Minutes

2012 2013 Senate Meetings

All meetings are scheduled from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Dates of Senate meetings are subject to change based on legislative means.

October 10, 2012
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

November 07, 2012
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

December 05, 2012
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

January 16, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

February 13, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

March 13, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

April 10, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

April 17, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

May 08, 2013

Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

May 22, 2013
Rm 101, Knight Library
Agenda  |  Minutes  |  Watch

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 11, 2012

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 11 April 2012

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

Present: John Bonine, Jane Brubaker, Ben Eckstein, Robert Elliot, Jennifer Ellis, Karen Estlund, Alexandra Flores-Quilty, Deborah Healey, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Theodora Ko Thompson, Robert Kyr, Peter Lambert, Kelley Leon Howarth, Peng Lu, Carla McNelly, Jeff Measelle, Harlan Mechling, Emma Newman, Marilyn Nippold, Sonja Runberg, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Ying Tan, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: Nancy Bray, John Foster, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Mark Gillem, Roland Good, Sangita Gopal, Anthony Hornof, Colin Ives, Ryan Kellems, Huaxin Lin, Andrew Lubash, Ian McNeely, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Amy Nuetzman, Roxann Prazniak, David Riley, Vadim Vologodsky, Peter Walker

Excused: Roger Adkins, Tracy Bars, Ali Emami, Peter Keyes, Steven Pologe, Gordon Sayre, Nathan Tublitz

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for April 11, 2012 to order at 3:06 in room 101 of the Knight Library. He thanked the Library for allowing the Senate to use their facilities for the meeting.

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the March 7 meeting

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there was any discussion concerning the minutes from the March 7, 2012 Senate meeting. Seeing none, he called for a motion to approve the minutes. A motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then invited Lorraine Davis (Acting Provost and Senior Vice President) to the Senate floor to present her state of the university address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Lorraine Davis, Acting Provost and Senior Vice President

Acting Provost Lorraine Davis thanked Senate President Kyr for her introduction. She stated that Interim President Berdahl was out of town on business and could not attend the Senate meeting. Since the March Senate meeting with Dr. Mary Spilde and Dr. Nancy Golden, a great deal had happened regarding the OEIB (Oregon Education Investment Board) achievement compacts. She stated that the UO had been developing their own achievement compacts for a number of years, and these compacts were discussed at last month's March Senate meeting. According to Acting Provost Davis, those compacts were approved by the State Board of Higher Education, and were then delivered to the OEIB. The OEIB took the metrics and revised them so that they were in accordance with the 40/40/20 education expectations. The compacts are now in line with those expectations. As a result, the metrics statewide will be identical for the OEIB. The metrics that were approved by the State Board will still be used by the university. She then discussed several of the OEIB metrics that every institution will have.

She then discussed the Oregon Idea. This has evolved into a legislative package which involves additional funding from the legislature related to particular opportunities that the university has and wants to present. She stated that this was a process through the academic strategies committee as a part of the OUS (Oregon University System) Board. The concepts that the UO will be submitting for further examination are Pathways Oregon, a program to provide financial support through grants or scholarships so that Oregonian students who meet the requirements to study at the university will be fully funded. Other proposal were on stem education, sustainable cities, global Oregon, and green product design. She then asked for questions from the Senate floor. Seeing none, she commented on the Emeritus Policy that the Senate would be voting on later in the meeting.

Acting Provost Davis stated that the development of this policy had been a long process, but that it was important to understand how Emeritus status was being provided to deserving faculty. There were three stickler points that were in contention during the drafting. The first was whether or not the policy should apply to only full professors or should they include associate professors. Acting Provost Davis stated that she was in full support of granting Associate Professors Emeritus status, since it has been done in the past. Parking was another contentious issue. She stated that she quibbled at the word “free” parking and stated why she had issues with free parking. Acting Provost Davis thought the language should be free or subsidized parking because at the university, parking is not truly free. The free parking pass given to retired employees must be paid for by someone. She stated that they were currently paid centrally. There are 266 free parking passes and according to next year’s budget, $90,000 is earmarked for those parking passes.  Because of this, she believes it would be more appropriate for the language to state subsidized parking instead of free parking. She then stated that she would approved whatever the Senate agreed upon, and that she and Jamie Moffitt (Vice President for Finance and Administration) would be putting together a small advisory group to discuss the ways in which the parking process situation could be handled as there was conflicting information on several university websites regarding parking. According to Acting Provost Davis, the policy did not deal with the intricate mechanics of parking and it should not, but she hoped that her advisory group will clean up several parking issues that existed at the university. Of the 266 people with free parking passes, 145 were Emeritus, 28 were other faculty, 44 were OAs, 29 were classified, and 20 did not fit into any other category. She then asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.2 Questions and comments with response

The first question came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He commented that the university administration had frequently stated that they would maintain a neutral stance with regard to the faculty unionization process, but according to Senator Sullivan, the administration recently filed a rejection to the proposed bargaining unit with the Oregon Labor Relations Board. He went on to say that participation in the bargaining unit was either a neutral act on the part of the administration, or it was not. If it was neutral, open discussions had been going on for over a year. Why would the administration decide to weigh in at the last moment? He then asked: If participation in the bargaining unit is not equilateral, when did the administration change its policy from one of neutrality to one of anti-union activism and why?

Acting Provost Davis replied that whether or not the university had a union was the decision of the faculty and she believed that the administration was taking a neutral stance on the faculty unionization decision. According to Acting Provost Davis, the administration had objected to the definition of the bargaining unit as it had been presented. This objection was based primarily on unit management within the community of interest as well as the number of tenure related faculty who have not felt that their input had been appropriately delivered.

Senator Sullivan stated that the majority of tenure track faculty had signed cards. He then inquired as to why this objection was not brought to light earlier. To which Acting Provost Davis replied that the administration did not have either the responsibility or the appropriateness to intervene until they knew what the proposed bargaining unit was. Senator Sullivan stated that the basic shape of the bargaining unity had been laid out for over a year. Acting Provost Davis replied that this shape was not known to her. Senator Sullivan stated that there were open meetings, to which Acting Provost Davis replied that she was not sure if that was the case. Senator Sullivan again stated that the meetings were open. Acting Provost Davis replied that she would not respond further on this issue.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr thanked Acting Provost Davis for presenting her report to the Senate. He then asked the Senate body to not badger a presenter who was answering a question and stated that Senator Sullivan’s behavior was very inappropriate toward Acting Provost Davis. He then commented that there must be respectful dialogue in the Senate. The union was a hot button issue on campus and many people were still confused about what was going on, but the university was now entering into a legal process with those who will look at the situation for what it was. As far as the Senate goes, he repeated that there must be respectful dialogue with no badgering of someone who was trying to provide an honest response.

Senator Sullivan stated that he would not badger someone who gave an honest response. Senate President Kyr replied that his comment was not helpful or respectful and he would like to see a Senate that had respectful dialogue. Senator Sullivan stated that he understood. Senate President Kyr then moved on to the open discussion portion of the meeting and invited Chancellor Pernsteiner to the Senate floor.  

3. OPEN DISCUSSION

3.1 Update on Presidential Search; George Pernsteiner, Chancellor

Chancellor George Pernsteiner (OUS Chancellor) thanked the Senate for allowing him to speak at the meeting. He stated that the Presidential Search Committee was trying to build a pool of candidates. The committee was in the process of reviewing files that had been put forward for President of the university. In addition, the advisory review committee met for the first time. This group was formed after consultation with the Senate and the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) regarding how to bring about ideas from faculty and students on education and research to the new President. The committee wascomprised of eight faculty and eight students who will be reviewing applications with an eye towards each candidate’s academic background and their commitment to academic quality be it instruction, research, or student success.

Chancellor Pernsteiner then stated that the time for submitting potential candidates was coming to a close, however the search would remain open until the position was filled. He encouraged the Senate to send in their nominations to newpres@uoregon.edu. He stated that he was encouraged with the names that were currently in the pool of candidates and he was eager to move the process along. Chancellor Pernsteiner then asked for questions from the Senate body. 

3.2 Questions and comments with response

Seeing no questions, Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked the Senate for their time. Senate President Kyr thanked him for the process that the committee had undertaken and then moved to the new business portion of the meeting.

4. NEW BUSINESS

Senate President Kyr invited Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) to the Senate floor to discuss the motion on IAC membership.

4.1 Motion on IAC Membership; Glen Waddell, IAC member

Senator Glen Waddell stated that the motion was quite simple. The University Senate will be adding one student member to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). According to Senator Waddell, the IAC voted on this addition with the results being ten yes votes, zero no votes, and one abstention. He then provided a brief background in support of the motion. He discussed the charge of the IAC and the proposed changes to the charge of the committee. There were currently five student members on the committee and the IAC would like to increase that number to six. Senator Waddell displayed the IAC membership to the Senate body and discussed several emails between IAC Chair Nathan Tublitz (Biology) and Interim University President Robert Berdahl. In these emails, Interim President Berdahl specifically stated that he would reject any and all changes to university committees while he was President of the university. These email exchanges can be found at the following address:

http://committees.uoregon.edu/node/41

He then mentioned the 2004 IAC taskforce document which outlined a set of action points that the IAC should have been pursuing, but this pursuit had fallen by the wayside. The report can also be found at the address above. He concluded by repeating the intent of the motion which was to add one student member to the IAC.

Senate President Kyr then called for discussion on the motion. He called on Ben Eckstein (ASUO President) to make a statement regarding the motion. Mr. Eckstein stated that he was a member of the IAC and provided context on why students supported the motion. All student members voted in favor of the motion. He then stated that at the beginning of the year, there was an election for the chair of the IAC and students asked the candidates if they would support adding more students to the committee. One of the candidates, Nathan Tublitz supported this addition and as a result, students worked to bring this addition forward. He also mentioned that the IAC needed stronger student representation because the ASUO gives 1.6 million dollars of their budget to the Athletics Department for student tickets. Mr. Eckstein concluded by stating that he strongly supported the motion.

The next comment came from Senator Sonja Runberg (Executive Assistant, Academic Affairs). She stated that it would be more appropriate for the motion to be discussed by the Committee on Committees. Professor Paul Simonds (Senate Parliamentarian) stated that a motion to refer must be made if Senator Runberg’s comment was to be discussed. Senate President Kyr then called for a motion to refer. Senator Runberg asked if she could make the motion, to which Parliamentarian Simonds replied she could. Senator Runberg called for a motion to refer and Senate President Kyr asked for a second from the Senate body. Senator Randy Sullivan stated that he would second the motion for the purpose of discussion. Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion and asked Senator Runberg to repeat her motion to the Senate body. Senator Runberg stated that the motion was to refer the matter of adding one student member to the IAC to the University Senate Committee on Committees. She believed that the Committee on Committees should be making these decisions. An unidentified Senator asked Senator Runberg why she was doing this, to which she replied that it seemed arbitrary for a committee to make a motion to add to their membership. She then stated that the Committee on Committees was the committee responsible for discussion on committee memberships and that it seemed removed and fragmented for the IAC to bring this motion before the Senate.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate could either vote on the motion now or send the motion to the Committee on Committees for discussion.

The next comment came from Senator Dean Walton (UO Libraries). He asked Senate President Kyr if he felt that it was the Committee on Committees job evaluate whether or not another committee needed to have an additional member added to it. Senate President Kyr stated that through the tenth year review of university committees, the Committee on Committees asked all committees to submit information regarding committee revisions. Senator Walton then asked who would make these decisions, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the Committee on Committees would have a discussion with each committee, which was what he was doing with the IAC at the beginning of the year.

Dr. David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) asked Senate President Kyr for permission to speak. He was granted permission. Dr. Hubin stated that he had the honor of serving on the Committee on Committees for twenty-one years. He commented that the Committee on Committees had a very important potential function. During 2001, he participated in a complete revision of the university committee structure with Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology), Professor Anne Tedards (Music and Dance) and Professor Randall McGowen (History). According to Dr. Hubin, committees had at times been out of alignment with what the Senate was doing. At times, committees had not been the viable points of referral for legislation. The Senate received their report, acknowledged its importance, and decided to regularly examine the committee structure for both charge and membership every ten years. Dr. Hubin informed the Senate that they were entering the one hundredth anniversary of the Committee on Committees. He then stated that committees could be important and were important to a legislative body if they aligned correctly. He then mentioned that the university committee structure needed reexamination. This was also the sentiment of Interim President Berdahl. Legislation should come before the Senate and there must be a logical committee to refer it to. That committee would then come back to the Senate with a recommendation. He supported the motion to refer to the Committee on Committees.

Senate President Kyr asked Dr. Hubin if he was connecting the request of the IAC to add one student member to the function of the Committee on Committees. He then asked if Dr. Hubin if this was a watershed issue. Dr. Hubin replied that his suggestion would be that there should always be a direct cut for a standing committee of the Senate to bring an issue directly to the Senate. Senate President Kyr then asked if Dr. Hubin was implying that all committee decisions should be sent to the Committee on Committees. Dr. Hubin replied that it was a question of legislative protocol, but his contention was that if a committee were to bring forward a membership request, that request should be immediately sent to the Committee on Committees for a recommendation to the Senate.

The next comment came from Senator John Bonine (Law). Senator Bonine stated that he believed the proposal to refer the motion to the Committee on Committees was a watershed moment in which a new policy was being proposed that no such motions shall be brought before the Senate without first going through the Committee on Committees. Since that procedure had not previously been in place, Senator Bonine stated he would be voting no for the motion to refer and invited his fellow Senators to give a notice of motion for the following Senate meeting in May to discuss this procedure.

Senator Randy Sullivan stated that procedurally, the Senate was handling the referral appropriately. He believed that the motion should be referred to the Committee on Committees. According to Senator Sullivan, this option would yield more advantages politically both for the IAC and to a future University President.

ASUO President Ben Eckstein spoke against the motion to refer to committee. According to Mr. Eckstein, no action that the Senate took would preclude the Committee on Committee from doing the work described by Dr. Hubin. He did not want to delay acting on a motion that was in the best interest of students and the campus community. He believed that the referral was an attempt to stall the motion and that if passed it would not come back to the Senate before the end of the year. He strongly encouraged all Senators to vote down the motion to refer to committee.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) stated that he was concerned regarding the general issue of a committee being free to change its own composition without a careful consideration of how the committee system worked. There might be occasions where a committee would find itself frustrated and, in order to relieve this frustration, would attempt to alter its composition. This type of change was dependent upon the whims of the moment and could be subject to abuse. He believed that any such request of this kind ought to go before the Committee on Committees.

Senator Glen Waddell responded to Professor Stahl’s comment. According to Senator Waddell, nothing was being accomplished in the IAC. It was his understanding that this would be the first time that such a request would be sent to the Committee on Committees. There was a protocol that would give the University President sixty days to respond were he to not allow this change to the IAC membership.

Professor Dev Sinha (Mathematics) stated that he was not a Senator. He then commented that if a matter came before the Senate that had to do with the campus grounds, the presumption was that it would go before the Campus Planning Committee. He did not see the need for a motion on this issue, but thought it was simply protocol acknowledging that no one was an expert on everything. He then stated that he was a member of the IAC and wanted to make a distinction between the changes in the charge that was proposed by the IAC when Interim President Berdahl first sent his email regarding his stance on changes to committees. Professor Sinha stated that the changes to the charge were substantial and he alluded to this being the reason for Interim President Berdahl taking such a strong stance on changes to committee structures. He also stated that the IAC did not vote to change their charge, but did vote to add one student member to the committee.

Senator Emma Newman (Student Senator) stated that she was in full support of the motion to add a student member to the IAC. She informed the Senate that students only serve on committees for one year, and she would like to see the additional student member on the IAC implemented before the end of the year so that they could serve to the best of their ability in the time remaining. She then referenced the Senate minutes from 1969. According to those minutes, the IAC moved to add three student members to their committee at a Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr closed the discussion on Senator Runberg’s motion. Senator Runberg then called for a roll call vote. Senate President Kyr asked Parliamentarian Simonds if a roll call vote was appropriate, to which he replied that it was. Senator Glen Waddell then offered a friendly amendment to the motion. His amendment charged the Committee on Committees to report back to the Senate at the first Senate meeting in May. This amendment was accepted by Senator Runberg and seconded by Senator Sullivan. Senate President Kyr then moved to a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the friendly amendment was passed unanimously. Senate President Kyr then asked for the motion to be repeated a final time for clarity. The final version of the motion was: The Senate refers the motion to add one student member to the IAC to the Committee on Committees for a report that will be given to the Senate at the first meeting in May. Mr. Eckstein made a point of clarification that if the motion was voted down; the original motion would be back on the table. All were in agreement. In order to save time, Senator Bonine asked to have a hand vote whereby all voters raise their hands and the votes were recorded. Senator Runberg insisted on having a roll call vote and called for a motion, but it was not seconded. She then agreed to have a voice vote and if it was unclear, to have a hand vote. Senate President Kyr repeated the motion a final time, and called for a voice vote. He then called for a division of the house. Those who voted aye raised their hands and were counted. Those who voted nay raised their hands and were counted. Those who abstained raised their hands and were counted. The final vote was sixteen ayes, six nays, and one abstention. The motion was referred to the Committee on Committees. Senate President Kyr asked Jim Mooney to discuss the Retirement and Emeriti Policy.   

4.2 Retirement & Emeriti Policy; John Nicols and Jim Mooney, Co-chairs; Tenure Reduction, Retirement and Emeriti Committee

Professor Jim Mooney (Law) stated that he had printed out several copies of the policy for Senators to review. He stated that one year ago, the Tenure Reduction, Retirement, and Emeriti Committee brought a slightly altered policy to the Senate who then passed the policy unanimously. He brought the policy back before the Senate with two relatively small changes in the hope that the policy would be approved a second time. The newer version was paired down considerably and it was more concise in terms of form.  He commented that the first change had to do with parking. At the time of the motion’s passing, former University President Richard Lariviere objected to the section on parking and would not sign the document because the policy offered free parking to emeritus faculty who were not currently on the payroll. This practice had been taking place for many years for all retired university employees. The committee asked for an explanation and citation of authority, but none was forthcoming. The administrative convener of the committee then brought the group together to try and resolve the parking issue between the committee and the President’s Office. With the exception of Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) the committee members decided to concede on the parking issue and the language was changed to “the university will make every reasonable effort to continue granting to Emeritus faculty free campus parking whenever they are not on the university payroll.”

The second change to the policy was regarding the timing of achieving Emeritus status. A grandfather clause was added for those who were retiring before December 31, 2014. Faculty members who decided to retire before this date would not be subjected to the five year requirement of being employed as a full professor. After Professor Mooney presented the proposal, Senate President Kyr thanked him and the other members of the committee for their hard work and called for discussion on the policy.

Senator John Bonine asked why the word “generally” was used in the last paragraph on the first page of the policy instead of the word “as”. Professor Mooney replied that he could not think of any particularly good reason why that word was used, but he did not find it damaging in any way. Senator Bonine then asked for a friendly amendment that the word be removed. Professor Mooney agreed to the friendly amendment and the word “generally” was removed from the policy and replaced with the word “as.” Senate President Kyr then stated thank god we have a law school, and called for a motion to vote on the policy. A motion was called and seconded. Senate President Kyr then called for a vote on the policy. A voice vote was taken and the policy was approved unanimously. He then moved on to the reports portion of the meeting.  

5. REPORTS

Senate President Kyr asked Ben Eckstein to present the ASUO Report.

5.1 ASUO Report; Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

Mr. Eckstein stated that he had two updates to deliver to the Senate. The first update was regarding the controversy over the ASUO election process. Although it appeared that the election had been compromised, according to Mr. Eckstein, the AUSO was one of the most autonomous, effective, and active student governments in the country. Mr. Eckstein stated that there had been several issues with the election process, but the ASUO had systems and processes in place that were long standing and had been tested in the past to handle those types of concerns and situations.

The second issue was regarding the ASUO overhead assessment rate. His administration had been working very hard to resolve the issue regarding this rate. According to Mr. Eckstein, the overhead assessment rate had been overcharged. That overcharge amounted to more than $100,000. He advocated strongly that the money should be returned to students where it belonged. Earlier in the week, it was confirmed by the Department of Finance and Administration that the overhead charge would be corrected and the money would be returned to the ASUO. Students would decide how to spend the funds. If anyone had questions for Mr. Eckstein he encouraged them to contact him via email at asuopres@uoregon.edu. Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Eckstein for his report.

5.2 Respectful Workplace Ad-Hoc Committee Report; Emilio Hernandez, Chair

Emilio Hernandez (Assistant Vice President, Institutional Equity and Diversity) stated that the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace was brought together last year after a discussion in the Senate regarding a respectful workplace on campus. This was also following the letter on a respectful workplace that was sent from Linda King’s (Associate Vice President, Human Resources) office. The committee thought that a greater educational effort was needed in the area of a respectful workplace. According to Mr. Hernandez, the ad hoc committee was appointed by the Senate Executive Committee. The members of the committee are made up of various constituent groups from around campus. The members are Ben Eckstein (ASUO President), David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), Theodora Ko Thompson (Admissions), Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages), Carla McNelly (Office of Multicultural Academic Success), Terrie Minner-Engle (Academic Advising), Chris Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) and Emilio Hernandez. He stated that the committee started their work by reviewing presentations that Human Resources provided to Officers of Administration and Classified Staff on issues that were voiced at various worksites on campus. They looked at how those issues were or were not being resolved. A few members of the committee had a meeting with Jamie Moffitt (Vice President, Finance and Administration and CFO) and Senate President Robert Kyr. At the meeting, they discussed several options for providing a respectful workplace to university employees. One of the options that the committee discussed was to employ an ombudsman, which the university used to have many years ago. Other issues will be discussed with HR representatives and the committee will return to the Senate with a more defined options package sometime in the fall. He then asked for questions and seeing none, thanked the Senate for allowing him to present the committee’s report.  

5.3 OEIB Achievement Compacts Subcommittee Testimony; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that he presented testimony before the OEIB Achievement Compacts Subcommittee. In his testimony, he commented that he the university wanted to work with the subcommittee in order to formulate the most effective achievement compacts possible and that the Senate was ready to work appropriately in this regard. He offered to host a gathering of all seven campuses with the OEIB. Delegates would come to campus to discuss these compacts and how they affect the lives of faculty and students.

5.4 IFS and OUS Leadership Caucus; Robert Kyr

On June 8 and 9, there will be a joint meeting of the InterInstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) and OUS Senate Leadership Caucus. The leadership Caucus was initiated at the University of Oregon. The meeting was approved unanimously by the IFS Senators. He believed that a major healing process had begun and that the Senate should be proud for taking the initiative and trying to dispel rumors from the past. He then moved on to announcements and communications from the floor.  

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Concern regarding changes to the Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence; Rina Sundahl, Diana Salazar, Tania Sarabia, UO Truth Coalition

The presenters from the UO Truth Coalition passed out documents for the Senate to consider, and introduced themselves to the Senate body. Rina Sundahl (student) stated that they had come before the Senate on behalf of the UO Truth Coalition which was a group of students, community members, and alumni which formed as a response to the restructuring of the Office of Multicultural Academic Success (OMAS) to the Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence (CMAE). When the group found out about the restructuring, she discovered that OMAS used to be called the Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) which used to be called the Council for Minority Education (CME) which was formed during a meeting of the University Assembly. She informed the Senate that there were changes occurring within OMAS/CMAE, and the UO Truth Coalition wanted Senate support for students to speak with the administration in order to gain a voice in the restructuring process. Diana Salazar (Ethnic Studies student) stated that she was concerned that the Senate was not consulted in regards to the changes that were taking place even though the Senate, then called the University Assembly, originally mandated the office. There was a student committee comprised of twelve students, one community member, and one alumnus that asked the Senate to ensure that the committee had some measure of influence. Currently, they had no assurance as to their level of influence with the administration. Tania Sarabia stated that the group wanted to insure that they had a voice during the restructuring process. The three presenters thanked the Senate for their time.

Senate President Kyr stated that he would take their request to the Senate Executive Committee for a discussion and would be getting back to the presenters very soon. He thanked them for bringing the issue to his attention.

6.2 Motion regarding student athletes and sports scheduling; Ben DeJarnette, Student Athlete

Ben DeJarnette (Journalism student) stated that several student athletes had come to him to express their concerns regarding missing class. According to Mr. DeJarnette, when students miss class, many of their professors are unwilling to help them make up the work they are missing. He was in the process of drafting a policy that would deal with both issues but first wanted to vet the policy through the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. He stated that he would be returning to the Senate in May.

Senate President Kyr thanked him for presenting his notice of motion.

6.3 Motion regarding shared governance & job postings; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Stahl (Biology Emeritus) stated that at the last Senate meeting, he gave notice of motion that he wanted the faculty at large to have the ability to make appraisals on the job performance of university administrators. He decided to drop that motion because he felt that the website uomatters.com was handling that issue very well. He also decided to forego the motion because he believed it was not fair to criticize someone for not doing their job if that job was not a part of their job description. He was annoyed that people in Johnson Hall were carrying out their jobs as if the Constitution did not exist and thought that they might not be aware of the document. Due to this possible oversight, he will bring a motion before the Senate to place on job descriptions and advertisements that draw attention to potential applicants and current employees the importance of the UO Constitution in the governance of the University of Oregon.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) made a brief announcement. He stated that anyone who was interested in writing a proposed resolution to request that the administration withdraw its objections to the proposed faculty union bargaining unit from the Oregon Employment Relations Board, please contact him to begin the work of drafting a motion.

7. Adjournment

Seeing no further questions or comments, Senate President Kyr called the April 11, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:55PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 7, 2012

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 07 March 2012

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

Present: Roger Adkins, Ben Eckstein, Robert Elliot, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, Karen Estlund, John Foster, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Roland Good, Deborah Healey, Anthony Hornof, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Ryan Kellems, Robert Kyr, Peter Lambert, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Peng Lu, Ian McNeely, Carla McNelly, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Emma Newman, Marilyn Nippold, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Randy Sullivan, Nathan Tublitz, Vadim Vologodski, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: John Bonine, Mark Gillem, Sangita Gopal, Colin Ives, Jena Langham, Andrew Lubash, Jeffrey Measelle, David Riley, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Ying Tan, Peter Walker

Excused: Tracy Bars, Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker, Peter Keyes, Theodora Ko Thompson, Harlan Mechling, Amy Nuetzman

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for March 7, 2012 to order at 3:09PM in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center. He welcomed all those in attendance and stated that the Senate would be considering several important pieces of legislation at this meeting. He also informed the Senate that they would be having an important discussion with Nancy Golden (Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools).

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the February 8 meeting

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there was any discussion concerning the minutes from the February 8, 2012 Senate meeting. Seeing none, he called for a motion to approve the minutes from the February 8, 2012 Senate meeting. A motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then invited Lorraine Davis to the Senate floor to present her state of the university address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Lorraine Davis, Acting Senior Vice President and Provost

Lorraine Davis (Acting Senior Vice President and Provost) thanked Senate President Kyr. She informed the Senate that over the last month, the legislative session has been proceeding and the process was very involved regarding issues that concerned the university. Last year, there was a 3.5 percent holdback on the universities budget. This holdback was scheduled to be returned to the university, remain at its current level, or be expanded to 7 or 10 percent cutback. This was based on the revenue forecast. She was pleased to announce that the 3.5 percent holdback will continue with no additional cuts from the state. Acting Provost Davis then discussed several bills relating to governance that were passed in the legislature.  House Bill 4061 created a special committee on university governance. It will be tasked with investigating the issuance of an independent governing board for institutions that desire them. She then stated that the University of Oregon desired an independent governing board. Local legislators proposed the establishment of a local governing board for the university, but there was not enough time to work out the details during this session of the legislature. The committee that was created by House Bill 4061 is required to report by August 2012. According to Acting Provost Davis, Portland State University is also interested in establishing a local governing board.

She then mentioned House Bill 4058 which directed the higher education coordinating commission to study strategies for making recommendations on reducing higher education textbook costs. This has been a national issue in terms of the amount of investment that students need to make related to textbooks. House Bill 4016 made it very clear that employees of higher education institutions must have mandatory reporting for cases of child abuse. She then stated that the policy related to guns on campus passed during the legislative session. It prevents students, employees, individuals with a business interest on campus such as vendors and contractors, event attendees, those who rent or lease university property, and campus visitors from carrying a firearm on board owned or controlled property. She believed that the university was very consistent in wanting that policy and was pleased that it had passed.

Acting Provost Davis then discussed Governor Kitzhaber’s reform agenda. Senate Bill 1581 allows the OEIB (Oregon Education Investment Board) to enter into achievement compacts with educational bodies. She stated that this was a work in progress which will be evolving. The compacts that have been developed involve a system compact with the OEIB, but each individual institution has their own metrics within that compact. Senate Bill 1581 allows for individual institutions to have their own individual compacts with OEIB, but she was not sure how this would be determined. The metrics that were developed for the compacts were taken from the Mission Alignment Document. She then asked for questions and comments from the Senate body.

2.2 Questions and comments with response

The first question was from Senator Ian McNeely (Academic Council, Chair). He wanted to know if Lane County Legislators would be on the 4061 committee. Acting Provost Davis replied that four members were selected by the Senate and four were selected by the House of Representatives. No one has yet been appointed by she thought that two Lane County legislators would be appointed. Senator McNeely then asked what would be the most appropriate way(s) for the UO Senate to contribute to the discussions relating to achievement compacts and independent boards in ways that would not undercut the university politically. Acting Provost Davis stated that she was not sure, but it terms of independent boards, she hoped that the committee assigned to that topic would ask for opinions from the university. Regarding the education compacts, when the time comes for them to be approved by the OEIB, she anticipated that the university would then have its chance to offer their input.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) asked Acting Provost Davis if the Senate had passed a resolution in favor of an independent governing board, and if so, would that be a helpful gesture. She replied that as far as she knew, the Senate had not, but believed that it could be helpful. If the Senate was to take such action, she recommended that the resolution be very specific.

The next question came from Ben Eckstein (ASUO President). He stated that there was concern among the campus community and with students over the inaccuracy of revenue projections from the Mathew Knight Arena and how those inaccuracies will impact the Athletic Department’s financial situation. He wanted to know if the university had any concerns regarding this issue. Acting Provost Davis stated that there were a number of differing opinions on this issue. She then commented that she did not have all of the information regarding those opinions, but given the latest projections, she did not believe that the inaccuracies were that far off from what was previously anticipated after revised projections were made given the delay in events that were scheduled to come to the arena. She then stated that if the delay was factored in, the area was on target. Senator Gordon Sayre (English) commented on Mr. Eckstein’s question regarding the arena revenue projections. He stated that during 2007-2008, he was serving on the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee for Arena Financing which examined the projections that came from many sources, including ones that were commissioned by consultants who were trying to support the plans to build the arena. According to Senator Sayre, many of the reports were pure fantasy. The Ad-Hoc committee worked to try to bring more realistic projections to the Athletic Department. He stated that while the projections were slightly inaccurate, he did not believe that the inaccuracies would greatly diminish the Legacy Fund, but the difference was much greater than what was estimated five years ago.

Acting Provost Davis thanked the Senate body for their questions. Senate President Kyr commented that the Statutory Faculty passed a motion at their November 30 meeting of the Faculty Assembly for the establishment of a local independent governing board which was posted to the Senate website. He then mentioned the new Statutory Faculty website and informed the Senators that the Senate would be more than willing to entertain legislation regarding the local governing boards. Senate President Kyr then welcomed Nancy Golden (Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools) to the Senate floor for the open discussion portion of the meeting.

3. OPEN DISCUSSION

3.1 “The 0-20 Educational System: Our Role in the Future” Dr. Nancy Golden; Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools; Alternate Chair, Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB) Dr. Mary Spilde; President, Lane Community College; Board Member, OEIB

Dr. Nancy Golden began by introducing Dr. Mary Spilde (President, Lane Community College). Dr. Golden welcomed her to the Senate floor as a member of the OEIB. She then thanked Senate Ian McNeely for contacting her a few months ago and mentioning to her that the university would like to be involved with this process. Dr. Golden stated that Senate Bill 1581 created the position of the chief education investment officer. This person will oversee the 0-20 Educational System. The position has been posted and nominations are being submitted. According to Dr. Golden, this person will insure that Oregon educational institutions are meeting their 40-40-20 goals. She recommended that the university community offer up nominees for this position in an effort to have an influence on the future of Oregon’s education. As a school district superintendent, she is interested in having the state shift from a compliance role to more of a support role. When she has to meet an achievement compact, she will have the support of the OEIB.

Dr. Golden stated that the Governor was interested in bringing more funding to education. In the last two sessions, he has pushed for tremendous reform for education. The measures are shifting towards outcomes in regards to the educational compacts. The budget will include money that is geared towards achieving those outcomes. She informed the Senate that there was one compact that was associated with the Oregon University System (OUS), but there are also individual compacts. She then turned the conversation over to Dr. Mary Spilde to discuss compacts in greater detail.

Dr. Spilde is and member of the OEIB and the chair of the subcommittee on achievement compacts. She stated that the process was moving very fast. The legislation around achievement compacts is contained in Senate Bill 1581, sections 14 – 18. She then commented that there was only going to be one compact with each institution, however, each institution can add local priorities for that institution to the system. Only one will be signed between the President of the University of Oregon and the OEIB. In dealing with higher education, each institution’s compact structure will differ from university to university. Because of this, there was a certain amount of flexibility written into Senate Bill 1581 on how to engage with this. According to Dr. Spilde, the Chancellor’s office has been working on this for quite a while due to Senate Bill 242. There has also been work on mission alignment. The community colleges have had a very informed discussion and they believe their achievement compacts will reflect their needs. The template for the compacts will show OUS measurements as well as what the University of Oregon deems to be important in their achievement compact. Several questions arose at the OEIB subcommittee’s meeting that was being discussed by the Chancellor’s office.

Dr. Spilde stated that the compacts were very evolutionary, and the ones that are currently being discussed will probably not be going forward. There will be a testing/trial and error period and after adjustments, the achievements will go forward. According to Dr. Spilde, this is a pilot year. The compacts will be approved for one year and after that year, adjustments will be made. Engagement with students and faculty members will occur by September. Completion, quality, and connections were three words she used to define the next phase of the compacts. There was a great deal of concern regarding quality. She stated that putting measurements on quality was a great concern for faculty around the country. She then asked for questions from the Senate body. Dr. Golden stated that there was a meeting on Friday if recommended that a representative attend the meeting to offer suggestions.

3.2 Questions and comments with response

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) was preparing a summary of the remarks that were made at the SEC meeting. He then asked when would be the best time to give testimony to the subcommittee. Dr. Spilde advised to go to the meeting on Friday and give testimony at the end of the meeting. She also recommended sending information to the committee members now and also show up to the meeting to reinforce that information. Dr. Spilde stated that the meeting was in Salem, OR at the state library from 3 – 5pm. Senate President Kyr stated that he would send both Dr. Spilde and Dr. Golden information for the subcommittee and he would be testifying at the meeting.

Senator Ian McNeely summarized a few points made at the SEC meeting and invited people to ask questions now or to get back to the SEC with their inquiries. He thanked both presenters for coming to the Senate meeting. The SEC believed that it was important to have an achievement compact that was tailored to the universities mission, whether or not the university ends up with an independent board. Dr. Spilde stated that for the first year, the OUS metrics will be included in whatever is signed by the university President. In going forward, as the governance changes, she did not believe the university would be bound by the OUS metrics, but would have their own achievement compacts. Senator McNeely stated that others on campus came up with a very different set of accountability metrics and the SEC would like to see these factored into the achievement compacts for the UO. The third goes to the fact that these systems are difficult to measure. The SEC wants to measure what they value and not value what they measure.

Dr. Golden asked for further questions and seeing none, thanked the Senate for allowing both she and Dr. Spilde for the opportunity to speak at the Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr thanked both Dr. Golden and Dr. Spilde for their hard work.

4. NEW BUSINESS

4.1 A request by the Oregon Daily Emerald Board of Directors, [Presented by Robert Kyr, Senate President]

Senate President Kyr stated that the Oregon Daily Emerald Board of Directors has requested to no longer be a part of the Senate committee structure. He then read a note between Chris Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) and Melody Leslie (Development Communications).

“The Emerald Board of Directors, a “committee” listed on the committee site has asked to be removed. I spoke with Melody Leslie, who sits on the board, and she stated that the board is and has been a private company that is not directly affiliated with the university. I checked their membership and it says that the President appoints two members, one faculty and one staff, to the board, but the board nominates these members, not the committee on committees.”

Senate President Kyr stated that after having discussions with all involved, and looking into the history of this relationship, he believed it made sense to remove the committee. He then called for a discussion on this item. Seeing none, he called for a motion to remove the Oregon Daily Emerald Board of Directors from the committee structure. The motion was seconded and a voice vote was taken. The motion was approved with one abstention.   

4.2 Winter Curriculum Report; Paul Engelking, Chair; Committee on Courses

Senate President Kyr asked the chair of the Committee on Courses, Paul Engelking (Chemistry), to present the Winter Curriculum Report. Professor Engelking outlined several corrections to the Winter Curriculum Report. The report has been posted to the Senate website. Professor Engelking moved that the Winter Curriculum Report be adopted by the Senate. Senate President Kyr called for a motion to approve the report. The motion was seconded and a voice vote was taken. The Winter Curriculum report was approved unanimously.

4.3 Retirement and Emeriti Policy; John Nicols and Jim Mooney, Co-chairs; Tenure Reduction, Retirement, and Emeriti Committee

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the committee has asked that this policy vote be postponed until the April 11 Senate meeting. Their request was approved and it will come before the Senate at that time.

4.4 Research Misconduct Policy; Beth Stormshak, Associate VP of Research

Senate President Kyr invited Beth Stormshak (Associate VP of Research) to the Senate floor to present the Research Misconduct Policy. Ms. Stormshak stated that the research misconduct policy supports the research integrity of the university. A variety of federal regulations address research misconduct and this policy was required by federal agencies in order for the university to receive research funds. According to Ms. Stormshak in October of 2009, a work groups was formed to revise the policy, which included members of the Senate. It was reviewed by the general counsel and endorsed by the science council and the Faculty Advisory Committee in the spring of 2010. It also went before the Executive Leadership Team and the Senate. Senate President Kyr called for a discussion on the policy. An unidentified Senator asked what the major changes to the policy were. Ms. Stormshak stated that there were no significant changes to the policy. The biggest change was to make sure that the policy avoided the application for open meetings law due to the fact that research misconduct is a confidential matter. The policy now ensures the confidentiality of the misconduct process. Senate President Kyr outlined the steps of policy on policies. He then called for a motion to approve the policy. The motion was called and seconded, and a voice vote was taken. The Research Misconduct Policy was approved unanimously.

4.5 Classified Research Policy, Beth Stormshak

Senate President Kyr asked Ms. Stormshak to discuss the Classified Research Policy that would be coming before the Senate at the April 11 meeting. Ms. Stormshak remarked that the discussion would be delayed. She stated that there were some concerns that the policy did not address some of the issues in its precursor, which was drafted in 1967. After hearing those concerns from faculty, they will be developing a companion policy that will deal with proprietary research. These policies will be brought back to the Senate later in the spring. Senate President Kyr stated that this was an example of how good policy making works. Only with open discussion and involving all parties, can we get it right.

Senator Randy Sullivan asked a question regarding the Classified Research Policy. He asked if the Senate was considering an amendment to an existing policy. Senate President Kyr stated that it was an amendment, but it could also be seen as a development to the policy.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) offered a point of clarification. He stated that the 1967 policy prohibited all secret (federally classified or proprietary) research on campus whose results are owned by a company and are not freely communicable. The policy brought forth from Johnson Hall was to replace that 1967 policy was written in such a way that only federally classified research was addressed. Substituting the old policy for the one that was to have been brought before the Senate, would not have address the question of proprietary research. That failure of the new policy was recognized and brought to the attention of Ms. Stormshak who will develop a policy for proprietary research that will be brought in parallel with the federally classified policy to the Senate.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Stahl for his point of clarification and moved to the reports portion of the meeting. He then asked Ben Eckstein to present the ASUO report

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report; Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

Ben Eckstein (ASUO President) first discussed the Department of Public Safety (DPS) transitioning into a police force. He stated that students are deeply concerned with the process of implementing a police force on campus. Students want an oversight mechanism in place before the transition occurs. This has been taking place, but it has not been resolved. Conversations between students, faculty, and staff have stopped and his administration is working very closely to ensure that there is a strong oversight group. Another issue concerning DPS was to continue to advocate for a weapons free campus. He strongly believes that the university should not have armed police officers housed on campus.

They have also been working on the assessment rate that campus units are charged. The ASUO has been overcharged by 1% on their assessment rate. This equates to more than $130,000 in student fee dollars. His administration is working to get that 1% back. The ASUO was completing their budget season and they are negotiating with the Athletic Department (AD) on their agreement over student tickets. They have agreed to a zero increase in funds paid from the ASUO to the AD for football and basketball tickets. This has not been finalized because the AD wants an 8% increase for next year which would amount to more than $100,000. The ASUO is not able to commit to this increase. They invested the funds not given to the AD in student programs. His administration is continuing to work on the EMU and SRC renovation project. They are exploring the best ways to make the renovations affordable to students. He then asked for questions from the Senate body. No questions were asked. Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Eckstein for his tireless work for students.

5.2 IFS (InterInstitutional Faculty Senate) Report; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that he attended the IFS meeting in Portland at Portland State University (PSU) with the other two IFS Senators. According to Senate President Kyr, the most important issue that was voted on and approved unanimously was to have a meeting in June that will be conjoined with the OUS Leadership Caucus, a group of Senate leaders from all seven OUS institutions. He believes this will be a big step forward because the governance groups from all the campuses will be communicating together. He then thanked Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) for organizing the OUS Leadership Caucus.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further comments, Senate President Kyr called the March 7, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:37PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 8, 2012

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 08 February 2012

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

Present: Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Anthony Hornof, Ryan Kellems, Peter Keyes, Theodora Ko Thompson, Robert Kyr, Peter Lambert, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Carla McNelly, Harlan Mechling, Amy Nuetzman, Marilyn Nippold, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Ying Tan, Nathan Tublitz, Vadim Vologodsky, Dean Walton

Absent: Tracy Bars, John Bonine, Ben Eckstein, John Foster, Mark Gillem, Roland Good, Sangita Gopal, Colin Ives, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Jena Langham, Peng Lu, Andrew Lubash, Stephanie Matheson, Ian McNeely, Jeff Measelle, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Emma Newman, David Riley, Glen Waddell, Peter Walker

Excused: Roger Adkins, Robert Elliot, Karen Estlund, Deborah Healey, Steven Pologe, Donna Shaw

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for February 8, 2012 to order at 3:07PM in the Erb Memorial Union Ballroom.

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the Nov. 9 & Jan. 11 meetings

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there was any discussion on the November 9 or January 11 meeting minutes. Hearing none, he called for the approval of the minutes from the November 9 Senate meeting. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then called for the approval of the minutes from the January 11 Senate meeting. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously.  Senate President Kyr invited Interim President Robert Berdahl to the Senate floor to discuss the state of the university.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Robert Berdahl, Interim President

Interim President Berdahl thanked Senate President Kyr, and stated that the main topic of discussion was the presidential search with input coming from those in attendance. He stated that currently there was a great deal of discussion regarding the University of Oregon along with other institutions within the state system securing independent boards. According to Interim President Berdahl, the house committee on higher education recently passed, by a vote of seven to one, house bill 4061. This bill created a special legislative committee comprised of members of the legislature and members of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) to generate a report on how to achieve independent boards. The bill will be passed to and considered by the Ways and Means Committee and then go before the Senate. Interim President Berdahl believes that the intent of the bill is to create a clear path for the creation of institutional boards in 2013. The bill has passed the committee with bi-partisan support and he hoped that the bill will continue through the Ways and Means Committee and Senate during the month of February.

He then discussed the presidential search. Interim President Berdahl stated that a search committee has been appointed, and that committee has secured the services of a search firm. He stated that the process of recruiting a president is not limited to the university seeking an individual, but also that individual seeking the university. The UO community should provide potential candidates with confidence in the nature of the institution and in the promise that the future of the institution has. He then stated that someone recently stated that they want a president who is optimistic about the future of the institution. Interim President Berdahl thought that there was every reason for a candidate looking at the University of Oregon to be optimistic about the future. He believes that there is a very strong basis for that optimism due to the important ongoing discussions regarding the governance structure of the institution, and also due to the discussions regarding the support that the university has within the broader community; especially support that comes from donors.

Interim President Berdahl believed it was important that the faculty continue to strive to become a community of scholars that focuses on best teaching, student learning, and the discovery of knowledge. He stated that a potential presidential candidate would be looking for those points. He went on to say that the university is one of moderate size, and because of that, it is possible to achieve things more easily than larger institutions. Interim President Berdahl commented that, in many respects, the UO is a face to face campus. This has enabled the university to have many important programs that are interdisciplinary. He believes that this is essential to move forward due to the fact that many exciting breakthroughs occur through interdisciplinary collaboration. He then stated that the university wants a candidate who is creative in considering the means of teaching and delivery. Higher education in the United States is changing at a very rapid rate, and as such, public institutions have to compete with private institutions. Investment in a twenty first century institution will call for a greater investment in IT and in non-traditional means of delivering a quality education. Interim President Berdahl stated that the university must be one of collegiality and respect, in which there is not, as is all too often the case, a profound divide between the administration and the faculty. A new candidate should feel confident in his or her ability to freely move the institution forward using the resources available. He then stated that potential candidates will look at how well the university has coped with state funding or the lack thereof. In preparation for his talk with the city club, Interim President Berdahl referred to several metrics on the university in an effort to determine how the UO measured up with the state as an institution. He believes that the university looks very good. When looking at the number of students enrolled, the UO has higher rates of retention and higher rates of students receiving degrees than any other institution in the state. The UO graduates slightly over seventy percent of its students. As the investment board looks at making a compact with individual institutions in the state of Oregon, Interim President Berdahl believes that the university has a fairly high claim based on the metrics he viewed. Despite tuition increases, students still gradate from the UO with the lowest level of indebtedness. Interim President Berdahl stated that the UO has a great story to tell and he will tell that story to any potential presidential candidate. He then asked for questions from those in attendance.   

2.2 Questions and comments with response

The first question came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He stated that as the university moves forward in pursing an independent governing board, the UO remains Oregon’s flagship university. With the growing role of various regional, national, and international stakeholders in the university, what institutional structures are the administration recommending guaranteeing that the university remains responsible to the people of Oregon.

Interim President Berdahl replied that he did not know what these institutional structures were, but he felt that the state would provide those institutional structures. He then commented that any independent board that is acquired by the university will be largely drawn from citizens of the state of Oregon. He felt that the structure that was beginning to take shape suggests that the universities will be negotiating individual compacts for achievement with the Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB). These compacts will focus on outcomes for the state of Oregon. Interim President Berdahl stated that he would argue very strenuously that the university was and has been committed to the public interest in the state of Oregon. The majority of UO students are drawn from non-residents, but the UO still graduates more Oregonians than any other state institution. If the UO could build a research enterprise that is distinguished and outstanding, an independent board will be manifest.

The next question came from an unidentified community member. He wanted to know who was on the OEIB and how were they selected. Interim President Berdahl replied that the members of the OEIB were appointed by Governor John Kitzhaber.

He then asked if anyone at the UO had a say in determining who was appointed to the OEIB. Interim President Berdahl replied that he could not answer that question because the members of the OEIB had already been appointed before he took over as Interim President. As was the case with most state boards, some have mixed gubernatorial appointments and some have elected members, but the membership of most boards in education at the state level are appointed by the governor.

The unidentified community member then asked how he or anyone else in attendance could be assured that the members of the OEIB have the best interests of the university in mind. Interim President Berdahl recommended watching how the members of the OEIB behave, and if their behavior is unacceptable, the community member should elect a new governor who will appoint a new board.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any more questions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next item of business on the agenda.

3. OPEN DISCUSSION: PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH

3.1 Introduction of Diversified (Search Firm) and the Presidential Search Committee; Chancellor Pernsteiner

Senate President Kyr asked Chancellor George Pernsteiner (Chancellor, OUS), Allyn Ford (Chair, Presidential Search Committee), and Kim Morrison (Diversified Search Firm Representative) to approach the podium for a discussion on the qualities that the university community is seeking in the next University of Oregon President.

3.2 Remarks by Chancellor Pernsteiner

Chancellor George Pernsteiner thanked Senate President Kyr for his introduction and informed the Senate that the presidential search committee had had its first meeting today. He stated that the search committee’s job is to advise the Chancellor and members of the state board in choosing a new president of the university. The committee will help to determine the criteria wanted in a candidate and will sift through candidate profiles and proposals. They will interview candidates and make a recommendation to Chancellor Pernsteiner and the board of higher education. The Chancellor stated that that process began today, and at the meeting, the search consultant was in attendance. He then introduced Kim Morrison from Diversified, a professional search firm operating in Philadelphia and San Francisco. It was the Chancellor’s hope that they would find the right candidate by the end of the spring, but the person must be the right candidate for the job. He then stated that the Chancellor, Allyn Ford, and the Kim Morrison were here today to hear from audience member what traits and characteristics they thought were important in a new president. The search committee will take those responses under advisement as they begin their work. Chancellor Pernsteiner then turned the discussion over to Allyn Ford.

3.3 Remarks by Allyn Ford; Chair, Presidential Search Committee

Allyn Ford stated that last month both he and the Chancellor attended the Senate meeting to listen and understand the various stakeholders that existed within the university. He commented that he was pleasantly surprised at the amount of ground that he has covered during the last three to four weeks. He then remarked that the search was being expedited, which could be dangerous and as such, the committee must make sure they do their jobs right. He felt comfortable with the committee even though not every constituency was represented. He then stated that he was very impressed with the conversations that took place today and believed that the committee was off to a good start. Allyn Ford concluded his comments and turned the conversation over to Kim Morrison.

Kim Morrison thanked everyone for meeting with her over the last two days. She described her experience as a series of interactions in which she and the search committee were trying to listen very hard to what the expectations were around the position of the president, in particular, what kinds of criteria the committee should be using for their screening processes and for the search committees evaluation process. She then stated that this process has led to a series of very good discussions with different stakeholder groups, and the committee will continue to have these discussions. There will also be an opportunity for people to send in their comments to a website that was currently being created. This website will link to the president’s office’s webpage. She commented that her role as a search consultant was to partner with the search committee and to work very closely with them in a very transparent way. As they reach into the market and begin to identify candidates, the search firm will use a document/prospectus that the committee will have approved that outlines the position and its context. They will also use many of the metrics that were previously mentioned by Interim President Berdahl. She believes there was a great story to tell, and having worked with the university on a number of other searches, she stated that the market response has been very positive. She also believe that the university has a good reputation to build on and that she would be able to construct a narrative that will attract people to the table and provide the search committee with good choices from a broad pool. She then invited those in attendance to share with her suggestions and nominations that they believe the committee should follow up on. They will be committed to all suggestions provided.

Chancellor Pernsteiner invited audience members to recommend to the panel various qualities, traits, and experiences that they felt to be the hallmarks of a successful president at the university. He then informed members of the audience that Tim Black (Assistant Vice President, Office of the President) will also be accepting suggestions via email at timblack@uoregon.edu which will be sent to the search committee for their review.

3.4 Questions and comments with response

The first comment came from a community member named David. He commented that he had previously attended the university for a brief period and later attended Rutgers University as a chemistry major. According to David, the nutrition department at Rutgers was associated with the Nabisco Company which made it difficult for students to participate in nutrition research. He then asked if the board was going to privatize the university and not negotiate on behalf of the student body for items including books. David then commented that books must be newly purchased every year regardless of whether the material had changed significantly. He wanted the university to remain a public university. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked David for his comments.

The next comment came from Senior Instructor Kassia Dellabough (AAA, Director of PODS). She stated that an essential characteristic for the next president was for her/him to have a very accessible personality so that students on the street would feel welcome to come and say hello. She believed that the next president must be approachable on all levels and provide a strong sense of humanity and be able to personally connect with every rank. She then commented that Richard Lariviere was that way. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked her for her comment.

Another comment came from an unidentified community member. He noticed that the university had a unique culture including their commitment to undergraduate education which he thought was rare in a research university. Senate President Kyr asked the community member to please identify himself before continuing. He identified himself as Paul and asked if the panel had considered looking within the university for someone who might better understand its unique culture. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked him for his comment.

The next comment came from David Parziale (student) who seconded Senior Instructor Dellabough’s comment. According to him, Richard Lariviere was not very approachable and felt looked down upon by the universities previous president. He commented that he had concerns when looking at the history of the certain members of the presidential search committee and wanted to know why the committee was chaired by the owner of a logging company. Chancellor Pernsteiner asked for other comments from the audience.

The next comment came from an unidentified community member. He stated that he was a student at the university many years ago in the college of education. He felt that everyone in attendance was concerned with the direction that the university was heading and stated that the president was responsible for many. He did not want the new president to be responsible to the OEIB, and believed that the OEID was an alien group of people whose interests were different from the student body and professors. If privatization or bankruptcy were to occur, the professors would not have a chance and would be flattened. He then stated that tenure falls apart and that was what professors were concerned with. He hoped that the Chancellor and the state board find a president that was independent of the OEIB. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked him for his comment.

Senator Anthony Hornof (Computer and Information Science) stated that he served on the Senate seven years ago and reported on a controversial issue that arose during that time. He believed that an important criterion for a future president was someone who was sensitive to the complexities of these issues. The issues were pertaining to race and the complexities involved in promoting and giving appropriate credit and recognition to minorities and women. He recalled that during that Senate meeting, there were very heated discussions on these issues and the next president should be able to navigate the complexities of these issues. The other issue he mentioned was a debate as to whether the Senate should recommend to the President that the President recommend against any faculty receiving funding that could be construed as having any affiliation with defense spending. It seemed to Senator Hornof that this debate was between the sciences and the humanities and was an extremely divisive topic. He believed that the future president should be sensitive to issues like these.

Katie Taylor (ASUO Vice President) stated that students would like to see a president that has the commitment to access and award authority to students especially regarding students of color, LGBT students, and students with disabilities. They would also like to see a president that was committed to shared governance among all stakeholder groups. Students want a voice in policy decisions and the next president should commit to include students, faculty, classified staff, and OAs in the conversation early on regarding policy creation and development. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked her for her comments.

David, a Eugene community member stated that Allyn Ford was the owner of Roseburg Timber. He thought that that was a bias against students that want to pursue environmental projects and save the environment. He then stated that Allyn Ford was involved with a company that does a lot of clear cutting of forests.

Senator Randy Sullivan stated that he was looking for a very specific characteristic in the next president as the university becomes increasingly more reliant on individual donors. He commented that donors like to give for glamorous reasons including research and sporting facilities. He wants a president who will glamorize lower divisions in general education so that his classrooms can be filled. Senator Sullivan stated that the university needs a donor for classroom and office space, and the next president needs to be able to motivate those donors to provide these items for the university.

The next comment was from Danielle Howe (UO Libraries). She believes the next president should be a strong consensus builder with proven demonstrable experience in building consensus among very diverse constituencies. Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked her for her comments.

Senate President Kyr stated that earlier, someone made a remark regarding Allyn Ford and that remark was based on a political distinction and on the environment. Senate President Kyr stated that he did not know what Mr. Ford’s stance was on these issues, but what he could tell the Senate was that Mr. Ford has funded, through the Ford Family Foundation, many scholarships for students in need and the Ford Alumni Center. He then thanked Mr. Ford for his generous gifts to the university and for collaborating with the presidential search committee.    

4. NEW BUSINESS

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report; Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

Senate Vice President Katie Taylor gave the ASUO Report. She thanked Senate President Kyr for the opportunity to report to the Senate. She updated the Senate on the Erb Memorial Union (EMU) construction project. The ASUO wants more student input on how the decisions are being made during the remodeling. She then stated that students are generally opposed to building a concert hall connected to the EMU. They do want a concert hall, but not connected to the EMU. The ASUO was negotiating their thirteen million dollar budget with various groups like the athletic department and the office for multicultural academic success. The ASUO Executive has instituted the Student Coalition on Reprioritization of Education (SCORE) which will mobilize students to push the athletic department to fulfill the first recommendation of the 2004 Intercollegiate Athletics Task Force report and donate a portion of their proceeds to academics. She then thanked the Senate for allowing her to present the student update.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS & COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr stated that he thinks the students have not understood that the concert hall is actually for the students. If a concert hall existed, the students could perform some of the great works of orchestral music by composers like Mahler and Brahms that they cannot perform in Beall Concert Hall. There are valid educational reasons for proposing a concert hall. He then welcomed the ASUO and other students to have a dialogue with the school of music faculty and dean as to why, for educational purposes, a concert hall was worthy of consideration.

6.1 Campus Forum: Faculty Unionization

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate will host an educational forum on the unionization of the faculty. A panel of faculty members who are for and against the union will have time to present their ideas as to why the support or do not support the union. An open dialogue will take place between audience members and the panel of faculty members.

Senate President Kyr then asked everyone in attendance to please submit their nominations for the four Senate Awards listed below.

6.2 Wayne Westling Award (Kyr)

6.3 UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award (Kyr)

6.4 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for OAs (Kyr)

6.5 Distinguished Service Award (Kyr)

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the February 8, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:12 PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 11, 2012

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 11 January 2012

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

Present: Roger Adkins, Tracy Bars, John Bonine, Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker Ben Eckstein, Robert Elliot, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, Karen Estlund, John Foster, Deborah Healey, Anthony Hornof, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Theodora Ko Thompson Peter Lambert, Kelley Leon Howarth, Ryan Kellems, Peter Keyes, Robert Kyr, Huaxin Lin, Andrew Lubash, Stephanie Matheson, Carla McNelly, Ian McNeely, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Emma Newman, Marilyn Nippold, Amy Nuetzman, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Ying Tan, Nathan Tublitz, Glen Waddell, Peter Walker, Dean Walton

Absent: Pedro Garcia Caro, Mark Gillem, Roland Good, Sangita Gopal, Colin Ives, Jena Langham, Peng Lu, Jeffrey Measelle, Harlan Mechling, Vadim Vologodski,

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for January 11, 2012 to order at 3:04PM in the Erb Memorial Union Ballroom. He offered a warm welcome to those in attendance and stated that he was personally grateful for such a large turnout to this very important Senate meeting. 

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the Nov. 30 and Dec. 7 meetings

Senate President Kyr called for the approval of the November 30 and December 7 Senate meeting minutes. He asked the Senate body for suggested changes or revisions to the minutes. Seeing none, he called for a motion to approve the minutes. A motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously.

1.2 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that today was a special occasion because it was the first time that the university community has had the opportunity to engage with President Robert Berdahl (Interim President) in a public forum. He was personally thrilled that President Berdahl accepted the position. Senate President Kyr stated that this acceptance shows the President’s confidence in the university community and in the University of Oregon. He then personally thanked President Berdahl for his leadership and invited him to the podium to present his address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Robert Berdahl, Interim President

Below are Interim President Berdahl’s remarks to the Senate.

Robert M. Berdahl, Interim President
UO Senate Meeting Remarks Jan. 11, 2012

Good afternoon. Although, as I am sure you know, I am not pleased with the circumstances that have led to my being here today in this role of interim president, I am very pleased with the opportunity to return to the UO and to participate, once again in its wonderful and important activities.

I want to apologize in advance to everyone I will not have a chance to meet during my interim presidency, to every department and office I'm not able to visit, and to all who invite me to functions that I'm not able to attend. An interim presidency is different, and my orientation across the campus and with stakeholders across the state can't be as thorough as it was for Richard and will be for the next president. There simply isn't enough time to get to know each of you the way I would like to.

I am honored that the faculty, represented by this senate, was in favor of my appointment as interim president. Absence, it is said, makes the heart grow fonder; in fact, I suspect, absence only causes the memory to grow fainter, so that somehow whatever memory remains of my earlier incarnation here is colored more favorably than it should be. People seem to have an exaggerated esteem for me, so that it is certain and inevitable that my reputation will be worse by September than it is now. On the other hand, presidential honeymoons usually last about 9 months, so if we can keep this marriage happily together until September, I may escape before you entirely regret your recommendation to the Oregon Board of Higher Education.

Last night, as I was settling in to write these brief remarks at McMorran House, I chanced to pick up a brochure on the history of the UO president’s residence and I was surprised to learn that of the twelve UO presidents who have lived in McMorran house during the last seventy years, I have followed the University closely as a faculty member or champion through nine. And I have known reasonably well or worked in some fashion with six of them.

I served as a dean when Paul Olum was president; I knew Myles Brand when we were both deans, he at Arizona, I here, and then when we were both provosts in the Big Ten; I have known Dave Frohnmayer for forty years, from the time we were both young faculty, and I worked closely with him and admired his leadership when I was president of the AAU, where he served with distinction on the AAU executive committee and hosted one of its best meetings here at UO. And I have known and worked with Richard Lariviere at Texas and here; I have already offered public testimony of my admiration for his leadership.

Those are all tall shoulders upon which to stand, and it is because we stand on their shoulders that we have been given a more far-reaching vision of where this University can go, of what it can achieve.

But, however much inspired leadership these presidents may have provided, however far they can see to a distant horizon, it is ultimately the faculty that will take us there. For it is, in the final analysis, the quality of the faculty that determines the quality of the University. It takes excellent staff to make it all work, but this University will ultimately be judged by the quality of its faculty, nothing more, nothing less.

Excellence begets excellence across the entire University community. That refers to our faculty, to our students, to classified staff, officers of administration and everyone else associated with the university. I remember a comment from 1986 Nobel Laureate Yuan T. Lee who earned his Ph.D. at Berkeley then later in his career returned to teach at Berkeley. Professor Lee said that he originally came to study at Berkeley because of the quality of the faculty then he returned to teach at Berkeley because of the quality of the Students. Excellence begets Excellence.

So, you may ask, where do I hope we can go over the next few months?

First, it is essential that we recruit and retain the very best faculty we possibly can. Because of good financial management and a successful model for growing revenue, despite poor state support, the UO is relatively unique in its capacity to add faculty to its ranks over the course of this academic year. CAS currently has about 35 searches underway, many of them new lines; the other schools and colleges are also adding faculty. Few public universities are able to do this in this fiscal environment.

We must take care that we are recruiting the very best. The mark of a first-class faculty, a self-confident faculty, I believe, is the willingness to recruit people who are better than those of us who are already here. The other mark of a first-class faculty is the willingness to halt a search and start over, rather than filling a position with a lesser choice simply to fill it. I am confident that the deans and the central administration are determined to help you achieve successful searches in every possible way. This is how our momentum can be sustained.

Second, we must recruit a strong, visionary, effective leader as the next president of the UO. The search process is getting underway, as Chancellor Pernsteiner and Board member Ford will be discussing with the campus today and in the days ahead. I clearly have an interest in this process being completed by the beginning of the summer and a new president in place for the next academic year. But I also believe that the campus has a great interest in securing a president who can be in place by September.

We have a lot of momentum. Although morale has been damaged by the Board’s decision to terminate President Lariviere, it is generally high because of the momentum, the hope and expectation of the future, which he generated.

One of my tasks as a presidential consultant this fall was to help in planning for the upcoming capital campaign. I met with all the deans and a number of faculty. Contrary to one of the truisms coined by Peter Flawn, one of my predecessors as President of UT Austin, who observed that “Faculty morale is always at an all-time low,” I found faculty morale to be very high. One associate dean in CAS commented, “I would rather be at the UO right now than at any other public university in America.”

The key to keeping that sense of optimism alive is to recruit and retain outstanding faculty, but also to recruit an outstanding president. I believe I can be of help in that process, in part because my previous positions have enabled me to know a large number of potential candidates. I hope to be able to play an active role in the search process.

Our third imperative, upon which the others depend, is to advance the project of gaining an independent board for the UO. I believe this is essential to sustaining the morale of this institution. It is essential if we are to successfully recruit faculty. It is essential if we are to be able to spend the university’s resources to best support our people and our mission.

And it is essential to the successful recruitment of a strong, independent leader for the UO. Given the abbreviated tenure of the last president, all presidential candidates – at least any whom we would be interested in recruiting – are bound to ask whether, given the current abysmal support for the university from the state, is it possible to succeed in advancing the University unless it is liberated from its current constraints.

My answer is simply, no. One need only to look to the success of OHSU to realize how an institution provided with greater freedom of action can prosper. OHSU has moved from a middling medical school to being a first-rate medical school and research center, now competing for talent with the very best medical centers in the nation.

I believe the UO can experience a similar leap forward; I believe there is the possibility of a major restructuring of our revenue stream that can happen if we are given the freedom to do so. I believe there is substantial support for this within the context of the governor’s plan for restructuring education in Oregon and that the moment is ripe for such a change.

I am aware that there is opposition to the UO’s efforts from some quarters and that some other institutions in the State System view this initiative negatively. I confess that I do not understand why. We do not propose to take any resources from other institutions in the system; we do not propose to withdraw from any of the collaborations with the other institutions. We are as committed to the public mission of the University as any institution in the state, and we will remain committed to that public mission, as are other public universities who have their own boards.

Higher education in Oregon was not weakened by granting OHSU independence; it was strengthened as OHSU grew better and attracted to Oregon outstanding faculty and students. Excellence begets excellence; mediocrity begets mediocrity. If the UO becomes a stronger University, how is another institution weakened? I know from personal experience that UC Berkeley is a better university because it compares itself to Stanford, because it competes as well as collaborates with Stanford as well as with UC San Francisco.

So I am determined to advance the project of an independent board for UO. And, since members of the Board of Higher Education have indicated publicly as well as privately that the Board’s differences with President Lariviere were not over policy, but over style, I intend to work with the Chancellor and the Board to achieve those policies that will yield an independent board for the UO.

Since this is a meeting of the University Senate, let me close with a few words about shared governance. At the University of Oregon, in a manner that is almost unique to this university, the statutory faculty has included, through the creation of a broad-based University wide Senate, many voices in fulfilling the faculty’s primary responsibility of addressing academic matters.

I am a firm believer in the principle of shared governance. In my various capacities as a faculty member, or university administrator, or president of the AAU, I have seen a wide range of experiences in shared governance. I have seen examples where the faculty role in shared governance was extremely weak, held so by administrative design. I have seen cases where the principle of shared governance was present by design, but where it functioned very poorly and ineffectively because the faculty senate was controlled by faculty who commanded little respect from either the administration or their faculty colleagues; as a consequence, the best faculty refused to be involved and the faculty senate became the playground of the malcontents who ground their own axes and operated, not as an advisor to the administration, but as its adversary. As a result, mutual trust disappeared and shared governance failed to function properly.

At Berkeley, I experienced shared governance in one of its best manifestations. Shared governance at Berkeley dates back to 1920, when the faculty gained a major voice in the academic matters of the campus, advising the president on all appointments and promotions of faculty and deans, on all curricular matters and changes of educational policy, and on budget issues. According to one historian of shared governance at Berkeley, the faculty there enjoyed more influence on the academic direction of the university than any other faculty in the nation.

I happen to believe that this level of shared governance has been largely responsible for the excellence of Berkeley. The very best faculty at Berkeley, including Nobel laureates, take responsibility for maintaining the quality of the faculty. While post-tenure review at some universities is seen as an invasion of the right of tenure, at Berkeley, it is taken for granted. A powerful committee of the faculty reviews every member of the faculty every three years and makes recommendations on all merit increases. Every appointment, every promotion is reviewed by this committee, providing advice to the chancellor. It is the faculty, working with the administration that largely accounts for the quality of Berkeley.

So I approach the newly drafted constitution for the faculty senate of the UO from this perspective on shared governance: it works best when the most respected members of the faculty are willing to assume responsibility for it; it works best when the faculty takes most seriously its job for sustaining the quality of the faculty and the academic program; and it works best when it considers the administration as an ally in the quest for quality, not as its adversary.

Further, it works best when we engage in participatory decision making but with clarity about who then makes the decision. If, together, we trust that each of us, faculty and administration, want to build the best university we can, we may occasionally disagree on the means, but not the ends, and we can work together in a non-adversarial fashion.

Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you.

He then called for questions from the Senate and members of the university community.

2.2 Questions and comments with response

The first question came from Professor Ron Lovinger (Landscape Architecture). He first thanked Interim President Berdahl for his comments, and stated that he also arrived at the university during the time of President Arthur Fleming. He was concerned with the landscape structure of campus and the continued disintegration of walkways, roads, plantings, etc… A serious issue for him was who will take care of the universities living landscape treasure. He hoped that over the next few months, the university would seriously consider the beautiful legacy that has been inherited by our community. Instead of thinking about objects and buildings, he would prefer to see a shift towards the consideration of relationships and how ideals manifest themselves through our roles as stewards of our campus landscape for future generations of students, faculty, and staff. Professor Lovinger then stated that he has been reluctant to make this point until now, but he believed that a shift in receptivity was taking place. According to Professor Lovinger, over the years, the landscape infrastructure at the university has disintegrated. He hoped that the Senate and administration would seriously consider his plea especially in the areas of the Willamette River, the Riverfront Research Park, and the entire ecosystem of the Willamette Valley.

Interim President Berdahl thanked Professor Lovinger for his words and stated that he has always believed that the University of Texas at Austin has the best university physical plan in the nation. While he was President of that institution, his administration hired a development team to prepare a master plan for the university. This plan was one of his proudest achievements as President of that institution. His successors have followed through with this plan, which was noticed by city officials and soon integrated into the surrounding areas of the university. This process was repeated on a smaller scale when he was Chancellor at the University of California Berkeley. Interim President Berdahl then stated that he appreciated Professor Lovingers suggestions and would pass his concerns along to his successor if he could not attend to them himself.

The next question came from Senator John Bonine (Law). He wanted to know what Interim President Berdahl could offer as a selling point from his experience in working with state officials towards the hiring of a new University President.

In response to Senator Bonine’s question, Interim President Berdahl replied that all public universities are undergoing tremendous stress and are entering into newly defined relationships with their respective states as the percentage of state funding declines. Universities are working to renegotiate their relationships with their respective states. Some have had independent boards for most of their history (University of Michigan) and have flourished more often than not. He also thought that the new partnership, as outlined by Richard Lariviere, was a compelling vision for flagship public universities across the nation. Flagship universities have suffered the most as a result of state decline due to their more expensive cost structures. The struggle resides in how to sustain the public mission of a public university with a different governance and revenue structure. He then stated that the state’s contribution towards the University of Oregon’s operating budget was the lowest in the country. To him it was obvious that the state should not be able to have complete control of the institution while only contributing seven percent of the budget. He felt that the redefinition of structure was an important issue so that a President could feel that he or she could take the university forward. He then discussed the AAU’s meeting at the University of Oregon during the Frohnmayer administration and called it one of the most successful meetings in the history of the organization. He believed it was so successful because AAU members who came from other universities on the East coast were unaware of the quality that existed at the UO, and were very impressed. He believes that will happen to potential candidates who do not know much about the university.

The next question came from Ben Eckstein (ASUO President). He asked Interim President Berdahl what he thought the role of students was in shared governance at the university. Due to the fact that students have had to make up for the lack of state investment, he also wanted to know the level of influence students would have at the university and what Interim President Berdahl would do during his time to reach out to students.

Interim President Berdahl replied that it was important to have an open dialogue regarding all issues that involve students. If the faculty declines, student’s degrees will not mean very much. The students have a vested interest in their degrees, but they must recognize that it takes resources to maintain talented faculty. He then stated that it was dreadful that students must bear the brunt of their educational costs. Despite this issue, students, faculty, and the administration must work together to maintain the quality of the university. Tuition and fees are an inevitable component of maintaining these resources. He hoped that the students understood this due to their vested interest in the quality of their degrees. During the last meeting of the legislature, it was decided that fees would not be raised more than five percent per year.

Interim President Berdahl then mentioned that when he was Chancellor of UC Berkeley, his administration went five year without raising tuition. According to Interim President Berdahl, this was a terrible mistake. It necessitated an enormous tuition increase at the end of the five year period, and was extremely unfair to the students who came after the five years with no increase. Operating without tuition increases for years at a time passes the burden of maintaining the university to the next generation of students.

The next comment was from Professor Bruce Blonigen (Economics). He mentioned two concerns. The first concern was regarding the Presidential search and the second concern was an operational concern. He stated that the governor’s issues with the state will not be resolved until 2013, and as such the next UO President will not know whom to report to and he asked for Interim President Berdahl’s thoughts on that issue. His second concern was regarding retention of faculty. According to Professor Blonigen, the UO lost many good people last year and there was currently a hiring market crisis for post docs coming out of PHD programs. He also mentioned that university salaries were below AAU comparator schools and that this was very important for maintaining quality at the UO. He then asked Interim President Berdahl to address Richard Lariviere’s dismissal for attempting to close the gap between the UO and their AAU comparator schools.

Interim President Berdahl replied that the UO could not afford to lose faculty in large numbers without it profoundly affecting morale and the momentum surrounding the university. Retaining and recruiting people are tantamount and Richard Lariviere paid a very high price for increasing salaries, but he did the right thing. He then stated that the issue of salary compression was not new. Interim President Berdahl arrived at the University of Oregon in 1967, which was one of the most expansive times in the history of the UO, and even then there was salary compression. He was paid a higher wage than assistant professors who had been hired two and three years prior to his arrival, and those who were hired after him had even higher salaries. He then stated that he would be discussing this issue with the Chancellor and state board. In regards to Professor Blonigen’s comment regarding the next President not knowing who his boss would be, Interim President Berdahl stated that he will have to work to come out of the legislature with a clear path that can assure a future candidate that the goals that have been defined within the university can be achieved. This will be a critical component of the UO’s ability to recruit.

The next question came from Professor Shawn Lockery (Biology). He stated that approximately two thirds of the UO new hires are in the sciences. The Vice President for Research stated that the budget for start-up funds currently stands at five hundred thousand dollars. To put that into perspective, the last assistant professor hired in this department required one million three hundred thousand dollars in start-up funds. He believed this to be a serious problem that required extreme measures for resolution, and asked Interim President Berdahl what type extreme measures he was willing to support.

Interim President Berdahl replied that he could not answer that question. He recognized the problem and stated that start-up costs in the sciences are the largest stumbling block to the recruitment of new faculty. One solution might be to spread out new hires, but he did not know the answer. He then stated that he was conscious to the fact that start-up funds were relatively depleted and the UO will have to find the means of sequestering more in the years ahead. It will be much more difficult to secure federal money going forward than it has been in the past which means the university will have to carry current faculty much longer with start-up funds than previously. Interim President Berdahl will be working with the Vice President for Research and the deans on this issue. The current budget model disperses funds to the different colleges placing the funding responsibility on the deans rather than with the central administration. To close, Interim President Berdahl thanked the Senate and university community members for their interaction and stated that he looked forward to working together with everyone during his time at the university.

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim President Berdahl for his remarks and his leadership.        

3. OPEN DISCUSSION: PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH PROCESS

Senate President Kyr introduced George Pernsteiner (OUS Chancellor) and Allyn Ford (Chair, Presidential Search Committee) to the Senate body and informed everyone that there will be another campus forum conjoined with a Senate meeting on February 8. At that meeting, a discussion will be held on the qualities sought after in a new President.

3.1 Remarks by Chancellor George Pernsteiner

Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked the Senate and members of the university community for attending the forum and sharing their comments and suggestions as the search process moved forward. He stated that he was very excited to be working with Interim President Berdahl because of his ability to act as advisor to both the Chancellor and board members regarding the selection of a potential presidential candidate. Chancellor Pernsteiner asked Allyn Ford to present his remarks to the Senate.

3.2 Remarks by Allyn Ford; Chair, Presidential Search Committee

Allyn Ford stated that he wanted to be sure that the state board of higher education was in agreement with Interim President Berdahl’s statement that their objective was to expedite the search process. The state board appointed Mr. Ford as chair of the search committee. The search committee will be working very closely with the Chancellor and other members of the university. It is his hope to be able to recommend a presidential candidate for the board’s approval during the month of June. He then introduced himself to the Senate and university community members. He stated that he has been on the state board for three years and lived in Roseburg, OR. He is the owner of a wood products business and his connection to the University of Oregon was fairly strong. Mr. Ford then stated that the objective of the search committee was to move quickly. The task at hand was to put together a search committee comprised of approximately twenty members with two thirds of the members coming from the University of Oregon. The remaining thirty to forty percent of the committee will be comprised of donors, alumni, and friends of the institution. Each member of the search committee must be able to effectively communicate the needs of their specific constituency.

Mr. Ford remarked that the search committees will focus on finding a quality candidate. If the committee does not find the right person for the job, they will continue the search until they do. He then stated that both he and Chancellor Pernsteiner were here to listen and then turned the conversation over to Chancellor Pernsteiner.

Chancellor Pernsteiner thanked Mr. Ford for his leadership and willingness to serve in this important role as chair of the Presidential search committee. He reiterated Mr. Ford’s comment regarding the committees focus on quality. He was interested in designing a process that will result in the selection a top quality candidate hopefully before the end of the spring term. According to Chancellor Pernsteiner, the committee will not scrimp on quality to meet a timeline. For the past month, Chancellor Pernsteiner has been in consultation with students, the Senate Executive Committee, and others around campus in an effort to identify who might serve most effectively on the search committee. He then asked the Senate and community members to contemplate whether they would be interested in adding additional names to the list that was under consideration. All names are to be submitted to Sona Andrews (Vice Chancellor for Academic Strategies) via email to sona_andrews@ous.edu. The names of potential search committee members will be accepted through the end of the day on Friday, January 13, 2012. He then stated that it was very important that each member of the search committee be well respected within their respective constituencies. When submitting a name for nomination, the Chancellor asked to note that person’s affiliation and to provide a brief statement of support. The Chancellor then stated that he has and will be contacting the people whose names are put forth for service to ascertain their willingness to serve.

The Chancellor reiterated that there will be twenty people on the search committee; twelve of the twenty will be comprised of faculty, staff, and student from the University of Oregon. The remaining committee members will come from the community and will include donors, alumni, and other supporter of the institution. Appropriate representation from all constituencies was very important to the success of the new President and this was why both he and Mr. Ford were reaching out and seeking suggestions as to who ought to be on the search committee. Chancellor Pernsteiner remarked that the work of the search committee would mainly be concentrated during the months of March, April, and May of this year. They are currently in the process of seeking a search consultant firm. According to the Chancellor, proposals were sent a month ago to dozens of search firms around the country for their consideration in advising the search committee. A review panel, of which Interim President Berdahl was a member, will review each proposal and submit their recommendation to Chancellor Pernsteiner regarding who the panel believes is the best search consultant firm. Once the search firm has been selected, the Presidential Search Committee will invite the principle search member to their first committee meeting, which will hopefully take place around the first of February. S/he will also be invited to the February 8 campus forum.

Chancellor Pernsteiner informed the Senate that a review committee, comprised exclusively of campus representatives, was in the process of being established. This committee would have a role in interviewing presidential candidates before the search committee presents their selection to the state board. He hopes that this will bring a wider understanding of each potential candidate to university community members. They are still in the process of determining how this review committee will be established, but discussions are underway.

After Chancellor Pernsteiner concluded his remarks, Senate President Kyr called for questions and comments from the Senate and university community members.  

3.3 Questions and comments with response

The first comment came from Professor John Moseley (Physics Emeritus). He stated that over the past twenty two years of his career at the University of Oregon, there was a lingering sentiment that the success of the university came at the expense of other institutions in the Oregon University System (OUS). He has never observed that to be true. Professor Moseley then asked Chancellor Pernsteiner what he was going to say when this issue was raised again.

Chancellor Pernsteiner replied that the current resource allocation model was based on several factors. There are targeted programs that are specified by the legislature in their line item reports that are not denominated by students. There was also an amount denominated by fundable students based on the level of the student, their division, and discipline level. What has happened over the last several years was that the mix of students in the system has shifted. In the late 1980s, thirty percent of fundable students were at the University of Oregon. Today that figure was twenty percent or fewer, and as a result, other institutions have increased their resident students at a much faster rate. Total students include non-resident and non-fundable students. He also added that higher cost disciplines including engineering and medicine are concentrated at Oregon State University which makes their numbers look different in comparison to the UO. He then stated that the model was still functioning in the fashion by which it was designed in 1999 and takes into account the shift in students. Chancellor Pernsteiner did not believe that that was the correct way to fund students going forward.

Professor Moseley replied that Chancellor Pernsteiner had not answered his question, to which the Chancellor apologized. Professor Moseley then repeated his question which was; did Chancellor Pernsteiner believe that the success of the University of Oregon over the last thirty years has come at the expense of other institutions in the system and does he see the future success of the university coming at the expense of other institutions in OUS.

In response to Professor Moseley’s first question, Chancellor Pernsteiner replied absolutely not. According to the Chancellor, all of the OUS institutions, on virtually every measure, are more successful than they have ever been previously. He then stated that the success of the UO, which was undoubted, has not in any way harmed other institutions. The state of Oregon has set a very high goal for education detainment that every institution will have stretch to attain, and none of the OUS institutions need harm any of the others in order for each to be successful.

At this point, Senate President Kyr mentioned that many have heard, from various resources around the state, statement that were quite inflammatory regarding this topic. Others have been working for many years to inspire a sense of understanding among the institutions in the state that the UO was operating on good will and collaboration. Each institution should be recognized for what it was and should be supported in that manner. He then asked Chancellor Pernsteiner for his help in communicating this to the state board because the UO has been frequently villainized in the press and among their colleagues at other institutions who do not understand what Chancellor Pernsteiner had just expressed. He then called for the next question.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) thanked Chancellor Pernsteiner and Allyn Ford for attending the Senate meeting and taking questions from the both the Senate and university community members. In regard to the search committee selection, he asked Chancellor Pernsteiner if he was giving greater weight to executive committees from the Senate, ASUO, and the classified staff union than from suggestions coming from others in the university community.

Chancellor Pernsteiner replied that he has agreed to consult with those groups once he has accumulated all suggested names for the search committee.

Senate President Kyr then stated that he, as Senate President, would be in close communication, providing updates, and participating in outreach. All of that has taken place through the Senate Executive Committee, the Senate, and the entire university community through emails from the Office of Communication asking for nominations to the search committee. He then reminded everyone that more names may be submitted to Sona Andrews as was previously mentioned by Chancellor Pernsteiner.

The next comment came from Senator John Bonine (Law). He disagreed with the Chancellor’s comment regarding whether or not the success of the University of Oregon would hurt other OUS institutions. Senator Bonine stated that there were those who believed that the university would hurt other institutions should it gain a greater measure of independence from the state. He believed that the precept stating nothing the university does shall harm other institutions focuses on the wrong issue. Senator Bonine stated that the right issue should be that the university shall persuade other institutions if things that are done for the benefit of the university will not be harmful because they will not be harmful. Structural change will not necessarily harm other institutions, but will enhance the universities independence.

Chancellor Pernsteiner replied that he would not prejudge what the right outcome should be. OUS was trying to do what was best for the state and the citizens of Oregon. The mechanisms employed and the resources garnered are yet to be determined. He then stated that there was no prima facie case to be made that says that any issue at the University of Oregon was automatically deleterious to any other institution.

Senator Bonine replied that the Chancellor’s previous statement could have been taken by some as a restriction to the changes that many feel are necessary and that he believes the Chancellor also feels are necessary.

The Chancellor replied that there was a process in place through the board’s governance committee that would bring closure to these issues. The governor has outlined this process to the governance committee in December and these issues will be addressed. According to the Chancellor, this process started in late 2009 which led to the adoption of Senate Bill 242 which changed the status of the University of Oregon. He then informed the Senate that nothing was off the table.

Senator Bonine replied that because the issue of the board’s internal governance committees had been raised, the November draft produced by that committee for the allocation of power between the state board and a university board was completely unacceptable. He then asked Chancellor Pernsteiner if there was something he could do or would be willing to do to involve stakeholders in the discussions of the internal governance committee so that it does not remain completely internal to the board. He was concerned that there would be little involvement from stakeholder groups outside of the internal governance committee.

Chancellor Pernsteiner replied that he would bring this concern before the governance committee. He then remarked that a way could be found to involve a broader set of people in these discussions. Currently, they will be involving the Presidents of the OUS institutions and are open to including other in the discussion.

Senator Bonine thanked Chancellor Pernsteiner for his consideration and remarked that this was consistent with the universities system of shared governance.

Senate President Kyr called for one final question before moving on to the rest of the items on the agenda.

The final comment came from Professor Brigid Flannery (Education). She asked that both the Chancellor and Mr. Ford keep in mind that the faculty was very diverse group and that there were both tenure and non-tenure related faculty. She also stated that the Senate was a very strong body, and that it had non-voting members that included research faculty. She believed that these research faculty members were a critical component of the university and should have a strong voice in the selection of the next President.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Flannery for her comment and mentioned that there was another forum taking place at 5PM in the Gerlinger Alumni Lounge. He invited everyone to this forum and stated that there would be more time for discussion with the Chancellor and Mr. Ford. Senate President Kyr thanked Chancellor Pernsteiner and Allyn Ford for their presentations and reminded those in attendance that at the February eighth Senate meeting, Interim President Berdahl would be addressing the university community followed by a discussion with Chancellor Pernsteiner and Allyn Ford.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Policy on Policies; Nathan Tublitz, Immediate Past President

Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) stated that in December, under Senate President Kyr’s tutelage, the Policy on Policies was signed and approved by President Richard Lariviere. Last year, an informal agreement was reached with the university administration that all university policies should come before the Senate for review.  The Policy on Policies established the procedure by which all policies go through before being adopted at the university. The policy flowchart was displayed on the view screen and Senator Tublitz briefly outlined the various steps that a policy must go through before being approved. He then stated that before the Policy on Policies was adopted, the Senate was never officially kept in the loop. Now every policy goes to the Senate President who decides whether or not the policy has an academic impact. If it does, even indirectly, it goes to the Senate Executive Committee who decided whether or not the policy was important enough to bring before the full Senate for a vote of approval. All policies are formally adopted after they are signed by the President. He then stated that this was a major change and thanked the administration for working very closely with the Senate to bring about this important change to the policy approval process.

4.2 Policies under consideration: Legal Representation; Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech; Facilities Use; Retirement & Emeriti; Research Misconduct (Nathan Tublitz)

Senator Tublitz briefly informed the Senate that the following policies listed above will be coming before the Senate for approval. He then asked for questions from the Senate body. He closed his comments by thanking Senate President Kyr for his great work towards the approval of both the Policy on Policies and the UO Constitution. Senate President Kyr invited Ben Eckstein (AUSO President) to the Senate floor to present the ASUO Report.

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report; Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

Mr. Eckstein informed the Senate that the ASUO was embarking on their budget allocation season. The ASUO allocates approximately thirteen million dollars of student fees for various student related activities, services, and programs. He then stated that the ASUO was working very hard to renegotiate their agreement with the athletic department. Athletics encompasses sixteen percent of student fee expenditures. This expenditure has been growing over the years, and as a result, the cost of football and basketball student tickets has skyrocketed over the past ten years. The rates for these tickets were currently being renegotiated. He was optimistic that the ASUO would see a significant reduction in spending for athletics and a lower rate on student tickets. Another highly contentious issue that was and continues to be confronted by the ASUO was the restructuring of the Office of Multicultural Academic Success (OMAS). The office was being transformed into the Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence (CMAE). According to Mr. Eckstein, the ASUO Executive engaged the support of a coalition of students that has acted quickly in order to protect services on campus for student of color and to ensure that students have a role in the development of OMAS and CMAE.

He then mentioned a change to the sexual assault reporting policy that was discussed during the last Senate meeting. Last year, the ASUO Student Senate passed a resolution that was co-sponsored by the ASUO Executive which strongly objected to the university’s plans to change their policies on sexual assault reporting. He then stated that this issue was part of a national debate over the balance between legal responsibilities of public institutions of higher education and the needs of survivors of sexual assault. He felt that students had not been included enough in these conversations, and the ASUO Executive have been working to ensure that policies are being created that respect the needs of survivors of sexual violence on campus. The office of the dean of students has agreed to assemble a group of students to review these policy changes.

Mr. Eckstein commented that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) has continued to work with the Athletics Department in an effort to become more transparent regarding its finances and its contributions to academics.

5.2 Update on EMU vote and future action (Ben Eckstein)

The ASUO assured students that no approval of new student fees for the purposed EMU and student recreation center (SRC) projects would take place without a student vote in support of those projects. The ASUO reached an impasse after months of negotiations with the division of student affairs on a proposed memorandum of understanding that described fundamental protections for student governance, space, and a voice in the building design process. As a result, the election was postponed until the most basic commitments were achieved regarding those issues and within a week, the division of student affairs had agreed to sign the memorandum, and the election was rescheduled. Fifty-seven percent of students opposed the fee for the EMU project, and fifty one percent of students opposed the fee for the student recreation center project. Four thousand seven hundred students voted, which according to Mr. Eckstein, was a phenomenal turnout for a special election. The memorandum of understanding still stands and the commitments stated in the document remain in place for students. Steering committees have been created and will be providing oversight on the design process for both the EMU and SRC projects. He then stated that students have spoken and they do not want to pay the fees as currently proposed. There will be another proposal to come before the students in the near future and it must be different. The ASUO will be working to reduce the cost of the project and to return control of the project to the students. He believes that the project should be the result of the vision and ideas of the students who use and pay for those buildings. The user group that is designing the student union only has four student members. Mr. Eckstein believed this to be an uncommonly low student ratio. He then informed the Senate that the user group has operated without student members and that this was unacceptable under any circumstances. The ASUO will not allow this to continue.

Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Eckstein for his report and leadership.   

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS & COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that there would be a second Senate meeting in February. The meeting on February 8 will be filled with a report from Interim President Berdahl and another presentation from Chancellor Pernsteiner and Allyn Ford. The second Senate meeting will take place on February 22, 2012 and will deal with Senate business only. Before concluding the meeting, Senate President Kyr invited everyone in attendance to congregate in Gerlinger Alumni Lounge for further discussion with Chancellor Pernsteiner and Allyn Ford.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. A motion was called, seconded, and a voice vote was taken. The motion was passed unanimously, bringing the January 11, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:04PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 09, 2011

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 09 November 2011

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

Present: Roger Adkins, John Bonine, Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker, Ben Eckstein, Jennifer Ellis, Karen Estlund, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Roland Good, Deborah Healey, Colin Ives, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Ryan Kellems, Peter Keyes, Robert Kyr, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jenna Langham, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Andrew Lubash, Carla McNelly, Ronald Mitchell, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Nathan Tublitz, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: Ali Emami, John Foster, Mark Gillem, Sangita Gopal, Anthony Hornof, Peng Lu, Stephanie Matheson, Ian McNeely, Jeff Measelle, Debra Merskin, Emma Newman, David Riley, Gordon Sayre, Vadim Vologodski, Peter Walker

Excused: Tracy Bars, Robert Elliot, Peter Lambert, Harlan Mechling, Marilyn Nippold, Amy Nuetzman, Ying Tan

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for November 09, 2011 to order at 3:03PM in room 175 of the Knight School of Law.

1.1 Approval of the minutes of the October 12 meeting

Senate President Kyr called for the approval of the October 12 meeting minutes. He asked the Senate body for suggested changes or revisions to the minutes. Seeing none, he called for a motion to approve the minutes. A motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken and the minutes were approved unanimously. Before moving to the State of the University, Senate President Kyr reminded Senators to speak into the microphone and to state their name and affiliation when addressing the Senate body. He also notified Senators that there were refreshments in the back of the room for their enjoyment. Finally, he asked all Senators to sign in on the sheet provided. He then introduced President Lariviere and invited him to the floor to speak on the state of the university.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere

President Richard Lariviere thanked Senate President Kyr for the introduction and stated that, in general, the state of the university was quite good. The UO had another remarkable year of enrollments. According to the President, the incoming freshman class was the smartest and most diverse freshman class in the universities history. Their average grade point average was 3.6, twenty-three percent of students were students of color, and twenty-five percent of students were Pell-Grant eligible. According to President Lariviere, the UO also had a bumper year in terms of transfer students within Oregon. Most of the fourteen hundred students have come from community colleges as well as other Oregon University System (OUS) institutions. These numbers continue to place a considerable strain on the infrastructure of the university. The UO has added a considerable number of faculty in the last three years, a net addition of sixty to sixty-two faculty over that time period. He then stated that it is always very difficult to know exactly what the outcome will be for this year, but the college of arts and sciences has thirty-six new searches underway, twelve of which are for new appointments. Their intention is to sustain that rate of hiring for the next five years. The UO has to pay careful attention to their growth and expansion. When this situation exists, the temptation and danger of adding more students to solve financial problems year after year without adequate resources is a real possibility for the UO. The UO must add faculty, physical infrastructure/classroom space, and the materials to support those faculty. He then stated that adding infrastructure to increase productivity is the most difficult element of the equation.

President Lariviere informed the Senate that there were several administrative alignments under way. Jim Bean (Vice President and Provost) has recently stepped down from his position of Provost for health reasons for a twelve month period. Lorraine Davis (Acting Vice President and Provost) has valiantly stepped in to assist the university as acting Provost. In order to provide an institutional backup for the UO, the administration has asked Robert Berdahl (Special Assistant to the President), former president of the AAU, former chancellor at the University of California Berkeley, former president at the University of Texas at Austin, and a former dean of the college of arts and sciences to join the UO to help synthesize plans of development and offer his expertise on a variety of issues. He will remain with the UO through June 30, 2012 on a part-time basis. According to President Lariviere, there was a search for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position that was rather ambitious and as a result, the administration elected to not hire any potential candidates from the search pool and instead decided to hire from within. Jamie Moffitt (Executive Senior Associate, Intercollegiate Athletics) has been chosen for the position which will begin January 1, 2012. Frances Dyke (Special Assistant to the Provost) will be available to Jamie for consultation as she adjusts to her new position.

According to President Lariviere, other changes taking place will result from the passage of Senate Bills (SB) 909 and 242. SB 909 created a new structure for education in Oregon called the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). It also created a higher education coordinating commission and mandated the OIEB return to the Governor and Legislature by December 15, 2011 with plans regarding the fleshing out of these reforms. Implicit and explicit in SB 909 was the promise to do away with the State Board of Higher Education and the State Board of Education. These boards will be replaced by the OIEB. The implementation of this task is the current charge of the OEIB. He stated that the Governor’s commitment to reform is unshaken and wants to move forward with all deliberate speed. SB 242 affected a number of changes, the most significant being that the UO is no longer a state agency. We are now an instrumentality of the state. President Lariviere then jokingly stated that if anyone can explain what that means, he would be happy to hear it. He believes the changes brought about by SB 242 have been for the betterment of the UO. In the past, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was the legal counsel for the university, and the general counsels of universities essentially served at the pleasure of the DOJ and attorney general. At the end of the day, the decisions of the DOJ overrode the decisions of universities general counsels and often enough the interests of each institution they represented. That will change on January 1, 2012. The DOJ has asked to not represent the UO and for a mutual release of liability. He believes that this is probably a good thing, but the difficulty lies in knowing what OUS will want as a result of this change. Whereas the DOJ was responsible for legal matters at each OUS campus, now the Chancellors office wants to be held responsible for employing general counselors of OUS universities reporting directly to the Chancellor. President Lariviere stated that he does not want this to happen and does not believe it would be in the best interest of the university. Both Portland State University (PSU) and Oregon State University (OSU) have discussed their displeasure with this prospect. The other four regional OUS universities do not have general counsels. He then stated that the administration will keep the Senate apprised of this ongoing situation, and the Chancellors office should not be responsible for legal policy associated with the University of Oregon.

President Lariviere stated that the university has been speaking to consultants regarding the issuance of debt. As a separate entity, the university is interested in issuing its own debt. Currently, the university has to go through the state in order to accomplish this task, and it has an impact on the state’s overall debt capacity. As such, arguments arise on whether or not to issue debt for a new building on campus or to build a new road somewhere in Oregon. The President stated that that kind of conversation is not very productive. The UO has been talking to bond counselors, and investment bankers who have shown very encouraging information on issuing UO debt. If the UO could issue its own debt, the university would have an extremely high debt rating of AA. According to industry metrics, the UO has considerable debt capacity on campus. The UO is a long way from doing any of these things, but it is a timely conversation to be having as we acquire more independence in our ability to fund our own financial affairs in a way that we currently are unable to.

President Lariviere then stated that he was looking forward to another year of working with the Senate. Thanks to the work of Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) and our current Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) we have piloted a new relationship to the development of policies. In the time honored fashion of academic tradition, this collaboration has resulted in a flow chart with fifteen to twenty stopping points along the way, three different colors of bands, four different colors of circles, and arrows going every which way. He believes it will streamline the process and make everything more comprehensible to the UO community than it has in the past. That morning, President Lariviere met with the Senate Executive Committee to discuss the flowchart among other items in an attempt to come to grips with several impediments regarding expeditious policy making in the past. He believes that progress is being made, and went on to say that this is a process that is never perfect, but significant strides have been made in the last year on this matter. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first question was from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). He stated that the last time he viewed the flowchart on the web, it did not mention the Senate and he wanted to know if that going to be rectified. President Lariviere deferred to Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) who answered Professor Stahl question. Senator Tublitz stated that Professor Stahl was talking about the policy on how policies are adopted. According to Senator Tublitz, the existing policy currently does not include the Senate. The proposed new policy does include the Senate, and last year parts of that proposed policy have begun to be implemented. What is on the web is the current policy and there is some hope that the new policy which includes the Senate will be approved and posted very soon. Professor Stahl thanked Senator Tublitz for his explanation.

The next comment came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). In his comment, he referenced the President’s comment that all three general counsels and presidents of universities did not want general counsels to work under the Chancellor’s office. He wanted to know why President Lariviere thought this would be a bad thing, and then added as an aside; what institutional safeguards exist to ensure that the general counsel does not become the counsel of the administration. President Lariviere stated that he did not understand the last part of Senator Sullivan’s question, to which Senator Sullivan replied that in his opinion, the general counsel should represent the interests of the university at large. President Lariviere responded by stating that that was exactly what the obligations of the general counsels are. He went on to say that there were a number of issues that are problematic around the general counsels reporting directly to the Chancellor’s office. He stated that there was a phrase called legal sufficiency that he did not understand until this issue arose. If in the course of conducting research in Chemistry, a professor must enter into a contractual relationship with a vendor to provide reagents to your lab on a timely basis under specific requirements; that is a legal contract that can really only be signed with the authority of the general counsel’s office representing the legal interests of the university. Under a legal sufficiency review, the state and other instrumentalities of the state must provide this information. Legal sufficiency must exist between the university and the vendor providing their services. Legal sufficiency is determined by the general counsel after consultation with the DOJ. He then stated that there was a time when every contract of twenty thousand dollars or more had to go through the DOJ. That number has since been increased. The Chancellor’s office is proposing to take on that responsibility. The difference is that DOJ has forty or fifty attorneys to process these requests and there is one attorney in the Chancellors office. He then stated that this was only one way in which this could become an operational bottleneck, and the Chancellor’s response to their objections was to say that he has the authority to delegate this power to the presidents of each OUS campus. The Chancellor has promised to do so by January 1, 2012. Since that power can be delegated, it can also be removed. If the UO is engaged in work that the Chancellor does not approve of, he could remove that authority and fire the general counsel, thus disrupting the work of the university in a very short order. There is no anticipation that this will happen, but it is worthy of discussion.

Senator Sullivan then asked if that provision might not be an appropriate check on the President’s power, to which President Lariviere jokingly responded that there are plenty of checks on the President’s power, including the fact that they can fire anyone they want.

Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) commented on the President’s earlier statement regarding the growth of the university. He believes that everyone is concerned with this growth and stated that it was very reassuring to hear that there will not be more growth during the foreseeable future. He has heard similar concerns from faculty, staff, and students that the UO has grown too much too fast and there are not enough classrooms to accommodate the number of students. As a result, students are taking longer to graduate and cannot get the classes they need. He stated that he realizes that there is a lot of building going on around campus, but classrooms are not being built and new faculty are not being hired. Senator Tublitz wanted to make sure that President Lariviere was aware of this crisis because he believes that the current situation is untenable and unsustainable. He then asked President Lariviere to comment on what should be done about this situation. President Lariviere responded that the UO must add more faculty appointments, which he mentioned earlier. According to the President, the UO is on track with their five year plan to add one hundred new faculty appointments. He then stated that the UO needs to add more classroom space and the big question is how to fund this addition. The pattern that the UO has engaged in previously was to add more students to engage more revenue, but this is not sustainable. He then asked; where will the money come from and stated that he would be happy to entertain any suggestions.

Senator Tublitz replied that the UO has raised tuition and this has not been effective. He then stated that the UO has built many new buildings but most of them do not have classrooms and he wanted to know how the UO will be placed on the right path to overcome the current space predicament. President Lariviere stated that he absolutely agrees with the concerns stated by Senator Tublitz. According to the President, it is not adequate to simply state that there is a problem. The burden placed upon the leadership of the UO, including the Senate, is to come up with solutions. The President stated that he has not heard any solutions today. Senator Tublitz responded that he did not feel that this was the venue for such a discussion. He then gave an example of a discussion on what to do with McArthur Court. He wanted the administration to seriously consider turning McArthur Court into a space for classrooms. President Lariviere stated that that was not a solution because the UO has many footprint areas where they can build, but they do not have the funds to build. The real challenge is coming up with the money to build classrooms. President Lariviere then acknowledged that there were plenty of conversations around McArthur Court and developing it into a space for classrooms. The UO is not going to be able to build buildings in the way they previously have. As pathetic as the state’s investment has been in the construction of classroom space, the political handicappers have indicated that there will probably not be G-bonds moving forward. G-bonds only pay for fifty percent of the cost of a building. The question still remains; where do we find the money. He then stated that the administration invested five million dollars toward faculty salaries, and as far as he is concerned, the faculty are the most important component to the success of the university. Not everyone agreed with that investment decision, including people in the Chancellor’s office. President Lariviere then stated that he was well aware of the space issue at the university and coming up with the money to fund these projects is the challenge.

At this point, Senate President Kyr called for one final question before continuing on to the new business portion of the meeting. Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr thanked President Lariviere for his update on the state of the university.   

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Revision of the Constitution, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr gave a brief update on the revisions to the university Constitution. He stated that the internal governance committee is currently working on the revisions, which are going well. A more complete update will be forthcoming. He then moved on to the second point of new business.

3.2 Election of IFS Senator, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that currently there was one open Senate seat on the Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate (IFS). Senator Nathan Tublitz has been nominated for this open position. Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if anyone else would be interested in running for the open seat. He then stated that this is a two year commitment. Hearing no further nominees, Senate President Kyr called for an affirmation to appoint Senator Tublitz to the IFS. He then called for a motion. A motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken and Senator Tublitz was elected unanimously as the third IFS Senator for the University of Oregon.

Senate President Kyr then asked Senator Tublitz to speak briefly on the IFS. According to Senator Tublitz, the IFS in an institution comprised of representative from all OUS institutions. They meet every few months in conjunction with the state board, and in theory, are the voice connecting faculty, staff, and students from each institution with the board of higher education. He then stated that the IFS discuss a number of issues and sometimes they are effective. Senate President Kyr then thanked Senator Tublitz for his service.   

3.3 Request Form on Committee Service, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the last item of new business, the request form on committee service, relates directly to our system of shared governance. According to Senate President Kyr, there has not been the kind of response needed in the area of service, especially from teaching faculty. Because of this, Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to step up. A service request form was then circulated around the room by the Senate Executive Coordinator. Senate President Kyr stated that if you are able to serve, please specify, in your order of interest, a committee that you would like to serve on. He also asked Senators to make a list of their colleagues who would be willing to serve on committees. He then thanked the Senators for their assistance and moved to begin the open discussion portion of the meeting.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 United Academics Presentation and Open Discussion; Scott Pratt (Philosophy); Deborah Olson (Education); Julian Catchen (Neuroscience)

Senate President Kyr invited Professor Scott Pratt (Philosophy), Instructor Deborah Olson (Education), and Courtesy Post Doctoral Research Associate Julian Catchen (Neuroscience) to the Senate floor to discuss the unionization of the faculty under the United Academics Union. He also reminded the Senate that after the meeting, a reception was being held in room 110 of the Law School hosted the United Academics union representatives.

Professor Pratt began his discussion by thanking the Senate for the opportunity to address them regarding unionization. He stated that he has spent a number of years in various forms of university service including serving as a department head for seven years, three of which were as associate dean of the college of arts and sciences. His administrative responsibilities have given him the chance to seriously consider the role of the faculty in governing the institution and the ways in which the university has responded to this system. Professor Pratt then stated that the presenters will be giving three perspectives as to why they believe that unionization is an effective way to deal with the presence of faculty at the university and its role in faculty governance in regards to the institution as a whole. He then mentioned that there were informational flyers located at the back of the room.

Professor Pratt informed the Senate that he has spent a good deal of time thinking about a union at the university. He then came to the decision that he would support the union and listed two reasons for his decision. The first and most important reason was the potential relationship with shared governance. Professor Pratt serves on the Internal Governance Committee mentioned earlier that is charged with revising the Constitution. He believes that the document will be a good one, and that it will affirm the place of the University Senate by streamlining Faculty Assembly procedures in order to more closely align that body with faculty governance. He then stated that the new Constitution also outlines the limitations of faculty governance leaving both the Senate and Assembly in advisory roles with respect to most of the broader roles that affect how teaching, learning, and research are conducted at the university. He believes a faculty union is the best way to address this situation because it will ground faculty concerns regarding working conditions with the mission of the university in the wider context of labor laws. Based on information from the AAUP, a number of faculty union contracts have addressed governance issues by negotiating language that specifies that if the Senate makes a recommendation for the administration that is not accepted, the administration must explain their non-acceptance in a certain amount of time. The University Senate has already worked out, or is in the process of working out that scenario. He then stated that the problem is that the UO Constitution is an internal document and its enforcement is an internal affair. The union would provide a wider context of enforcement. A colleague of his was concerned that unions would not be able to address shared governance concerns because union contracts deal only with employment matters. This is correct in a sense; however employment matters do not stop a salaries, status, and benefits. They extend to teaching loads, access to research support, class size, classroom space, and even admission policies. Rather than having little to say regarding shared governance, the presence of a union and its ability to work with the University Senate, makes the union a key element in insuring the possibility of real shared governance. If done correctly, union and Senate leadership will coordinate their concerns and support each other in addressing the entire range of matters affecting our work at the university. Things have gone very well for the university over the last few years. Enrollments and the quality of enrolled students are up, and visibility is increasing. However, administrative expenses have increased much faster than instructional costs despite the increase in enrollments. This increase dramatically affects the work that teachers and scholars. Salary increases were provided, but they were selective, and it is unclear how that process was carried out. Transparency is a very important part of shared governance, and unions are very good at making transparency a priority.

Professor Pratt’s second reason for supporting the union was that the union can provide crucial information to support discussions of salaries while simultaneously supporting the work of the Senate on issues of academic requirements, program development, and student life. He then stated that some tenured faculty may be worried about the makeup of the bargaining unit. He has also shared these concerns. Will the unit include a group that is too diverse to adequately reflect the interests of the various constituencies? This question was address in two ways. The first is that diverse constituencies in a bargaining unit are a part of what makes a professors work possible. From this perspective, despite differences in circumstances, we share a broader organizing framework. It may be the case that at a different university, different bargaining units would make sense. Under the present context of labor relations, at the UO, a single unit brings the advantage of numbers and a wider commitment. His second point was that the union will not run itself. At the moment, some faculty members think that their time spent on committees and at Senate meetings is not time well spent. He then referenced Senate President Kyr’s appeal for service. These faculty members are actively passive; avoiding commitment while others deal with these pressing issues. Members of the Senate are an exception to this attitude, but he suspects that most Senators know colleagues who can sympathize with this attitude.

He went on to say that with a union, important things will be at stake. Tenure and non-tenure related faculty will have reason, perhaps even with institutional support, for finally taking up a role in shared governance. Strong participation means that all teaching and research constituencies will play a role in setting priorities and deciding how best to support the work that is done at the UO. According to Professor Pratt, the petition many professors have signed indicating their support of the union identifies what he understands as the focus of shared governance; the common ground between the administration, the University Senate, and the faculty. We are united to strengthen the quality of education and research at the University of Oregon, and together we will ensure that working conditions allow all members of the faculty to pursue excellence and innovation in their teaching, research, and service. This will serve the still larger goal of strengthening civil society through the vibrant system of public education in Oregon. He concluded by stating that he is supporting the union for the reasons listed above and thanked the Senate for listening to his presentation.

The second speaker was Julian Catchen (Courtesy Post Doctoral Research Associate, Institute for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). Mr. Catchen presented three points in support of the union. He began by informing the Senate as to who the post docs were and what their role was at the university. There are two categories of post-docs. The first category is permanent employees. These post docs work in the labs and teach graduate students. The second category is comprised of short term employees who will hopefully find employment in a tenure-track position. Mr. Catchen then stated that as important as post-docs are to the teaching climate at the university, they are not represented in the Senate or in any other body that he was aware of. He then stated that he feels very lucky to be in his current position, but on a higher level, post-docs lack hooks into the institutional mechanisms that exist within the university. During his first year as a post-doc, he received compensation from a standard research grant. He was considered a fulltime employee with health and retirement benefits and applied for and received a federal fellowship. In his new position he was no longer considered a fulltime employee and lost his benefits. This is a continuing problem for post-docs who are looking for a tenure-track job and want to continue to progress until a position becomes available. Along with losing his benefits, he lost his affiliation with the university and was reclassified under a courtesy appointment. He was contributing substantial research to the university, who was using this research and research techniques, but due to his reclassification, could not use the universities name. As it currently exists, there is no way to change the system because post-docs are not well represented. This can be problematic when striving to produce the best researchers. He believes that the union will provide greater stability to post-docs.

In his second point, he referenced conversations with his post doctoral colleagues. During the past year, he has been working with the United Academics. His colleagues believe that the union will come in and do certain things. He stated that this is not an accurate perception. The union is not an external entity. He then referenced a blog on university politics that asked the question; why has the faculty not organically created their own governance structure in order to improve upon these issues. Mr. Catchen believes that the union is the answer to this question. The union will be comprised of the faculty members. It is a democratic organization that allows faculty to represent themselves, and provides an institution for those who are short time employees or have adjunct appointments.

The third reason Mr. Catchen believed a union was important was the establishment of a political affiliation. The university recently gave raises to a specific group of employees. What bothered him about these pay raises came from an article he read in the letters to the editor section of the Register Guard. According to the article, people were very concerned with whom the faculty members were that received pay increases, why they were paid so much money, and how their salaries could be cut. He did not understand the mentality that residents of Eugene and Springfield share regarding these faculty members. The union will help the faculty tie into other areas of the state including giving them the ability to effectively lobby with the state.

After Mr. Catchen concluded his remarks, Instructor Deborah Olson (Special Education) addressed the Senate body and presented her thoughts as to why the faculty should unionize. She stated that she was here to represent non-tenure track faculty members (NTTF). She then acknowledged the wonderful victory that occurred yesterday in Ohio for all public employees across the country. A law was passed last year that attacked public employees and their bargaining rights. This law specifically singled out faculty at universities as not being able to unionize because they were being considered managers and not instructors. She then sarcastically asked the Senate body if they felt like managers. A coalition of public unions fought back and won this overwhelming victory. Instructor Olson recognized that a great deal of diversity among NTTF exists across campus. Some are instructional faculty, some are research, some are part-time and some are fulltime. Some are on part-time contracts while others are nine month or one year contracts. She has personally been employed under a nine month or one year contract for the past twenty-three years, and jokingly commented that she would like a sabbatical. Instructor Olson stated that she does and has done research, teaches both undergraduate and graduate classes (including master’s and doctoral level courses), and has been elected as a representative from the College of Education to the University Senate. She stated that she did not run for re-election because she was discouraged at the powerlessness of the Senate body. She is the appointed NTTF representative on the internal governance committee who is charged with rewriting the UO Constitution, and has been either a member, chair, or co-chair of the institutional review board for the committee for the protection of human subjects for the past fifteen years. She then stated that NTTFs have a commitment to the UO and they have many things in common with their tenure-track and post doctoral colleagues. Instructor Olson then stated that one thing that all three constituent groups want is a promotional policy that would clearly articulate criteria for advancement and pay increases. Her college became tired of waiting for the university to develop its own NTTF policy and several years ago, decided to write its own. The College of Education had no leverage to fight for the things it wanted within their policy statement. She emphasized that the key words were no leverage. She believes that would change with a two thousand person union. NTTFs who teach require the same academic freedom as tenure-track professors. Currently, she does not believe that NTTFs share that equality. Transparency in all aspects of working terms and conditions is something that she believes everyone shares at the university. She then stated that the secrecy around the salary increase fiasco could have been avoided if clear contracts that specified when and where merit and equity based raises will occur had been articulated. This would have better protected the administration from the political backlash it experienced.

She went on to say that NTTFs need a voice in shared governance, and the handout that was previously mentioned by Professor Pratt specifically describes shared governance and how the union contract can work together with the Senate to enhance shared governance. She then encouraged the audience to pick up a copy of the handout. Instructor Olson stated that everyone wants transparency or a voice in their health benefits package. We owe a debt of gratitude to the classified union for the great benefits we have received in the past. Now we all have to fight together to try to figure out and understand what is happening with our benefits package. She then stated that there are no conflicts of interest between the two thousand person bargaining unit, but NTTFs also have specific and unique concerns and a collective bargaining unit will not look the same for everyone. It will undoubtedly reflect some of the diversity and variance that exists within each unique situation. She has seen other faculty contracts for NTTFs that give her hope. One example would be to have clear and objective job descriptions and evaluation policies for all UO employees. Another would be to provide greater job security by initiating longer contracts after so many years of consecutive service. Her final example was to provide sabbaticals for NTTFs. She recognized that there are challenges in fulfilling the academic and research mission at the university and referenced President Lariviere’s comments on paying for these realizations. She also recognized that the university has a commitment to the state of Oregon to education its children in spite of the declining support from the state.

Her next point focused on the growth of administrative positions at the UO. She stated that this growth has occurred in spite of the fact that the institutional health of the university remains strong and that the universities unrestricted net assets in 2010 were fifty million dollars. In spite of this number, UO students face yearly tuition increases while faculty salaries lag behind comparator institutions. All of this information can be found in the Bunsis Report located on their website at www.uauoregon.org. In closing, Instructor Olson stated that NTTFs, along with tenure-track faculty and post doctoral researchers want a stronger voice in setting priorities for this institution. She believes the faculty along with the united academic and a collective bargaining agreement, negotiated by the faculty, can move educators in the right direction. She then quoted Cary Nelson (President AAUP), “United we negotiate, divided we beg.” She thanked the Senate for listening to the presentations and called for questions from the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr invited the three speakers back up to the Senate floor to receive questions from the Senate body. The first question came from Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages). He thanked the presenters for their words and stated that he believes everyone is very excited that there is a driving force uniting the ranks of employees at the university. He then asked three questions: 1) how do you envision the process of creating the union itself? 2) How will employees begin negotiations? 3) What institutional changes will have to be implemented once the union is in place?

Instructor Olson responded to the first question by stating that the process has been ongoing for a couple of years and there is an organizing committee comprised of tenure-track, NTTF, and post doctoral members that direct the  campaign with the help of staff AFT and the AUP. They are currently in the process of assessing support and trying to reach out to the two thousand plus teaching body at the university. She then mentioned that they are developing a petition to gauge the level of support that exists on campus. The groups would like to have eight hundred signatures on the petition by the end of the fall term. If this task is accomplished, they will proceed to an election done by card drop. Voters will fill out a card with their information and whether or not they are in favor or against unionization. These cards will be sent to the Oregon Employees Relations Board (OERB) to certify the names. Instructor Olson then stated that she was not exactly sure of the entire process, but if the voters favor the union, it will be certified. The next step involves forming an organizing committee comprised of tenure-track, NTTF, and post doctoral members towards the formation of a union and a negotiating team. She then stated that the union representatives need to hear concerns from the various constituent groups.

Professor Pratt commented that after the union is approved, the faculty must take a greater participatory role in order to establish guidelines of negotiation. Elections will be held for union representatives from each constituent group, and according to Professor Pratt, each person must take the responsibility and speak up, look at the proposals being circulated, and voice concerns to your representatives.

Mr. Catchen summarized that the petition drive is currently taking place and asked all in attendance to please sign the petition if they have not done so already. Once the petition has its signatures, a card drop will occur. If you support the union, sign a card. If you do not support the union, do not sign a card. The cards go directly to the state, not to your employer. The state will then evaluate if the election was successful. If so, there will be a transition to a new platform and a negotiating committee will begin negotiating new contracts. At the present, the platform has remained vague in order to address everyone’s concerns and will become more specific if the election is successful.

The next two questions came from Professor Philip Romero (Finance). He stated that it was mentioned that the OERB will evaluate the cards in order to determine whether or not the union would be certified. He then stated that only “yes” votes will go on cards and thus there will be no record of “no” votes. He then asked; what threshold will the OERB use to determine the certification of the election. His second question was regarding union membership. He has previously observed that union managers enact policy whereby every employee, whether they are a member of the union or not, are charged dues. He wanted to know if that was also the case for the UO’s proposed union.

Mr. Catchen replied that the union will make a claim as to who the unit includes and the university contributes to that cause by supplying a list of employees. The card would be checked against that list. He then stated that it was possible that various parties would challenge the definition of who is a part of the union and who is not, but the “no” votes would be counted from the university supplied list. Professor Romero then stated that the union must essentially have a majority of the relevant population of employees. Mr. Catchen stated that he was correct. He then stated that in respect to dues, everyone would be required to pay a fair share of dues, but the makeup and assessment would be up to the union to decide.

The next comment came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) who remarked on the statement made by Instructor Olson regarding the Senate being powerless. He stated that the Senate was created as the sole governing body of the university in 1995. The influence that was given to the Senate was minimal and it was by and large ignored by the administration. He went on to say that the university is now writing a new Constitution, one that gives the Senate appreciable more influence. He did not want to confuse the word influence with the word power. According to Professor Stahl, power comes from the threat of strike, and influence comes from having an effective communication with the President and other members of the administration at the university. The new Constitution is designed to maximize that influence within the laws that govern the university. He personally believes that influence is sometimes more valuable than power as expressed through the threat of strike. He then stated that he was speaking on behalf of the future of the Senate. Yes, it is powerless, but does not threaten strike, and the Senate is not non-influential. He believes the Senate can be very influential.

Professor Pratt responded and stated that he agreed with Professor Stahl’s comments regarding the Senate. The main point in revising the Constitution is to have an effective way of communicating on a wide range of issues. He then reminded those in attendance that the Senate represents all constituent groups at the university. With everything that is going on at the university, he believes that now is the time to begin to think about unionization. He then stated that cooperation between the union and the Senate could create a very effective form of shared governance.

Senate President Kyr then asked the question; how would the union help the university acquire more classrooms. Professor Pratt responded by stating that currently there are conversation going on regarding available borrowing options for the university and also how to use certain types of space. The first line of response is a discussion, but if the Senate is unable to effect change, the union will be able to add leverage regarding limits to class size, etc… He believes the union and Senate can work together for the betterment of each other’s respective goals. Senate President Kyr then replied that what was not clear to him was the practical aspect of unionization, and asked the question; why would the union have any particular authority. Professor Pratt responded that the union has the ability to negotiate working condition issues including employment matters regarding how many students instructors are allowed to teach. Senate President Kyr then asked what are these negotiations based on, to which Professor Pratt answered they are based on labor laws. He then stated that the union brings outside authority to the table, which does not exist in the Senate. The union also offers the option for appeal due to its association with labor laws. Mr. Catchen added that there are a number of faculty unions across the country, and the ability to look at contracts that have already been negotiated will provide proof regarding a basis for negotiation.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked the presenters to clarify two points regarding the paying of dues and union membership. He was not sure if he is automatically in the union if it passes, and if he does not want to participate, will he still have to pay dues. Professor Pratt stated that once the union is established, the question regarding who pays dues and at what level becomes a matter of negotiation. Instructor Olson commented that other faculty unions have lower pay scales for faculty member who do not choose to join the union, and also mentioned that none of those decisions have been made yet. She believes that everyone will reap the benefits of better working conditions if the union succeeds. If you benefit from the union, you should give something back to the union.

The next comment came from Professor Michael Tedesco (Law). He stated that he was on a brief break from his labor law class and answered Senator Lin’s question regarding the payment of dues. Under Oregon State Law for public employees, people who choose full union member pay full union dues. The university or any public employer can bargain a fair share deduction that allows a level of payment to be made that covers collective bargaining, grievance processing, and contract administration for employees who choose not to join the union. He then asked; why is that fair. It is fair because if you are a non-member, you still enjoy the benefits of the labor contract. For example, you still get the same pay rate as a member, and your grievance is still taken to arbitration. Because of this, it was determined by the Oregon State Legislature through multiple past cases and on the national level by the National Labor Relations Board that people who choose not to be a union member can make that choice, but they may have to pay a percentage of the total so that their collective bargaining rights and their benefits that are enacted as a result of the labor agreement remains covered. The people who are doing the work on the union side are also working for the non-members.

Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) asked two questions for clarification purposes. In his first question, he wanted to know if an election will be held for the following three separate groups: officers of research (post docs); officers of administration, and NTTFs. Mr. Catchen replied that only one election was being held. He then added that officers of administration are not a proposed constituency of the union. The union will consist of officers of research and officers of instruction (tenure-related and NTTF). Senator Tublitz then stated that these three groups are essential to the university and all three have very different roles. As such, he was confused as to how one will effectively bargain for such diverse groups. Professor Pratt then asked for an example. Senator Tublitz offered the example of teaching. He stated that tenure-related faculty members have a set of duties which include teaching, administration, and research/scholarship. NTTFs have a different kind of contract. He did not understand how one could bargain for these two groups without jeopardizing the advantages of one or the other unless the union has the option of bargaining independently for each subset.

Professor Pratt stated that he understands the problem and offered two possible solutions. One solution was to raise the issue that the union has many different groups to represent and these groups intersect with each other. The fact that there are instructors in a department that makes it possible for the tenure-related faculty teaching load with be so much so that research can continue means that these constituencies are bound together through the work of that department. The level of consideration does not reside with the individual person, but rather with the department and the task. He stated that negotiating on behalf of both constituencies was beneficial. In his second reply, he mentioned that there was great diversity among tenure-track faculty. There are also many commonalities. Students take both philosophy and biology, and both of these subject must be taken care of so that students become well educated. He then stated that he would not ask for the same teaching load as a Biology professor, but he would ask for a teaching load that is manageable. He believes that faculty have common interests that organize their relationships, and in that context, they are well suited to figure out what all three constituencies need. Instructor Olson believes the union contracts will be the size of telephone books due to the many needs that must be addressed.

The next question came from an unidentified audience member. Her question was regarding the union’s role in striking. Mr. Catchen replied that there are legal restrictions to what a strike can and cannot do. He then stated a strike is the end result of a long process. Instead of jumping to the end to see what it would look like, he believes there are many more problems to focus on. As far as he has experienced, a strike is a very uncommon event. He then asked for a more specific question. She replied that once the union is formed, will the union set parameters for what a strike will look like, or are there laws in place to determine that. Mr. Catchen replied that there are labor laws regarding striking and the union must act as a single entity through its representational structure. A small group cannot hijack the union and declare a strike. It is a very long process. He then stated that the union would only strike as a last resort.

Senator Debra Merskin (Journalism and Communication) stated that she was co-president of the universities chapter of the AAUP. She stated she supports the union for all of the reasons that have been beautifully articulated today.

The next comment came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He asked could the union serve as a vehicle for reconciling various factions within it. Professor Pratt replied yes. He stated that the union could provide a platform to work through longstanding issues among various interest groups.

Senate President Kyr then asked which other schools in the OUS (Oregon University System) have unionized. He then asked for a description of each union and also wanted to know if they were successful at their respective institutions. Professor Pratt stated that this information could be found in the brochure. Mr. Catchen commented that Western Oregon University, Southern Oregon University, Eastern Oregon University, and Portland State University are all organized. He then stated that he thinks their unions work well. The only two that have not unionized are Oregon State University and the University of Oregon. Mr. Catchen has interacted with the unions from Western, Southern, and Eastern and according to him, the unions are very effective at those respective schools. He stated that the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) Oregon is currently represented by a faculty member at Western (he thinks).

Senate President Kyr stated that there was time for one more question before the open discussion portion of the meeting must come to a close.

Instructor Olson briefly commented that additional information on other AAU universities that have faculty unions could be found in the informational pamphlet at the back of the room. She believes our best comparators are other AAU schools, not other schools in Oregon.

The final comment came from Professor Jack Maddex (History Emeritus). He stated that in regard to the situation that Mr. Catchen described as a post doctoral student in terms of losing his funding and benefits, Professor Maddex wanted to know how Mr. Catchen identified his professional association when publishing a paper. Mr. Catchen stated that his affiliation was the University of Oregon. Professor Maddex stated that everyone benefits from the University of Oregon research, to which Mr. Catchen agreed. Professor Maddex went on to say that during the 1970’s, in a previous organizing faculty drive, he was on the committee for the AFT. During that time, local 3544 of the AFT acquired bargaining rights for the university GTFs. According to Professor Maddex, negotiating that first contract was more complicated than any subsequent one. Due to his connection with the AFT, he was invited to witness several contract negotiation meetings. Also, due to the turnover rate of GTFs and administrators, he did not think anyone else was still working at the university since that time. He then stated that the roles of GTF were extremely diverse before the first contract was written. Considering the difficulty of negotiating contracts for GTFs, Professor Maddex believes it will be even more difficult to negotiate contracts for tenure-track faculty, NTTF, and post doctoral candidates.

At this point in the meeting Senate President Kyr interrupted Professor Maddex and stated that unfortunately the open discussion portion of the Senate meeting had expired. He then reminded all in attendance that there would be additional time for questions and answers at the reception which was being held immediately after the Senate meeting in room 110 of the Law School.        

5. REPORTS

5.1 Senate Retreat, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate retreat was very productive and rewarding. The retreat established two working groups.

5.1.1 Mission Statement Working Group

The first group formed from the Senate retreat was the mission statement working group. This group is charged with reviewing the mission statement of the university.

5.1.2 Media Connectivity Working Group

The second group formed from the Senate retreat was the media connectivity working group. This group is charged with establishing better connections with various forms of media in an attempt to more adequately express who the Senate is and what the Senate does. He then stated that these groups will provide more information regarding their respective charges and progress as the year continues.

5.2 Coalition of PAC-12 Faculties, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that he attended the Coalition of PAC-12 Faculties at the University of Colorado, Boulder. According to the Senate President, it was a very productive meeting. Both he and his colleagues who attended the meeting are very committed to coming together and representing academics in a way that would be a complement to the way the PAC-12 is organized around athletics. At the conference, the Coalition of PAC-12 Faculties was formed and they are currently in the process of drafting a letter to all of the presidents of the PAC-12 regarding educational needs. He stated that the coalition was a very strong group and that everyone should be hopeful for the future.

5.3 ASUO Report; Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor gave the report in place of ASUO President Ben Eckstein who had to leave the Senate meeting early. Both she and ASUO President Ben Eckstein postponed the referendum regarding the EMU question due to not receiving guarantees of student space and student involvement in the decision making process. Currently, their plan is to postpone the referendum until the spring term. She believes that once the vote has been taken, the students will decide whether or not they want to pay for the renovations. She then stated that the ASUO wants to make sure they have guarantees for the things that they want. Students are paying for seventy percent of the EMU renovation project and should have more say in what the building looks like. She then used the example that donors who funded the Jaqua Academic Learning Center had a great deal of influence on the final product and she feels students should as well. The ASUO has also been supporting students who are fighting to secure the office of multicultural academic success. A coalition has been formed called UO Truth, and the ASUO has been trying to form a student and community oversight board for their new proposal. Finally, she informed the Senate that there are two resolutions currently being worked on in the ASUO Senate. The first has to do with freedom of speech which was brought on by the Occupy Eugene movement, and the second resolution deals with mandatory reporting. RAs that reside in residence halls are required to report to DPS if someone reports an instance of sexual assault. Senate President Kyr thanked ASUO Vice President Taylor and moved to the final portion of the meeting.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

6.1.1 US11/12-03 Improving Campus Communication, Emma Newman (ASUO Student Senator)

Senate President Kyr invited Emma Newman (Student Senator) to the floor to discuss US11/12-03 Improving Campus Communication. Senator Newman stated that at the Senate retreat, a discussion was held regarding communication across campus. She then remarked that as a freshman, she was in the school of music and realized just how isolated that section of campus was. She believes that other areas are just as isolated. She then asked Senators to support her in an effort to increase the accessibility of information flow across campus by sharing events, and informing others on academic opportunities. She also wanted to increase listserv access for students. As an academic Senator, she believes it is her responsibility to inform her constituents of Senate activities, but it is difficult to accomplish this task when forms of access do not exist. Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Newman for her comments and invited ASUO Senate Vice President Katie Taylor back to the floor to discuss the next motion.

6.1.2 US11/12-04 EMU Project Oversight and Stakeholder Participation, Ben Eckstein (ASUO President)

ASUO Vice President Katie Taylor stated that the EMU project oversight and stakeholder participation motion involves multiple stakeholders. The ASUO wants to make sure that more students are involved as well as other constituent groups across campus including classified staff workers who are employed at various food and beverage installations throughout the EMU. ASUO Vice President Taylor stated that she is unsure if these positions will be secure after the EMU is renovated.

Senator John Bonine (Law) then asked Senate President Kyr for a point of process. When Senators present a notice of motion, it would be interesting to know whether the motion has come from a certain committee or other groups, and to what degree consultation has taken place with other interest groups. Senate President Kyr responded by stating that all motions are currently in process due to the complexities of various issues surrounding them.    

6.1.3 US11/12-05 Athletic Contribution to the Educational Mission of the University, Cedar Cosner (ASUO Elections Coordinator)

Senate President Kyr introduced Cedar Cosner (ASUO Elections Coordinator) who briefly discussed US11/12-05. He informed the Senate that the ASUO Executive is running a campaign in support of the academic mission of the university. They are interested in bringing this mission more clearly into focus. He then stated that they are interested in highlighting the student aspect of a student athlete. The campaign is exploratory and discussions will continue as the campaign moves forward. Senate President Kyr then personally thanked the students for their exceptional work within the Senate

6.1.4 US11/12-06 Changes to the Charge and Membership of the Academic Council, Ian McNeely (Chair, Academic Council)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that Senator Ian McNeely (Academic Council chair), who was unable to attend the Senate meeting, had prepared a brief statement regarding the changes to the charge and membership of the Academic Council. Senate President Kyr did not read Senator McNeely’s statement due to the lack of time remaining. He informed the Senate that the council was in the process of revising its charge and membership description. He then thanked Senator McNeely for all his hard work with the Academic Council. Senator McNeely’s comments are displayed below in their entirety.

The Academic Council's first year of existence revealed a few problems in its charge and membership, some of which were described in its 2011 end-of-year report. Making the needed changes requires amending the UO Constitution, however. After consultation with the Internal Governance Committee, a two-step process was decided upon. First, the passages specifying the Academic Council's membership and charge will be stricken from the revised constitution that will be voted upon by the Statutory Faculty Assembly later this academic year. The only constitutional provisions remaining will be the ones requiring that an Academic Council in some form be established and that its chair have a seat in the Senate. Then, in the motion being announced today, the Academic Council will be reconstituted as a regular standing committee. No other committee, after all, has its membership and charge specified in the UO Constitution. Doing so by Senate motion instead of swapping in new constitutional language will preserve flexibility for the future without compromising the Academic Council's key role in the UO shared governance system. Details on the precise changes that will appear in the final version of this motion are still under discussion, but those with questions or concerns are welcome to contact the Academic Council chair, Ian McNeely (imcneely@uoregon.edu).

6.2 Formation of Ad Hoc Committees (AHC), Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that there are three ad hoc committees that are in the process of being formed.

6.2.1 Policy on Policies AHC

The first ad hoc committee was the Policy on Policies Ad Hoc Committee.

6.2.2 Review of Charge and Purpose of FAC AHC

The second ad hoc committee was the Review of Charge and Purpose of FAC (Faculty Advisory Council) Ad Hoc Committee. Senate President Kyr reminded the Senate that all committees were undergoing their tenth year review period, including the FAC. He also informed the Senate that the FAC was one of the longest standing university committees, and the Senate was forming this ad hoc committee, comprised of mostly former FAC chairs, to review the charge and purpose of the council.

6.2.3 Instructional Faculty Grievance Process AHC

The final ad hoc committee was the Instructional Faculty Grievance Process Ad Hoc Committee. According to President Kyr, this committee will be investigating the structure of  and process for instructional faculty grievance as it relates to instructional faculty, officers of administration and every other constituency of the Senate.

6.3 Change of Senate Meeting Date for December

Senate President Kyr stated that the final Senate meeting of the fall quarter was scheduled to take place during exam week. Because of this, the possibility existed that relatively few Senators would be able to attend the meeting. He recommended cancelling the December meeting and scheduling an additional Senate meeting during the month of February. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Andrew Marcus (Associate Dean of CAS Social Sciences) stated that his one concern was that normally the Senate votes to approve the fall curriculum report at the last meeting of the fall term, and if the meeting was cancelled, this would cause a substantial delay for a variety of curricular matters. After it is approved by the Senate, the report is sent to the Oregon University System (OUS). Senator Debra Merskin (Journalism and Communication) stated that she sat on the Committee on Courses who is charged with updating these reports, and as far as she knew, the report must be approved by the Senate at the last meeting of every term. Senate President Kyr then stated that in light of this news, the December meeting should not be canceled.

Senator John Bonine (Law) then asked Senate President Kyr if approving the fall curriculum report at the final Senate meeting of the term was a routine procedure. Senator Bonine stated that there might be a way to vote on matters that are routine to the Senate without meeting. He also recommended meeting a week earlier on November 30. Senate President Kyr stated that meeting a week earlier was not advisable at this time.

Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) commented that the curriculum reports have recently been approved pro forma in the Senate, however in the past there have been significant questions raised over the report and departments need to have the ability to raise questions. He then asked Andrew Marcus and Senator Merskin if the approval of the report could be deferred to the January meeting. Mr. Marcus responded that if the report is not passed during the December meeting, several departments would not be able to offer specific classes contained within the report.

Senator Emma Newman (Student Senator) proposed that the Senate have a shorter meeting in December. Senate President Kyr approved of this idea and said he would be in touch regarding the additional meeting in February.

Senator Bonine (Law) then asked Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) if the Senate meeting in December was shortened in length and had poor attendance, and if a motion was passed noticing the absence of a quorum, could the Senate still have the ability to take action. Senate Parliamentarian Simonds replied that the Senate cannot take any action without a quorum. 

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr called the November 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:02PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 07, 2011

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 07 December 2011

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

Present: John Bonine, Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker, Ben Eckstein, Robert Elliot, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, John Foster, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Deborah Healey, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Ryan Kellems, Peter Keyes, Theodora Ko Thompson, Robert Kyr, Peter Lambert, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Peng Lu, Andrew Lubash, Ian McNeely, Jeffery Measelle, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Emma Newman, Marilyn Nippold, Amy Nuetzman, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Ying Tan, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: Tracy Bars, Karen Estlund, Mark Gillem, Roland Good, Sangita Gopal, Anthony Hornof, Jena Langham, Stephanie Matheson, Harlan Mechling Steven Pologe, David Riley, Vadim Vologodski, Peter Walker

Excused: Roger Adkins, Colin Ives, Carla McNelly, Nathan Tublitz

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for December 7, 2011 to order at 3:05PM in McArthur Court. He first thanked everyone for attending the meeting and stated that it was one of the most important meetings in the history of the university. Senate President Kyr then asked Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry), chair of the committee on courses, to come forward and present the fall curriculum report, which the Senate is required to approve by the Oregon University System.

2. NEW BUSINESS

2.1 Fall Curriculum Report, Paul Engelking, Committee on Courses chair

Professor Engelking stated that the curriculum report from the committee on courses had a few minor corrections that were outlined in red on the overhead projector. Physics, Biology, and Finance all had minor word and number corrections. An addition to “other matters” concerning the Human Physiology degree was also updated. Professor Engelking then asked for corrections from the floor. Hearing none, he moved that the Senate adopt the fall curriculum report. Senate President Kyr then called for a voice vote to approve the report. A vote was taken and the fall curriculum report was unanimously approved. Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Engelking for all the hard work he has done with the committee on courses throughout the years.

3. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called for a motion of adjournment. The motion was called and seconded bringing the December 7, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 3:10PM.

The Faculty Assembly was convened immediately following this Senate meeting. At the meeting, the new Constitution was unanimously approved. To view the Constitution, please click here:

University of Oregon Constitution


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 30, 2011

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 30 November 2011

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

Present: Roger Adkins, Nancy Bray, John Bonine, Jane Brubaker, Ben Eckstein, Robert Elliot, Jennifer Ellis, Karen Estlund, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Roland Good, Sangita Gopal, Anthony Hornof, Colin Ives, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Theodora Ko Thompson, Ryan Kellems, Robert Kyr, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Ian McNeely, Carla McNelly, Jeffrey Measelle, Harlan Mechling, Deborah Merskin, Emma Newman, Amy Nuetzman, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Ying Tan, Nathan Tublitz, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: Tracy Bars, Ali Emami, Christian Erichsen, John Foster, Mark Gillem, Deborah Healey, Peter Keyes, Peter Lambert, Jena Langham, Peng Lu, Stephanie Matheson, Ronald Mitchell, Marilyn Nippold, David Riley, Donna Shaw, Vadim Vologodski, Peter Walker

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for November 30, 2011 to order at 3:07PM in McArthur Court.

2. NEW BUSINESS

2.1 Motion to call a meeting of the UO Statutory Faculty Assembly 30 November, 2011; Sponsor Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr called for a motion to call a meeting of the UO Statutory Faculty Assembly on November 30, 2011. The motion was called and seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.

2.2 Motion to call a meeting of the UO Statutory Faculty Assembly 07 December, 2011; Sponsor Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr called for a motion to call a meeting of the UO Statutory Faculty Assembly on December 7, 2011. He then stated that the meeting would take place in McArthur Court at 3PM. The motion was called. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. 

3. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called for a motion of adjournment. The motion was called and seconded bringing the November 30, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 3:10PM.

The Faculty Assembly was convened immediately following this Senate meeting. At the meeting, four motions were approved as follows:

SFA 11/12-01: Motion on the replacement of President Richard Lariviere; Senate Executive Committee presented by Professor Ian McNeely, History (APPROVED)

SFA 11/12-02: Motion for the Establishment of a UO Board of Trustees, Senate Executive Committee presented by Professor Peter Keyes, Architecture (APPROVED)

SFA 11/12-03: Motion for the Senate Executive Committee to provide a candidate for the Interim President of the UO; University Senate presented by Huaxin Lin, Mathematics (APPROVED)

SFA 11/12-04: Motion requesting the OUS Board to vote on the renewal status of Chancellor Pernsteiner's employment; Senate Executive Committee presented by Bill Harbarugh (APPROVED)

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for October 12, 2011

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting 12 October 2011

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

Present: Roger Adkins, Tracy Bars, Nancy Bray, Jane Brubaker, Ben Eckstein, Jennifer Ellis, Karen Estlund, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Roland Good, Colin Ives, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Peter Keyes, Theodora Ko Thompson, Robert Kyr, Peter Lambert, Jena Langham, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Stephanie Matheson, Carla McNelly, Harlan Mechling, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchell, Emma Newman, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, David Riley, Sonja Runberg, Gordon Sayre, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Yin Tan Nathan Tublitz, Vadim Vologodski, Glen Waddell, Dean Walton

Absent: John Bonine, Robert Elliot, Ali Emami, John Foster, Mark Gillem, Sangita Gopal, Anthony Hornof, Ryan Kellems, Peng Lu, Ian McNeely, Jeffrey Measelle, Peter Walker

Excused: Deborah Healey, Marilyn Nippold

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for October 12, 2011 to order at 3:04 PM in room 175 of the Knight School of Law. He welcomed everyone in attendance to the first meeting of the year, and stated that he was very excited for the coming year as it would surely be one of the most important in the history of the University. 

1.1 Introductory Remarks, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr then listed ten points that the Senate is facing during the coming year. The first issue was concerning policies. The policies that were not signed by President Lariviere have now been reviewed by the general counsel and some of them will be going back to their Senate committees. The Senate has received new policies from Lynette Schenkel (Associate Vice President for Responsible Conduct of Research/Director of ORCR) to consider in a revised version. Senate President Kyr then mentioned that these points were not in order of importance. The second point was the UO Constitution which must be ratified this year. There will be a calling of the Faculty Assembly to accomplish this task. The third issue concerned public safety officers transferring to a police force and the various questions that community members have been discussing in relationship to the various statements and policies that are being put into force. According to Senate President Kyr, the Senate will be holding a special open discussion on this topic at its November meeting. Point four was concerned with enrollment increases. He then asked the Senate body if they had noticed the increase in traffic on campus from bicyclers and automobiles. He then stated that it is very important to be aware of these traffic concerns because there are difficulties on both sides of the equation. The safety of every member of the UO community is very important. The fifth point was the Senate’s vision plan for the University, which will be formulated through the Senate Retreat, the first of its kind at the UO. He told the Senate body that they need to remember, as he mentioned in his May address to the Senate, that we are unity of constituencies. This applies to faculty, students, officers of administration, officers of research, and classified staff. Each group has a stake in this University, and as Senators, we need to formulate the vision plan together as an expression of our common will. This plan will be presented to the central administration and will be used to engage them in an open discussion. Open and respectful discussion about matters of importance is a tradition at this University. The sixth point involved shared governance. Senate President Kyr has instituted the President and Provost Forums; one each quarter. He stated that he was thrilled that both President Lariviere and Interim Provost Davis are excited about these upcoming events. The first Provost Forum will be held on Wednesday, October 19 in Beall Concert Hall inside the School of Music and Dance from 4 – 6PM. The first President’s Forum will be Wednesday, November 2 in Beall Concert Hall also at the School of Music and Dance from 4 – 6PM. According to Senate President Kyr, this will be a time for the entire community to come and have an open and respectful discussion with the President and the Provost. Point seven has to do with the policy on policies. The Senate Executive Committee will be formulating a policy on policies related to the flow of policy making at the University and the role the Senate plays in policy making. The eighth point was the proposed union. Senate President Kyr stated that he invited representatives from the AAUP to the November Senate meeting to give a presentation on unionization and field questions. The ninth point was communication and service. This is a crucial point that must be strengthened. The UO needs each and every person now more than ever to join in this common effort in order to move our shared governance system forward. The tenth and final point was the academic plan, which is now under review. It will be going before various bodies at the University including the Senate. Senate President Kyr then introduced Jane Gordon (Associate Dean, School of Law) to give a brief welcome to the Senate body on behalf of Michael Moffitt (Dean, School of Law).       

1.2 Welcome from the Dean of the Law School (Jane Gordon, Associate Dean)

Ms. Gordon welcomed the Senate to the Law School and asked if Senate meetings were going to be held in room 175 in the future. Senate President Kyr responded that meetings will be held at the Law School in the fall term. Ms. Gordon then stated that about thirteen years ago, before the Law School was built, the grounds were surrounded by swamp land. Previously, the Law School was located on Kincaid Street and the decision was made to move to its current location because they do not have undergraduate student who need to factor in traveling across campus. She then stated that the Law building is eleven years old and had thought that one day it might become the center of campus. Ms. Gordon then delivered a message from Dean Moffitt which was that the Law School is very happy to be in a more centralized area of campus. The Law School hopes to be even more integrated with the rest of the UO despite their composition of only graduate students. She again welcomed the Senate body and stated that the Senate will always be welcome at the School of Law. Senate President Kyr then thanked Ms. Gordon for her welcoming statements and said it was a pleasure to be meeting in the Law School.

1.3 Approval of the minutes of the May 11 & 25 Meetings

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 11 and 25 Senate meetings. A motion was given and seconded. He then called for a vote from the Senate body. A voice vote was taken and the minutes of the May 11 and 25 Senate meetings were approved unanimously.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr then stated that Ben Eckstein (ASUO President) would be giving his report at this time due to a conflicting meeting that he had to attend during his scheduled report time. Mr. Eckstein thanked the Senate body for allowing him to present his report ahead of schedule. He then asked the student Senators to stand and introduced them to the Senate body. The student Senators present at the meeting were Harlan Mechling, Jena Langham, Emma Newman, and Stephanie Matheson. He then thanked Senate President Kyr for his commitment to equal participation in shared governance by all stakeholders. Mr. Eckstein has been working with Senate President Kyr throughout the summer and he has shown that he is committed, not only to fully including students, but he is also committed to the creation of an environment where student feel consistently valued, respected, and wanted. He then updated Senators on two pressing issues that the student body is facing. The first issue dealt with student voting for a one hundred dollar per term student fee for the next thirty years to fund the renovation and expansion of the Erb Memorial Union (EMU) and the student recreation center. According to Mr. Eckstein, his administration and other students groups within the EMU are working hard to promote this very important referendum and to educate students on this issue. His administration also felt it was important that students be given a chance to vote on this issue to decide whether or not they wanted these projects to occur. Students need to be informed about the impact of the decisions they make when voting on this critical issue. Many student concerns have already gone unaddressed regarding the plans for the new EMU. Student groups could be receiving less space and privacy. This is a concern with the current proposed project. There are many student programs that need safe spaces within the student union, and this change would not be acceptable. According to Mr. Eckstein, students and proper stakeholders have not been properly engaged in the building process and in the decisions that are being made throughout this process. He is concerned that the EMU could lose accountability from the student body, who throughout history, have been its primary investors. His administration is working very hard to insure the election process for this referendum maintains full integrity as a student run election and that student rights are upheld.

The second issue deals with the University converting the Department of Public Safety (DPS) into a police force. The ASUO opposed this decision and will be maintaining a very high level of involvement in the planning process as this conversion moves forward. All constituencies need to be fully engaged in this process. His administrations vice president, Katie Taylor serves on the police department complaint resolution board working group which is charged with developing an effective oversight mechanism to handle complaints and to protect the central rights of the campus community. Although the decision made by the state board was inconsistent with the opinions of the student body, his administration will continue to work to insure that student voices are heard and that the campus community is very engaged in the process as it moves forward. He closed his comments by stating that as the year moves forward, he is very thankful for having such an outstanding body in support of shared governance, and welcomed the Senate to reach out to the ASUO for information or support as they are always happy to partner with other stakeholders on campus.

Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Eckstein for his comments and stated that he was extremely grateful for student participation in the Senate. He then mentioned that the state of the university address was supposed to be given by President Lariviere, but the President was called to Washington by Hilary Clinton to attend the American Summit on higher education and was unable to attend today’s Senate meeting. He then invited Lorraine Davis (Interim Provost) to the Senate floor to give her remarks on the state of the university.

2.1 Remarks by Interim Provost Davis

Interim Provost Davis thanked Senate President Kyr and stated on behalf of President Lariviere his invitation to Washington D.C. was a late invitation but it is fortunate that the UO has representation at that event. The President will be returning quickly to participate in the forthcoming UO Foundation meeting. She then stated that from one perspective, the state of the university at the present time is transitional, at least from the leadership perspective. That is not a mark of unrest but a mark of circumstances and continual change which often can be very positive. Changes cause you to reexamine what you are doing, how you are doing it, and who is doing it. She reassured the Senate body that even though there are, have been, and will be a number of leadership transitions, she is hopeful that they will be positive and will have the support of all constituents at the university in order to move forward.

The first transition is her position as Interim Provost. It is her hope that James Bean (Senior Vice President and Provost) will return to his position after the current academic year has expired to reassume his duties as Provost. Another transition that has been announced is the Vice President for Finance and Administration. Francis Dyke had announced her intent and desire to retire at the end of this academic year, June 30, 2012. A search was undertaken for a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) position with a broader and more sophisticated portfolio than the current portfolio for the Vice President for finance and administration. Due to the complicated job description, Interim Provost Davis stated that only three to five people in the United States would be able to meet the qualifications. As a result, President Lariviere declared the search a failure and has appointed Jamie Moffitt (Intercollegiate Athletics) as the Vice President for finance and administration on a permanent basis beginning January 1, 2012. Francis Dyke will continue to serve in her position until the end of June 2012 in order to assist Jamie Moffitt in her new position. She then stated that Charles Martinez (VP for Equity and Diversity) has repositioned himself in the college of education. Currently, there is a search under way for the Vice President for Equity and Inclusion. In the meantime, Robin Holmes (VP for Student Affairs) is assuming the responsibilities of Charles Martinez’s former office. Since last year, there has been a new appointment for the Vice President for Research and Innovation and Kimberly Espy (Dean, Graduate School) is working hard to structure that office in a way that will move it forward. Former history professor, former dean of the college of arts and sciences, former Provost at the University of Illinois, former President at the University of Texas, former chancellor at the University of California at Berkeley, and former President of the American Association of Universities (AAU), Bob Berdahl (Special Assistant to the President) will be assisting the university leadership in an advisory capacity. She then stated that the Senate will more than likely be interacting with him and identified three area of interaction.

The first involves new challenges and opportunities that face the UO and are positive challenges related to the Oregon legislation of Senate Bill 242 and 909. The Senate will be involved in these issues through various policies and constitutional matters. She believes Bob Berdahl will have a great deal of insight and wisdom into these issues and will also greatly contribute to the organizational structure of the UO. During her upcoming Provost Forum, Interim Provost Davis will be giving a presentation on the progress of the Academic Plan. At the same time, the foundation office and the office of the VP for development have begun the initial steps for a financial campaign regarding fundraising. Due to the current amount of support that the University receives from the state, it is critical that external donations and fundraising remain at a very high level. Interim Provost Davis believes that Bob Berdahl can assist the administration in matching some of the values, which are very well expressed in the Academic Plan, of prioritizing as they move through the process of implementing these initiatives.

Interim Provost Davis stated that this year there will be a search for the Senior Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs and the Senate will hear more details as the search begins. Earlier that morning, she delivered a campus-wide announcement that the vice provost for international affairs is leaving the university at the end of December. Interim Provost Davis will appoint an interim person to that position within the coming weeks given the quick timeframe of departure. Those are some of the transitions occurring in regards to leadership at the UO. She then stated that the University is about the students who are at the core of the UO’s mission, and then mentioned a few points regarding the student body. The UO has more than twenty-four thousand students, as was mentioned by Senate President Kyr. That number is a challenge in many ways, but at the same time allows the UO to be the robust research university it is today. There are four thousand freshmen at the UO with an average GPA of 3.59. They are well prepared to participate academically and she believes the Senate will find them to be very well qualified. Twenty-three percent of incoming freshmen are students of color and the first year retention rate between freshmen to sophomore year was almost eighty-six percent. Interim Provost Davis stated that that was exceptional and a tribute to the faculty, staff and students. People are working together to accomplish their goals. There is also a fair amount of capital construction ongoing. She stated that the construction is costing five hundred million dollars which does a great deal for Eugene’s economy but also presents many challenges in facilitating movement around campus. She had the privilege of walking through the east campus residence hall that will open fall of 2012 and though it was an incredibly nice and facilitative facility that will serve the UO well.

Interim Provost Davis has been meeting with the deans of every school and department at the UO. She asked every dean three questions. The three questions are; what are the good things going on in your school or college; what are the things you are working on; and how can the provost’s office be of help. She was very impressed with the faculty, personnel, and the support that surround the various schools and departments. Many of the challenges that were identified deal with accommodating faculty, staff, and students as a result of the increase in student enrollment. According to Interim Provost Davis, the deans do not want her to hinder their progress. She will not get out of their way, but will participate with them on their way to reaching their goals.  Interim Provost Davis has been at the UO for forty-one years and there has been a great deal of change since her last appointment as Vice President of Academic Affairs. The one thing that has not changed is the quality of people at the UO who care about the University, students, our mission, and each other. She then thanked the Senate body for the opportunity to speak on behalf of President Lariviere and to participate centrally at the UO in its excellence.   

3. NEW BUSINESS

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim Provost Davis for her comments and moved on to the next point of the agenda which was the affirmation of appointments to senate elected committees.

3.1 Affirmation of appointments to senate elected committees, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that the appointments have already been made and accepted by the members. He then thanked the appointees for accepting their positions and for their service and read the names before the Senate body. The list of the committees and names are as follows: Faculty Advisory Council (FAC): Edward Kame’enui (Center on Teaching and Learning), Anne Laskaya (English); Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC): Michael Russo (Business), Hailin Wang (Physics), Van Kolpin (Economics); Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC): Brian McWhorter (Music and Dance), Nathan Tublitz (Biology), Glen Waddell (Economics); Senate Executive Committee: Glen Waddell (Economics), Peter Keyes (Architecture), Harinder Kaur Khalsa (Romance Languages), Carla McNelly (Classified Staff), Kim Sheehan (Journalism); Senate Budget Committee: Angela Davis (Business), Lisa Freinkel (English). Senate President Kyr then asked the Senate body for a motion to affirm the names of appointees. A motion was given and seconded. Senate President Kyr then called for a vote. A voice vote was taken and the slate of appointments was approved unanimously. He then moved on to the policy update.

3.2 Policy Update, Robert Kyr

According to Senate President Kyr, the five policies that the Senate will be focusing on for the moment are the Facilities Use Policy, the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, the Retirement and Emeriti Policy, the Research Misconduct Policy, and the Classified Research Policy. The first two were sent by the Senate to the President who did not sign them and were then sent to the general counsel for review. The general counsel has made extensive revisions to these two policies and they must be sent back to the Senate committees that first reviewed them. Senate President Kyr then stated that the Retirement and Emeriti policy was reviewed over the summer by its committee and will come before the Senate, hopefully at the next meeting or meeting after next. The fourth and fifth policies, Research Misconduct and Classified Research have just been resubmitted to the Senate in a revised form by Lynette Schenkel (Office of Responsible Conduct of Research). These polices will again be reviewed by the Senate before being brought to the floor for a vote. He also stated that under point six of the agenda, there will be a notice of motion regarding the policy on policies.    

3.3 Senate retreat on October 22, 2011, Robert Kyr

Senate President stated that he was thrilled about the upcoming Senate retreat. This will be the first time in the history of the university that the Senate has had a retreat. He then reminded the Senators that they must remember that the Senate is the only body that is constituted with five constituent groups. At the retreat, Senators will be formulating a vision plan for the University that expresses the common will of these five groups. The vision will become the focus for interaction with the central administration. Senate President Kyr then thanked all those who have responded to the invitation to the retreat and then asked all who have yet to respond to please fill out your RSVP very soon as final preparations are being made. The retreat will be held on Saturday, October 22 at the Lillis Business Complex in room 282,and breakfast will be served at 8:30AM in the east courtyard. At 9AM the first session will begin and will focus on formulating the vision plan. Senators will break into caucus groups to discuss specific questions. Lunch will be served at noon in the School of Music and Dance and from 1:30 – 4:30PM in room 190. The rest of the retreat will focus on discussing the various points across constituencies that were formulated during the morning session. Several task-forces will be formulated that will continue the process of molding and refining the vision plan. He then stated that he really looks forward to all Senators participation in this time of change, challenge, and opportunity at the university.  

3.4 President’s Forums and Provost’s Forums, Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that he sees these forums as an important step forward in our shared governance system. Now every member of the university community can come and have an open discussion with the Provost and the President. He encouraged all Senators to attend the forums and mentioned that the vision plan would be well on its way to formulation by that time and should be woven into these discussions. 

3.5 Respectful Workplace Ad Hoc Committee, Robert Kyr

Over the summer, and at the request of Senate President Kyr, Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff) formed a task force that began looking into questions that she raised related to respectful workplace when she presented her acceptance speech upon receiving the UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award. Senate President Kyr stated that the many ways in which each of us interact with classified staff must change. He was very moved by her speech and immediately approached her to offer his assistance. Together they formed a task-force which met during the summer and since that time; they have been doing phenomenal work. Based on their substantive work, the taskforce is now becoming an official Senate ad hoc committee. This work will go forward and the committee will present a report at the November Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr then thanked Senator McNelly for all her hard work and asked the Senate body if anyone had specific needs for their constituency. These needs will be discussed at the retreat, but there are certain pressing issues that might go beyond what transpires at the retreat. He then stated that if this is the case, please contact him privately to discuss your needs. 

3.6 Senate VP Election in November, Robert Kyr

According to Senate President Kyr, the election for the Senate Vice President will be held at the November meeting. He then invited Senator Nathan Tublitz (Biology) to the Senate floor to lead an open discussion on the revisions to the UO Constitution which will be coming before the Statutory Faculty Assembly later in the year.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Revision to the UO Constitution, Nathan Tublitz, Chair; Internal Governance Committee

Senator Tublitz explained why the governance committee is updating the UO Constitution. He then provided Senators with contextual information and stated that back in the mid 2000s, there was an issue on campus regarding opposition to the Iraqi War. That issue landed in the Senate then moved to the University Assembly. There was a potential vote in the Assembly, but that vote was squashed by a presidential decision that stated there was no quorum. The President decided that the Assembly could not vote. There was a question as to whether that legal argument was appropriate, and the Senate, in 2007 asked the Department of Justice to write a report and issue a ruling on what the quorum requirements were for the University Assembly. That ruling was issued in November 2008 and stated that the Charter of the University, which states that the President and the professors shall govern the University is sacrosanct and should be followed. According to Senator Tublitz, because the Assembly did not have a document that actually turned that sentence into a working set of procedures, the University developed a Constitution. He believes it is a very good one and is the one that is being worked on currently. The Constitution was adopted by the Assembly in 2010 and approved by the President shortly thereafter. In the present, it was realized that there were gaps in the current version of the Constitution. The Assembly quorum requirement was not discussed. It was also realized that the document had room for improvement. He then stated that he is here to present the work of the committee and asked Senators to please listen to his presentation and then provide feedback that will be brought back to the committee. The document will be brought before the Senate for approval at the November meeting, but will not go into effect because the Senate does not have the authority to approve the Constitution. The Constitution must be ratified by the Statutory Faculty Assembly. However, out of respect for the Senate it will be brought before the Senate body for approval. All sections in the Constitution document were reviewed for clarity and all committee members felt that almost every word should be changed. This is what the committee has done, but the meaning has remained the same. Every section has been clarified and there are three sections that have been significantly updated. Instead of going through the document section by section, Senator Tublitz thought it would be best to go through the table of contents and make comments on the sections that were updated. The UO had an Assembly, which was the overarching governance group at the UO, which consisted of all teaching professors at the University. It also included others that had the rank of professor and students. The Department of Justice said that these other groups were inappropriate because of the language in the Charter of the University. The teaching faculty have been replaced by the Statutory Faculty.

Senator Tublitz then discussed the laws and rules that are mentioned in the Constitution, the composition of the Senate, and the eligibility of participation or how the Senate election is run. He then discussed the more involved changes. The first major change involves the power of the Senate and asked the Senate body; what power does the Senate have? He answered his own question and stated that the Senate has legislative power. The Senate can legislate changes to the University based on a consensus by the University attorneys, the President, and the faculty through their respective roles. The Senate can mandate legislation and pass resolutions. The President has to listen to the Senate on matters of legislation. Senator Tublitz then discussed section seven of the document. The distinction between legislation and resolution is the first major change to the Constitution. The second major change is to propose a process by which the Senate passes a motion that the administration does not like. When this occurs, there is now a higher level for action. He then stated that this is the same for policies, but does not apply to resolutions because they are non-binding. The President has the right to veto all decisions made by the Senate, and because of the change in the structure of the Oregon University System (OUS), there is no higher authority than the President. Continuing his discussion of the document, Senator Tublitz stated that section eight remained virtually unchanged. The next section clearly delineates the process by which the Faculty Assembly operates. He then discussed the quorum requirement which is one quarter of the members of the Assembly and one third of the members in the event of a Constitutional amendment. The final section was newly written into the document and discusses the policy library; an online archive that will list all legislation passed by the Senate and the Assembly. The policy library will post all policies approved by the President. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Dr. David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) stated that he was reticent to ask the first question and offered a point of context. He has worked with the faculty governance group on the Constitution and he believes it is significant that the university is headed towards completing the revisions. Both Dr. Hubin and Senator Tublitz are aware that the revised Constitution will be reviewed by the university general counsel. Dr. Hubin then stated that both he and Senator Tublitz have talked at length about the next steps in refining the revisions and then having the document signed by the statutory faculty and President Lariviere. The revisions have been read by general counsel and Dr Hubin stated that he will share the revisions with the Senate. General counsel’s comments are not meant to be dispositive, but rather are meant to be the general counsel’s reading of whether a word should be “consult” or “confer.” He then stated that he was not trivializing legal advice. There will be changes throughout the document that reflect discussions within Johnson Hall prompted by general counsel that begin with the third line of the document. General counsel prefers the word “ratified” by the statutory faculty versus “adopted” by the statutory faculty. There is a great deal of these types of changes in the general counsel’s edits and Dr. Hubin stated that he is not quite sure what the distinction is. He is not interested in making it a point of contention between the two documents. For this reason, he has not shared the general counsel’s comments on the document. The changes will be discussed within the faculty governance group and a recommendation will be brought to the Statutory Faculty.

Senator Tublitz then summarized the process and stated that hopefully, Senators will discuss the Constitutional revisions and send their comments to the governance group. He then thanked Chris Jones (Research Assistant/Program Manager Sustainable Cities Initiative) for doing this and asked the rest of the Senate body to follow suit. Senator Tublitz then stated that the general counsel will also send his suggested changes. Members of the community will send their suggested changes, and then the internal governance committee will meet and deliberate on these changes to the document. He then listed the names of the committee members. The internal governance committee is comprised of Chris Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator), David Dusseau (Business), Debra Olson (Education), Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus), Gordon Hall (Psychology), David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), John Bonine (Law), Jette Foss (Biology), Peter Keyes (Architecture), Robert Kyr (Music and Dance), Susan Gary (Law), Scott Pratt (Philosophy) and Anne Tedards (Music and Dance).    

A question was asked from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He wanted to know if the committee had any legal advice in drafting the document. Senator Tublitz responded that the governance group has not employed legal advice, but two attorneys, John Bonine (Law) and Susan Gary (Law) are group members and have done an outstanding job of providing potential alternative interpretations.

Another comment came from Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) who thanked Senator Tublitz and the members of the governance group for revising the Constitution. He said that these are the kinds of things that you do not know are working until they do not work. He then stated that he was glad someone is doing this work because he would not have signed up to do it. Senator Tublitz then stated that this Constitution is the document that faculty and others will run the University from, and as such, it needs to be very clear. He then stated that there is another step that will perhaps be even more contentious, which is a discussion on whether or not the Constitution will mandate how decisions are made at the unit level. He then repeated that the document needs to be very clear.

Senator Emma Newman (ASUO Student Senator) asked what date revisions should be sent to Senator Tublitz. Senator Tublitz jokingly replied by 5pm today. He then stated that an email had gone out to all Senators requesting comments by Friday, October 21.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) then asked if a unit within the University has implemented a policy without the approval of the University Senate, is there a method specified within the Constitution to bring them to task for their actions. Senator Tublitz responded by stating that there is no such provision, but that Senator Sullivan brought a really important and interesting point. Senator Tublitz will bring this point to the governance committee for further discussion.

Dr. David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) offered a comment regarding policies. He stated that the Senate deals with policies that will rise to the policy library. If the teaching and learning center had a policy on whether or not to give a refund for a workshop, that policy would not be brought to the Senate. If a policy is being proposed and will eventually be moved to the policy library, each proposed policy will go before the Senate Executive Committee in order to determine whether or not the Senate will play a role in its adoption. At that point, Senator Tublitz confirmed Dr. Hubin’s statement. He then added that there is another aspect that has not been defined which is how a unit runs its governance system. Those issues will be discussed with the governance group.

Senate President Kyr asked Dr. Hubin a question. He wanted to know what the deadline was for the general counsel to give his comments and will those be available to the university community. Dr. Hubin then stated that both he and Senator Tublitz discussed whether Dr. Hubin should suggest a series of changes based on the general counsel comments. Those comments have been completed. Senate President Kyr then asked; what part will the general counsel’s commentary play in the revision process. Dr. Hubin stated that some of the suggested changes are such that the faculty will want to weigh-in and consider, and some of the suggested changes address questions regarding the quorum among other items. This was discussed by the committee and as far as Dr. Hubin knows, there is no legal issue in regards to the quorum; however there is a question regarding the definition. He then stated that he would like to post general counsels suggested revisions for the campus community to discuss. Senate President Kyr then stated that he believes there should be one document for people to consider posted in one place to avoid confusion. He did not believe it was fair to ask his colleagues to look at different documents in different locations on the web, especially this late in the revision process. Dr. Hubin asked Senate President Kyr what his recommendation would be. Senator Tublitz then proposed a solution and stated that the response by the general counsel has two parts to it. The first is a legal response. The second involves suggested changes. The committee will review all changes and come forward with a final revised document which will be presented to the community for conversation. At that time, the general counsel can again offer comments at the Statutory Faculty Assembly. It is the Statutory Faculty who will be making the decision on whose suggested changes/comments will be added to the revised Constitution.

Dr. Hubin stated that he would work with Senator Tublitz and Chris Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) and does not want the general counsel’s comments on the Constitution to be seen as a competing document. Senator Tublitz then asked Dr. Hubin to submit to him a copy of the general counsel’s comments and he would take the comments to the internal governance committee for discussion. Dr. Hubin agreed. Senate President Kyr then stated that what the Senate wants is clarity of discussion, and in order to accomplish this, the parameters must be set in a way that is helpful to everyone.

Senator Tublitz stated that some of the motions regarding policies passed by the 2010-2011 Senate were approved by the administration. After they were approved, the general counsel claimed the policies were illegal and/or inappropriate. Senator Tublitz does not believe the Senate and administration should operate in this manner. There needs to be a system by which general counsel, the administration, students, faculty, classified staff, and officers of administration have a voice in a consensus mediated discussion on the document in consideration. Once the final document is passed it must remain passed. The general counsel should have to follow the same rules that everyone else follows.

A comment was offered by Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff Senator). She thanked Senator Tublitz for eloquently explaining the background information regarding policies and shared governance. She also thanked Senate President Kyr for allowing the Senate body to discuss the revisions to the Constitution. She wanted to know if the general counsel could provide the Senate with the IMD’s (Internal Management Directives) in the spirit of transparency. Dr. Hubin responded to her question by stating yes. He stated that he has seen the IMD’s and that he was not general counsel, but that it was a reflection on an OUS system that has not worked well. According to Dr. Hubin, IMD 3.105 was passed in January of last year and is not up on the OUS (Oregon University System) website, but he will share it with the Senate. IMD 3.105 removed the Chancellor’s authority to override an OUS President. Senator Tublitz located the OUS homepage and announced to the Senate body that the page was last updated in 1998. He then apologized for having to mention these issues, but he believes that these discussions are crucial to our system of shared governance. He then reminded the Senate body to email him with their issues and concerns regarding the revisions to the Constitution.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Tublitz for his hard work and stated that while Senator Tublitz was Senate President, not only did he rewrite, with consultation and consensus building, the Senate By-Laws, but he also stepped into the chair position of the Internal Governance Committee and championed that groups efforts. The Senate body gave Senator Tublitz a warm round of applause for his service.

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report, Ben Eckstein, ASUO President

Due to the fact that ASUO President Ben Eckstein gave his report at the beginning of the meeting, Senate President Kyr moved to the notice of motions.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Tublitz to announce the first notice of motion.

6.1.1 Notice of motion to approve the revised constitution Nathan Tublitz, Chair; Internal Governance Committee

Senator Tublitz gave a notice of motion to approve the revised Constitution. Senate President Kyr stated that this motion will be presented to the Senate at the November Senate meeting. He then asked Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) to introduce the notice of motion for the Policy on Policies legislation. 

6.1.2 Policy on Policies, Senate Executive Committee (SEC) Glen Waddell, SEC member

Senator Waddell stated that ten years ago, he was introduced to the academy with a confusing piece of paper from the committee on committees. Now he has the privilege of introducing the policy on policies. This policy will come before the Senate at the November Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Waddell and jokingly mentioned that we’ll all be in trouble when the UO has a Constitution on Constitutions.  

6.2 Other

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any other announcements from the floor. Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) asked Senate President Kyr if he could introduce himself to the Senate body. Senate President Kyr stated that he could.

Senate Parliamentarian Simonds stated that he was the Senate Parliamentarian, and all Senators have access to his advice on parliamentary procedures. The easiest way to contact him is by email or phone. Senate President Kyr thanked Parliamentarian Simonds for his service, which he feels is crucial to the proceedings of the Senate.

Senate President Kyr then asked if there were any other comments from the Senate body. Senator Tublitz raised an issue that he was recently made aware of regarding the Distinguished Service Award and the ceremony associated with that award. He stated that the University Senate issues very few awards and one of its highest awards is the Distinguished Service Award. This award is given to one to three individuals every year from outside the University of Oregon who have given outstanding service to the state of Oregon and beyond. He then repeated that this award is given by the Senate. There is a committee that runs the selection process, approves the award, and the results are brought to the Senate who then convenes in executive sessions for a vote on each nominee. The awards have been issued every year since 1956. Last year the Senate initiated a process, with full cooperation from the administration, of having a reception for the nominees at the end of the first Senate meeting of the fall term. He then stated that this year, for some unknown reason, the administration has unilaterally not allowed the Senate to host the reception for the award nominees. Instead, the administration is holding its own separate awards ceremony for the awardees, and according to Senator Tublitz, the Senate has not been invited. He then stated that one could argue that this is not that important but is merely symbolic; however it is a duty of the Senate. If this duty can be taken away by the administration without a discussion with the Senate body, then why should the Senate do any work at all. Senator Tublitz then stated that he officially objects to the process by which the giving of the Distinguished Service Award has been effectively taken away from the Senate by the administration. Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification that by giving, Senator Tublitz meant the presentation of the Distinguished Service Award, to which Senator Tublitz agreed.

Dr. Hubin replied to Senator Tublitz’s objection. He stated that from 1956 to 2009, the Distinguished Service Award, which was established by the Faculty Assembly who authorized the President to bestow the award, was given at commencement. Under President Lariviere’s leadership, the presentation of the award was changed and it was given away at a brunch before commencement to a very small group of people. Last year, the administration realized that there was no appropriate venue to distribute the award. Dr. Hubin stated that he worked with then Senate President Tublitz to link the award presentation to the Senate. He then corrected Senator Tublitz’s previous comment and told the Senate that it was not due to a lack of communication. One of the recipients, Robert Berdahl, will not be in Eugene on the day of the award presentation but could make it to a reception on the day after today’s Senate meeting. Due to this conflicting schedule, the administration decided to move the reception to accommodate the recipient. Dr. Hubin then stated that President Lariviere has invited all faculty, staff, and officers of administration to the reception. Everyone should have received emails from the Deans and Directors list and through the President’s Office. Senator Tublitz then replied that this was a Senate ceremony. He then repeated that there was an agreement that this was to be a Senate ceremony and not an administrative ceremony. As a result, if that is going to change, it needs to be changed by the Senate and not by an edict from the administration. Dr. Hubin stated that Senate President Kyr, Senator Tublitz, and he should talk further about this issue. According to Dr. Hubin, the ceremony was changed to be linked to the Senate through a bilateral conversation between Dr. Hubin and Senator Tublitz. The Senate did not vote on this issue. He stated that it was a good change but did not work this year and will be held the day after today’s Senate meeting. Everyone is invited. Senate President Kyr has graciously accepted to give opening remarks at the reception. Dr. Hubin believes that this issue should be solved by the Senate President. Senate President Kyr then commented that earlier that day he had a discussion with Dr. Hubin regarding this issue and he feels confident they are headed in the right direction. In the spirit of shared governance, there is no reason why we cannot present this award together in the future with appropriate consultation. This is another example of what we must work together on to resolve. Dr. Hubin again invited the Senate body to please attend the ceremony for the Distinguished Service Award.

Before adjourning the meeting, Senate President Kyr reminded Senators to please sign in on the attendance sheet. He then thanked the Senate body for their participation.    

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further comments, Senate President Kyr called the October 12, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:47PM.

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday December 2, 2009

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday December 2, 2009

Present:  T. Bars, A. Berenstein, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, K. Dellabough, L. Forrest, H. Gangadharbatla, P. Gilkey, N. Gower, M. Henney, A. Hilts, J. Hurwit, K. Jensen, C. Jones, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa Kaur, R. Kyr, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, L. Reichardt, L. Sugiyama, T. K. Thompson, N. Tublitz, S. Verscheure, M. Williams

Excused: A. Laskaya, J. Piger

Absent: G. Baitinger, C. Bengtson, S. Chakraborty, E, Chan, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, A. Emami, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, T. Minner, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, P. Walker, P. Warner

CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Peter Gilkey called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 220 HEDCO Building.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes of the November 11, 2009 senate meeting were approved as distributed.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Remarks from University President Richard Lariviere.  The president began his remarks by reminding everyone that the university is reaching the end point of the annual charitable giving drive and he emphasized the importance of donations with so many people in need during these difficult financial times.  He commented next regarding the fiscal situation of the state and the university, reaffirming that this past year has been very bad financially for the state and that next year may be even worse.  The president reported that the state contributes a mere 8% to the universityÕs general fund; consequently, the anticipated 20% budget cuts yet to come will have less impact on our campus than if we had been funded at a higher percentage (like many of the other state supported institutions across the country).  The president went on to say that in order to meet the funding challenges, we need to change the manner in which we receive funding from the state.  Currently, the annual appropriation process is designed so that whatever the fiscal shortfall, the state first meets legislated mandates for other state agencies, then makes up the shortfall from the higher education budget.  We must address the fact that there are no mandates for higher education.  For the current biennium, the state appropriated $650 million dollars for state agencies, and higher education will only receive $128 million of that amount; however, there may be more budget cuts in February 2010 depending on whether proposed tax increase Measures 66 and 67 pass in the special election.  In general, the budget for this biennium looks rather grim.

The president went on to express the frustration of not knowing what the universityÕs budget was until well into the fall term of classes.  He suggested several changes that are needed: one is to regularize the stateÕs funding of higher education, that is, to change the manner in which we receive funding from the state so that what we receive is predictable.  Another is to change the governance of the university in relation to the state; for example, the president would like to see a board of regents or a board of governors governing the UO specifically, with sole responsibility for ensuring the institution is making policies and directing its mission based on what optimally affects the institution.  He noted there are a number of models that could be explored in this regard.  President Lariviere said that it is important for the university to have accountability with the state, so he would like the faculty to devise a set of metrics to determine whether the university is doing its job or not.  And third, the president suggested that we should examine ways to re-cast our relationship with the state – some suggestions are provided in former President FrohnmayerÕs recent report to the chancellor (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/DF-18Nov09.pdf ).

During a question period, President Lariviere amplified several points.  He noted that the UO already has many accountability measures – but he would like the faculty to advise him on the types of meaningful metrics that can explain and articulate to the public what we do at the UO.  Regarding the governance of the university, the president said an ideal set up would be the UO having its own board that understands its role, one that says the president is in charge of running the university and managing the accountability metrics.  He commented further that the Frohnmayer document only speaks of the three big research institutions (UO, OSU, and PSU), and we need all seven OUS institutions agreeing that some kind of changes must be made.  The president that what is clear is that we have to go into discussions with the state as a group of seven universities and with a common agenda to change the way we see things, that is, to work collectively on this issue.  President Lariviere recognized that a considerable amount of consultation between faculty, staff, and students is required on all of these issues so that the outcome is meaningful to all people involved.  He plans to consult with the faculty in the near future and has asked Senate President Gilkey to suggest faculty members for a joint task force to begin this process.  Lastly, regarding the relationship between the faculty and the administration, the president said that the faculty and the administration must work together.  He went on to say that the faculty determines the quality of the institution, and he would like to see the facultyÕs focus and judgment be on such matters. 

Remarks from Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes.  Vice President Holmes opened her remarks explaining that a general goal of Student Affairs is to enhance the overall quality of the student experience at the university, which is done through strategic partnering that provides learning opportunities, programming, and services supporting the academic mission of the UO.  She noted that Student Affairs seeks to create purposeful environments that will enhance the studentsÕ experience both in and out of the classroom.  The vice president said that students attending the UO are better prepared academically than in previous years and they have higher expectations.  In the current year, there are record numbers of out-of-state and international students, and the ethnic and racial diversity of the student body continues to increase as well.  Student Affairs works to ensure that students are prepared academically, emotionally, and physically to take their place in the UOÕs community of scholars, and to benefit from the academic opportunities provided by the faculty.  She commented that Student Affairs is taking a holistic approach to educating the entire student, by moving from a purely service-oriented approach in student services to a student learning paradigm that better aligns with the academic mission and academic plan of the university.

The vice president provided a visual presentation that outlined goals that Student Affairs would like to achieve by 2020 (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/Holmes02Dec09.pdf).  Included in the presentation were four cornerstones: (1) community, the notion that students can be part of something at the UO; (2) capacity, which includes a plan to build and renovate facilities that are reflective of a preeminent residential university; (3) quality, that is, support for the metrics that support institutional quality, such as the positive reputation of our students demonstrated by acquiring the best jobs and being admitted to the most prestigious graduate schools; and (4) capitalizing on what makes the UO so special, the physical environment, people, hands-on learning, student engagement, student activism, and preparing future leaders and global citizens.

Vice President Holmes commented briefly on progress made in the strategic housing plan, which will lead to replacing all the older residence halls between by 2027.  An East campus residence hall that is nearly ready to break ground for construction will be the largest residence hall with over 170,000 square feet, providing 450 more beds with traditional rooms and semi-suites that will be attractive to freshman and sophomores.  It will be built with ÒgreenÓ efficiencies and will have specific academic functions within the building, such as honors programs and language immersion, and a resident scholar apartment so that the faculty member that has the responsibility for the curriculum that he/she is leading can be on site with the students.  In addition, the building would have a learning commons, including a librarian office and a librarian on staff, study rooms, computer labs, and classrooms.  The vice president concluded her remarks by noting that the building will have the same architect as the new Living Learning Center in order to capture the same efficiencies built into that residence.  Also, honors and language immersion programs are planned for the new building; as future needs change, the academic focus of the building may change as well. 

REPORTS

Move to paperless UO Catalog.  Mr. Colin Miller, director of Design and Editing Services, updated the senators regarding progress on having the UO Catalog and Law School Catalog go paperless (see SenateCatalogHistory.pdf and SenateCatalogTimeline Going paperless.pdf).  A paperless catalog is supported by the major consumers of the catalog as well as the president and provost.  The conversion from paper has begun and will proceed in 2010.  Mr. Miller explained that the entire catalog currently is on-line at the UO as it is with all the AAU schools.  Printed copies are available for $25, and soon the on-line catalog will be formatted to have a ÒprintÓ feature that individuals can use if desired (currently, a PDF version is available).  During a question period Mr. Miller clarified that student advising units agreed that a paperless catalog was the right direction for the catalog.  Also, the catalog will follow the same schedule for updates that is in place now and will have previous versions of the catalogue preserved for access in future years for reference. 

Fall 2009 Preliminary Curriculum Report. With Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking unavailable to present the Preliminary Curriculum Report, UO Registrar Sue Eveland moved to have the report accepted with a couple noted corrections: (1) eliminate the Multicultural title under the Other Curriculum Matters section, and (2) ART Drawing II has been approved.  The report was approved as amended (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/FinCurrRptF09.html for the corrected, final version of the fall 2009 report).

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Gilkey noted that the next meeting of the Faculty Governance Committee was scheduled for Thursday, December 4th from 9:30 to noon in the Lewis Lounge (see Report for more information).  Also, President Gilkey drew attention to a November 18, 2009 report from Dave Frohnmayer to George Pernsteiner (alluded to earlier by President Lariviere) regarding a document titled The Coming Crisis in College Completion: OregonÕs Challenge and a Proposal for First Steps, and encouraged the senators to peruse the report if they had not already done so (see The Coming Crisis in College Completion: Oregon's Challenge and a Proposal for First Steps).

Notice of Motion – US09/10-11 regarding the Riverfront Research Park.  Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan, ASUO, gave notice of a motion that would declare senate opposition to the renewal of the conditional use permit extension for the planned development of the first 4.3-acre increment of the Riverfront Research Park North of the railroad tracks (on the South bank of the Willamette River).  The opposition would allow for a student and faculty inclusive permit review process and an updated evaluation of the UO owned Willamette Riverfront property (see US09/10-11). 

Motion US09/10-6 – concerning nominations for the Senate Vice Presidency.  Action on this motion was postponed until the January 13, 2010 senate meeting (see US09/10-6).

Motion US09/10-7 – concerning increasing access to public records.  Action on this motion was postponed until the February 10, 2010 senate meeting (see US09/10-7).

Town Hall meeting regarding unionization.  President Gilkey announced that he is working with the FAC, at their request, and with the OA Council to set up a Town Hall meeting on the topic of unionization.  (Date for the meeting has been changed from January 15th to Friday, January 29th from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in 150 Columbia. 

NEW BUSINESS

Motion US09/10-9 – concerning the appointment of members to a joint administration/senate committee on state accountability metrics related to a possible new governance model with the state.  President Gilkey asked Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz to preside over the meeting for this and the next motion so that he could put the motion on the floor for discussion and speak to it.  President Gilkey moved the following:

The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to recommend faculty members to the UO President for appointment to a joint administration/faculty committee concerning state accountability metrics that may be part of a new governance structure/relationship to the State of Oregon. The UO Senate President shall consult widely and shall contact the UO Senate, the Faculty Advisory Council, the Senate Budget Committee, and the Senate Nominating Committee in this regard.

University of Oregon leaders are currently engaged in conversations with the chancellor, OUS presidents, and elected leaders regarding fundamental changes in how OUS institutions are funded and governed by the state. This conversation will continue to occur over the next few months and will include a dialogue with our campus community and state policy leaders. The internal conversation will focus on how the UO can continue to fulfill its critical public mission and remain accountable to the state under a more autonomous structure. The campus conversation will help reinforce the idea that under any model, the University of Oregon remains focused on meeting the needs of Oregonians.

Discussion on the motion centered on concerns as to whether the joint committee should be appointed by the university president or the senate president.  Senator John Bonine, law, expressed concerns about erosion of faculty responsibility if President Lariviere appointed the committee instead of Senate President Gilkey.  He moved to amend the first sentence to change the word ÒrecommendÓ to ÒappointÓ and to remove the words Òto the UO President for appointmentÓ.  There was general consensus around this wording change as senators wanted to avoid setting a precedent for how such committees are appointed.  Mr. Dave Hubin, presidentÕs office, pointed out that the president has appointed standing committees in past years; however he saw no difficulty in the proposed amended wording.  The amendment was put to a vote and passed by voice vote.  The first sentence now read: 

The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to appoint faculty members to a joint administration/faculty committee concerning state accountability metrics that may be part of a new governance structure/relationship to the State of Oregon.

The main motion, as amended, was again back on the floor for discussion.  Mr. Nick Gower, ASUO, asked why the committee was limited to faculty members and had no students.  He proposed amending the first sentence further to read Òfaculty members and other members of the university communityÓ, which after a brief discussion was simplified to strike the word ÒfacultyÓ read Òmembers of the university communityÓ.  Mr. Hubin expressed his belief that the original wording of Òfaculty membersÓ reflected the presidentÕs belief that accountability metrics were primarily a faculty issue; however Mr. Hubin indicated that he would convey the desirability of student input to the president.  With little further discussion, Senator GowerÕs amendment was put to a vote and passed.  The first sentence now reads:

The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to appoint members of the university community to a joint administration/faculty committee concerning state accountability metrics that may be part of a new governance structure/relationship to the State of Oregon.

Senator Leah Middlebrook, comparative literature, expressed concern that a senior faculty member from the humanities be included on the committee, and proposed simplifying the second sentence to end with the word ÒwidelyÓ and to delete the rest of the sentence.  This amendment also met with approval and passed.  With no other amendments forthcoming, motion US09/10-9, as amended, was put to a hand vote and passed (24 in favor, 4 opposed, and 3 abstentions).  

The final version of motion US09/10-9, as amended reads:

The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to appoint members of the University Community to a joint administration/faculty committee concerning state accountability metrics that may be part of a new governance structure/relationship to the State of Oregon. The UO Senate President shall consult widely.

University of Oregon leaders are currently engaged in conversations with the chancellor, OUS presidents, and elected leaders regarding fundamental changes in how OUS institutions are funded and governed by the state. This conversation will continue to occur over the next few months and will include a dialogue with our campus community and state policy leaders. The internal conversation will focus on how the UO can continue to fulfill its critical public mission and remain accountable to the state under a more autonomous structure. The campus conversation will help reinforce the idea that under any model, the University of Oregon remains focused on meeting the needs of Oregonians.

Motion US09/10-10 – to authorize the Senate President to appoint a Senate Advisory Group to implement US08/09-8 concerning fiscal transparency.  Senate President Gilkey indicated that Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke requested having an advisory group to help with the implementation of senate legislation US08/09-8 passed last May, which deals with creating an on-line, publicly accessible budget reporting system.  The system will allow users to track current and retroactive individual university expenditures as is currently available at Oregon State University.  (See OSU budget reporting website at https://bfpsystems,oregonstate.edu/webreporting/).  The administration has made good progress, but a working advisory group will help to remove any ÒbugsÓ in our on-line system.  The proposed motion reads:

The UO Senate passed a motion (US08/9-8) stating The University Senate respectfully requests the University of Oregon Administration to establish a publicly accessible, on-line budget reporting system at the University of Oregon by 15 November 2009 that will allow users to track current and retroactive individual university expenditures as is currently done at our sister institution Oregon State University on their budget reporting website ( https://bfpsystems.oregonstate.edu/webreporting/ ). "

At the 11 November 2008 UO Senate meeting, Frances Dyke reported"The tool you will be able to access starting next Monday is the initial roll out of a financial reporting tool for compliance with the university Senate motion on financial transparency. In the course of discussions related to development the work group has identified impediments to our ability to provide transactional level detail in a publicly available financial reporting tool. There are issues of both security and legally binding confidentiality that must be balanced against the desire for full transparency. As mentioned at the October Senate meeting I am now asking the Senate President to appoint an advisory group to help analyze these problems and find solutions that can be legally and operationally implemented. In making this request I also recommend that the Senate President consider creating this advisory group by drawing on membership of the Senate Budget Committee and other members of the Senate or university community who have a particular interest or expertise in financial management reporting."

The Senate President is directed to consult widely and to appoint the advisory group recommended above.

Vice President Tublitz spoke briefly to provide background information on the motion saying that OSU has a very good on-line system that allows users to view budgeting information directly.  He agreed that the administration has made a good first step to implement a similar system for the UO.  Ms. Carla McNelly, multicultural academic success, suggested that classified and administrative staff members that work with the Banner system and budgeting would make very good members for the committee.  With no other discussion forthcoming, the question was called.  Motion US09/10-10 to appoint a working group for implementation of US08/09-8 was passed by voice vote.  Senate President Gilkey asked Vice President Tublitz to chair the committee. 

Other Business.  Senator Bonine referred to a posted email he sent to the senators concerning General Counsel Melinda GrierÕs recent statement about the facultyÕs role in shared governance at the UO (see Email on shared governance).  He was concerned that Ms. GrierÕs statement was a very narrow view of the facultyÕs role in shared governance.  His basic message was that the General Counsel Grier cited several statutes giving power to the president but did not cite the statement about the Òpresident and the professorsÓ having the Òimmediate governanceÓ of the university.  He opined that the statutory authority of the faculty has long been recognized at the University of Oregon, and that the statutory faculty authority is not limited to curriculum and student discipline.  In disagreeing with Counselor GrierÕs statement, Senator Bonine argued that one should not accept words that come from a lawyer simply because they come from a lawyer – they can be challenged. (General Counsel GrierÕs statement can be viewed at http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/Grier-10Nov-PublicMeetingspdf.)

ADJOURNMENT

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

Syndicate content