 years of
excellent service on this committee.

3.5 Motion US10/11-06: Letter to elected US officials about the pending closure of the UO Post Office

Motion US10/11-06 is regarding the letter to elected US officials about the pending closure
of the UO Post Office. Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, came to the podium to discuss the
possibility of the Senate sending a letter to various public officials decrying the recently
announced position of the US Postal Service to close the University Post Office. She raised the
concern that the decision, which was made in the summer of 2010, was not publicized and there
was no apparent effort made by the US Postal Service to determine the usage of the campus post
office. She said that any letter sent by the Senate should also be sent to the Federal Postal
Regulatory Commission. She further stated that the mission of the USPS as a public service is in
line with our mission of a public university and if the University’s post office branch closes on
December 31st we will end up with a private mail carrier which will be more expensive for
students. She closed by stating that with 22,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff the
University is effectively a small city and deserves its own post office.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked the Senate to allow non-senators to speak on this issue
and the Senate approved.

Kaitlyn Lange, student and EMU Board Chair, said that this is a significant issue to her and to
the EMU. She stated that the Post Office did not give the EMU notice until two weeks ago and
that the EMU found out about this decision only indirectly through students who have
mailboxes. She also reported that there has been sexual harassment and racial discrimination
problems at the Post Office. She further stated that the Post Office space is apparently being
taken over by a private company who will provide postal services. She said that the EMU,
working with Student Affairs Vice Provost Robin Holmes, has contracted with an individual in
the community for $2,000 to handle this area and a report will be out at the end of this week to
get these services up and running in January 2011. She ended by saying if the post office leaves
it will not be coming back and to please consider these issues before voting.

Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, said that the ASUO had talked with the local postal service
about retaining the local branch. She also said that both the local postal union and local SEIU
officials felt that the campus post office could be retained.

Motion: The Senate requests the Senate President to send a letter to our two US Senators (Jeff
Merkley and Ron Wyden) and to our US Congressman (Peter DeFazio) asking their assistance in
preventing the closure of our local University Post Office.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote on Motion US10/11-06 and it carried
with 1 vote opposed and 1 abstained.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION: Conversation about the UO foundation with Paul Weinhold, UO
Foundation President/CEO, and Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, began this section of the Senate meeting by stating that the
New Partnership proposal is being discussed widely, and now is the time to have a conversation
about the role of the UO Foundation in the New Partnership proposal. This is also a good
opportunity to learn more about the UO Foundation in general. He introduced UO Foundation
President/CEO Paul Weinhold and Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer for the Foundation.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, reported that the Foundation is by IRS Statute a
separate 501(c)(3) corporation. The Foundation dates back to a 1994 opinion from then Attorney
General Dave Frohnmayer. The Foundation does not raise money; it only receives money raised
by the University and distributes the proceeds back to the University.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, pointed out that managing an endowment
involves managing 2,000-3,000 separate equity accounts set up by donors. Each donor gives a
gift for a specific cause. The Foundation has a legal obligation to see that those dollars go
directly to that cause, so looking at the endowment as a whole, it is approximately 98-99% donor
restricted. He went on to say that the foundation has no input on where the university will spend
those funds. He said that historically at public institutions the state provides the financing for the
university’s operations budget and that is augmented by private contributions that target special
activities. The reverse is usually the case for private institutions because a private institution does
not receive state support.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked for an explanation of the role of the Foundation in the
New Partnership, if it is approved.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, noted that implementation of the New
Partnership would mean that the Foundation would have more money to manage. The
relationship between the Foundation and the University would not change. The Foundation
would only receive and invest the funds without any input into the expenditure of the funds
disbursed to the University.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, said the Foundation’s role is only to
manage the money raised by the University. He reiterated that the primary mission of the
Foundation is to serve the University of Oregon.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, said if the New Partnership was implemented,
the Foundation will remain the same and the trustees will not change. He noted that the New
Partnership would have a new governing board separate from the UO Foundation Board.

Harinder Khalsa, Romance Languages, asked about the criteria for accepting and distributing
money.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, replied by stating that the Foundation
accepts a broad array of assets including cash, cash appreciated securities, stocks, bonds, and real
estate.

Senate President Tublitz asked, on behalf of other Community members, about the issue of how
the Foundation would deal with a down market year.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, reminded the Senate that the Foundation
is a pool of thousands of separate gifts that fund a diverse range of University activities. There
are some activities which are 100% dependant on the distributions of the Foundation. He noted
the relationship the Foundation has with the University is becoming increasingly more important
because more dollars are involved. The Foundation currently distributes 4% each year to the
University, based on a formula that reduces market volatility. The Foundation currently receives
a 1% management fee to fund its operating costs. He said that the 4% distribution figure is based
on studies showing that Foundations that pay out more than 5% per year run the risk of ruin in
the long term. The Foundation uses a higher education price index which is normally 1.5%
higher than the Consumer Price Index, thus the Foundation must earn 9% to cover the 4% payout
to the University, the 1% management fee, and 4% for inflation. He said that to earn that amount
there must be some risk exposure and therefore there is some volatility in annual returns.
However, the Foundation’s investment formula buffers against much of the risk. This strategy
will not change if the New Partnership Model is implemented, even if the amount paid to the
University rises to 10% of the general University budget.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked if the bottom line was that the investment strategy will
not change if the New Partnership is implemented.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, replied that that is correct and that the
Foundation will have to take less risk to provide the positive returns.

Dean Walton, Librarian, asked about the 1% management fee.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that the details of the Foundation’s
operating budget, including the 1% fee, were part of the Foundation’s annual report. The 1% fee
would almost certainly be reduced if the New Partnership was implemented.

Zachary Stark-Macmillan, Senate Student, raised the question of the choice of environmental and
social investing by the Foundation.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that this requires a delicate balancing act and
often leads to disagreements so the Foundation has chosen not to get involved in social or
environmental investing.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, asked for a clarification of the percentage of Foundation
holdings that go to agencies and organizations other than the UO.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that by law less than half of disbursements can go
to non-UO organizations.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, added that a very small amount, less than 1% goes elsewhere.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked if the “University Endowment” refers only to the
amount managed by the Foundation for the University.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that the current endowment is $435 million in the
Foundation and $25 million managed independently by the State.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, said that the Foundation had great success in 2008 and asked
to what are those successes attributed.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that it was due to the UO Foundation
Chief Investment Officer Jay Namyet.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, reported that the Foundation has very
informed trustees who make it easy for the Foundation’s investment managers to view
themselves as risk managers. The goal of the Foundation is to avoid big losses and to let the
good decisions take care of themselves through diversified portfolios. He said that the
Foundation is always trying to buy undervalued assets as opposed to chasing the latest hot idea.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, congratulated the Foundation on a job well done.

Harinder Khalsa, Romance Languages, asked what the Foundation does if the incentive of the
gift is something other than supporting the University.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that these issues are decided by the
University Administration, not the Foundation.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, closed the open discussion period by stating that this was the
first time the Senate and indeed the University has had such an open discussion with Foundation
representatives. He thanked both guests for their time and for the excellent discussion and
invited both to the New Partnership Open House on Jan 26th.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Update on Smoke Free Campus resolution US08/09-06, Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, came to the podium to present a brief update on the
status of the Smoke Free Campus initiative US08/09-06 passed by the Senate at the 08 April
2009 meeting. She started her remarks by stating that on November 17th the University of
Oregon announced the decision for the campus to go tobacco and smoke-free starting in the fall
of 2012. She said that UO is the first school in the PAC-10 to do so and the Health Center will be
putting together an implementation committee.

Stephanie Midkiff, Law Reference Librarian, asked if this meant that the campus would truly be
“tobacco free”.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that the campus would be both smoke and tobacco
free.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, asked if future faculty recruits will be advised that they
will not be allowed to smoke on campus.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied in the affirmative and that the implementation
committee will be in charge of communicating this point to faculty.

Carla McNelly, Executive Support Specialist, asked if traditional and ceremonial uses for
tobacco by Native Americans and other groups will be exempted from these regulations and
ASUO President Rousseau answered in the affirmative.

Ali Emami, Finance, asked if this regulation was restricted to campus or did it include tailgating
at Autzen Stadium.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that there have been discussions about extending this
policy to Autzen Stadium and other areas, but no firm decisions have been made.

Grace Hochstatter, Journalism, asked if the student committee responded to the smoke-free
campus initiative regarding safety.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, responded that the student committee has talked about this
issue and will be communicating this to all new students and faculty.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, asked about the potential impact of a smoke-free campus on student
enrollment.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that the data from other smoke-free institutions show
that enrollment has not been negatively affected.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, closed the discussion on this topic by thanking the Senate for
their excellent questions and reminding the Senate that these issues will be addressed by the
soon-to-be established committee on this topic.

5.2 Update on Parking, Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration 

Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration, provided
a parking update from the beginning of this academic year:

1. The Office of Parking and Transportation, which reports to Department of Public Safety
(DPS) Chief Doug Tripp, has launched a blog on the DPS website to provide timely
information to the campus community.
http://uoparking.blogspot.com/

2. Doug Tripp has convened a group to review the existing parking fee structure and
recommend changes for FY 2012. Full membership includes Lisa Wimberly
(Unclassified Personnel Services), Kathie Stanley (Student Affairs), Alex McCafferty
(ASUO), Stephanie Bosnyk (LCB), David McCandless (Housing), Glen Waddell
(Economics), and Tracy Bars (Architecture and Allied Arts). Assigned staff is Stuart
Laing (Budget and Resource Planning), Herb Horner (Public Safety), and Teresa
Crawford (Public Safety). Recommendations for all fees, fines and penalties are due by
December 31, 2010 and are taken from the public comment and hearing process during
winter term.

3. The Department of Public Safety launched a search for a Director of Parking and
Transportation Services. It is anticipated this search will conclude during Winter Term.

4. Both temporary and permanent parking spaces were opened during Fall Term. These
include 150 temporary spaces in the Peace Health garage with 50 set aside for overnight
parking for students, 196 spaces at the ODOT/Walnut Station lot, and 54 spaces in
Villard Alley. At the same time 320 spaces came off line with the construction of the
East Campus Residence Hall.

5. During January, 150 spaces will come on line at the North site across Franklin Blvd and
375 spaces in the underground parking structure at the new arena. Overall the parking
inventory will have increased 383 spaces since 2007. These additional spaces will serve
faculty, staff, students, and visitors.

Paul Simons, Parliamentarian, reminded the Senate about the history of this issue. In 1962, the
faculty, staff, and students had free parking. Later the University of Oregon faculty allowed the
University of Oregon to charge $35.00 per year to park for the expressed purpose of purchasing
the land by the river, now known as the Riverfront Research Park. The parking permit was not
meant for any other purpose except for the purchase of that property. He also stated that when he
was Senate President in 1994, Senator Wayne Westling (Law) had stated to the Senate that the
staff was really being hit hard by parking fee increases. Senator Westling went on to say that any
fee increase must be looked upon as a pay-cut, the staffs have not had any pay increases recently
as they have been hit by Measure 8, and this increase will be another hit. Senator Westling also
said that some of the Law School people have said the failure to build the parking structure
following the last increase in the parking fee amounted to fraud; taking money with no return on
what was promised. He said that OPEU signed-off on the increase with the understanding that a
parking structure would be built and did not get what was promised.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, said the University was collecting money for parking and he
asked Frances Dyke where it goes and if this information is posted anywhere.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the money goes primarily
to staff and to bonded indebtedness for University Parking structures. She said that the reports
asked for by Senate Vice President Kyr are on the Office of Resource Management website.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, followed up by asking VP Dyke how the University
community can respond to the incredible increases in parking fees.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the Senate is a good
vehicle to bring questions to. She volunteered that the next rulemaking proposed fees are due
December 31st.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reminded the Senate that University regulations state that
parking has to pay for itself. However, there has been an increasing backlash about the
underground parking structure under the arena because its original purpose was for the arena and
there is little to no access to it for the general University community.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the garage will be selfsustaining and not supported by other parking fees.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, then asked if the parking garage is paying for itself, what the
justification for the dramatic increase is.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, responded that the University has
constructed a lot of parking recently. There is parking under the new Hedco (Education) building
and other new parking lots.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, stated that there is a committee established by VP Dyke to
review current parking fees and establish parking fees for next year. This committee has several
faculty members. However, the work of this committee will not review the recent increases
which have been over 150% in the past 3 years.

Huaxin Lin, Math, inquired about the cost of one day permits. He said they used to be $2.00 and
now they cost $10.00.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that most of parking costs
relate to infrastructure and related expenses. The other areas of cost are salaries and benefits for
employees; all part of the cost.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, said that she understood the concept that parking fees are increased when
new spaces are generated. She asked if parking fees would be reduced if spaces are reduced as
was the case this past year.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that when a space goes away
they are required to replace the space.

Brian Powell, Student Senate, asked if any money from state funds go to parking for athletes.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, stated there are NCAA rules that
govern when athletes can use parking spaces.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE FLOOR

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, thanked the Law School and its Dean, Margie Paris, for
allowing the Senate to use their facilities this term. He also thanked the video crew for doing
such an excellent job. He announced that Doug Tripp, Public Safety Executive Director and
Chief, will be coming to the January 12, 2011 Senate meeting to talk about the proposal to
change the level of policing at the University of Oregon and the implications of that proposal.
He wished the Senate members a very happy holiday season.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 pm.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 10, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 10 November 2010

Present: , J Bonine, A Berenshtein, J Brubaker, C Bybee, , J Ellis, A Emami, H Gangadharbatla, R Good, M Henney, L Hinman, G Hochstatter, P Keyes, H Kaur Khalsa, D Kennett, P Lambert, A Laskaya, H Lin, L Middlebrook, S Midkiff, C McNelly, T Minner-Engle, M Nippold, B Powell, S Runberg, Z Stark-Macmillan, T Ko Thompson, N Tublitz, M Vitulli, V Vologodski, P Walker, D Walton, M Williams

Excused: K Dellabough, D Healey, R Kyr, M Price, N Proudfoot, L Sugiyama, Y Tan, L Van Dreel, G Waddell

Absent: T Bars, E Chan, I Fielding, M Hyatt, C Ives, J. Piger, R Rejai, P Southwell, P Warnek

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for November 10, 2010 to order at 3:00 pm.

1.1 Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the 13 October 2010 Meeting of the Senate were approved with the request to add the following names to the list of those present: P Lambert, N Proudfoot, and J Ellis. Senate President Nathan Tublitz reminded those in attendance to sign in for an accurate record of attendance.

Senate President Tublitz introduced a Motion to change the order of the meeting agenda in order to accommodate President Lariviere’s schedule. Nick Proudfoot, Math, moved for approval and the motion was unanimously approved by the Senate.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

President Lariviere took the floor and gave a brief update on the state of the University. He stated that the University enrollment is the largest in history. Enrollment data released by OUS shows a total enrollment of 23,389 students; up by almost 1,000 from last year. The freshman class is exactly the size targeted, the second largest freshman class ever, and the most diverse. There is a surprising increase in transfer students with a significant number coming from California schools.

The University had a record year in research dollars at nearly $135M, up from just over $100M last year. Some stimulus money was included in that figure, so it may go down a bit in the upcoming years. The impact of the State elections on the University remains unclear, however the Governor, during and after his campaign, continues to be focused on education. As we are meeting, the Governor is announcing his transition plan. We are in uncharted territory with Oregon’s nearly 50/50 split between parties in the Senate. We have worked hard to educate all candidates on the new partnership but the hard work begins with the legislative session. The long and short of it is we are in a very good position as an institution. We are a great University; a spectacular University and it is our job to get that news out to the rest of the world. Newsweek had an article on the partnership this week.

http://education.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/oregon-tries-to-keep-down-colle...

The Wall Street Journal invited the President to meet with their editorial board on October 28 and they asked the President to write an Op-Ed. There are no guarantees they will print it but it is extraordinary they asked.

John Bonine, Law, asked about the possibility of substantial compensation cuts. Is the University in such a good position that we will be insulated from the cuts?

President Lariviere said he knows of no proposal to make any compensation cuts. No one has communicated that we should ‘get ready’. One dubious advantage of having 7% of the budget supported by the state is that even a substantial cut will still only be a small portion. We have to do everything we can to prevent a drop in compensation so we can keep the quality of the people who work here. The President said he is committed to that and that commitment will not change. Nothing has changed in the last year. The President turned the floor back over to Senate President Tublitz.

Senate President Tublitz acknowledged two new senators, Marilyn Nippold from the College of Education and Jane Brubaker, Classified Staff and they were welcomed by the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz introduced the first item moved up on the agenda from New Business – 3.5 Senate Budget Committee Report analysis on the New Partnership Proposal

Senator Peter Keyes, Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, informed the Senate that the committee’s full preliminary report is on the Senate website and he will present merely a summary to allow for discussion. He stated there are five parts to the committee report: Summary, Financial Analysis, Governance Analysis, Accountability Analysis, and Conclusions.

There are three major points to the New Partnership proposal: 1) The financial strategy to capitalize the cash flow with a 30 year bond and matching private contributions; 2) Increased freedom of operation due to a University Board of Directors overseeing our University; and, 3) New accountability measures to ensure meeting state goals.

Figure 13 from the New Partnership Proposal was put on the screen in order to illustrate the riskiness of the new endowment model relative to fixed (or declining) State support. Senator Keyes also presented a 10-year endowment distribution simulation which provides some understanding of the potential downside risk of the new endowment model.

The Senate Budget Committee identified the following financial benefits and concerns to the New Partnership proposal:

Benefits (no one expects increased support from the State going forward):

More effective planning
More effective tuition management
Small downside risk relative to potential upside gains
Coordination of public and private sector support
Concerns:
Extended periods of weak market performance
Displaced private contributions

The committee’s governance analysis produced the following discussions and thoughts:

1) The primary change in governance is that the University would overseen
by a new University of Oregon Board, rather than the current State Board of Higher Education.
2) Academic freedom concerns were raised regarding the potential influence of important
donors on the Board and through the Foundation.
3) An important result of this proposal for university governance would be the freeing of many University operations from State administrative rules and regulations.
4) There would be operational autonomy; greater control over our own activities that will have other benefits. The University would no longer be an agency of State government.
5) The legislative intent of the proposal is for University personnel policies to remain the same.

The Senate Budget Committee identified several issues which ought to be addressed in the accountability standards:

1) Growth vs. selectivity
2) Accessibility and affordability for Oregon students
3) Transparency and accountability
4) Instructional expenditures and educational quality
5) Accountability and faculty governance

The Senate Budget Committee strongly endorses the New Partnership proposal. They believe business as usual is no longer a viable option. There are risks but certainly there are very large risks with continuing to do business as usual. Trust is going to be required in that everyone will need to have the best interest of students and the University. Their recommendation is for the Senate and faculty as a whole to stay involved and closely watch the details. If this is the case, the Committee believes the initiative will place the University on firm ground necessary for its future advancement.
Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator Keyes for his presentation and said the report is well written so the Senate members should take time to read it. He also reminded Senators that the partnership is not written in stone so all comments and proposed changes will be taken into consideration by the administration.

Professor John Chalmers, Business, and a member of the Senate Budget Committee, stepped forward to assist Senator Keyes in answering questions from the floor.

Senator Ali Emami, Business, thanked the Committee for the excellent work on the budget report. He asked if, in a market downturn, the Partnership includes any policies to keep us floating. Also, do University employees remain as State employees?

Professor Chalmers responded that the 10 year simulation chart in the report characterizes what we might expect with fluctuations and if things don’t go well. There is no guarantee that the past will be repeated but with the endowment model the risk does remain fairly consistent. The
endowment will work in any given circumstance and the Senate Budget Committee is much more comfortable with the endowment model where the University has some control over the risk factors and doesn’t have to wait for State funding decisions.

Senator Keyes said technically we would still be state employees working for a public University but with freedom of operations, e.g. furlough days currently demanded by the governor. It is his expectation the proposal will spell out the degree of our freedom and autonomy.

Senator Bonine, Law, said in his review of the new Partnership Proposal in August 2010 there is a section about exemptions from State rules and regulations and he is bothered by some of the wording. It states the UO would be exempt from business regulations applicable to State agencies … “such as the administrative procedures act”. He is surprised the public governance stature is referred to as “business” and suggested this section of the Proposal needs to be looked at carefully.

Senator Bonine pointed out that “administrative procedures” should not be subsumed under business. The core of the Oregon Administration Act is public governance. We need to pay attention to that. The last sentence of that section states “similar to OHSU statutes” and Senator Bonine requests either clarification or engagement with the law firm, suggesting that the Senate should be tracking the legislation carefully and request change, if necessary.

Senator Keyes said they were the Senate Budget Committee not the Senate Legal Committee and thinks the appropriate body to address Senator Bonine’s concerns is the Senate, working with a consulting legal firm to track the legislation.

Senate President Tublitz explained that Senate rules require Senate approval for University community members (employees and students) to take the floor. Senate President Tublitz put forth such a Motion and it passed by a 2/3 majority vote.

Amy Kohl, a UO transfer student and an Oregonian, said she came to the University from a private school, where she lost her scholarship, so transferred here because it is affordable. She is now concerned that we are moving toward privatizing. She asked how can we trust you with our money that goes toward tuition and retain the values of a state school.

Senator Keyes said there is no privatizing going on here at all. There has been a lot of discussion in the past years about privatizing the University but that’s not this proposal. We would still be a State University and the majority of the UO Board would be appointed by the governor. Some endowment money would be private but with conditions that they not have constraints on the university. There are risks with this plan but we are trying to stabilize tuition increases. Senator Keyes felt the University will be more accountable with a Board directly responsible for the University of Oregon. He was more nervous that we currently live under deal cutting in Salem every two years. He envisioned more accountability and it will be clear where we are getting funding. It will be us controlling our own tuition dollars; the State can’t take tuition interest money to build more prisons, for example. We would have local control vs. State control.

Professor Chalmers added that the current picture is very stark and if we look at the picture 20 years ago, the state gave $63M to the University of Oregon. Today, it is far less than that. The support from the State is nominal in real dollars. We serve a great set of students and the
President is passionate that this is a public university. This is an attempt to save a public University – not privatize.

Senate President Tublitz mentioned again that this proposal is in draft form which is continuously being revised. The original plan had a Board that did not include voting students or faculty. After discussions such as this, the administration agreed to have 1 voting student and 1 voting faculty member on the Board. This change indicates this is a collaborative effort that is continually in flux. It is not just in flux internally but also externally. Once the final draft comes out there is going to be discussion in the legislature.

Senator Marie Vitulli, Math, stated she had way too many concerns to list during this meeting, but does have one financial question. As written, she does not find many checks and balances to hold down tuition. It appears the Board would have free reign. We might say we want to keep the number of out-of-state students down, but there is no guarantee that we would keep the in-state student numbers up. It pretty much gives free reign to the University of Oregon to do as they wish. She said she was worried about the financial risk of asking the state to pay interest on the bond for 30 years.

Professor Chalmers responded by stating that the bond payment structure includes interest and principle and would be paid at the end of those 30 years. The fundamental trust would have to be placed on the Board and the structuring of the Board for the checks and balances.

Senator Vitulli, Math, said she was not satisfied with that and would like to see checks and balances added to the document.

Professor Chalmers said this issue can be discussed but right now the Board would serve in that oversight role.

Luke Gregg, student, asked about the voting on the Board of Directors. Are the 1 student and 1 faculty vote going to be a weighted based on opposition; a singular vote amongst a sea of votes?

Senator Keyes responded that their vote would not be weighted but would be 1 out of 15 votes of members of the Board. It’s not proportional but right now the State Board of Directors is made up of people appointed exclusively by the Governor with only 1 faculty member from one OUS University. The State Board and President can veto in the current structure. We are not really a democracy running this institution but a wholly owned subsidiary of the state of Oregon so with this change we would have more control.

Senate President Tublitz instructed that there was only time for one more question.

Senator Dean Walton, Libraries, asked if this policy puts us into a more precarious position if all money disappears from a fraud situation.

Professor Chalmers said the funds would be put in a safe place with clear fiduciary responsibilities; no one person would have access. He could not imagine anything would happen unless, of course, a Bernie Madoff type financial manager was hired by the Foundation.

Senator Walton, Libraries, asked if our position was more precarious under the new partnership than under the current structure.

Professor Chalmers replied that the probably of something like that happening is vanishingly small.

Senate President Tublitz added the concerns would be well founded if we were going to start with a whole new investment agency but this money is going to the University Foundation which has been in operation for many years. So the same people will be managing the money we put in there and the Foundation has done very well historically.

President Lariviere asked if he could make one last clarification saying that what Senate President Tublitz said is what we hope and what is likely. The University has had very preliminary discussions with the State Treasurer about how it would work if we did this and the scenario that Senate President Tublitz described is likely. If the Foundation managed this, they would do so for this portion of the endowment under the management of the State Treasurer. With that management reporting to the State Treasurer, there would be two levels of scrutiny; of assurance. We’d have our own level of scrutiny at the Foundation and scrutiny at the State Treasurer level.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator Keyes and Professor Chalmers for their presentation, for the discussion, and recommended everyone read the budget report posted on the web. analysis

3.2 Resolution requesting the University to comply with the existing Intergovernmental Agreement on the Riverfront Research Park, Resolution US10/11-04

Senate President Tublitz read the Motion and introduced Paul Cziko, Graduate Student, Connecting Eugene member, and a co-sponsor of the Resolution.

Mr. Cziko provided a PowerPoint presentation and is before the Senate to discuss UO practices with regard to the Riverfront Research Park. Students and faculty have had concerns for a long time. Mr. Cziko thanked those in attendance wearing blue in support. A student senate resolution passed last month concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement from 1986, created to assure success of Riverfront Research Park, establish a city ordinance to create Riverfront Research Park Commission to provide oversight, but several conditions are unfulfilled.

1) Riverfront Research Park Commission was established to serve as an independent advisory to the City and the University of Oregon who maintain policy control.
2) City code ordinance 2.222 charges Riverfront Research Park Commission to provide a forum for public discussion, hold hearings, study, and serve as the investigative body. The Commission met for the first 10 years, but has not met for the last 10 years. The University President was to select 4 members to serve on the Commission.
3) The Intergovernmental Agreement Exhibit C stated there was to be a review of progress near the completion of each increment of the project. This review shall be held at the request of the developer(s), the City, or the University.
4) The Intergovernmental Agreement requires the City and University to work together and jointly select the developer(s). This is a binding agreement but the University isn’t fulfilling its obligation and has unilaterally selected the developer.

Mr. Cziko said this Resolution is asking the University to follow law and abide by its binding contracts, asking “Do we hold our public institutions to the highest standards; follow the law and abide by its contracts all the time or only when it is convenient to do so?”

The Senate floor was opened for discussion.

Senator Zachary Stark-Macmillan, representative from the Student Senate, noted that the student resolution asks for student and faculty involvement before proceeding with development. For the record, students are in favor of this resolution.

Esteban Vollenweider, transfer student, thanked the Senate for their time and asked Mr. Cziko if any additional members of the University community have given their support of the motion.

Mr. Cziko indicated there is no formal support by other bodies of the University for this Motion but for other resolutions leading up to this, there was support by the entire AAA faculty, many faculty within the Biology department, and the entire GTFF.

Professor George Evans, Economics, stated his support of the resolution saying it is a bad idea to proceed with the development. He regularly walks that area and is struck by how wonderful the tract along the river is and believes it will be degraded by the proposed development. He understands that it looks attractive to develop office buildings for the research park; it is spacious and relatively inexpensive land but we shouldn’t view it that way. It is special, valuable, and irreplaceable. A great university would not proceed in this way without a vision for existing land.

Professor Evans provided examples of how Berkeley set aside Strawberry Canyon for hiking trails, botanical gardens, and Lawrence Hall of Science open to the public. Stanford saved Dish Hill; after contention and discussion they set it aside for public hiking trails, and the University of Cambridge set aside land along the Thames River for their now famous public use trails and meadows that are considered a sensible use of their land. He ended by saying our land is special and requires long term vision. It’s not impossible to find another place for this research center. Professor Evans recommends approval of this resolution.

Senate President Tublitz let the Senate know that President Lariviere needed to leave the meeting and, because the President is focused on this discussion, Senate President Tublitz will let President Lariviere know what other comments were presented on this matter. He also mentioned there were only 15 more minutes available for this discussion so other comments needed to be brief.

Professor Robert Young, PPPM, said he supports the resolution. He understands the administration’s desire to put our institution on sound economic footing by increasing funding
through developments like Riverfront Research Park. It is difficult to make ends meet being significantly underpaid and with small children; just being able to walk along the riverfront is an impetus for me to remain at the University, a form of compensation. He agrees with the President’s desire for this to be a great University. All great Universities preserve public spaces.

Mr. Cristo Brehm, graduate student in Architecture, took the floor and suggested we need to make a distinction between two central questions:

1) What’s the best way to develop that river park area? A park or an office complex?
2) What about the process that leads to this decision. Has the process we’ve seen so far been acceptable and transparent? By a 3-1 margin this body asked the administration to hold off on the plan to develop north of the tracks until there is a public process. The appropriate public process hasn’t yet taken place. The current process has holes in it. He is asking everyone to consider these distinctions.

Mr. Nathan Howard, a UO student on the Environmental Issues Committee, asked for an inclusive and smart development plan process. He believes we can talk about whether this decision is right or wrong, whether it is more valuable to leave as is or develop, but it comes down to who is going to be the most upset; how to upset the least amount of constituents. We should honor the contract and make the least amount of people unhappy. The President needs to follow the existing law and rules and not send the message the President only follows a contract when it’s convenient. It is absurd we have to debate whether or not someone is going to follow the rules. Is this University going to follow the rules or not? If we proceed to development, against the rules in the contract, think about the precedent and loss of goodwill with the community.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated his position on the development itself is his normal environmental position which is that we should not build on the site. But, the legal issue is a court decision rendered by the US Supreme Court, under Thurgood Marshall, regarding Citizens to Preserve Overton Park in Memphis TN. The case involved roads and highways going through public parks in Tennessee. Senator Bonine read from that decision that “the very existence of the statutes indicates that the protection of parkland is to be given paramount importance”. This is the essence of what others have stated here in the Senate. Senator Bonine said he came to this Senate meeting impartial to this resolution but spent the first part of the meeting reading it and he now has a few questions:

1. Has the general counsel office, in response to this resolution, notified the President of this existing agreement? If so, when?
2. Has the office of general counsel written any memoranda in response to this resolution? If so, share that analysis with the Senate.
3. Finally, where is the voice of the administration on this resolution? With so many in the University community voicing concern, John would expect to see some response from the President.

Professor Bonine stated if his concerns can’t be answered before the end of this Senate meeting, he has no option but to support the resolution.

Senate President Tublitz responded that two weeks ago he sent a letter to Legal Counsel asking many of these questions on behalf of the Senate. That letter was not answered by general
counsel; instead it was answered by the President. His response was that it is premature to ask these questions.

Senator Vitulli, Math, commented that if the document already exists, it does not appear premature to ask about it.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if Senate President Tublitz would post his letter on the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz said he had asked for permission to post the letter, but has not received permission.

Mr. David Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, corrected the record stating there was a response from the President and he would find out why Senate President Tublitz did not receive it.

[N.B., Mr. Hubin reported later in the same meeting that Senate President Tublitz’s email address had been typed incorrectly in the original response and Ms. Staci Knabe, Executive Assistant to the President, had re-sent the email.]

Mr. Steve McAllister, a Biology graduate student, stated that GTFF voted unanimously to ask the President to engage the University and city community more directly in this issue, particularly in light of this document. The key contention is the lack of transparency and engagement with the community that is the issue, especially with binding agreements stating that should occur. This is an opportunity for the President and his administration to show the community the University values its place in the community and welcomes public engagement in all types of University development.

Mr. Richard Miller, a UO undergraduate, said he is in favor of the resolution and of following the rules of the agreement. If Abe Lincoln could take time out of the Civil War to protect a few green spaces, the University President should do likewise.

Senator Keyes, AAA, commended those who dug up the original agreement, making it visible to the Senate. He said that regardless of how one feels about development on the riverfront, processes were put into place to guard decision making processes. Particularly with the New Partnership Proposal on the table, he said we should stop ad hoc skipping of past agreements. With proper reviews already in place, he is in favor of the resolution.

Mr. Howard, UO undergraduate, thanked everyone for their support and said the next step is review of today’s transcript by President Lariviere. The students recognize the President has a lot going on but in ten years we don’t want to look back at these 67 acres and consider our actions a mistake. He urges the administration not to develop the land until we have followed the process or expect a tainted relationship between the University and the community.

Mr. Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, assured Senate members that the President will read the transcript of the meeting or view the meeting video. Senator Bonine, Law, raised the point that the Senate should have benefit of legal opinion from General Counsel before it takes a stand that is based on contention that the University is not acting in accordance with the law.

Senate President Tublitz read the email he sent to Mr. Randy Gellar, General Counsel to the University.

Senator Bonine, Law, suggested the Senate move to a vote and recommended Senate President Tublitz enter into a conversation with the administration and general counsel on what is the appropriate way to enter into these types of discussions on behalf of the Senate. Senator Bonine does not want the Senate to end up in a situation of confrontation with administration but rather a means of back and forth discussion. He asked the Senate President to redouble his efforts to try to set up a process by which we can have these discussions with the President and his office.
Senate President Tublitz closed the discussion and read Resolution US10/11-04 prior to asking for a vote with a show of hands from the Senate floor. The Resolution passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz said the Resolution will now explain the vote to the University President and ask the President to return to the Senate with an explanation if the University President decides the resolution is not in the best interest of the University (University Constitution article 7.4).

Senate President Tublitz acknowledged the two hours allocated for this Senate meeting were nearly over so several agenda items would be postponed until the next meeting, with the exception of one more piece of business.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion to adopt Research Misconduct Policy, Motion US10/11-02

Ms. Lynette Schenkel, Assoc Vice President for the Responsible Conduct of Research, refreshed the Senate memory on the 1990 policy with the 1996 update. Every funding agency is required by Federal governance to develop these regulations. There was an administration and faculty working group appointed last winter to provide us with our current interim policy. We are asking the Senate to adopt this Research Misconduct Policy recommended by the University President on behalf of the University.

Senate President Tublitz opened the floor for discussion prior to the vote.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated the university has an established process regarding conflict of interest and that policy was signed by the Senate and President. He sees a list, on this Motion, of all who were consulted but nothing that says it was approved by the Senate. John proposed we follow the procedure and not vote until we have the Senate signature on the Motion.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel responded that utilizing the policy format of the University is constrained by that format process. She can only speak to the policy itself.

Professor Bonine suggested if the policy process was done by some civil servant and if we are not part of it and if there is not a line on the document that indicates approval by the Senate, the Senate should table the motion and not approve it. If the document can be changed and brought back to us, with a place for the Senate to be indicated on the document, then that is what should
be done. If the Senate is not on the document, then it shouldn’t be approving it. Professor Bonine moved to table the motion.

That motion was seconded.

Senate President Tublitz asked for discussion on this new motion.

Senator Stark-Macmillan said he is confused about what is missing from this process.

Senator Bonine said in a system of shared university governance, the Senate, in adopting many of its resolutions, normally puts its name on all documents. This document doesn’t have the Senate name on it so until it does, we shouldn’t vote on the motion. Senator Bonine expressed wanting to re-establish the shared role in governance of motions that come before the Senate and if so, the Senate name should be in the policy. He again moved to table the vote until we have the Senate signature on the document.

Mr. Paul Simons, Senate Parliamentarian, rose and stated this is not a debatable motion.

Professor Sandy Morgen, Vice Provost of Graduate Studies, asked if it would be possible to take a vote on the motion that goes into effect, contingent on the form being changed.

Professor Bonine, Law, followed up by asking Assistant Vice President Schenkel if the University has a current research policy.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel responded that we currently have the interim policy in effect. It is listed as a revised interim policy.

Professor Bonine, Law, confirmed we need to vote to table until the form comes back to the Senate in December.

Motion to table was passed by the Senate.

Mr. Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, responded to the intent behind Professor Bonine’s comment. We have, in recent years, had a new practice of consultation with the Senate when the administration is developing a new or revised policy. The current practice differs from that of the past. Policies had, for decades, been issued by the President and approved by the President’s cabinet, executives, or staff without Senate approval or consultation. We have now, quite successfully, developed a process that engages the Senate prior to creating adopting policy.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel pointed out that there exists a blank space on the official policy document for the endorsement of the Senate to be filled in after an affirmative vote on the motion.

Professor Bonine, Law, reported there is currently no signature line that says ‘Senate’ on the online form and suggested that Assistant Vice President Schenkel needed to bring an amended policy that includes a Senate signature line back to the Senate at the next Senate meeting.

Senate President Tublitz said other items on today’s agenda would roll over to the next Senate meeting (see list below) except US Post office issue 3.4. He mentioned that the university has 60 days, from November 1st, to respond to the pending closure of the University post office. He informally asked the Senate to show if they were in favor of working with the student senate on a draft of a letter to the Congressional delegation. By show of hands, it was determined there was consensus so Senate President Tublitz will bring the letter back to the Senate in December.

There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting was adjourned at 5:06pm

The following agenda items were postponed until the December 2010 Senate meeting:

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.3 Discussion of updated Retired and Emeritus Faculty Policy, Frank Stahl & Russ Tomlin

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 New Partnership Proposal President Lariviere & John Chalmers, Senate Budget Committee

5. REPORTS

5.1 Update on Smoke Free Campus Resolution US08/09-06, Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President

5.2 Update on Parking, Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for October 13, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 13 October 2010

Present: T. Bars, A. Berenshtein, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, K. Dellabough, J. Ellis, A. Emani, I. Fielding, D. Healey, M. Henney, L. Hinman, G. Hochstatter, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, H Kaur Khalsa, R. Kyr, M. Larson, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, J. Piger, B. Powell, M. Price, R. Rajai, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, Y. Tan, T. Ko Thompson, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodski, P. Walker, D Walton

Excused: L. Sugiyama, T. Minner-Engle

Absent: E. Chan, H. Gangadharbatia, R. Good, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, N. Proudfoot, P. Southwell, G. Waddell, P. Warnek, M. Williams

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for October 13, 2010 to order at 3:05pm. Senate President Tublitz welcomed all attendees and those joining the meeting via the live streaming on the web. He gave a quick overview of Senate rules during meetings, asked that everyone sign in, and that they state their name before speaking. He also said that Roberts’ Rules of Order will be followed at all Senate meetings.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes of the 26 May 2010 regular meeting of the senate were unanimously approved with no
comments, amendments, or changes to the minutes. Minutes of the 26 May 2010 Meeting

1.2 Motion US10/11-­‐01: to change order of Senate agenda for 2010-2011 academic year,sponsored by the Senate Executive Committee.

Senate Bylaws state the order of agenda business. Approval of this motion alters the agenda, allowing adequate consideration of new business by moving it nearer the front of the agenda. Senate President Tublitz read aloud Motion US10/11-10 and opened the floor for discussion.

Senator John Bonine, Professor of Law, questioned whether there is a process to amend the Bylaws.

Senate President Tublitz responded that last year’s governance committee which wrote the new
Constitution called for a review of internal Bylaws by the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate Executive Committee will bring a complete set of the proposed revisions before the Senate sometime this academic year, probably in the late winter or spring. The floor unanimously voted in favor of adopting Motion US10/11-01 with no abstentions.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean with specific discussion of New Partnership proposal

New Partnership proposal discussion: New Partnership proposal Senate President Tublitz
introduced UO President Richard Lariviere and thanked him for attending the Senate Meeting.
President Lariviere stated he would like to spend the allotted time on discussion of the New
Partnership but first wanted to give the Senate a sense of where we are as a university. We have a
big freshman class and are feeling the enrollment pressure, but we are vibrant and prepared. This
freshman class is the most diverse admitted to the UO. The class has very good academic credentials. The students are shoe horned into dorms but we were able to house everyone. 39.1%
of freshman are from out of state and 44% overall. The majority of our students this academic year are Oregon students. We have an enormous number of applicants from California, double what we had two years ago. There is much enthusiasm for the University of Oregon- it is a hot ticket.

The University President moved to the New Partnership proposal stating the first draft was presented in May. It was posted on the website with an invitation for comments and observations. Many comments have been useful and resulted in modifications. This proposal is written on paper, not stone, and thus will be modified as needed. In terms of the political process, the proposal has been submitted by Senator Chris Edward to be drafted as a Bill. It will then be introduced for debate by the Legislature in this coming session.

Issues surround this proposal include a) some people view our proposal to be in conflict with the
OUS proposal. President Lariviere does not see a conflict. Both proposals call for a change in
governance. Currently the Legislature endows universities with the ability to have local boards. In a sense our proposal answers all the questions that come up around the OUS proposal; b) the State Treasurer has announced that Oregon doesn’t have any debt capacity and has placed a moratorium for 2 years on new debt. After the two year period the debt capacity will be increased to approximately $1.7 billion. This should have no effect on us and may be an advantage. Assume our proposal passes this legislative session – the legislature will refer the proposal to the public as an amendment to the Oregon Constitution for a vote by the public. If approved in 2012, then the 2013 Legislature will issue the bonds in 2014, so debt capacity will be back to where it was – thus having no effect on our proposal. We have the Senate Budget Committee doing a careful review of this proposal.

President Lariviere reminded the Senate that the proposal is about preserving the public mission
at the University of Oregon. In-state tuition this year is more than $8,000 a year, a culmination of
38 years of steady increase at an average astonishing rate of 7.5% a year. The real problem, aside
from the percentage, is that the increase has not been linear. Some years it’s been 12%, 20%, 15%, followed by great remorse and an only 2% increase the next year. The consequence of that, as the Senate knows, is that a middle class family who budgets to the dollar gets clobbered with these spikes. If we can make our increases predictable, we can put ourselves in a position to predict what the cost will be for a four-year education.

The President stated he is confident we can better predict these costs if we get out of the current
situation of not knowing until February of the academic year how much the university will get from the State. Even though the State funds only 8%, it is our second highest contribution. Let’s make it predictable. The notion of expanding by managing the state contribution by endowment is important because last year we got $63M from the state, this year less than $50M, twenty years ago it was $63M so we are getting less than we did 20 years ago. The rate of erosion has resulted in backing ourselves into a model that approximates private institutions. President Lariviere said if someone has a better idea, we’ll set fire to this proposal and put forth a new one. He opened the floor up for questions and discussion, offering to address any degree of detail and welcoming input.

Student Senator Brian Powell asked why the Proposal structured the university’s Board of Directors to allow for only one student member in the position as Ex-Officio. He asked why the decision was made to have the student a non-voting member. The President said the student position isn’t the only ex-officio member; the President and the faculty member would also be non-voting members. Essentially the reason is a large 15 person Board of Directors. To preserve the public nature of the board, a majority must be appointed by the Governor or it ceases to be a public board; 12 voters plus three is as big a board as you want, otherwise meeting and actions can’t happen in a timely manner. Seven are confirmed by the Governor, one from the State Board of Higher Education, one from the Foundation, and we were advised by the OHSU Board to have three positions that the board themselves choose. Boards from time-to-time need expertise from some particular area. OHSU has never been able to have anyone with a medical background serve on their Board of Directors; all have been political appointments. It is the judgment of OHSU, based on their experience, to keep the public character but reserve the right to get someone the BOD deems necessary.

Student Senator Brian Powell responded that doesn’t answer his question. If the student is appointed Ex-Officio, their ideas will be written off.

The President said it is important to have both faculty and students on the Board, especially when there are a large number of people on the Board of Directors. In general, those governed don’t have a vote. President Lariviere asked for the students’ view and Brian responded if the student voice doesn’t have anything other than what is spoken, then it can be overridden by appointees.

President Lariviere mentioned that was true of anyone on a Board of Directors; all can be overruled, that’s the nature of publically appointed boards. One vote one way or the other isn’t going to make a bad board. It does have implications for how board members are chosen but those details aren’t ironed out yet.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated his observations and asked questions, as follows:

1) To what degree is the proposal changeable if there is interest to change?

2) To a degree, the proposal considers faculty and student members as ‘working for’ the governing board. That suggests changing from the OUS model must be a criticism of the current model. If that criticism does not exist, then there would be no justification for not carrying that model over to the new proposal.

3) Leaving three members to be appointed by the board may not be the most reliable way of assuring expertise. Many boards make explicit the qualifications of board members.

4) Cited the Charter in suggesting a faculty member not be merely employed but rather has the tradition of being part of shared governance.

President Lariviere affirmed all of Senator Bonine’s points as valid. The President stated that no
structural design will obviate potential mismanagement. Whatever the constitution of the board is, he sees it functioning first of all as a sounding board for the President on the topic of how to engage the University with the public. He does not see it as interfering with the day-to-day
governance and operation. It is the President’s concern that this board be able to provide counsel
about how to do the things this University needs that the current structure makes impossible.
Senator Bonine asked to what degree is the proposal changeable if the president or whoever else
could be persuaded it could be changed and President Lariviere stated, “There are going to be
changes”.

Senator Bonine mentioned that the model the president had just described is not the current voting model. He postulated that the reason for changing it must be a criticism of the current model. If that criticism does not exist there would be no reason to change and he would like to address that. This might not be the time to do all this but 1) would there be a process to discuss this issue? 2) He also pointed out that allowing 3 members to be appointed by the Board itself might not be the most reliable, as the current proposal doesn’t give guidance on how to appoint these board members. He cited the Oregon State Board of Forestry as an example. 3) He also stated that the faculty member should be a voting member. The UO Charter mandates that the faculty is the governing body of the University, a role that could be viewed as in conflict with the proposed governing Board. Students are not afforded the same right in the UO Charter. He raised the question of whether the New Partnership proposal is undercutting the historic tradition of faculty governance.

President Lariviere responded by saying that no governance structure guarantees good advice, good counsel, etc. All of Senator Bonine’s points are worthy of further discussion. The New Partnership Proposal is only a beginning point of discussion and he asked everyone to provide feedback. Whatever the constitution of the board is, the President sees it as a sounding board for the President about how to engage the public around issues of concern to the UO. The President
doesn’t understand it at all as being an interference with the daily governance. We can think of history where boards have gone rogue but structurally this cannot be avoided. This board needs to be able to provide counsel for the needs of our university. The current structure doesn’t allow that. Currently, twelve valiant individuals serve on the State Board of Higher Ed. Only a handful understand the daily working of the universities and only understand issues surrounding 1 of the 7 institutions, all of which are unique. An example is the faculty salary issue at UO, which is a different situation than that at any of the other schools. For the current board, it is almost impossible for them to focus on UO issues alone. The State Board has a new policy to address understanding the issues at individual institutions. It is asking three board members to spend only 1 ½ days at one of the campuses every 2 years. The President stated that that is not the kind of advocacy that we need from the Board.

Senator Bonine concurred with much of what the president said, stating the Board at UO has
tremendous advantages, but the proposed New Partnership Plan doesn’t address who will be on
the Board. He believes UO Foundation members are self perpetuating and large donors and it is an unusual step to include the UO Foundation in policies affecting UO and asked whether this was appropriate. He asked President Lariviere to further look into this issue. He also asked the President if there is a way to prevent the Board from interfering in tenure issues, pointing out that a board making final determinations in tenure is problematic in other states. Senator Bonine asked if the Plan offered a lockbox system requiring that certain issues, such as tenure, not be given to the board.

The President said these are excellent and important points to address. He told the Senate he brought white papers to distribute to Senators. He also said that the Proposal is posted online,
and asked everyone to please read it, stating, “It is not my proposal but an attempt for us to salvage this place from a very ominous tendency”. He thanked Senate President Tublitz for the
opportunity for this discussion.

Senate President Tublitz reiterated that it wasn’t President Lariviere’s proposal but “our” proposal. President Tublitz said that this is the most important issue that has come up in the last 25 years at the University. He said he was encouraged with the open conversation surrounding this topic and said the Senate Executive committee had approved the following process:

1. Today’s discussion with President Lariviere;

2. An independent financial review by the Senate Budget Committee of the New Partnership Proposal to be completed prior to the next senate meeting on November 10, 2010;

3. A presentation by the Senate Budget Committee on the results of their review will take place at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting;

4. An open town hall meeting November 17, 4:00pm in the EMU Ballroom, for faculty, staff, and students. There will be in-depth discussion with a panel consisting of President Lariviere, Provost James Bean, Professor John Chalmers (Business and Senate Budget Committee member), Jay Naymet (UO Foundation) and Jeff Condit (an attorney involved in drafting the proposal); and,

5. If there is support and a consensus, a motion in support of the New Partnership will be presented at the December 1, 2010 Senate meeting.

Provost Jim Bean reported that things are going OK, if we keep working we will get paid, and no one at the university has been laid off as a result of this recession.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Senate VP nomination(s) and election, Senate Nominating Committee

The Senate Nominating committee put forth the name of Professor Robert Kyr, Music Composition and Theory, as the nominee for Senate Vice President and who will also serve as
President-Elect for next year. Senate President Tublitz stated it was an honor to put forward the
name of Professor Kyr.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if nominations could be made from the floor before Professor Kyr was presented. Senate President Tublitz said, due to legislation passed last year, nominations from the floor were no longer allowed but emails had gone out beforehand asking for nominations. He then introduced Professor Kyr.

Professor Kyr reviewed his background and said he was thrilled to have opportunity to serve the UO in this capacity. He came to the UO in 1990 to a much different picture and mentioned how far the University has progressed in the last decade. This change has been remarkable and with the new Partnership we stand to become a model for education in America that is desperately needed. He implored the Senate and university community members to read the partnership proposal and participate in the process. He said that the University Senate is unique because it is composed not only of faculty but also has students, officers of administration and classified staff as Senators. He thanked the Senate for the opportunity to serve.

The Senate elected Professor Kyr by acclamation.

3.2 Research Misconduct Policy update, Lynette Schenkel

Senate President Tublitz introduced Lynette Schenkel, Director of the University’s Office for the Responsible Conduct of Research (ORCR), who spoke on the proposed update on the University’s Allegations of Research Misconduct (ARM) Policy ORCR Director Schenkel told the Senate that our ARM policy was first passed in 1990 and last updated in 1996. Since that time, three regulatory bodies have upgraded the regulations and our policy needed to be revised to match the new federal regulations. Vice President for Research Rich Linton appointed a faculty working group last winter to revise our ARM policies. The membership of this group was Ina Asim (History), Dietrich Belitz (Physics), Tom Dishion (Psychology), Geri Richmond (Chemistry), Sandy Morgen (Grad School), Rob Horner (Special Education), and Bart Johnson (Landscape Architecture). ORCR Director Schenkel pointed out the ARM website and blog and asked that the Senate please use it and provide feedback. The website includes the work products of the working group and regulatory documents that prompted this action. The proposed updated policy was reviewed and endorsed by the University’s Research Advisory Council in May 2010 and it was brought to the Faculty Advisory Council for discussion in June 2010. On behalf of the joint working group, ORCR Director Schenkel presented an official Notice of Motion that asks Senate to adopt the proposed policy and recommends that the policy be adopted by President Lariviere. This motion will be discussed at the next Senate meeting on Nov 10th. The University community is encouraged to provide comments about the revised ARM policy on the ORCR blog.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked for clarification that the policy the Senate is adopting is the September 16 draft, posted on the website. ORCR Director Schenkel responded in the affirmative.

Senator Bonine also asked if the FAQs on the ARM website are legally binding and if so, perhaps a line item could be added. Lynette responded that the FAQs are merely an appendix to the policy, not for adoption.

Senate President Tublitz encouraged the Senate to review the proposed revised ARM policy and
associated documents prior to the next senate meeting.

3.3 Senate Awards for OAs and Classified staff

Senate President Tublitz introduced the new Senate website and thanked Marilyn Skalberg for working all summer to create the new website. He pointed out the Senate currently presents two sets of annual awards, the Wayne Westling Faculty Service Award and the Distinguished Service
Awards both of which are posted on the Senate website. He raised the possibility that the Senate
consider issuing two additional annual service awards to Officers of Administration and to Classified Staff using a process by which the recipients of these awards would be chosen by their peers. He acknowledged that the Administration issues annual awards to members of both groups however the process for selecting the recipient is very different than that proposed here. He asked the Senate if they thought it was a good idea for the Senate to initiate awards of outstanding service to OA and Classified Staff, given out by their own OA’s and Classified Staff members.

Tracy Bars, AAA, pointed out the Westling Award can go to staff, not only faculty, so the Senate may need to change the wording of the initiative. She said she was just pointing out the criteria, not objecting to a new award.

Senate President Tublitz said that can certainly be clarified. There were no objections from the floor so Senate President Tublitz said they would move forward and hope to issue an award yet this year.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Athletics Overview, Rob Mullens and Jamie Moffitt

Senate President Tublitz introduced Athletic Director Rob Mullens and Jamie Moffitt, Executive Senior Associate Athletic Director for Finance and Administration.

Rob Mullens said it has been fast-paced seven or eight weeks since he has arrived in Eugene. He has been working to get up to speed on the history and pride of the fan base in the rapid growth rate of athletics at the university. The positive football program is exciting but he is also learning the varied way that athletics is joining with academics on campus and he wants to ensure that continues. Much of his attention has been focused on the finances of the Athletic Department and its growth. He has worked closely with Jamie Moffitt regarding how we got to where we are and our plan for the next 4-6 years which provides a reasonable time frame to build a visible, sustainable model.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Jamie Moffitt was introduced. She provided her university background and presented the Athletic Department’s 2010-2011 Operating Budget which was distributed to the Senate members. Senior Associate AD Moffitt summarized the athletic department’s 2010-11 revenue by sport regarding dollars earned from ticket sales as well as guarantees, including reimbursements from traveling team’s ticket sales. Other sources of Athletic Department income included media revenues, concessions, etc., much of which came from football. She emphasized that between 60-70% of the total revenue is football related in some way and that revenue is used to fund the remaining intercollegiate sports. A sizable amount of funds come from gifts and donations from donors and fans. The amount this year is larger than usual due to the approximately $11M Legacy Fund money being used to pay the annual debt repayments for the new arena.

Senator Dean Walton, Libraries, asked how variable the gifts and donations are from year-toyear and Senior Associate AD Moffitt replied the variability is not as great as assumed because a large part of the gift revenue comes from the Duck Athletic Fund which is linked to ticket sales. These funds are transferred over from the Foundation.

Upon joining the Athletic Department earlier this year, Senior Associate AD Moffitt said President Lariviere asked her and former interim Athletic Director Lorraine Davis to conduct an operational assessment of the department. Assessment focused on three key areas:

1. Practices & procedures related to contracts and contracting in the department. There has been a full internal audit of all 186 permanent staff files to ensure all contracts had proper approval, the files contained a job description, and that staff were receiving performance reviews. All required documents were accounted for but there is an opportunity to improve the performance review process.

2. Budgeting practices, processes, and decision-making. A new process to fully vet all Athletic Department proposals from financial, legal, HR, and fiscal perspectives prior the Athletic Director receiving the proposal. The internal Athletic Department budget process has been converted to a zero-dollar budget approach, enabling more informed decisions in allocating funds. This approach requires each budget request to provide complete fiscal details and have a full justification.

3. Overall picture & projections. The past 3-4 months have been spent understanding the current fiscal situation of the Athletic Department compared to prior years before the arena was built. Part of this review has been to understand the changing role of the Legacy fund in underwriting the fiscal solvency of the Athletic Department. The Athletic Department is now in a fundamentally different position than several years ago when the Legacy fund model was devised. The landscape of the Athletic Department has been altered based on recent investments in athletic programs and facilities. The original arena budget called for a $5-$6M contribution from arena-generated revenues and the rest from the Legacy Fund but subsequent changes in the fiscal situation of the arena meant the Athletic Department is not in a position to contribute to those debt payments. The consequence of the changing financial landscape is that the 30-year balance of the Legacy Fund will be lower than originally projected. The goal is to get back on track over the next 4-6 years. Only an initial assessment has been completed at this time, with the final projections to be completed over the next several months.

Senator Reza Rejaie, Computer and Information Science, asked what happened that led the arena
projections to end up being unrealistic.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt responded that the original arena model was based on
projected revenue/expenses that have since shifted; such as the addition of baseball, stunts &
gymnastics, the addition of the cost associated with maintaining the Jacqua facilities, and the addition of coaching staff associated with new programs. She stated that it was now necessary to
rebuild the financial structure of the athletic department to match the current strength of our
competitive nature.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a scandalous mess and 10 where Ms. Moffitt wants to see the world, what was the condition when she came on board. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said she is focused forward. It is what it is. She is not focusing on blame but how we productively move forward. Investments that were made produced amazing results in term of competition and student experience but we now have to put financial plans in place that will responsibly support us.

Senator and Vice President Robert Kyr, Music, asked at what point, as we continue to drain the Legacy Fund and arena revenues do not meet projections, might the financial model become so
imbalanced that the academic side will be affected.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt stated that the Athletic Department has been given an
unequivocal mandate from President Lariviere to be financially self-sustaining. The Athletic Department must pay our way. The current plan is that the Athletic Department will be generating much more revenue within a 4-6 year time frame. The Athletic Department will not ask the University for general fund dollars.

Vice President and Senator Kyr asked if there is a danger that the current circumstances will overwhelm any new plan to improve the financial picture of the Athletic Department. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said the Athletic Department has contained expenses, made reductions where possible, put controls in place, and is only investing in areas with revenue growth potential. Athletic Department personnel continue to review all revenue streams and put together conservative financial projections. She also talked about increasing the student experience.

Senator Walton, Library, asked if “increased student experience” referred to all students or only
student-athletes. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said she was referring to the support being given to student-athletes.

Senator Deborah Healey, Linguistics, said she lives in the West University area and asked how much of the athletic revenue comes from alcohol sales. Athletic Director Mullens replied that it was a fraction of the total concession revenue.

Student Senator Zachary Stark-Macmillan said he found it amazing, when reviewing the athletic
budget, that only $112,000 is set aside annually for academic support. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt explained that this amount was only for the Life Skills Tutoring program, which is entirely funded by the Athletic Department. Academic tutoring is funded entirely by the Provost office and is not supported by the Athletic Department.

Senate President Tublitz gave a quick background that around eight years ago the Senate created a committee to review athletic support and the decision was made to move student athlete academic support to the Provost Office.

Senator Tracy Barr, AAA, questioned Athletic Director Mullens about his strategy to bridge the discord between the university and athletics.

Athletic Director Mullens said that his department has visited with a variety of campus committees, including the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) and the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) as well as presenting at the Senate Leadership Caucus in September. He mentioned that there is substantial campus collaboration between academics and athletics of which people are not aware. Former interim athletic director Davis is compiling a list and Athletic Director Mullens said people will be surprised to see how much is already happening. He said that the Athletic Department will continue to find ways to enhance and increase that collaboration. He has also asked Professor Dennis Howard, Business, for ways to help students. Senate President Tublitz thanked Rob and Jamie for their presentation, noting that this is the first time the University community has ever had this type of open athletic discussion and it is because of the commitment by Athletic Director Mullens and Sr. Associate Athletic Director Moffitt to open and honest discourse.

Associate Professor Dev Sinha, Mathematics and Chair of Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC), informed the Senate that the IAC consists of 13 faculty members who regularly meet and talk with members of the Athletic Department. There will soon be an IAC blog and IAC chair Sinha recommended that Senate members routinely visit the committee website and participate on the blog.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Roger Thompson, Enrollment Management (postponed to a future meeting)

5.2 Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration reporting on the status of Senate Motion US08/09 Concerning Transparency of University Financial Transactions

Frances Dyke, Vice-President for Finance and Administration, gave the following status report of Senate Motion US08/09-08 Concerning Transparency of University Financial Transactions – passed a year and a half ago.

• The administration launched a DuckWeb tool during fall term last year. This site, available to all faculty and staff, provides summary financial information. This is Transparency Basic.

• President Nathan Tublitz convened a group to work with the administration and recommend enhancements to the financial information available in support of compliance with the senate motion.

• The group included Carla McNally (OMAS), Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Nathan Tublitz (Biology) and Roberta Mann (Law). Kelly Wolf, Comptroller and Director of Business Affairs, is administrator in charge and Holly Thaxton (BAO) is support staff assigned to this project.

• This group broadly consulted with various professionals on campus and explored data availability, web site enhancements, public records issues, OARs governing privacy of faculty records, and other relevant topics.

• The financial system contains an enormous amount of personal information. This personal information is extremely difficult or sometimes impossible to mask. Thus any fiscal transparency system must protect the rights of individual community members protected by the OARs governing faculty records and by FERPA.

• State Department of Justice and OUS attorneys are being consulted about which types of information can be disclosed under the faculty records statute. These are important questions related to privacy concerns and academic freedom.

• A product with more detail has been developed and is currently being tested. This tool will be within Banner, and will soon be ready to review after a few technical problems are resolved. This version of the fiscal transparency tool will be available to members of the Senate Budget Committee who will be required to undergo appropriate training and who will sign standard BANNER access Request Forms which include statements regarding Data Confidentiality and Acceptable Use. Senate Budget Committee members have a need to know this information as their role is to provide confidential advice to the administration regarding financial decisions. This is Transparency Premium.

• Whichever tool is accessible to individuals it is important to keep in mind that context and interpretation are important in understanding financial information and consultation with appropriate professionals is encouraged when using this data.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if we used OUS attorneys and if so, from what institutions. He also
requested any legal memoranda be posted on the website. Vice President Dyke said attorneys were from Portland State University, Oregon State University and the Chancellors office, and to her knowledge there are no legal memoranda.

Senate President Tublitz took the floor and said motion 08/09-08 passed in May, 2009 and has hit numerous legal and technical stumbling blocks. This past summer University attorneys sent a letter to the Oregon Department of Justice asking what can and cannot be accessed through the Fiscal Transparency tool however they have not yet responded.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice(s) of Motion

Senate President Tublitz introduced Professor Frank Stahl, Biology, who made a Notice of Motion to the Senate Executive Committee about 10 days ago regarding an update of the University policy on the Rights & Privilege of Retired and Emeriti Faculty.

Professor Stahl reported that the Committee on Rights & Privileges of Retired Faculty completed a revision of policy documents and will bring it to the Senate for discussion on November 10th and a vote to adopt on Dec 1st.

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate of the two motions coming up at the next Senate
Meeting. The Allegations of Research Misconduct motion US10/11-02 that Lynette Schenkel discussed earlier and Professor Stahl’s motion (US10/11-03). Senator Bonine, Law, stated that any motion made today or 23 days prior to the next meeting will be reviewed by the Senate Rules Committee. He recommended all notices of motion be posted immediately on the Senate website and an RSS feed be established to let Senate members know when something new goes to the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz explained that motions are posted immediately and that the Senate will work on establishing RSS feeds.

Paul Simonds, Anthropology Emeritus and Senate Parliamentarian, explained his services to the
Senate even though he no longer has an office on campus. His contact information is listed on the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz explained the Senate is currently searching for a half-time Executive
Coordinator with full benefits. This position will be posted internally in the next few days. He asked Senators to alert their constituencies to this open position and to have any interested parties contact him for more information.

Everyone was invited to join the Senate and Administration Reception in the Law School Morse lounge immediately following this meeting for the awarding of the 2010 Senate Distinguished Service Awards.

7. ADJOURNMENT

There was a Motion to adjourn and the meeting adjourned at 4:57pm.

Syndicate content