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.
5.1 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 Dykereported"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.)
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate November 11, 2009
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars, A. Berenstein, J. Bonine, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, A. Emami, L. Forrest, H. Gangadharbatla, P. Gilkey, J. Hurwit, A. Hilts, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa, A. Laskaya, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, D. Olson, N.C. Phillips, M. Price, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, T. K. Thompson, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Warner, M. Williams
Excused: C. Ellis, J. Hurwit, J. Piger, N. Tublitz
Absent: C. Bengtson, C. Bybee, S. Chakraborty, T. Dishion, N. Glower, M. Henney, R. Kyr, N. Proudfoot, L. Reichardt, L. Sugiyama, T. Toadvine, P. Walker
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 October 14, 2009 senate meeting were approved as distributed.
Senate Nominating Committee. Committee chair Anne Laskaya, English, reported that the committee nominated Lise Nelson, geography, to fill a vacancy on the Graduate Council due to an unforeseen resignation; the senate confirmed Ms. Nelson's appointment.
Climate Action Planning. Professor Art Farley, computer and information science, began the report by explaining that former UO President David Frohnmayer, along with the other OUS institutions and 650 colleges and university presidents across the country, signed the American Colleges and Universities Presidents Climate Commitment. The commitment sets a goal of achieving a 10% emissions reduction by 2020 and zero net greenhouse gas emissions on all campuses by 2050. For our campus, the first step is to develop a Climate Action Plan. The plan will be a living document that will be modified and updated as technologies and understanding of the problems and issues advance over time. A first draft has been completed and the Environmental Issues Committee would like feedback and input on the draft document from faculty and the university community (see http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/content/introduction). The Environmental Issues Committee has spent much of its time over the last 2 years putting together an emission responsibilities chart (see http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/content/emission-profile). The chart is an important part of the Climate Action Plan which states the various classifications of greenhouse emissions that occur as part of university activity. There are a number of opportunities to capture renewable resources, but the campus must have the will to do it. Reductions can occur, but the cost is estimated at $25.8 million, with a simple payback of 18 years; $65 million is needed for renewable energy projects. The university has a long-term investment horizon to spread costs of reducing emissions. The question is, of the various options the university has, which will it take responsibility for dealing with, and which will it not.
Mr. Steve Mital, director of the Office of Sustainability, provided a PowerPoint presentation of some highlights of the Climate Action Plan (see http://sustainability.uoregon). The draft plan consists primarily of strategies to begin dealing with emission reduction, hence the request for faculty input on ways to achieve reductions. Mr. Mital said that the United States produces the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. And although people often associate a reduction in one's carbon emissions with a reduction in lifestyle, this is not necessarily true. He said the US has an abundant amount of renewable resources to capture; for example, concentrated solar power (CSP) is mostly in the southwest, there is a lot of wind energy potential in the Willamette Valley as well as the Columbia River Gorge and in other parts of the country, and geothermal energy is also available. Such resources could be widely distributed across the US. Mr. Mital said that higher education is becoming active in emissions reduction because it is training future leaders – this current generation of students will bear the brunt of solving carbon emission problems already created.
Turning to some illustrations relevant to the UO, Mr. Mital said that utility combustion (the emissions that come from the power plant) comprise about 47% of the UO's total. The purchase of electricity from EWEB is 13%. Emissions related to university air travel is 31% (athletics was not included in this total). Only 50% of faculty and staff travel to campus each day by car and 11% of students do; the rest get to campus by riding bikes, taking the bus, walking, and car-pooling. This improvement in commuting behavior is an example of ways in which we are changing behaviors to reduce our commuting emissions and have made a dent in the rising amount of the UO's total emissions.
Lastly, Mr. Mital indicated that student-faculty interaction is a large part of the Climate Action Plan. One example of how the university could move forward is to set up its own carbon offset business in the business school. He suggested that the carbon market is going to be one of the largest markets in the future. Mr. Mital said that the UO strategy is flexible right now and there are very broad planning strokes ready for faculty input now because the plan is due to President Lariviere in early January.
During a discussion period, Senator Kassia Dellabough, AAA, mentioned the redesign of Lawrence Hall, which integrated design issues into academic programs, as a positive step toward having greener buildings. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, suggested that more people take advantage of existing Media Services technology for video conferences (instead of traveling to the conference). He has participated in such conferencing and it worked very well. Finally, Mr. Mital responded to a question about campus goals by saying that the UO is in the process of defining realistic goals for the campus and seeing what types of resources are available on our campus.
Faculty Athletic Representative (FAR) Report. Professor Jim O'Fallon, NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative for the UO, began his remarks by noting the passing of former UO president Myles Brand, who was President of the NCAA. Mr. O'Fallon commented that Mr. Brand, through a task force, had instituted a number of positive changes to improve the academic side of the student-athlete experience. In particular, he pushed hard on academic eligibility of student athletes to assuring that athletes were taking courses that provided progress towards graduation in a reasonable time frame. A combination of strengthening of the individual eligibility requirements and some mechanisms to move teams toward making judgments about how they can promote academic success of their student athletes have changed the atmosphere relating to academic success of student athletes on campus. Student athletes operate under a set of regulations designed so that as they enter the final year of their eligibility they will have 80% of their designated degree program completed. The UO has very good graduation rates to show this academic improvement.
Mr. O'Fallon continued his report, explaining that the Academic Progress Rate (APR) metric used by the NCAA is a three digit figure (925) based on a number of distinct measuring points for each athlete then applied team by team: if the team has a 925 score, the expectation is for a 50% graduation rate at the end of the students' last (5th) year of eligibility. If a team fails to make at least the 925 score, the team can be subjected to loss of scholarships, and penalties related to the team's ability to participate in NCAA championships. The UO has no team below 925, nor is it subject to any penalties. The football team is lowest with a 935 score (this is last year's score – this year's score is in the process of being computed). Mr. O'Fallon explained that the football team has the lowest score in part because the football players finish their eligibility at the end of the first term of a 3 term senior or 5th year. A number of the players have serious professional opportunities in the sport, and they tend to get ready for the National Football League try-out camps right after the finish of football season in fall term.
Other examples of UO team scores are women's basketball at 988, women's golf at 1000, softball at 986, men's basketball at 975, and men's and women's cross country at 974. These scores are among the best in the country. Student athletes at the UO have a graduation rate of 71% compared with the general campus graduation rate of 62%. Mr. O'Fallon concluded his remarks by highlighting some notable accomplishments of current athletes, such as Nicole Blood, and Galen Rupp, who are NCAA Academic All Americans in track and field, and Nick Reed, a first team Academic All American in football. Both Rupp and Reed also have been awarded NCAA post-graduate scholarships.
Report on implementation of resolutions for a smoke free campus, and transparency of university financial transactions. Senate President Gilkey noted that a report from Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke addressing the senate resolutions from last year concerning progress toward implementation of a smoke free campus, and transparency of university financial transactions, had been posted previously on the senate web page for senators review (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/Dyke6Nov09.html). He indicated that Vice President Dyke was available for any questions.
Senator Deb Olson, education, asked why the list of concerns regarding going to a smoke free campus were not being addressed by a task force. Vice President Dyke replied that the first piece of implementation is the fundamental education of the campus. The vice president said that both the Student Health Center and the Office of Human Resources are charged with providing educational programs on a variety of life- and health-related issues. There have been conversations among Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes, Director of the Student Health Center Mike Eyster, and Director of Human Resources Linda King to create an inventory of things that we are already doing, and to investigate best practices in the area of going to a smoke free campus. When this process is done, Vice President Dyke said she would be ready to take a look at the question of implementation. She noted that progress in this area was not a lack of will, but rather a question of balancing priorities in a very busy environment.
On another topic, Senator Terrie Minner, academic advising, asked if Vice President Dyke would provide a written report for the December Senate meeting regarding the status of the Officers of Administration (OA) employment policy initiatives. She also questioned whether the administration has decided on holiday closure and whether there is there any conversation on developing a standard process for holiday closures. The vice president replied that she and Human Resources Director Linda King were planning to attend the January senate meeting to discuss the work that has been done on the OA policy initiative. She said they would be happy to move it up to the December depending on the senate's schedule. Also, she added that some records and materials are available and linked through the HR website (see http://hr.uoregon.edu/oa-employment), and that Ms. King is willing to take questions if senators wished to email them her. Regarding holiday closures, there has been a preliminary discussion in the president's Executive Leadership Team meetings. She said that the expectation is to have a closure policy similar to last year, with some improvements on communication and for having the vice presidents decide the closure protocols for their areas.
Faculty Governance Committee. Former Senate President Paul van Donkelaar, human physiology, chairs the Faculty Governance Committee (FGC) and provided an update on its recent meetings (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirSF/dirExtra/facgovcom10-14-09.pdf and also see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/intgovcomm-report-11-11-09.pdf). The committee has proposed a timeline for its activities: for fall 2009, there are several options to review for governance reform, the website is nearly ready for comments and input on these options, and the committee intends to hold a town hall meeting for further feedback on the several governance documents and also receive initial input from President Lariviere; for winter 2010, compile input/feedback and revise alternatives, solicit additional input/feedback from UO community via the website, hold a statutory faculty meeting to select one of the alternatives, revise, refine and add detail to the selected alternative; hold a statutory faculty meeting and vote on the proposals, revise and refine the selected version; in spring 2010, present the new governance enabling legislation to President Lariviere for his consideration, and make adjustments to the faculty election process as necessary based on the new governance document (may need to delay spring elections if implementation is late in Spring term).
The FGC has identified a number of goals and priorities that are the focus of internal governance revisions. General goals are to have: (1)a mechanism for statutory faculty to meet, (2) a mechanism for statutory faculty to oversee whatever elected body or bodies carry out day-to-day governance functions, (3) broad-based representation of the UO community, (4) the ability to respond to matters that arise with reasonable speed, (5) procedures that define how the president can respond to matters coming from an elected body (e.g., recommendations vs. directives), and (6) possible consolidation of various types of committees (e.g., elected vs. appointed; committees established by elected body or bodies vs. committees established by central administration).
Current ongoing priorities of the FGC include: (1) curricular matters and the impact of budgetary decisions on the curriculum, (2) other issues related to budget, (3) student conduct and discipline, (4) student life issues, (5) personnel policies, (6) admissions policies, (7) issues related to space, (8) issues related to parking, (9) issues related to faculty insurance liability, and (10) issues related to faculty grievances.
Mr. van Donkelaar encouraged senators to visit the Faculty Governance Committee website that provides the information that is being used in the committee's deliberations as well as a schedule of meetings, which are open meetings (http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirSF/FGC.html). Anyone who wishes to contribute to the discussion is welcome. During a brief question and answer period, Senator John Bonine, law, asked who is looking into the legal analyses of the various proposed governance alternatives. Mr. van Donkelaar responded that a member of the law faculty is serving on the committee.
Notices of motions. President Gilkey reported that h has received several notices of motion. Motion US09/10-7 concerning increasing access to public records, sponsored by Bill Harbaugh, economics, has been transmitted to the Senate Rules Committee for action. Motion US09/10-8 concerning promotion and tenure results, sponsored by Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, has been withdrawn and proposed to Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin instead. Motion US09/10-9 concerns appointment of a joint administration and senate committee dealing with state accountability metrics that may be part of a possible new governance model and relationship with the State of Oregon, and is sponsored by Peter Gilkey, mathematics. Motion US09/10-10 to create an advisory group concerning the implementation of legislation US08/09-8 passed last May regarding transparency of university financial transactions, is sponsored by Peter Gilkey at the request of Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke, who feels it would be useful to have an advisory group on this matter.
Other reports received. President Gilkey reported that he received the annual report from General Counsel Melinda Grier regarding the university's policies and procedures in response to the USA Patriot Act, CAPPS II, and other similar legislation (pursuant to US02/03-4); the report indicated that no subpoenas from the federal government under the Patriot Act have been received by the UO in the past year (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/PatriotActSubpoenas2009.PDF).
President Gilkey also commented that he had received a note of clarification provided by Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Russ Tomlin regarding practices that have been followed to organize the interaction between the Faculty Personnel Committee and the provost and his staff (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/Tomlin10Nov09.pdf).
Lastly, President Gilkey indicated that he has received information provided by General Counsel Grier concerning the extent to which the Oregon Public Meetings Laws is applicable to the University Senate (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/Grier-10Nov-PublicMeetings.pdf). Senator Bonine took issue with Ms. Grier's opinion saying that it failed to cite a relevant Oregon Administrative Rule and had a narrow interpretation of the Òimmediate governmentÓ phrase of the Charter statement, which he felt was a much broader term. In essence, Senator Bonine was concerned that because Ms. Grier reports to University President Lariviere, there was a possible conflict of interest in providing an objective legal opinion for the University Senate on this issue. He indicated that he would send a more detailed email of his concerns to President Gilkey for posting on the senate website. In addition, Senator Bonine gave notice that he intends to sponsor a motion that the University Senate appoint its own legal counsel. President Gilkey requested that Senator Bonine send the text of his motion to him as soon as possible so that the Rules Committee can review it, and because the December senate meeting is scheduled a week earlier so as to not conflict with the fall term final exams schedule.
Motion US09/10-3 –to establish a Senate Ad Hoc Committee on public (open) access to scholarly publication. President Gilkey asked Senate Rules Chair Tracy Bars to temporarily preside over the senate for this motion so that he could step down to introduce and speak to the motion (Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz was unable to attend the meeting, and thus was not available to preside). President Gilkey moved adoption of Motion US09/10-3 which reads:
The UO Senate directs the UO Senate President to create a Senate Ad Hoc Committee. The members of the Committee will be appointed by the UO Senate President in consultation with the Senate Nominating Committee, with the FAC, with the Provost, and with the UO Library.
The University of Oregon has a longstanding commitment to making its research widely available, both to the scholarly community and to the general public. Technology is now enabling faculty, universities, and disciplines to adopt new ways to provide enhanced visibility and access to research, usually through digital repositories that are freely accessible. The terms "public access" or "open access" are used to describe these methods that help to remove financial and permission barriers to scholarship and readership. The Committee will
Investigate policies facilitating such public access at other AAU Universities.
Consult widely within the UO community.
Take into consideration UO Policy statements, OUS Internal Management Directives, and other relevant documents.
Draft a University Policy Statement that, if endorsed by the UO Senate and promulgated by the President, would enable the University to:
support wider access to UO faculty research.
enhance the visibility of UO faculty research.
Mr. Gilkey expressed his belief that open access to scholarly publication is a very important issue, thus he would like to address it by forming an ad hoc senate committee to write a policy on the issue for senate approval and then send it to President Lariviere. Mr. Gilkey indicated that if the motion passes, he will consult with groups as stated in the motion to appoint the committee that he would chair. Senator Bonine asked if the policy investigation would include print journals and any restrictions on them, and Mr. Gilkey responded that it would. Since there were no other questions, Ms. Bars brought the question to a vote. Motion US09/10-3 passed unanimously. With the voting on the motion completed, President Gilkey thanked Ms. Bars for her assistance and resumed the chair.
Motion US09/10-4 concerning eligibility for the Senate Vice Presidency. Speaking on behalf of the Senate Rules Committee, which sponsored the motion, Ms. Bars moved to:
Revise the final sentence of section 5.2 of the Enabling Legislation to read: ``The vice president shall be elected from among the officers-of-instruction who are currently serving senators and will become president at the end of the following year by confirmation of the senate.Ó
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, began the discussion by wondering if there were problems with the current legislation that prompted the change. Ms. Bars indicated that the Rules Committee crafted this motion and the next two motions to be considered in response to the confusion and uncertainty that occurred during the senate's organizational meeting last May when the vice president is elected. Senator Mary Ann Hyatt, law, questioned why librarians were not included among those eligible to serve as vice president because they hold academic rank (note: librarians are contracted as officers of administration, not officers of instruction). Ms. Bars responded that the proposed motion simply reverts to the original enabling legislation regarding vice president eligibility, that is, an officer of instruction who is a current member of the senate. The motion does not address the issue of whether officers of administration should be eligible for the senate vice presidency. Senator Chris Jones, AAA, asked if the proposed change allows for more people to be eligible. Ms. Bars indicated that the candidate pool would be smaller, limited to those in the senate rather than including people who had previously served in the senate in the preceding five years, which is the current legislation. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology spoke in opposition to the motion, saying that having a larger pool of candidates was preferable, and he also questioned why a change was necessary.
Senator Bonine said that he wanted to think further about the motion, to let it percolate longer, and that he did not want to vote on it at this time. There were some additional comments regarding the nature of the candidate pool, and Ms. Bars indicated the intent of the motion was to remove the Óex-officioÓ nature of the candidate pool. Senator Bonine then moved to table the motion. President Gilkey called for a hand vote which resulted in 21 in favor of the motion to table, none opposed, and 5 abstentions. Motion US09/10-4 regarding eligibility for the senate vice presidency was tabled.
US 09/10-5 concerning the election of the Senate Vice President. Once again Ms. Bars, speaking for the Senate Rules Committee, introduced motion US09/10-5 which reads as follows:
Solely for the purposes of the election of the Vice President of the Senate and the affirmation of the President, the voting body shall consist of all incoming senators for the following academic year. This will allow newly elected senators a chance to vote on the person who will be the President during their term.
Before beginning a discussion of the motion, President Gilkey explained that the senate by-laws are rather unclear regarding who actually votes for the senate vice president: the senators in office during the May organizational meeting, or the senators who will serve during the academic year that begins fall term. He noted that there was some confusion last May about who votes for the vice president.
There were senators supporting both sides of the proposed motion. Senator Priscilla Southwell, political science, was in favor of the motion saying that elected governance bodies typically elected their presiding officers from within their own ranks. On the other hand, Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, opposed the motion saying that the serving senators know more about the candidates' experience from working with them during the academic year. The discussion continued and seemed to be moving in favor of the newly elected senators electing their officers when Senator Zachary Stark-Macmillan, ASUO, moved to amend the motion to read as follows:
Voting for the vice president shall occur at the first meeting of the senate fall term.
Discussion of the amendment focused on the ramifications of moving the voting to fall term, and whether there were duties that the vice president must attend to over the summer months. Mr. Dave Hubin, president's office, noted that the senate vice president is chair of the Committee on Committees, but the committee does not meet over the summer. Senator Phillips spoke against the amendment, saying that it would be useful to have a vice president in place over the summer for other issues that arise. Senator Southwell, who supported the original motion, spoke in favor of waiting until fall term to elect the vice president. There was a motion to call the question, which passed. President Gilkey then put the amendment to a vote. US09/10-5, as amended to read that voting for the vice president shall occur at the first senate meeting of the fall term, passed.
Motion US09/10-6 concerning nominations for Senate Vice President. Due to the lateness of the hour, President Gilkey indicated that discussion on this motion will be held over until the December senate meeting.
As a final item, Senator Bonine requested that for future discussions on motions, the Rules Committee provide background information and include strike-outs of any pending changes for the motions that change previous legislation.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 14, 2009
Present: T. Bars, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, S. Chakraborty, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, A. Emami, L. Forrest, H. Gangadharbatla, P. Gilkey, M. Henney, A. Hilts, J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, L. Reichardt, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, T. K. Thompson, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, M. Williams
Excused: A. Berenstein, C. Ellis, S. Libeskind, L. Middlebrook, J. Piger, P. Southwell
Absent: C. Bengtson, N. Gower, S. Plummer, N. Proudfoot, P. Walker, P. Warner
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Peter Gilkey called the first regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 220 of the HEDCO building. President Gilkey welcomed everyone.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
After several minor errors of a clerical nature were noted, the minutes from the last regular senate meeting of May 13, 2009 were approved as amended. Minutes from the May 27, 2009 and May 28, 2008 senate organizational meetings were approved as well.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from University President Richard Lariviere. President Lariviere thanked Senate President Gilkey for the opportunity to address the senate for the first time as the new university president, saying that it was both an honor and a privilege. He has been working to familiarize himself with the university campus, university committees, and the university in the context of the entire state; in doing so, he said he continues to be humbled by the depth and quality of the UOÕs faculty and programs. The president noted that more budget and faculty hiring details will be provided later in the meeting, but everyone should be aware that we are in the midst of the worst economic environment of our working lifetime. He explained that the stateÕs portion of our budget accounts for only 9½ % of our operating budget (and about 8% without the federal governmentÕs stimulus money). But because we have adapted to getting by on next-to-nothing from the state, we are in a better economic position than our peer comparator institutions who are accustomed to receiving much higher percentages of their budgets from their states and whose budgets are cut drastically. As an example, President Lariviere reported that the University of California at Berkeley typically hires about 100 new professors each year – this year they hired 10. On the other hand, we will be able to continue with our usual hiring pattern, which means that we have had an especially good year hiring new highly qualified faculty for this year. Nevertheless, with so little state support, we will need to find new funding solutions and budget models to keep moving forward to fulfill our mission.
The president reported he has been meeting with deans, department heads, and faculty members his first few months on campus. He spent much of the summer traveling around the state meeting with editorial boards, civic leaders, legislators, community college leaders, and other leaders, talking with them about the role of the university and about their situations within the state. He commented that there is an enthusiasm for some kind of new educational model in higher education, but with no certainty as to what it is. The president stated that the current climate provides and opportunity to find those solutions for higher education and achieve a new relationship with the State. He affirmed that the UO is not willing to set out on a path of mediocrity, and that the university needs to find ways to avoid mediocrity.
During a question and answer period, Senator Chris Jones, AAA, asked the president what conditions besides the economic conditions make him optimistic that he would be able to accomplish things that others who preceded him could not. President Lariviere responded that it must be a collective effort that has to be supported by the faculty. Second, ideas proposed will need to be supported by the social and political entities of the state – the business community, the labor unions, and so forth. He continued that these factions will have to understand why what we propose is beneficial for them; if the university aligns all these factions in the proper way, this will be a very different moment for legislators in terms of their attitudes in solving this problem. He added that he thinks this is the right moment. Next, Senator John Bonine, law, asked the president to comment about his view of faculty governance and the role and relationship of governance with the administration. The president answered that he believes in the collective harnessing of ideas toward solutions, and did not profess to have all the ideas, answers, or solutions. He said that he had some ideas about how to attract the ideas and solutions, and added that he much prefers, and finds it challenging, to get the issue in front of people and see what they have to say about the matter. He added that his sense is that this is the appropriate time to reevaluate the structure of governance and its support.
Remarks from ASUO President Emma Kallaway. Ms. Kallaway reported on a number of activities underway in the student government, which is in charge of funding for many student activities and projects. The recent Street Fair raised $3,000 and work is underway on a winter fund raiser. Another project includes ÒWeaving New Beginnings,Ó a cultural event staged strategically to talk about safety. The ASUO will also choose which issues to tackle for the year, such as the multicultural requirement, having a local farmers market, and a ÒgreenÓ campus infrastructure.
Ms. Kallaway also noted that classes are very full and students are saying that class size is larger than what they expected. She indicated that the ASUO will continue to advocate for Oregon Opportunity Grant money, which is nearly depleted at this time, in order to ensure that students have access to educational funding. Lastly, Ms. Kallaway said that students and representatives from Facilities walked through campus last evening along with Dean of Students Paul Shang to identify the areas around campus where lighting is not satisfactory. Changing from the yellow light to a white light will spread light further at ground level which will make a difference in campus safety for students. The university will also be adding Òduck feetÓ on some pavement to provide better path guidance and visibility. Ms. Kallaway concluded her remarks saying that student government hopes to work well with the University Senate in a professional relationship this year.
Update from Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke. Vice President Dyke began her remarks saying the unofficial enrollment numbers were strong at the end of the second week of classes, showing an increase in both headcounts and credit hours. Compared to last year at this time, student headcounts have increased 4.3% (22,347 student this fall compared with 21,435 last fall) and credit hours have increased 4.5% (310,865 compared to 297,212). Official numbers will be available at the end of fourth week and at the end of the term. Vice President Dyke reported that the university finally has its budget numbers for FY10 and that Provost Bean has posted a message to this effect in the provost office web page (see October 7 update at http://provost.uoregon.edu/). She noted that a 2.5% general fund budget reduction will be implemented immediately, retroactive to July 1, which was anticipated and discussed with deans last spring. No other take-backs are planned at this time. The State appropriation amount is $16 million less than the FY 2009 beginning state appropriation. The expected tuition increase revenues will yield about $37 million. However, obligations against the tuition increase revenues are backfill against the reduction in state appropriation ($16 million) increases in student scholarships and fee remissions to help maintain accessibility ($4 million), backfill for loss of funds from the UO Foundation and other income ($7 million) and the requirement replenish reserves to state-mandated levels ($2 million). Thus the net amount available is about $8 million.
The Vice President went on to say that base budget additional requirements are estimated at $14 million. These include funding for enrollment increases and an increase in fixed obligations, such as annualized amounts of November 2008 salary and OPE increases for classified staff, officers of administration and officers of instruction/research, and increases in utilities. These are covered by the net available from tuition increases mentioned previously ($8 million) and the 2.5% general reductions assessed to units ($6 million). Next significant financial discussions will take place regarding the January referendum to appeal tax measures passed in June by the Oregon Legislature to balance the budget. These tax increases included a tax increase on high income individuals and an increase in the corporate minimum tax. If the tax referendum passes, the estimated funding loss to the Oregon University System is at $40 million for the biennium. The UOÕs share could be a loss of an additional $3 million of state appropriation per year, or $6 million for the biennium; it could also be a greater reduction.
Moving to another topic, Vice President Dyke reminded senators to check the web for H1N1 influenza updates (see http://emc.uoregon.edu/). Currently the Student Health Center is seeing a surge in student visits and increased absences for illness from staff. There is a small amount of H1N1 vaccine available CDC listed for priority groups, and more expected to be sent. Seasonal flu vaccine supplies also are depleted, so UO staff and faculty are advised to seek vaccinations through another provider.
On the construction front, the vice president reported that the new (HEDCO) Education building opened at beginning of summer term and the Jaqua Learning Center for Student Athletes expects to open in January 2010. Space in Esslinger now occupied by student athlete services will be reassigned by the Campus Space Committee. Discussions regarding scheduling for the first floor auditorium and classroom space in the Jaqua Learning Center are underway. The new basketball arena is progressing on time and on budget. The arena will be open for the start of the 2011 PAC‐10 basketball season. To date, $111.6 million in arena construction contracts have been awarded with 83% going directly to Oregon companies. There are 200 trade workers on the site daily and there will be 450 workers there at peak activity. The parking garage is progressing on time and on budget as well. One hundred percent of the contracts for the underground structure have been awarded to Oregon companies.
Ms. Dyke next reported updates on several other construction projects. The chiller replacement project and electrical distribution project are now completed, which represent phase one of the new power plant construction. The State Board of Higher Education has approved, and the university is requesting an increased expenditure authority (to $75 million) for the East Campus Residence Hall. The resident hall project was approved by the legislature in 2007 so that the university could initiate planning; construction is expected to begin in June 2010. Finally, the university ended up with $3 million in state stimulus funds for projects that were Òshovel readyÓ in May 2009. These dollars have been spent on projects that included improving roofing, sidewalks, and other similar improvements. Requirements for these funds were that contracts go to minority, women or small business enterprises in the private sector.
The vice president noted that Information Services (IS) is working to comply with the Senate motion US08/09-8 regarding transparency of university financial transactions. She indicated that it appears IS will complete the on-line budget tracking project by the November 15th deadline. The plan is to present a reporting tool that balances the need for transparency with security and legally binding confidentiality concerns. Once the reporting tool is available, the vice president will work with senior senate leadership to identify a task force to work through any problems or challenges that are identified.
Lastly, the Department of Public Safety (DPS) is implementing a community oriented policing and problem solving model (COPPS). The model requires strong partnership with the campus community and the city. Vice President Dyke said that the Targeted Crimes Unit was inaugurated during spring 2009. The unit delivers community outreach and awareness programming, manages investigations, and uses information to develop effective prevention and response strategies. The Safe Campus Initiative was launched during the summer, which includes restructuring the relationship with the Eugene Police Department with a dedicated officer integrated with the DPS team.
During a brief discussion period, Senator John Bonine, law, requested that future numerical financial presentation be accompanied with visual information to make it easier to follow the presentation. The vice president responded that she would provide the information to eh webmaster for posting (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/FDYKE-14Oct09.pdf). Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz asked about the progress on the on-line budget transparency project, to which Vice President Dyke reiterated her earlier comments that Information Services is on track to have financial posted by mid November. There have been some difficulties with the software, but the intention is to work through those with the senior senate leadership.
Update from Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Russ Tomlin. Vice provost Tomlin expressed his appreciation to Senate President Gilkey for the inclusion of Academic Affairs in the first senate meeting of the year. He commented that it affords the chance to participate in what many people are optimistic will be a year of improved transparency, collaboration, and shared commitment to the health of the university and its component missions and communities.
Mr. Tomlin reported on several matters of interest and projects that are underway for the current year. Regarding new faculty appointments, the UO was able to appoint 47 new tenure-related faculty members. It was an exceptional year, with great success in hiring from exceptionally deep pools of superior faculty candidates. Of the new appointments at least 14, or 30%, are individuals who self-identified as members of under-represented groups; 16, or 34%, are women. The vice provost added that he expects this hiring year to be similarly exceptional. With respect to faculty promotion and tenure, Mr. Tomlin provided a summary of the promotion and tenure process for tenure-related faculty. This past year, there were a total of 55 promotion and tenure cases considered, 29 cases of promotion to associate professor with tenure, 20 cases of promotion to professor, and 6 cases for tenure only. Fifty-two of the 55 cases resulted in promotion or tenure or both, which is consistent with patterns of success in prior years. The vice provost also noted that the process was completed by May 1st -- six weeks earlier than required, thus reducing anxiety for those under consideration.
Vice Provost Tomlin next mentioned several projects underway. The University of Oregon Academic Extension project is focused on the transformation of the current Summer Session and Continuing Education programs into an expanded vehicle to deliver UO academic expertise to a broader set of audiences. The goal is to empower faculty to create academic programming attractive to new populations that returns significant resources back to the program creators and their academic departments. The university grosses about $12 million per year through Summer Session and Continuing Education; the expectation is to double this revenue flow over the next three to five years. Restructuring of Summer Session is currently underway. The previous financial model will be replaced by one that drives most of the resources into the schools and colleges and their component departments. There will also be an enhancement of academic quality through more robust oversight by the schools and colleges. The larger Academic Extension project is expected to roll out January 1, 2010. Some new opportunities will be initiated at that time and academic affairs will work with faculty, department heads, and deans to explore new opportunities in distance education, in domestic markets, and in international markets. One example of an innovative direction is an E-textbook project, led by Dev Sinha, mathematics, which aims to reduce costs to students while being self-sustaining for the long term. The vice provost noted that a faculty advisory board for academic affairs will be established this term; Mr. Tomlin will consult with the Senate President on this effort over the next few weeks.
Vice Provost Tomlin next explained that Academic Affairs is engaged in an extensive codification project to improve the quality of information available to faculty and staff about policies, procedures, and practices that affect academic appointments, opportunities, and success. He commented that university policies, procedures, and practices are often out-of-date, or inconsistent, vague, and difficult to pin down, which is frustrating to many users seeking information. The codification is aimed at increasing consistency across the schools and colleges, updating and revisiting formal policy or practice where policy and practice are in conflict, and providing more transparent information to support faculty and staff in various efforts. Mr. Tomlin highlighted a few examples currently underway. In response to a requirement in our current accreditation process, the ProvostÕs Office, is close to opening a UO Policy Library which will include an indexed inventory of all policies that govern the university. Associate Vice Provost Ken Doxsee is working on web-based assessment infrastructure to meet current accreditation requirements. And lastly, Academic Affairs will soon provide an updated website aimed at creating more accessible and transparent information on faculty matters, including: an updated and electronic promotion and tenure guide, and an intranet for faculty that will include more elaborate suggestions or coaching than is customarily done on a public site. Some matters for the intranet would include post-tenure review, emeritus status for faculty, courtesy appointments, implementation of remaining NTTF matters (evaluation & promotion), and Conflict of Commitment, to name a few.
During a discussion period, Senator Nick Price, mathematics, asked about policies for adjunct faculty. The vice provost replied that the main project this year is the development of an evaluation and promotion process for NTTF that parallels what is done for promotion in tenure-related appointments. There are department level guide lines for promotion of tenured related positions that are consistent with needs and expectations relevant to the peculiarities of the department. Faculty members are reviewed at the college and school level and, in turn, are reviewed centrally for cross unit consistency. Academic Affairs will be rolling out a process, based in part on units that have already done good work with NTTF in regards to evaluation and promotion, and make that process available to deans that do not have a good policy in place. We will work to develop with deans to develop appropriate strategies. Mr. Tomlin noted that consistency of practice across units is a challenging issue. He also said that there are a few people that have been at the UO for considerable time that may need to be grandfathered into the system. Senator Kassia Dellabough, AAA, asked if the policy will address the single-term adjunct faculty who are not NTTF. Mr. Tomlin answered that right now the policy is aimed at NTTF and that every adjunct can tell whether he/she is a career NTTF, and covered by the promotion policy, by looking in the upper right hand corner of their contract.
Senator John Bonine, law, asked whether the on-line policy library will be dated, and raised some privacy issues with the type of information that would be included on the proposed Academic Affairs intranet. The vice provost answered that the policy library is web-based and will be dated. As for the types of information found on the intranet, Mr. Tomlin was sympathetic to the privacy issue raised and explained that what he is wrestling with is how to deliver information that is useful to people without making a public statement or case out of every proposition that supports our faculty. He said that there will be nothing in the intranet that a freedom of information request will not reveal.
Senate Nominating Committee. Committee Chairwoman Anne Laskaya, English, presented names of persons nominated for positions on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate and the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Each was approved for appointment as follows: Erin Moore, AAA, to serve a term on the IFS expiring June 2011; Ron Severson, LCB, to fill a vacancy on the IAC-with term to expire June 2010; James Isenberg, mathematics, to serve as a Senate Representative to the IAC with term expiring June 2011; and Grace Golden, human physiology, to serve as a Senate Representative to the IAC with term expiring June 2010.
UO Chapter of the AAUP. AAUP UO chapter president Carl Bybee, journalism and communication, spoke about academic freedom in an era of budget cutbacks. He began his remarks making three points: (1) academic freedom at the UO campus and across the country is under siege, but it is not due to this Òbudget crisis;Ó (2) academic freedom and the business side of a university are not two separate concerns – they are deeply interconnected concerns; and (3) academic freedom requires a strong, independent, informed, voice of higher education professionals capable of exerting significant, visible influence on university governance.
Speaking to the first point, Senator Bybee said that the current budget does pose significant threats to academic freedom and to the ability of the UO to carry out its public mission to the citizens of Oregon and to the nation. To survive, he said the UO will need to continue to raise tuition and find ever increasing sources of outside financial support. He suggested that there are major transformations taking place today in terms of how we understand economics, the value of public institutions, and the ideas themselves of what freedom and a free society mean. On the second point, Senator Bybee said that looking at the number of tenure-related faculty on our campus over the past 15 years, the faculty has increased by 6% while overall enrollment has increased more than 20%, which is a matter of concern. He continued that the AAUP, in recognizing the dramatic rise of adjuncts and instructors on campuses, incorporated specific steps of moving adjuncts, fixed appointment faculty and part-timers to more secure, stable economic footing into its ÒRecommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and TenureÓ. The numbers of who teaches and with what protections raise questions about the health of academic freedom on our campus that need to be addressed.
Senator Bybee continued by raising a number of questions that well may impact academic freedom on campus: when the academic freedom of a member of the professional higher education community is challenged, does the university need to provide the economic support for the faculty member to engage that challenge? When there are calls for budget cutbacks, where and how they will fall and take place, are these matters of academic freedom? When the legislature allocates resources to the university, is tracking the flow and distribution of these resources matters of academic freedom? When fund-raising priorities are set, are these matters of academic freedom? Last, Senator Bybee said that the idea of shared governance does not work without substantial resources for faculty and other higher education professionals to act, to have timely access to crucial materials they deem relevant to their work, and to see the outcome of their work in determining crucial university decisions.
Senator Bybee concluded his remarks by inviting faculty members to contact him any time they feel their academic freedom in being challenged. He said that the AAUP can provide advice and assistance regardless of whether the person is an AAUP member, an adjunct, or a full professor. To have a public university serving a public mission in a democratic society, he opined that there can be no budget cuts to academic freedom or to the institutional resources and culture that support academic freedom. (See http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/BYBEE-14OCT09.pdf.)
Senate Budget Committee. Mr. Tim Duy, economics, reported on work of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) saying the last year the SBC spent a lot of times deciding on what the budget would look like as far as the revenue side from the state. He noted that Vice President Dyke had already provided base details earlier in the meeting, and he added that there is some risk to the stability of that budget going forward, one of which is the $700 million in tax revenue that might not materialize if ballot measures to overturn new taxes are passed. Mr. Duy explained that the governorÕs office believes the revenue forecast have been overly optimistic, and that actual revenue received may not be able to support the state budget, and in turn, the universityÕs expected level of state support. Mr. Duy agreed that the rebound from the current recession may not come back as strongly or as quickly as originally thought, which paints a less than rosy picture of the budget situation. He added that the biggest near term challenge for the state of Oregon is that it has not added nearly enough (net) jobs to pull itself clear of the recession, and has not added many in nearly a decade
Faculty Governance Committee. Last year senate president Paul van Donkelaar, human physiology, chairs the committee which is looking into restructuring faculty governance. The charge of the committee is to use the Department of Justice opinion from November 2008 to guide revisions of the internal governance structure of the university. He said there are a number of issues around that general concept of faculty governance that the committee will be working on. Mr. van Donkelaar encouraged senators to visit the Faculty Governance Committee website that gives the information that we are using in our deliberations as well as our scheduled meetings, which are open meetings (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/assembly/dirSF/FGC.html). He added that anyone who wished to contribute to the discussion was welcome. He also noted that a Statutory Faculty Meeting was scheduled for November 18th during which potentially one or more motions would be discussed and voted upon related to these issues. Mr. van Donkelaar said there are a number of potential motions that will be actively considered at this point in time, and that the committee will discuss these motions and provide information about them to the UO community.
During a brief question period, Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, asked if we are bound to have a statutory faculty meeting on November 18th if the committee was not ready to present any motions. Mr. van Donkelaar said the date had been set last May by President Frohnmayer, but that he would contact President Lariviere about the whether the November meeting could be changed. (Note; the November 18th Statutory Faculty Meeting has been canceled and will be held at a time to be announced in the future.) Senator Carla McNelly, multicultural academic success, asked why there were no students, classified staff, or officers of administration on the Faculty Governance Committee to which Mr. van Donkelaar replied that his understanding was that the committee is comprised of statutory faculty members who will be the faculty voting on the revising the governance system. However, he indicated that the committee was open to communication from the broad community and invited that communication.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATONS FROM THE FLOOR
Climate Action Plan draft ready for review. Art Farley, chair of the Environmental Issues Committee and Steve Mital, director of the Office of Sustainability, spoke briefly about the first draft of the Climate Action Plan (see http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/files/uploads/Climate_Action_Plan_1_1.pdf). Mr. Farley explained that in signing the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, the UO has embarked on a journey toward climate neutrality, a long-term goal for a large institution. He said that although the university already has progressed further down toward this goal than most other universities in the country, our new commitment cannot be simply another "green" effort that involves certain environmental interests. Rather, he suggested that the commitment must span all the disciplines and departments -- everyone on the campus has a role to play.
In preparing the draft Climate Action Plan (CAP), information was gathered from several units, and outside consultants were hired to assist with data collection and modeling to estimate the emissions profile of our entire campus. The CAP represents the best information currently available regarding how much the university is emitting and where opportunities exist for emission reductions. He continued that although the CAP provides a good sense of what climate neutrality will require at UO from an operational perspective, it does not yet include details regarding faculty, staff, and student engagement. Consequently, Mr. Farley asked senators and colleagues for their input on the draft plan to ensure that it reflects broad institutional goals. A final version will be readied in early January 2010 which will be published on the ACUPCC website along with climate action plans from 650 other institutions of higher education.
Mr. Farley stated that the CAP is intended as a living document, changing and adapting to different circumstances as the university moves forward. The process through which potential projects and strategies are solicited and evaluated is important; thus, he asked faculty and students to identify areas where curriculum and research tie in, staff to recommend operational initiatives, and everyone to suggest outreach programs for the campus and surrounding community. Due to the rapidly arriving publication date, Mr. Farley implored everyone to give the CAP review process special attention and thought, submit feedback to him by November 30, 2009. Mr. Farley concluded his announcement by saying that there are many questions left to be answered in this undertaking, but that it is in the best interest of this institution and of future generations that the UO Climate Action Plan be as inclusive and effective as possible. The input solicited will help lay the groundwork for a long-range strategic plan for the UO and will help determine what type of university we are and create the type of university that we want to be.
Motion US09/10-1 – to create a Senate committee on faculty governance. MotionUS09/10-1 was tabled at the May 27th organizational meeting of the senate for consideration at this first senate meeting of the academic year. The motion reads:
That the Senate forms a committee to prepare a draft university governance document for discussion at the announced meeting of the Statutory Faculty on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 15:30. The Senate President is directed to contact the so-called ÒDead PresidentsÓ [former Senate President, excluding the current (2009-2010) President] and to contact the members of the UO Senate and to invite the individuals contacted to serve on said committee.
Senator Tracy Bars spoke in opposition to the motion saying that the membership was too limiting and offered the following amendment: ÒThe Senate President shall be named chair of the committee and shall have the authority to invite additional members from outside the Senate body to serve on the committeeÓ. The amendment was seconded. After a brief discussion clarifying the relationship of the proposed committee (to be appointed by the senate president) with the statutory Faculty Governance Committee appointed by President Lariviere with membership advised by the Faculty Advisory Council, and some other supports speaking in favor of broadening the committee membership, the motion was put to a hand vote and was passed.
The main motion, as amended was now on the floor for discussion. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, provided some historical context for the motion. He said that last spring, retiring President Frohnmayer intended to create a committee to construct a faculty governance document. Mr. Stahl continued that it seemed inappropriate to him to have a retiring president to take on that activity, and that it would be more appropriate for the incoming president or for the faculty to engage in that activity. Further, Mr. Stahl explained, he was concerned that any committee so constructed might represent the philosophy of the outgoing administration, which he did not want to see happen. As a consequence, he brought the motion to the Senate to ensure that faculty viewpoints on governance were properly presented to the statutory faculty when it met to decide on a governance document. Since that time, incoming President Lariviere undertook steps to create a Faculty Governance Committee via the FAC. With this explanation, Mr. Stahl suggested that the motion be tabled. Senator John Bonine, law, moved to table the motion. The motion to table US09/10-1, as amended, was put to a vote and passed.
Motion US09/10-2 – regarding voting privileges for the University Senate Vice President. The following motion was brought to the floor:
If the Vice President of the UO Senate is not a serving UO Senator, he shall serve ex-officio on the Senate with full voting authority and the membership of the Senate will be temporarily increased by one senator for the period in question concerning questions of quorum.
With little discussion or dissent, Motion US09/10-2 was put to a vote and passed.
Notice of Motion US09/10-3 to create a Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Public Access. Senate President Gilkey announced he has received notion of a motion to create a committee to address issues of public assess for scholarly publications which will be discussed in more detail at the November 11th meeting.
With no further business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00.
Present: A. Berenstein, J. Bonine, S. Chakraborty, K. Dellabough, A. Emami, H. Gangadharbatla, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa Kaur, P. Keyes, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, Z. Stark-Macmillan, T. K. Thompson, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel
Excused: T. Bars, C. Bybee, T. Dishion, L. Forrest, N. Gower, C. Jones, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, L. Middlebrook, J. Piger, L. Reichardt, P. Southwell, P. Walker
Absent: G. Baitinger, C. Bengtson, E, Chan, C. Ellis, M. Henney, A. Hilts, M.A. Hyatt, K. Jensen, T. Minner, L. Sugiyama, T. Toadvine, S. Verscheure, P. Warnek, M. Williams
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for May 26, 2010 to order at 3:03 p.m. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the May 12, 2010 regular meeting of the senate were approved as distributed. President Tublitz reminded all in attendance that the meeting was streaming live by video.
Wayne T. Westling Award for Leadership and Service. President Tublitz announced that John Nicols, history, was the 2010 recipient of the senate’s annual Wayne T. Westling Award. The president introduced CAS Dean Scott Coltrane to make the presentation and provide some remarks about to Mr. Nicols. Dean Coltrane’s remarks follow:
It is my great pleasure today to present The Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and Service to John Nicols, Professor of History.
The Westling Award was established by the University Senate in 2001 to honor faculty or staff who have provided long-term leadership and service to the university community. Many of you knew Professor Wayne Westling, in whose honor this award was named. Professor Westling set the standard of exemplary scholar, teacher and university citizen. In giving this award we acknowledge and remember the remarkable contributions that Wayne Westling made to the University of Oregon and are grateful for the other dedicated faculty who have followed in his footsteps.
John joined the University of Oregon’s History Department in 1980 as an associate professor and has contributed greatly to university life during the past thirty years. In addition to being an accomplished scholar, teacher and citizen here at the University of Oregon, he has been a visiting professor at the Universities of Munich, Heidelberg, Cologne and M�nster. John has been the recipient of numerous fellowships and research grants from prestigious professional organizations, including the German Academic Exchange Service, the Fulbright Commission, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
During the past two years I have come to know John through his service as both Director of the College Scholars Program and as Head of the Humanities Program within the College of Arts and Sciences. His contributions to each have been phenomenal. John has devoted himself to the success of these two programs with enormous efforts on behalf of students and countless hours working with faculty, administrators and donors. John’s hard work and dedication has paid off in a dramatic increase in the number of College Scholars and the number of Humanities majors. Students rave about how these programs have enriched their intellectual lives and awakened them to scholarly inquiry.
John’s service contributions to the university have been long running and truly extraordinary. Joe Stone, former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was one of several faculty who nominated John for this award. In his nomination letter Joe stated “John’s service to our campus is exemplary and represents the highest ideals of the Wayne Westling Award. In my 30 years on our campus, I can think of no member of our faculty whose service has reached across the campus as broadly and profoundly as John’s.”
I fully agree. The following partial list enumerates John’s service to his department, to the College of Arts and Sciences, and to the University: Director, College of Arts and Sciences Society of Scholars, 2006 – 10; Director, Humanities Program and Independent Study Program, 1991 –present; University representative to Inter-institutional Faculty Senate ,through 2008; University Classroom Committee 2002- 2005; 2007; 2010; University's Distinguished Scholarship Committee 2010; University Committee on Courses, 2003-5; Undergraduate Council, Member and then Chair: 1999-2003; UO Committee on Courses, through spring 2006; Department Head, Classics 1991- 98; CAS Curriculum Committee, Member then Chair, 1997-2000; Academic Requirements Committee, Chair, 1994-96; Senate Budget Committee, Member then Chair, 1996-99; Faculty Advisory Committee, Member then Chair, 1996-98.
Throughout his distinguished career, John Nicols has consistently volunteered to take on additional duties both in teaching and service. For example, though a full time member of the History Department, Professor Nicols served for eight years as head of the Classics Department. John has also been recognized for his outstanding teaching. His most recent teaching awards includes the 2009 Williams Foundation Award for notable contributions to undergraduate education and the 2009 Lorry Lokey Foundation Award for contributions to digital media (shared with Professor Gregory Bothun, Physics). It is therefore with great pleasure and deep appreciation, that on behalf of the University of Oregon Senate, I present John Nicols with this year’s Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and Service.
Mr. Nicols thanked everyone and noted that he knew Wayne at the end of his life, when he was on the Faculty Advisory Committee. He also commented that it was flattering and a real pleasure to be among the group of Westling Award winners. Mr. Nicols said that many people begin their academic careers because they seek independence, and he could attest that he has enjoyed that feeling of independence, although others may recognize it as a tendency toward orneriness. He added his appreciation for all the colleagues over the years on all the committees that were mentioned, who put up with his independent spirit, and whom he tried to respect as well.
President Tublitz commented that the Westling Award is a faculty award, but that he intends next year to establish similar separate awards for officers of administration and classified staff for their leadership and service recognition in future years. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more about the Westling Award and past recipients.)
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks by Provost James Bean. The provost noted that due to the meeting’s full agenda the Diversity Report was submitted in writing and is posted on both the OIED and Senate web sites. The provost commented on the amount of progress made over the past several years, which has been exceptional in comparison to the previous similar time period; he encourage all in attendance to read about the accomplishments. Also, the Strategic Action Plan achieved a great deal this year and represents serious work done across the university.
Moving on to budget issues, the provost noted that the recent (May) revenue forecast for the state was down $560 million from three months earlier. The forecast is the first one since income taxes were due and there were two surprises. First, profits from businesses in the state of Oregon went down 80% from reporting the previous year. It was expected it to go down, but not that much. If there is no profit by businesses, there is no tax revenue. Second, tax refunds to individuals went up faster than anticipated, and the combination of both of these circumstance resulted in revenues that were far below their original forecast. The state constitution says the governor must rebalance the state budget immediately, and because the legislature is not in session, the balancing must be done across the board. So each agency gets a budget cut in portion to the size of their budget. Oregon University System has about $31 million to cut. The UO fair share would be about $4.6 million, but the UO often is assessed at more than its fair share, so we do not yet know the exact amount to pay back. But with 13 months left in this biennium, it will be an easier task than the last rescission of $8.9 million with only 6 weeks to make the cuts. He noted that some of the money may be used to cover the Oregon Opportunity Grants, which is a state funded, need-based scholarship fund for students that are Pell grants eligible. The organization running the Oregon Opportunity Grants has been recognized as lacking the skills needed to run such an organization, and they over committed the fund by a large margin; the UO may be requested to cover the state’s opportunity grant promises to all of our students. The provost commented that if the UO must have budget cuts, he would rather see returned funds go to our students than to other state agencies.
The provost also noted that the White Paper proposal (addressing funding and operational issues at the UO as part of the OUS) that was released by President Lariviere in the middle of the month has created quite a conversation around the state. There is a similar White Paper by Portland State’s president and Western Oregon’s president, which along with the UO paper, will be discussed at the upcoming State Board meeting. One consistency is that every model is not like anything in place now; everybody believes the current system is broken. A number of issues are up for discussion and the provost said he believes we have a good chance in the next legislative session to get a rewriting of the governance structure of the system. Clearly the proposal that the UO released had a lot of detailed work behind it with faculty involved and an outside bond council reviewing all the work.
During a brief discussion period, the provost noted that the Portland State proposal is similar to ours in governance structure, but because they have a special relationship with the City of Portland they would like the kind of taxing authority that a community college has over the tri-county area. He added that the UO worked with both Portland State and Oregon State through the entire proposal development process. There is the possibility, for example, of having a single piece of legislation that works for the three “bigs” – PSU, UO, and OSU -- or all seven institutions, but that has certain changes in structure that would be for everyone and other parts that would be flexible for each campus. We are working closely with Portland State right now. It is a much more difficult question for Oregon State because, as a land grant university, many of the state-wide services that they run really are state agency types of activities. So for OSU to say they are not a state agency anymore is a much more profound statement than for the UO to say that the UO is not a state agency anymore. The provost said that the UO is a state agency in name only. Given that the vast majority of our financial support is from tuition income, strong development income, and research grants income, we really do not look like a state agency.
Senator Carla McNelly (multicultural academic success) asked if there is any plan to add other stakeholders such as classified staff and officers of administration to the government structure. The provost answered that those discussions are going on right now. He said that the president has been meeting with the leadership of SEIU to determine what their views are with the idea that this is going to be a partnership, and that the UO will explore what fit is best for all stakeholders; the White Paper proposal is not about privatization.
With the discussion winding down, President Tublitz thanked the provost for his comments, and then took a few moments out of the regular agenda to acknowledge the ongoing contributions of Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, emeritus professor of anthropology, and Secretary of the Faculty Gwen Steigelman, academic affairs, who is retiring at the end of the academic year after serving as secretary for 14 years. President Tublitz thanked both for their years of outstanding service to the University Senate and presented each with gifts of appreciation on behalf of the senate members. Both Mr. Simonds and Ms. Steigelman gave a heartfelt thank you to President Tublitz and members of the senate for the kind words and recognition of their respective efforts.
Motion US09/10-16b: Conflict of Commitment policy. President Tublitz explained that the policy statement that relates to this motion has not yet been written, thus the motion is being postponed until fall 2010. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-16b.html for text of the motion.)
Motion US09/10-18 -- Academic Freedom Policy. Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, academic affairs, brought the following motion to the floor (second by C. Phillips, mathematics):
The University Senate adopts the Freedom of Inquiry policy and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University.
Mr. Tomlin introduced the motion by saying that the policy it seeks to adopt comes from a lengthy and thoughtful process that looked at two complementary issues: academic freedom, and use of campus facilities. Although stimulated by events surrounding the meeting of the Pacifica Forum, the policies generated relate to everyone on campus and all users of campus facilities. The process involved a working group (M. Skalberg, B. Stilwell, T. Gleason, M. Paris, B. Smith, K. Stanley, R. Geller, M. Grier, and R. Tomlin) that examined current policy, researched other campuses’ policies, consulted widely with campus leadership groups, posted a draft policy on the web for comment, and previously brought a draft of the policy to the senate for discussion. From those interactions, the draft policy was revised again after soliciting more input from the campus community. The policy under consideration, thus, is the result of many suggestions that have been heard and incorporated into the policy.
Vice Provost Tomlin acknowledged that some of the policy is drawn from a similar one at the University of Michigan, which recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that all parties in the university community have the opportunity to speak, to be heard if they wanted to speak, to hear others, and to protest what is said without disrupting others’ speech. The UO policy tries to be very simple and have a high standard of public discourse so that individuals have the opportunity to speak their minds, independent of their status, to be heard if someone chooses to listen, and to protest with respect. He noted that if the policy is approved, it would supersede the current visitor speakers policy.
During a discussion period, there was concern regarding the real intent of the policy and whether its purpose was to address academic freedom, or, freedom of inquiry and free speech. President Emeritus Dave Frohnmayer, law, noted that the policy’s use of the term academic freedom might be applied in cases that involved academic judgments such as in promotion and tenure cases, or whether to renew appointments, for example. Rather, he said he believed the intent of the policy was to deal with issue regarding speakers, and not from the context of judgments reached in academic disciplines under the peer review process. Dean Margie Paris, law school, agreed and said the policy is about freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech, not academic freedom. Senator John Bonine, law, then suggested several wording changes in the draft policy which were agreeable to both Mr. Tomlin, who made the motion, and Senator Phillips, who seconded the motion. The policy Title was changed to read “Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech” (added text in italics). And, the policy Purpose was changed to replace “academic freedom” with “free speech”. Two other changes in the body of the policy included removing “academic freedom” from the second sentence, and adding a second “is “ in the first sentence of the second paragraph after the word “and”.
With these changes the revised policy statement reads:
Title: Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech
Purpose: To describe University policy and commitment regarding free speech and freedom of inquiry.
The University of Oregon values and supports free and open inquiry. The commitment to free speech and freedom of inquiry described in this policy extends to all members of the UO community: Faculty, staff, and students. It also extends to all others who visit or participate in activities held on the UO campus.
Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society. The University encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they present themselves to this community. Further, as a public institution the University will sustain a higher and more open standard for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or preferred in private settings.
Free inquiry and free speech are the cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and transfer of knowledge. Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not solely for those who present and defend some view but for those who would hear, disagree, and pass judgment on those views. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or “just plain wrong” cannot be grounds for its suppression.
The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.
Access to UO facilities and space is governed by a complementary policy [Scheduling Use of Facilities].
[The UO recognizes the contribution made by the University of Michigan policy statements and practice guides in this formulation of UO Policy.]
With discussion winding down, President Tublitz put motion US09/10-18 regarding adoption of the now revised freedom of inquiry and free speech policy to a vote, which passed unanimously. With its passage, President Tublitz indicated the policy would be forwarded to University President Lariviere for adoption and inclusion in the university‘s policy library. Lastly, Mr. Tomlin expressed his gratitude to his colleagues for their suggestions and effort in framing the policy.
Motion US09/10-19 -- Facility Use Policy. Vice Provost Tomlin brought the motion to adopt the revised facility use policy to the floor for discussion (second by C. Phillips).
The University Senate adopts the Facilities Use policy and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University.
Mr. Tomlin introduced the motion by saying this proposed revised policy went through the same writing and review procedures that were explained earlier with the freedom of inquiry and free speech policy; that is, there was extensive research into policies on other campuses, broad consultation, and opportunities for feedback and comments. All faculty responses were incorporated in the revised policy. He summarized the key points in the proposed policy compared with the current policy. Essentially, requests for facility use sponsored by entities which are departments, centers, institutes, regular student groups, or other recognized academic units, continue to schedule facility use through the facility’s scheduling manager as they have done in the past. However, if an individual faculty member, staff, or student wishes to access UO facilities, he/she must have sponsorship of an academic entity, and if not, then the access is subject to facility use request in the same manner as any other outside community member by going through a university scheduling manager; the request is subject to the decision of the scheduling manager and is ultimately overseen by the university administration. Currently, a faculty member may have access to facility use regardless of whether he/she has the support of an academic entity for use of the facility or not.
During the discussion period, Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, commented that he approved of the proposed change in policy that opened up facility access to individuals and not just groups. To a question of whether an individual would have to be part of the university community to access facilities, Mr. Tomlin clarified that as a public institution managing public space the university must allow reasonable access to facilities. Such requests from the public would be treated as non-university entities in the proposed policy, scheduling of facility use would be done by a university scheduler, and there would likely be a facility use fee assessed as well. Dean Paris added that the proposed policy is aimed at internal UO use; non-university users would go to the university scheduler to request facility use. Next, to a question regarding who in the academic community might have academic entity sponsorship or not, Mr. Tomlin explained that academic departments and units each have their own cultures as to how they manage and schedule their own facilities. They may have a faculty committee or a department head who determines internal department use of facilities, for example. Even if a faculty member is not supported by his or her own department, the faculty member may find another department that is willing to support the requested facility use.
There was a brief discussion regarding what appeared to be inconsistencies in paragraphs number 3 and 4 that were pointed out by Senator John Bonine, law, who thought perhaps some wording changes should be made. With other questions posed seeking clarification on issues such as whether outside academic organizations would have access to facility use on campus, for example the local chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, there was a suggestion by Mr. Stahl and supported by Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, that the policy be referred to the policy working group again for more work addressing the questions and concerns raised. Mr. Tomlin responded that the proposed policy has been posted and available for comment for a considerable amount of time. He opined that passing the policy now would allow implementation during the summer and would move the university forward on the facilities use issue more so than leaving the current policy in place until sometime later in the fall term. Senator Bonine added his support for passing the motion to adopt the policy now, saying that although the policy is not perfect, it is a big improvement over the policy currently in place. He suggested adding a short clarifying phrase -- “unless invited by a university entity under paragraph 5,”-- after the first comma in the first sentence of paragraph 6. Both Mr. Tomlin and Senator Phillips accepted the proposed additional policy text, so that sentence was amended to read:
The university will charge a fee for the use of facilities by non-university entities, unless invited by a university entity under paragraph 5, which may include an application fee payable prior to approval of the use.
With this amendment made, President Tublitz reminded the senators that any policy passed may come back to the senate for changes at a later date; the policies are not written in stone and can be revised. Senator Phillips called for the question, which received a positive vote. President Tublitz then put Motion US09/10-19 regarding adopting the proposed facilities use policy to a vote and the motion passed with two abstentions. President Tublitz also added that the concerns raised would go to a senate committee for review and to suggest revisions as necessary, and if needed it would come back to the senate for discussion. Vice Provost Tomlin then expressed his appreciation to the senators for passing the motion and policy and indicated that he would with the senate committee to achieve greater policy clarity. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-19.html for both the original and amended versions of the facility use policy.)
Motion US09/10-20 – regarding proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code (OAR 571-021-0200 2d & 3b). Mr. Malcolm Wilson, chair of the Student Conduct and Community Service Committee, brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of the committee:
The University Senate adopts the following changes in the student conduct code:
Present text: OAR 571-021-0200
2 (d) The requirement to respond within 14 calendar days, excluding breaks between terms or when the student is not registered, to arrange a meeting with the hearing officer. The hearing officer will proceed as provided in (3)(b) if the Student does not arrange to meet or fails to meet with the hearing officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice, pursuant to this rule, the Student does not arrange to meeting with the Director to select an option for disposition of the case within 14 days, excluding breaks between quarters or when the student is not registered, or if the Student arranges to meet with the Director to select an option to dispose of the case but does not attend such a meeting, the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards may take any of the actions specified in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210 for disposition of the case without consultation with or agreement by the Student.
Proposed revised text: 571-021-0200
2 (d) The requirement to respond by the fourth business day after the electronic mail , excluding University holidays, breaks between terms or when the student is not registered, to arrange a meeting with the hearing officer. The hearing officer will proceed as provided in (3)(b) if the Student does not arrange to meet or fails to meet with the hearing officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice, the Student does not arrange this meeting, or if the Student arranges it, but does not attend, the Director may take any of the actions specified in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210 for disposition of the case without consulting the Student.
Mr. Wilson highlighted the proposed changes to the code saying the change comes down to decreasing the number of days from 14 to 4 that a student has to respond to, or arrange a meeting with, a hearings officer once a notice of allegation letter is sent to the complained about student. Under the present code, a student who receives such a letter by email from the Office of Student Conduct has 14 calendar days from the date of the letter to respond. Consequently, if another complaint-worthy behavior by the same student occurs, there is no good way to deal with the intervening bad behavior. This has caused a hardship for the administrators of the dormitories, particularly with underage drinking cases and unruly behaviors. The proposed change would reduce the response time to four business days. Student members of the committee agreed that four days was sufficient time to respond, and the proposed new time frame would enable the university dorms to respond quickly to disruptive behavior that does not rise to the level of an emergency. The procedures by which the complained against student arranges to meet with the Office of Student of Conduct hearings officer, and/or appeal the case, remain the same; only the number of days to respond would changed.
During the discussion period, Mr. Wilson clarified that notices can be sent to offending students by email or US mail; the email notice is independently verifiable regarding date sent. Also, a senator commented that it appeared the words “has been sent” were inadvertently omitted after the words “electronically mail” in section 2(d); Mr. Wilson agreed that indeed the words “has been sent” should have appeared and now were added. There were a few comments related to whether the offending student would receive the notice of alleged misbehavior in a timely manner (for example, some US mail may be sent to a home/parent address rather than to a campus address. However, Interim Vice President Peter Keyes pointed out the UO policy that students are responsible for regularly checking their UO email for any communication from the university.
With the discussion winding down, President Tublitz brought US09/10-20 concerning reducing from 14 to 4 the number of days a student has to respond to notices of alleged misbehavior to a vote. The motion passed, with one dissenting vote. The revised OAR 571-021-0200 section 2(d) now reads:
2 (d) The requirement to respond by the fourth business day after the electronic mail has been sent, excluding University holidays, breaks between terms or when the student is not registered, to arrange a meeting with the hearing officer. The hearing officer will proceed as provided in (3)(b) if the Student does not arrange to meet or fails to meet with the hearing officer as arranged.
3 (b) If after receiving notice, the Student does not arrange this meeting, or if the Student arranges it, but does not attend, the Director may take any of the actions specified in OAR 571-021-0205 or 571-021-0210 for disposition of the case without consulting the Student.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Comments from outgoing and incoming ASUO presidents. Outgoing ASUO President Emma Kallaway noted several accomplishments of the year, particularly with public safety issues in which campus lighting was increased and improved, and a number of conversation occurred regarding ways to further improve safety around campus. Ongoing issues include videotaping the exits at the EMU, and concern about students feeling safe when walking to their cars at night. She thank faculty for their help with the students’ drive to sign on more voters this past year. She noted, too, that the ASUO will continue to work on environmental issues and toward more “sustainable” projects.
Incoming ASUO President Amelie Rousseau briefly listed a few goals for the next academic year. She said the ASUO will be working on creating a civic engagement minor; it would offer students recognition in academic credits for their participation in either on-campus or outside community activities. The ASUO is looking for faculty to provide feedback on ways to structure such an academic program, and for a department to sponsor it. Ms. Rousseau also commented that she was open to dialog regarding the university’s movement toward a smoke-free campus. On the proposal from the Oregon Research Institute’s to build on the Riverfront Research Park property, she noted that she was in agreement with both the Student Senate and the University Senate in opposing the building development as proposed, so she will keep an eye on that project. Lastly, she noted that like many people, she has some questions about President Lariviere’s White Paper proposal on a new model for university funding and governance. She concluded by saying that she would like students, faculty, and staff to work together and will work in the upcoming year to achieve these goals.
With the business of the meeting concluded, President Tublitz thanked all senators for their efforts this year, especially those who were finishing their term of service, and pronounced the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate, Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, A. Emami, H. Gangadharbatla, M. Henney, A. Hilts, J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, C. Jones, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, L. Reichardt, Z. Stark-Macmillan T. K. Thompson, N. Tublitz, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Walker, M. Williams
Excused: N. Gower, H. Khalsa, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner,
Absent: C. Bengtson, A. Berenstein, , S. Chakraborty, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, L. Forrest, K. Jensen, , J. Piger, N. Proudfoot, P. Southwell, , L. Sugiyama, P. Warnek,
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the regular meeting of the University Senate for May 12, 2010 to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the April 14, 2010 senate meeting were approved as distributed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Senate members only – no recordings)
Senate President Nathan Tublitz moved the meeting to Executive Session at 3:09 p.m. for the purpose of discussing candidates for the University’s Distinguished Service Award. The session was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. and the regular meeting resumed at 3:30. President Tublitz reminded everyone that the meeting is again being recorded and streamed live by video.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from University President Richard Lariviere. The president spoke about a newly released White Paper on a proposed new funding model for the University of Oregon. He explained that a website was created to give individuals an opportunity to comment and exchange views of the proposal with others via the blog at the website. The White Paper represents the university’s best thinking regarding the changing relationship with the state relevant to historic low levels of state funding (now at 9% ). He indicated the proposal has three purposes: to start a conversation to change the UO’s relationship with the state for governance, funding, and accountability. Continuing, the president said the university wants its own board of regents and the ability to govern itself through that appointed board. Further, the university wants the state to commit to subsidizing the university at its current funding level (approximately $65 million) for the next 30 years by means of servicing the debt on a $ 1 billion bond the university would incur, managed as an endowment, and matched dollar-for-dollar with money raised by the university through private sector fundraising. Lastly, the university wants an accountability conversation with the state in which it is made clear what the state wants from the university, that is, shifting the conversation to a discussion of what the state and university think is important.
The president opined that he has confidence in the proposal, saying to the state that here is our idea of how to preserve the university as a top level public university, and if not this idea, then what is the state’s idea. He asked for feedback and input from faculty regarding the White Paper over the new few weeks.
During a series of questions, the president made clear that he is proposing that the UO have its own board of governors appointed, in part, by the governor. There will be 15 members: 7 voting members appointed by the governor, 1 voting member from the U of O Foundation, 1 voting member from the Board of Higher Education, 3 voting members chosen by the board itself, and 3 non-voting ex-officio members consisting of the president, a student, and a faculty member. The board would be approved by the state legislature (the senate). The board would coordinate with the Higher Education Board to approve new degree plans, and the board of governors would pay attention to the UO and its problems and issues.
The president acknowledged that it would be a difficult campaign to pass the proposal; the primary feedback to date from the legislators is concern that if they approve this proposal for the UO, then what about the other institutions in the system. Further, the bonding effort would have some impact on the state’s budget capacity. However, by bonding, the UO would not ask for any more money from the state for 30 years beyond the current funding level each of the 30 years which would pay for the debt service on the bond. The president also stated his preference for the U of O Foundation to manage the bonds and funds raised privately because they have a very good track record. But the state may not be comfortable having the UO Foundation as manager, and this would need to be negotiated.
President Lariviere concluded his comments by saying the other OUS institutions are devising plans similar in focus in various degrees; Portland State has its own White Paper and set of suggestions, we are still waiting to hear from Oregon State, and Western Oregon has plans that they have not yet presented, while the other regional universities are watching to see what happens.
Confer Degrees. Ms. Heather Bottorff, business, and chair of the Academic Review Committee moved to confer degrees as follows:
the Senate of the University Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon those persons names are included on the official degree list, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2009-2010 and Summer Session for 2010, the degree in which they have completed all requirements.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Preliminary Spring 2010 Curriculum Report. Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking, chemistry, provided several revisions to the preliminary report distributed earlier. To a question regarding “administrative actions” noted in the report, Mr. Engelking clarified the term administrative action is used in reference to changes made by department; the term allows the departmental changes to be recorded and codified in the report. The items included have been approved by the department and then the committee approves, so they are part of the overall curriculum process.
Committee on Committees nominations and election. The Senate Nominating Committee presented the following slate of nominees for election to the Committee on Committees: Shaul Cohen, geography, Eric Mentzel, music, David Tyler, chemistry, and Lisa Wolverton, history. The slated of candidates met with unanimous approval.
As a follow-up to a previous meeting’s legislation to create an ad hoc Committee on Academic Freedom, President Tublitz announced the following people have agreed to serve on this committee: Carl Bybee, journalism and committee chair; Heather Briston, University Archivist; Franklin Stahl, biology emeritus; Jean Stockard, PPPM; Theodore Ko Thompson, classified staff representative; Debra Thurman, officers of administration representative, a student (TBA); and a Law School representative on a consultant basis (TBA). The president asked for approval of the committee, which was accepted unanimously.
List of Nominations for University Committee appointments. President Tublitz asked Vice President Peter Keyes to preside over the meeting while he presented, on behalf of the Committee on Committees, the list of nominees recommended to the University President for appointment to university committees (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/CoCAppointmentRoster2010_2011r20100507.pdf for full list of recommended appointments). President Tublitz commented on the success of the on-line solicitation for committee service preferences and thanked webmaster Marilyn Skalberg for her excellent work on the project. Vice President Keyes asked for a voice vote to confirm the list of recommended nominees which met with unanimous approval.
Motion US09/10-17 to disband the Child Care and Family Services Committee. On behalf of the Committee on Committees, President Tublitz moved to disband the Child Care and Family Services Committee on the advice and request from members of that committee.
The University Senate moves to disband the Child Care and Family Support Committee effective immediately.
Committee Chair Karen Logvin explained that her committee instigated disbanding the committee because a separate committee structure is no longer needed to promote issues surrounding child care and family services. Other suitable and further reaching venues now exist on campus to raise and address issues related to child care and family services, and the committee’s usefulness was no longer apparent thus interest in attending meetings has fallen off sharply in recent years. A broad range of committee members agreed that disbanding the committee was appropriate.
Motion US09/10-7 – to establish a senate public records review committee. Mr. Bill Harbaugh, economics, moved the following motion to establish a means of improving faculty access to university information (seconded by Chris Phillips):
Since shared governance requires shared access to information, the Senate establishes a three person "Transparency Committee" with the following charge, membership, and reporting:
Charge: The Committee shall;
a) Review UO's procedures regarding access to public records and financial information, and evaluate the effectiveness of those procedures. The Senate requests that the administration give the committee free and unfettered access to a listing of public records requests and their status, and to any reports by the UO public records officer to the administration regarding public records. b) Accept and review complaints from faculty, staff, or students regarding access to public records and financial information, and make suggestions to the UO public records officer and President's office on resolving such complaints.
Voting: 3 tenured faculty members, not more than 2 from CAS, not more than 1 from any 1 other college. Ex officio non-voting member: UO Public Records Officer (currently Doug Park, GC's office).
Reporting: The committee shall make a written report to the Senate once a year describing the state of access to public records and financial information and describing any complaints and their resolution.
During a discussion period when questioned about the membership, Mr. Harbaugh explained that the membership was limited to tenured faculty members because some issues may be contentious or confidential, such as personnel records, and tenured faculty are protected. In a similar vein, Senator John Bonine, law, asked whether meetings of the proposed “Transparency Committee” would be open meetings. He expressed concern if the committee meetings were closed. President Tublitz interjected that, generally, campus committee meetings are open to the campus community. Senator Bonine went on to suggest that the committee likely would not have access to confidential personnel records, thus the committee meeting should be open. He suggested amending the motion to add: “c.) Hold only open meetings”. This change was agreeable to the maker of the motion and the text was added to the motion. President Tublitz noted that beginning with the next academic year, he intends to have all meetings of committees posted on the senate web site to promote greater awareness of committee meeting schedules.
Two other discussion points raised were that it was unusual to have a named individual listed in legislation, and also that the length of service on the committee was not provided. A motion was made (second Phillips) to amend the main motion by striking the parenthetical text “(currently Doug Park, GC's office)” related to the ex-officio non-voting member, and also adding: “d.) Have terms of appointment for two years, staggered.” This amendment was put to a vote and passed unanimously.
Lastly, the discussion came to a close when it was clarified that, as a university committee reporting to the senate, other members could be added in the future using the same procedures for changing membership used by all university committees, that is, by request to the Committee on Committees and approval by the senate. President Tublitz put motion US09/10- 7 establishing a public records review committee, as amended, to a vote which passed unanimously. The final version of US09/10-7 reads:
Since shared governance requires shared access to information, the Senate establishes a three person "Transparency Committee" with the following charge, membership, and reporting:
Charge: The Committee shall; a.) Review UO's procedures regarding access to public records and financial information, and evaluate the effectiveness of those procedures. The Senate requests that the administration give the committee free and unfettered access to a listing of public records requests and their status, and to any reports by the UO public records officer to the administration regarding public records. b.) Accept and review complaints from faculty, staff, or students regarding access to public records and financial information, and make suggestions to the UO public records officer and President's office on resolving such complaints. c.) Hold only open meetings. d.) Have terms of appointment for two years, staggered.
Voting: 3 tenured faculty members, not more than 2 from CAS, not more than 1 from any 1 other college. Ex officio non-voting member: UO Public Records Officer.
Reporting: The committee shall make a written report to the Senate once a year describing the state of access to public records and financial information and describing any complaints and their resolution.
Notice of Motion US09/10-19 regarding facility use policy. Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Russ Tomlin gave notice that he intends to bring a motion to the senate that is a companion piece to the motion regarding freedom of inquiry, and which addresses use of campus facilities (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-19.html). Vice Provost Tomlin noted that there have been some issues on campus regarding how individuals or various groups have access to the use of the university’s facilities. With a request from the provost, a small working group reviewed policies on the matter and found a considerable amount of scattered information that was often unclear, out-of-date, and otherwise problematic regarding who and how people can use campus facilities for meetings and events. The proposed revised policy has been posted on the provost’s website and Senate website, has received feedback regarding the policy, and suggestions have been incorporated in the policy now posted; it focuses on the nature of the university’s recognition of entities involved in the requested event or meeting and how to manage facility use. The policy proposes establishing a university scheduler that will be the designee of the provost to serve as an overall coordinator of university facility use. The facilities would have locally managed spaces with a local coordinator and would be coordinated through the university scheduler for those local events. The vice provost concluded his remarks by saying the plan is to have the policy approved and operational fall term 2010.
Senator Bonine requested that Vice Provost Tomlin provide a web posting indicating what changes to existing policies are proposed so that senators can more readily compare the previous policy(ies) with the proposed new policy. Mr. Tomlin replied that he would do that. Senator Ted Toadvine, environmental studies, asked who would ultimately make the decision to cancel an event or meeting. Mr. Tomlin answered that the local manager or scheduler could make that decision; if there is something problematic about the request, the university (provost or vice president for finance and administration) could intervene for the final decision.
Senator Bonine expressed concern that when looking at policies on the web, there is no indication that the senate had anything to do with the policy or the legislation that prompted it. He gave notice that he would make a motion at the next meeting requesting that items in the policy library specify the type of policy; that is, policy generated by senate legislation or by the administration, and that it be clearly identified with signatures of the adopters (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-21.html). Further, he will request a PDF formatted copy showing the signatures of approval of policies be archived and available for viewing. President Tublitz acknowledged Senator Bonine’s notice of motion for the May 26th meeting.
Undergraduate Council – grade inflation report. Undergraduate Council Chairman Ian McNeely, history, provided an outline of a preliminary report reflecting discussions in the Undergraduate Council this past year on the topic of the UO culture and grade inflation. The report outlined information regarding a study of grade inflation (2006), other problems with the grade culture, guiding principle of the Undergraduate Council, proposals made, feedback received, and a sample of issues raised so far. The outline reads as follows:
Study of grade inflation (2006)
- Sample of regularly offered UO courses in a range of disciplines and levels, 1992-2004
- Percentage of As went up 10 points, percentage of As + Bs went up 7 points
- Average UO GPA went up by 5%; average high school GPA also went up by 5%
- SAT-M rose only slightly, SAT-V not at all
- UO comparable to other flagship state universities
Other problems with grade culture
- Compression at the top
- Discrepancies across departments
- Migration from “hard” to “easy” classes & majors
- “Grade grubbing” and anxiety over GPAs
- General loss of meaning
- Increased reliance on standardized testing, “assessment rubrics”
UGC guiding principles
- Respect instructors’ freedom and disciplinary differences
- Do not put the students at a disadvantage
- First act locally to improve the culture, then consider contacts beyond UO
- Provide information and start conversations rather than dictate deflationary solutions
- #1: Discipline-specific grading standards
- #2: Comparative statistics for instructors
- #3: Contextual information on transcripts (e.g. %As)
- UO leadership
- ASUO Senate
- Blog (http://gradeculture.uoregon.edu), email address (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Digest of confidential emails to Senate President
- Town halls
Sample issues raised so far
- UO should not “deflate” unilaterally
- Generate statistical comparisons across departments
- GTFs pressured, overworked, inconsistent, untrained
- Faculty (especially new faculty) grade in a vacuum
- Lax/inconsistent use of the A+
- Contextual information will hurt students, make inflation worse
- Recommend university-wide targets for Gen Ed courses
- Grades are an obstacle to true learning and knowledge
Mr. McNeely indicated that a full report would be forthcoming and that the listed items were simply highlights of the council’s discussions. A few senators commented on the information asking several questions: if the number of A’s went up, did the other grades go down; are there some classes that students flock to (because of inflated grade results); and how grading policies are influenced by scholarship pressures to maintain certain grade levels. Mr. McNeely answered that some grades went down as A’s went up, but it was not universal, and that there was not a lot of information regarding students selecting classes on the basis of perceived (or real) grade inflation, but the council is attempting to gather such information. Further, Mr. McNeely acknowledged that some students take “easy” classes to hedge the risk of losing a scholarship, but the hope is that the council’s policies will be gradually implemented so that students can adjust accordingly. Mr. McNeely asked that senators review the report and provide feedback to the council.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Spring 2010 election results for the University Senate and elected university committees. The secretary thanked everybody who participated in the spring elections as voters and/or candidates. The overall response rate generated more candidates for various committees was higher this year as was voter participation. Election results were emailed earlier in the week to the campus community and are posted (at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/ResultsSpring2010FacultyStaffElections.pdf) on the senate webpage.
Report on non-smoking policy. President Tublitz noted that a report on moving the campus toward a non-smoking policy was now posted on the web (see item number 120, Letter, at http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/letters090.html). The letter is a follow-up of legislation passed last spring.
Secretary of the Faculty opening. President Tublitz noted that the secretary is retiring in June and that people interested in the position should contact him before the end of the month. He also reminded senators of the extra senate meeting scheduled for May 26th.
Notice of motion. Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, gave notice of motion that he intends to introduce a motion that will ask IT services to provide a stronger level of “spam” blocking, and added that he will try to have this request managed without the need for senate legislation, if possible.
Statutory Faculty Meeting. Mr. Frank Stahl, biology emeritus, reminded the senators of the importance of attending the Statutory Faculty meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 19th.
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting January 13, 2010
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, S. Chakraborty, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, L. Forrest, H. Gangadharbatla, P. Gilkey, N. Gower, M. Henney, A. Hilts, J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, H. Khalsa Kaur, R. Kyr, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, J. Piger, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, L. Reichardt, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, N. Tublitz, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Walker, M. Williams
Excused: A. Emami, A. Laskaya, T. K. Thompson
Absent: C. Bengtson, A. Berenstein, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, D. Kennett, P. Warnek
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Peter Gilkey called the January meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room of the newly opened John E. Jaqua Academic Learning Center. President Gilkey recognized Senator John Bonine, law, who moved to restructure the meeting agenda and discussion times allotted to reflect an order that he deemed of more importance to the senators (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/13Jan10Agenda.html). The motion to reorganize the agenda was approved (31 in favor, 4 opposed).
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the December 2, 2009 were approved.
The Coming Crisis in College Completion: Oregon’s Challenge and a Proposal for First Steps. Mr. Dave Frohnmayer, university president emeritus, spoke about a recent report he had prepared at the request of OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/DF-18Nov09.pdf for full text of the report). He indicated that the report was a series of data points that appear to illustrate the coming crisis in Oregon college completion. The impact of the downturn in economics has been disproportionate among state agencies. The disproportionately large loss of state general funding has been greater in higher education than other agencies. Statistics available show the ever declining revenues for higher education comes at a time when college degree obtainment is more important than ever in the lives of Oregonians. Mr. Frohnmayer went on to say that the National Bureau of Economic Research issued a paper that indicated the actual value of higher education is roughly doubled for everyone with additional degree obtainment. However, Oregon is going in the wrong direction regarding degree obtainment: older Oregonians have a significantly higher percentage of degree obtainment than their children do, which is the first time in modern civilization that this is the case.
Mr. Frohnmayer referred to a number of charts in his report that displayed the years of disinvestment in higher education in Oregon. He said that reversing the downward trend of degree obtainment is a daunting task for the coming years. In light of such data, the chancellor’s office recently adopted a policy saying that by the year 2025 the state needs to have 40% of its population with an associate degree, 40% with a bachelor degree or higher, and 20% with at least a high school completion. To keep at the current degree pace, enrollment increase over the next 15 years would require building a campus 1½ times the size of the UO. But to accommodate the goals outlined by the chancellor’s office would require building 3 new campuses of OSU size over the next 15 years. He said that building and expansion is the challenge for Oregonians to maintain the quality and standard of living that is economically competitive and that provides individuals and families opportunities. Mr. Frohnmayer added that the state never has faced such a demographic change or one occurring so rapidly as the one underway currently. He said that higher education has an enormous responsibility to the future of the state. The research and economic contribution of the three research universities (UO, OSU, and PSU) and OHSU is approximately $5 billion a year. Mr. Frohnmayer concluded his report by opining that there needs to be a sense of urgency because the present higher education system is a system that is not sustainable and not designed for the success of either the students or the institutions. The institutions need to be more flexible to better deliver educational services. One way proposed to achieve greater flexibility is to provide for the establishment of independent public university corporations by delegating such broad authority to do so to the State Board of Higher Education.
During a brief questioning period, Mr. Frohnmayer clarified that in the proposal, the UO would remain in the OUS but each university would have its own managing board and would manage its own budget.
NEW BUSINESS Motion US09/10-11 regarding the Riverfront Research Park. Senator Zack Stark-Macmillan, ASUO, moved (second by N. Gower) the following motion
(1) the University Senate declares opposition to 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 until the University undergoes a student and faculty inclusive, open process for revising the RRP Master Plan; and (2) that the Senate President be directed to write and send a letter to the University President and the City of Eugene expressing the Senate's opposition to the planned development North of the railroad tracks along the South bank of the Willamette River.
Senator Stark-Macmillan explained that the motion relates to the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) building proposed to be built in the Riverfront Research Park and to the UO’s request to extend its conditional use permit to build and start construction. Senator Stark-Macmillan said that the students have issues with their non-inclusion the building planning process and with extending a building permit that is 20 years old and that has not been updated. He noted that the Student Senate recently passed a resolution similar to this one; they would like faculty support in opposition to the permit extension (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-11.html for background information and relevant email and other explanatory correspondence). Because there were students who wished to speak in favor of the motion, senators yielded the floor to students Daniel Rottenberg, ASUO Environmental advocate, Rena Schlachter and Christopher Brehm, landscape architecture students.
Mr. Brehm drew attention to the location of the proposed building (north of the train tracks) and other landscape and design aspects of the planned building that did not meet the highest standards of environmental sustainability. He noted that these concerns were raised at meetings of the State Board last June and during public forums held with the university, ORI, and citizens of Eugene to try to look at alternative site proposals where ORI could be accommodated south of the tracks (the area north of the tracks includes the Willamette River Greenway and the floodplain). Although the university claims that the proposed location north of the tracks enhances the area and is sustainable, Mr. Brehm said that the issue was debatable and should be debated by reviewing the master plan for the area before building as currently proposed. Further, Mr. Brehm noted that there was disagreement concerning whether the conditional use building permit had already expired, which was further reason to delay construction of the building.
Ms. Schlachter added that in proposing the resolution in question, the students are not opposed to ORI or to Riverfront Research Park development. Rather, before development occurs, the students believe that the master plan needs to be updated to meet the sustainability standards of the 21st century, and that students and faculty need to be included in the process. She said that the UO Department of Architecture is rated number one in sustainability and is a valuable resource that should be utilized in this planning process. Lastly, she noted that public record shows overwhelming opposition to the current development plan, with over 600 citizen comments in opposition to the proposed building submitted to the city. Mr. Brehm added to comments in support of the motion by saying that this is a critical decision point. He repeated that the students are not against development, but the current building proposal will have implications for the short and long term future. The motion proposes having a faculty and student inclusive development process that includes the entire university community so they can consider the first increment of the development north of the tracks within the floodplain.
Vice President for Research Rich Linton provided a response in opposition to the motion. He highlighted a number of key points regarding the Riverfront Research Park planning and, specifically, the proposed ORI building project (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/Linton-8Jan2010.pdf). First, he explained that the Riverfront Research Park is important to the UO, and increasingly so. He noted that the issue is not whether ORI is an appropriate tenant – all are in agreement that it is an ideal fit for the research park as a credible research enterprise, one that has leased space for a number of years and employs a large number of people. ORI’s project to expand with a new building site was started quite a while ago, and planning proceeded along the guidelines that were set out in the master plan use permit for the research park. Vice President Linton noted that the university has a formal lease agreement with the developer of the project to use the site; at this point, having followed all protocols for design with the review committee, and receiving approval from the state board, he said it is fair to say the UO will be proceeding with the project.
The vice president said that the reason the issue has been raised in recent months is partly due to a legal mixed opinion about when the existing conditional use permit actually expires. As a precautionary measure, in the fall 2009 the university submitted a request to extend the building permit for a period of 3 years. This was in recognition that the university wanted to accomplish two things during that 3 year period. One was the ORI project that has been in development over a number of years, and the other is to have a multi-tenet building developed by the UO. He added that over the course of several meetings, some design changes were made to the ORI plan utilizing input from faculty and students on how to configure the ORI site to improve the setback from the river, to reduce the parking footprints, and other particulars that have been raised about a sustainable vision for the design of the building. The vice president concluded saying that it is critical that the university moves ahead with this project, in good faith with ORI and the developer.
During the discussion period, a number of questions were asked, primarily to clarify information. Senator Kassia Dellabough, AAA, ask about the financial impact to the university if the project were abandoned. Mr. Linton replied that the university is committed to implementing what already is in place, that is, development and design costs associated with the site which is probably in the neighborhood of $1 million. Senator Ted Toadvine, environmental studies and philosophy, asked to what extent to the community and campus have been involved in the planning. Mr. Linton replied that the planning process was a long term exercise and the university followed the established protocols under the master plan for the Riverfront Research Park. There has been strong discourse of stakeholders which has included advisory committee, the State Board of Higher Education, EWEB, and consultation with the campus community. Senator Bonine asked if there was any memorandum legally binding the university’s commitment to ORI if the project was cancelled. Mr. Linton said that the university has a legal agreement with the higher education state board and that the lease agreement is in the hands of the developer, so there is liability for the university. It was clarified, too, that the city did approve extending the conditional use permit, which is the decision that is currently under appeal. There was some disagreement about the date when the original permit expired which prompted the university to make the permit extension request. The city did not resolve the original expiration date issue, but did approve a three year permit extension. Mr. Linton added that the research park group worked with the student group and AAA faculty leaders around the site plan and proposals for other site alternatives that might have been viable in the research park domain. Some adjustments were made in the setback distance and reduction in the parking lot size. The conclusion from the university and ORI point of view is that the proposed site most suits ORI’s needs.
Mr. Brehm raised a point concerning a University Senate resolution from 11 years ago that urged President Frohnmayer not to develop the area north of the railroad tracks. When he and others met with ORI and Riverfront Research Park staff, they looked at three alternative sites which they believed were viable alternatives. In addition, Mr. Brehm said the students do not believe that all that can be done to design a better project has been done to make the site a sustainable site. Mr. Linton pointed out that ORI has a tight timeline for the project because it has federal stimulus money involved, and thus cannot afford to delay construction very long or they will lose the funding. He reiterated that the university only wanted an extension long enough to do projects that have been on the drawing board for some time and that are consistent with current planning guidelines and protocols. Then, he suggested, the university will take a break and look at the master plan again.
Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz stated that he was in favor of the motion for three reasons: first, the precedence of the earlier senate resolutions (see US98/99-4 and US 99/00-15A) recommending that President Frohnmayer not build north of the railroad tracks (and instead designate the area as open space for recreational use; second, the notion of shared governance was not followed in that people were not consulted; and third, the university has a responsibility to do the best for the entire community, not just for one tenant. Ms. Elisabeth Chan landscape architecture, also spoke in favor of the motion saying that it is a pinch point, a hinge that links the university to downtown Eugene. She said that over the past 20 years more has been learned in the development of sites such as the proposed area, and that this is a critical time to make a good choice, which is our responsibility.
Ms. Barbara Altmann, chair of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), spoke to correct information that had appeared in two recent (January 3 and January 10) Op Ed articles in the Register Guard newspaper. She said there were incorrect statements in both articles referring to actions taken by the FAC. The correct information is that the FAC did not vote on the Riverfront Research Park building issue nor did it take a public position on the issue.
Ms. Diane Wiley, director of the Riverfront Research Park, provided visuals of the current site plan, the landscaping around the building (which has been moved 100 feet back from the river), and the bike paths along the riverfront, which will be widened and lighted with safety railings installed. She also noted that the advisory committee for this project, which was recommended by the Campus Planning Committee, included 5 faculty members and 2 students. Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, spoke against the motion, saying that he did not see what was wrong with the proposed plan. Mr. Gower, ASUO, spoke in favor of the motion on the grounds that plans to build north of the railroad tracks were made in opposition to previous senate legislation and that there was not appropriate consultation to make the building area change. Lastly, Mr. Ron Lovinger, landscape architecture, spoke in support of the motion, saying that the building site is on one of the most precious landscapes that the university has, and the university should preserve the site and not build there, not only for the sake of the current generation, but for future generations.
There was a motion to call the question (30 in favor and 5 opposed). With the question called, Motion US09/10- 11 was put to a vote and passed (29 in favor and 8 opposed).
Motion US09/10-12A – regarding the Provost sharing decision letters with the chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC). Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, introduced the motion saying that it arose from a change in practice in which the provost failed to communicate to the FPC his decisions with respect to their recommendations on promotion and tenure cases because he believes he is not allowed legally to do that for conditions of personnel privacy. Since putting forth the original motion, Mr. Stahl said that he and others have been in contact with the provost and, as a result, Mr. Stahl has crafted an improved version of the motion which he would like to offer as a substitute for the original motion (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/US090-12.html for background information on this motion). With no objection from senators, the following substitute version of Motion US09/10-12A was put on the floor for discussion:
Prior to notifying a candidate, the Provost shall consult with the FPC, or an appropriate subcommittee thereof, when the Provost anticipates that the final decision could differ from the recommendation of the FPC. During his consultation, the Provost shall explain his/her reasons for entertaining a decision contrary to the recommendation of the FPC. At the time a decision does go forth to a candidate, the Provost shall notify the FPC Chair of the decision.
During the discussion period, Mr. Stahl explained that the substitute motion added the need for the provost to consult with the FPC in instances when his decision is likely to disagree with the FPC recommendation. Mr. Gordon Sayre, chair of the FPC, indicated that he has been in communication with past FPC chairs and there is agreement that the motion is acceptable. Senator Priscilla Southwell, political science, asked for more clarification in instances when the FPC vote is not unanimous. Mr. Stahl replied that the FPC sends recommendations to the provost on all cases, not just a report of the votes, so he receives information on all cases.
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, moved to remove the word “Chair” from the motion so that the provost would notify the committee and not just the committee chair. This amendment was accepted and the word chair was removed from the motion. Similarly, a motion was made to add the words “his or her” after the word “that” in place of the word “the”. This amendment also met with no opposition and was accepted.
Senator Bonine said that although he was unhappy with the assumption of a legal impediment to sharing the decision with the FPC – he could find no support for this assumption in Senior Vice Provost Russ Tomlin’s memo on the topic – he was in support of the amended motion. Mr. Sayre commented that the thinking behind Mr. Tomlin’s memo was that once the decision (on tenure and/or promotion) was made and the decision letter went out, the file was complete and confidential. However, with the proposed motion, the consultation occurs before the letter goes out so the decision is still “in process”. Mr. Stahl added that the FPC already has made its recommendations on the cases and they would not be changed – it is the provost who has the ultimate decision to make.
One more clarifying amendment was made to replace “During his consultation” with “During this period of consultation”. This amendment was accepted. Thus the amended version of US09/10-12A reads as follows:
Prior to notifying a candidate, the Provost shall consult with the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) or an appropriate subcommittee thereof, when the Provost anticipates that his or her final decision could differ from the recommendation of the FPC. During this period of consultation, the Provost shall explain his or her reasons for entertaining a decision contrary to the recommendation of the FPC. At the time a decision does go forth to a candidate, the Provost shall notify the FPC of the decision.
With discussion winding down, there was a motion to call the question, which passed. President Gilkey put motion US09/10-12A, as amended, to a vote which passed unanimously.
President Gilkey then recognized Mr. Stahl regarding Motion US09/10-12B which also was on the agenda. Mr. Stahl said he withdraws the motion.
President Gilkey noted the lateness of the hour and recognized Senator Phillips who moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting 14 April 2010
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, S. Chakraborty, H. Gangadharbatla, A. Hilts, J. Hurwit, M. Jaeger, P. Keyes, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, D. Olson, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, Z. Stark-Macmillan, T. K. Thompson, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, M. Williams
Excused: L. Forrest, C. Jones, H. Khalsa, J. Piger, L. Sugiyama, T. Toadvine, P. Walker
Absent: C. Bengtson, A. Berenstein, E, Chan, K. Dellabough, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, A. Emami, N. Gower, M. Henney, M.A. Hyatt, K. Jensen, D. Kennett, L. Reichardt, P. Southwell, P. Warnek
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the regular meeting of the University Senate for April 14, 2010 to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center. He noted that the meeting was being streamed live, and that people could watch the meeting via the internet while the meeting was in progress. A tape of the meeting would then be posted and made available for later viewing as well. The intention is to stream all senate meeting live.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the March10, 2010 senate meeting were approved as amended.
MOTION TO ALTER SENATE AGENDA ORDER
President Tublitz reminded the senators that the revised order of the senate agenda for the two previous meeting was due to expire at the current meeting. He proposed continuing the practice of moving action business items toward the beginning of the meeting for the remainder of the academic year. A motion to do so was made and approved. President Tublitz commented that a permanent change in the agenda order may be appropriate for consideration as the revised form of governance gets approved and implemented.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
University President Richard Lariviere spoke briefly to assure the senate that efforts developing good relationships and the new partnership with the state are continuing; those efforts have not been interrupted by the recent headlines regarding the business around athletics (i.e., the lack of a written contract spelling out financial obligations due to former Athletics Director Mike Bellotti upon his resignation from the position). President Lariviere indicated he was on his way to a meeting with the governor, but would take a few questions as time permitted.
Senator John Bonine, law, asked the president if it was his intension to answer public records requests in a timelier manner than has been done in the past. The president responded that he will be as open and as transparent as the law allows. He noted that a level of judgment is needed on such requests. If the request is of substantial level, there may need to be fees charged, but the goal is to try and be transparent and as responsible as possible, and to respond in a timely manner. The president clarified that he anticipates prompt responses to such requests and that he will post the requests and responses on the web.
Notice of motion (US09/10-18) regarding policies on freedom of inquiry and academic freedom. Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Russ Tomlin provided some background information regarding a draft policy on academic freedom and freedom of inquiry that he and others have been working on that have their historical origins grounded in some of the issues that were raised during the recent Pacific Forum matters. He said the group looked at issues of facilities use and at corresponding complementary issues in academic freedom and freedom of inquiry. Mr. Tomlin emphasized that is important to understand that the activities of some particular group do not drive what is done regarding policy making, but the activities nevertheless did catalyze the need to review existing policies in these areas as well as the need for updating policies to be more contemporary. Two new draft policies have been developed: one addresses freedom of inquiry and academic freedom, and the other deals with facilities use. The notice of motion at this meeting regards the draft freedom of inquiry policy. At the next Senate meeting in May Mr. Tomlin will talk briefly about the draft facilities use policy. Both policies have been posted on the Provost's website (see http://provost.uoregon.edu/draftpolicy/proposed/) and the Senate web site (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/PropososedPolFOI20100406.pdf). Mr. Tomlin said that the drafts were posted to afford the entire campus community an opportunity to provide written feedback via a blog set up on the Provost's website.
Mr. Tomlin explained that both draft policies have been widely vetted with broad consultation and review by colleagues from Academic Affairs, School of Law, Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs, Office of Vice President of Finance and Administration, the School of Journalism and Communication, and General Counsel's office. In addition, the draft policies have been reviewed by all the deans, with the Faculty Advisory Council, and with the Leadership Council. He summarized that there will be several more steps before these drafts become policy, including: (1) solicitation of written comments from the U of O community, (2) revisions as needed, (3) review and adoption endorsement by the University Senate, (4) review and recommendation by the President's Executive Leadership Team (ELT), and (5) review and signature by the University President. Mr. Tomlin encouraged the senators to take the time to review the drafts and respond via the on-line blog. He noted that the goal is to bring the policies to closure in the current academic year so that they can be implemented as actual policy before the start of the next academic year.
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, stated that he would like to see such a policy extend the right of freedom of speech to students, to which Senator Bonine added that the right should include students, faculty and staff. Mr. Tomlin indicated he would take the suggestions back to the policy developers. Senator Bonine also offered some suggestions to spilt the first sentence into two parts and other edits to make certain that those persons bound by civility include members of an audience as well as protestors. Mr. Tomlin again said that he would take the suggestions back to the policy writers. President Tublitz noted that he and the administration have worked together to insure that policy development includes discussion in the senate as part of the process in building consensus across campus.
US09/10-15 -- Establishment of a University Senate Ad Hoc Committee to review existing language and policy regarding academic freedom on the UO campus. Senator Carl Bybee (second by Senator Chris Phillips) brought the following motion to the floor for discussion:
The University Senate shall create an Ad-Hoc committee on Academic Freedom Language and Policy Review to assess the adequacy and coverage of existing institutional policies found in faculty handbooks, university policies, regulations, collective bargaining agreements, and occasionally state laws or regulations that affect faculty speech or expressive activity; and that, if the committee finds existing policies are insufficient, it will propose alternative policy and/or language and will present their report to the UO Senate at the first senate meeting of winter term 2011 academic year. The Senate President will fill this committee by consulting widely with regards to nominations and making a recommendation to the Senate Nominating Committee. The Senate Nominating Committee will then bring the nominations forward to the UO Senate for confirmation.
As a rational for the motion, Senator Bybee cited the 2006 case of Garcetti v. Ceballos where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when public employees speak pursuant to their "official duties," the First Amendment does not protect them from employer discipline. Although the decision specifically set aside academic speech, several lower courts have ruled recently that faculty members who speak out on matters affecting their institutions are not protected under the First Amendment. This series of decisions poses significant potential threats to academic freedom at public colleges and universities, and thus such events call for an immediate review of UO policy and potential recommendations for speech policy revision. He added that this issue is a current highlighted initiative of the national American Association of University Professors.
Senator Bybee explained that such a committee will be important in the framing of the new governance structures, and noted, too, that freedom of speech issues strikes at the heart of shared governance. He acknowledged that the draft policy on freedom of inquiry and academic freedom discussed by Vice Provost Tomlin earlier in the meeting was a step in the right direction, but added that language across all types of university statements and guidelines should be scrutinized for appropriate language reflecting academic freedom. It is important to faculty because if the faculty does not have the right to speak about the exercise and practice of policy on campus, and engage in discussions and possible criticism of policy, then share governance becomes a hollow concept. He said that the motion at hand is for a review of our currently existing language with the idea of making certain that faculty discussions and debates relevant to the act of share governance is in fact protected within the parameters of academic freedom on this campus and throughout the state.
During a discussion period Senator Phillips asked if the California ruling was in a federal court and whether it dealt with faculty or staff. Senator Bybee replied that it was a district court ruling and there have been two appeals decisions that have come to similar conclusions about academic speech being within the larger parameter of the Supreme Court ruling; that is, as being public employee speech, which is not protected by academic freedom. The appealed court decisions referred to faculty academic freedom.
Senator Bonine spoke in favor of the motion and suggested that one of our constitutional law professors be named to the committee. Also, he suggested that the committee consider whether Oregon's own constitutional protection of "freedom of expression" gives greater protection in such situations than the First Amendment. The committee should consider whether the faculty's statutory role in governance at the University of Oregon (the charter UO Charter) gives us a special right that was not contemplated in the court cases involving other states. Mr. Frank Stahl, biology emeritus, stated that all public employees at the UO should be included in protections of academic freedom. Senator Bybee agreed and said that we need to think about the link between academic freedom and shared governance, and be clear that share governance involves all the groups governed.
With discussion winding down, President Tublitz put motion US09/10-15 to create a UO Senate Ad-Hoc Committee to review existing language and policy regarding academic freedom on the UO campus to a vote, which passed unanimously.
President Tublitz added that he will ask Faculty Governance Committee Chairman Paul van Donkelaar to have his committee add an appropriate statement regarding academic freedom in the proposed faculty governance document under development.
US09/10-16a: Report on Conflict of Commitment. Senator Bonine, as a member of the Joint Academic Affairs/Senate Conflict of Commitment Working Group, brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of the committee (second by Senator Huaxin Lin):
The University Senate accepts the Report of the Joint Academic Affairs/Senate Conflict of Commitment Working Group, and approves it as the basis for revisions in university policy on conflict of commitment; and that members of the Joint Academic Affairs/Senate Conflict of Commitment Working Group should review the upcoming revised UO Policy Statement 3.095 after it is written by the UO Office of Academic Affairs and present their findings to the University Senate at the same Senate meeting at which the policy statement is brought forward for discussion and adoption.
Senator Bonine reminded the senators that 18 months ago a policy was proposed to the campus which included both conflict of interest and conflict of commitment issues. After less than enthusiastic reception by the faculty, the policy was pulled back and a committee was established to streamline and revise the policy, which focused only on the conflict of interest part of the policy; the revised policy on conflict of interest was passed by the senate later that year. Last May, a second committee was appointed, called the Working Group, to tackle revisions of the conflict of commitment portion of the original policy. The Working Group reviewed policies across the nation and concluded that the basic policies of the State of Oregon and the University of Oregon were already as good as or better than most other policies in terms of what was protected. However, there is a value in moving toward clarification. First, the university policy needs to separate conflict of interest and conflict of commitment into two different policies, or two different sections, so they are not intertwined as they are now. Further, as matter of procedure, the Working Group decided to have consultation through email, distribution on the web, and then senate action. Thus, the report is posted on line for review (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/COCReportFINAL3Feb10.pdf).
Senator Bonine further explained that professors are not only free to engage in outside activities, they are encouraged to do so; it is part of the lifeblood of the university for professors to be involved in society that includes profit-making work, non-profit work, and a wide range of other activity. To be involved in such activities is not a conflict of commitment, he said, but part of your academic commitment. The university policy states that professors have free time, and the time that is spent as free time can be spent doing work outside the system. The Working Group decided discussion of these issues should best occur at the unit level. Thus, the policy will ask each school or department set limits that make sense for each unit.
There was general consensus regarding the plan of action dictated in the motion. With no further discussion forthcoming, President Tublitz put motion US09/10a concerning accepting the report of the Working Group on conflict of commitment to a vote, which passed unanimously.
New University Budget Model. Mr. Brad Shelton, vice provost for budget and planning, presented a brief overview of the recently implemented new budget model for the university, a responsibility centered management system. The previous budget monies were allocated in three general areas: financial aid, schools and colleges, and everything else. The new budget model is formula driven. In past years, budgeting was done by looking in a rear-view mirror and asking what the budget was last year and making a few adjustments for the upcoming year. In the new, formula driven model, the budget can change more rapidly in response to what schools and colleges are actually doing, primarily in the classroom. It is a responsibility centered management system that governs the budgets of (a) the individual schools and colleges (but not departments therein), (b) the budget for non-GTF central tuition remissions, and (c) the total budget of the central administration. He outlined the three steps in the process:
Step 1: Overall distribution of revenues
1. Tuition Remission (Financial Aid) budget is set at: 9.2% of all tuition.
2. The COMBINED budgets of the 8 schools and colleges (S/C) are set at: All tuition minus 9.2% of all tuition minus 28% of total S/C expenditures from 2 years earlier.
3. The central administrative budget is then set as: All other revenues plus 28% of S/C expenditures from 2 years earlier.
Step 2: Distribution to individual schools and colleges.
1. Undergraduate Tuition: All remaining undergraduate tuition is pooled (regardless of resident vs. non-resident). This is then distributed to the S/C as follows:
a. 50% by student credit hours
b. 30% by Major (prorated for double majors)
c. 20% be degrees awarded
2. Graduate Tuition: The actual tuition dollars paid by a graduate student follow that student directly into the school or college where the student is enrolled in a degree program.
Step 3: Fixed annual redistribution of the budgets above.
As budgets grow, this redistribution will become insignificant.
Mr. Shelton commented that under the new budget model the schools and colleges have substantially increased fiscal responsibility. Most of the schools and colleges have substantially increased budgets and all of the schools and colleges have substantially increased opportunities to make decisions that will improve their overall financial health.
During a question and answer period, Senator Kassia Dellabough, AAA, expressed worry that classes that need to be small will have the wrong incentive to grow to larger numbers resulting in poorer quality classes, and the burden on the faculty will change. Mr. Shelton replied that the reality is that small classes do not pay for themselves. This budget model brings clarity to the deans about those classes and promotes planning for balance in class size, using large classes to balance small classes, and finding a way to make it work best for the school or college. Dollars attached to raw numbers of majors and degrees awarded will not stay fixed � there are expectations that these will change to meet needs. Mr. Shelton went on to say that all schools and colleges have potential for growth, and the university is growing; everybody's growth will be "taxed" at the same amount.
Senator Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, asked where the money for substantially increased budgets is coming from. Mr. Shelton indicated it is the result of new tuition dollars. That extra money did not exist this year; but it represents the fact that if tuition goes up, those dollars go directly to the schools and colleges to spend. The university is heading in to a year with substantial tuition increase. For example, funding graduate students is expensive; this budget model shows what the schools and colleges are doing with their funding, and perhaps how one pot of money (for graduate students) may have been covered previously by another pot of money. The new budget models the realities of paying for graduate students and provides a basis on which to make such decisions. The funding goes to the deans and the funding decisions are made from there. Last, Senator Mike Price, mathematics, asked about Summer Session funding. Mr. Shelton replied that the formula for Summer Session has not been fully worked out yet and the formula is not the same, at least not for this summer. Eventually the plan will be the same, that is, to distribute the money to the deans of the colleges and how they distribute it will be their decision.
Intercollegiate Athletics. With the recent resignation of former Athletic Director Mike Bellotti and appointment of Interim Athletics Director Lorraine Davis, Ms. Davis began her remarks indicating that she is not technically beginning the appointment until April 20th, thus her remarks would be rather brief and limited at this point because she does not have enough information on which to report. But she indicated that before the end of the year she would have a report to President Tublitz that could be posted on line, talking about the different components of the athletics department, highlighting the students in the department, which from her viewpoint is where the focus needs to be.
Interim Director Davis acknowledged that there has been a lot of news lately about the athletic department, about the former Athletic Director's departure, contracting problems, and her appointment. She noted that a search committee has been appointed to begin the process to search for a permanent athletics director. The committee is chaired by Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes and was appointed by President Lariviere to include students, faculty, and persons from outside of the university community. The committee will engage an outside search firm and will meet with the president to get his directives regarding the search.
Ms. Davis remarked that recent media reports related to several student athletes' unacceptable behavior primarily were behaviors outside the classroom. She noted that the athletics department has a couple of programs in Life Skills already in place to emphasize better character education and responsibility. These programs have been further enhanced to involve additional staff training and presentations from external presenters, such as the Men against Violence Training that has been discussed and developed with key community members. She continued that good behaviors of student athletes are always overshadowed by bad behaviors. Yet every year hundreds of student athletes participate in programs such as O Heroes which provides opportunities for student athletes to be of service to the community. So far this year, student athletes have logged 640 hours in community service, collected 3,500 pounds of food for the Samoan relief effort, planted trees, cleaned up parks, and held basketball tournaments for community kids on the weekends. Ms. Davis concluded her remarks saying the although a couple of athletes have been irresponsible in their actions, there are ongoing programs to help address those problems, and there are many good things going with student athletes, such as success in the classrooms as well as in the athletic competitions.
During a question and answer period, Senator Phillips asked if there was any research regarding the effectiveness of the programs aimed at helping athletes make good decisions about their behavior. Ms. Davis replied that she was not personally familiar with specific research in the area. She explained that what the department is trying to is to involve the entire campus community, and not just the athletes; everybody needs to be responsible and respectful in their ways of dealing with each other as human beings and as students. She said that the department will be singling out athletics in specific ways, but also is cooperating with the ongoing educational opportunities with student affairs and some of their programs that are welcomed by all students, including student athletes.
Senator Bonine then asked who was on the search committee. Ms. Davis said the faculty members are Dennis Howard, dean of the College of Business, Deb Morrison, Journalism and Communication, and Dev Sinha, chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. Other than Vice President Holmes, Ms. Davis said she did not know off hand if there were other administrators on the committee, nor who the student and community members are. Lastly, Senator Melanie Williams, romance languages, asked for information about the two new buildings on the planning table for athletics, and the labor issues with them. Ms. Davis said that she did not yet have specifics regarding the building projects; her understanding was that a building plan was in motion but that the plan was not solidified at this point.
President Tublitz commented that there is great consternation across campus about recent issues in athletics -- the large buyout for the former AD, the high salary for the new basketball coach, and concerns about being able to pay the debt for the new basketball arena � and the negative impact it has on the rest of the campus. He said that he thought it was important for the athletics department to deal with these issues here in the senate, and that he hoped that the AD's report would be able to respond to these issues. Ms. Davis replied that she wants to get a report into the senate before the end of the year that will include what is known at that point. She said she, too, has concerns about financial issues, and that those do not change overnight; it is a big business, there is no question about it.
Faculty Governance Committee. Mr. Paul van Donkelaar, human physiology and chair of the Faculty Governance Committee, provided an update on the committee's activities saying that the final draft of the governance document is available on the website of the Internal Governance Committee (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/ReportIGC14April10.pdf). Mr. van Donkelaar said that the committee was charged to revise the Internal Governance structure on campus and since the Statutory Faculty does not have a mechanism to meet independent of other groups on campus, one of the committee's goals is to create a mechanism for the Statutory Faculty to meet. The posted governance document contains the structure for faculty governance information and has highlighted the primary changes from our current governance document. The next step is to have a Statutory Faculty meeting, hopefully by the end of April or in the beginning of May. The meeting will be one during which we will vote on the Internal Governance document.
Mr. van Donkelaar noted that one difficult issue was defining who the statutory faculty are. After much discussion the committee determined that statutory faculty are the tenure officers of instruction, career non-tenure track instructional faculty, and tenured senior instructors. He noted that this definition is narrower than the membership of the University Senate, and explained that the Statutory Faculty meeting mechanism will not take over the day to day running of internal governance on campus � the University Senate will continue to do that with even broader representation. Rather, the Statutory Faculty will meet only on rare occasions as an overarching governance entity.
The second item the committee tackled was to outline the circumstances and procedures under which the Statutory Faculty would meet. The document outlines ways in which the faculty assembly meetings can be called and under what circumstances they can be called, as well as the procedures to do so. The third area discussed was the purview of the authorities of the different bodies, mainly the University Senate, but also the Statutory Faculty. In the current legislation a general statement says that the president and professors have the responsibility for the immediate governance of the institution and discipline of the students. In the revised statement, the committee is more specific; a particular relevant section talks about the differences in legislative acts that should be limited in scope to the academic mission of the university versus resolutions which are much broader in scope. The type of presidential response to legislation and resolutions (if the president feels the legislation or resolution is not in the best interests of the university) also is spelled out.
The other major change put forth is the creation of an Academic Council, which would include the chairs, or designees, of university committees that have as their charge issues dealing with the academic mission of the university (e.g., Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, etc). The governance committee wants to propose that the Academic Council is embedded with the senate and has a clear exchange of information with administrative committees such as the Academic Infrastructure and Enrollment Management Council. Finally, Mr. van Donkelaar said that the committee looked at reapportioning the membership of the senate. The committee proposes adding one seat for career non-tenure track research faculty and another seat for academic units that are not currently following under the realm of schools and colleges; these units would include: the Honor College, Bend program, and number of other academic programs, and LERC. A final change would be the redistribution of the numbers of seats within the schools and colleges based on the amount of FTE that is associated with each senate seat.
Senator Bonine raised the issue of having a Statutory Faculty meeting with relatively little document review time. Mr. van Donkelaar noted that the document has been previously posted and that only the reapportionment changes were new information. Still, Senator Bonine felt that the meeting time frame was a bit close. Consequently he moved: that if a Statutory Faculty meeting occurs earlier than the middle of May and if a reasonable amount of objections are expressed, another meeting will be held. This motion seemed agreeable as there was little discussion in opposition. President Tublitz put the motion to a vote and it passed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
To a senator's inquiry regarding limiting email "spam", President Tublitz suggested that the senator send him a statement of the intended action in the form of a motion.
Mr. Malcolm Wilson, classics, gave notice of motion from the Student Conduct and Community Service Committee regarding proposed changes to the conduct code.
President Tublitz announced that there will be a second regular senate meeting in May due to a large number of business agenda items. It will be held May 26, 2010 in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center. Further, the president announced that the Senate Executive Committee will be sending out an email to all officers of administration, non-tenure track instructional faculty, non-tenure track research faculty, and tenure-related faculty asking them to fill out a survey on unionization. He indicated that it is a two-minute survey for informational purposes only, the aggregate results of which will be posted on the web.
Lastly, the secretary noted that the nominations page for the upcoming elections is available for review and open for further nominations. Elections will be held April 29 through May 7, 2010.
In response to a motion to adjourn, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Present: G. Baitinger, T. Bars, A. Berenstein, C. Bybee, E, Chan, H. Gangadharbatla, J. Hurwit, M.A. Hyatt, M. Jaeger, K. Jensen, C. Jones, D. Kennett, H. Khalsa Kaur, R. Kyr, K. Lenn, H. Lin, C. McNelly, S. Midkiff, T. Minner, N. C. Phillips, M. Price, P. Southwell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, N. Tublitz, T. Toadvine, L. Van Dreel, S. Verscheure, P. Walker, M. Williams
Excused: J. Bonine, A. Laskaya, L. Middlebrook, T. K. Thompson
Absent: C. Bengtson, S. Chakraborty, K. Dellabough, T. Dishion, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Forrest, N. Gower, M. Henney, A. Hilts, D. Olson, J. Piger, N. Proudfoot, L. Reichardt, T. K. Thompson, T. K. Thompson, P. Warnek
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for February 10, 2010 to order at 3:05 p m. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Center.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the January 13, 2010 senate meeting were approved.
With the resignation of Senate President Peter Gilkey shortly after the January 13th senate meeting, Vice President Nathan Tublitz assumed the presidency of the senate. President Tublitz commented that, with a new university president and a relatively new provost, the senate has an opportunity at hand to bring a number of elements together that have been divided for a long time, and to help make the university the best place it can be. He reminded senators that decisions at the university are made both in the administration and through the university governance system. With that in mind, he asked for renewed efforts to work together to move the university forward.
Noting the effectiveness last month of a longer discussion period that resulted from changing the January agenda order, President Tublitz drew attention to the current meeting’s proposed revised agenda, which moves a discussion on topical, key issues and new business items (motions) to an earlier position on the agenda, and moves reports and other announcements toward the end of the meeting. He asked the senate to adopt the proposed revised agenda order for a 3 month trial period. Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, suggested ordering the new business items ahead of the open discussion (reversing item # 4 with #5) and having a 2 month trial period. His suggestions met with general approval and the motion to change the agenda order for a 2 month period was approved.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Provost Jim Bean began his remarks by saying that the recent passage of legislative Measures 66 and 67 was good news for the university. He said although there was no “new money”, funds set aside in anticipation of the measures failing means that money does not have to be paid back to the state and may now be allocated to the schools and colleges to offset the surge in student enrollment realized this academic year. He added that the university has gotten through the last year in much better shape than most institutions; and, although we had to have mandated furloughs of the classified staff, we avoided lay-offs. The university was not able to improve faculty salaries in the past year, but many other institutions had to release faculty and not hire new faculty. Nevertheless, the provost indicated we have not fixed the problem, but as we look forward a plan is nearly complete, with University President Lariviere’s support, for bringing faculty and OA’s salaries up to AAU averages over the next couple of years.
Next, the provost provided some updates on implementing the Academic Plan developed last year. He noted that with changes in the economic climate, they have had to make some emergency decisions. The surge in student enrollment (which helped to avoid lay-offs and minimize furloughs) also has put a lot of stress on faculty and staff to deal with all of the new students. Consequently, we are in a somewhat different situation in looking at some of the issues regarding implementing the Academic Plan. The provost noted that it no longer is a matter of whether enrollment will climb to 24,000 students – we are nearly there now. Rather, the choice is either to roll back enrollment or to improve the infrastructure to match it. The provost said we still need to improve graduate student enrollment, but 24,000 students is the university’s limit. Thus, the plan is to catch up on needed facilities and faculty hiring (projected need of 125 new faculty positions). The provost added that we are hiring 30 new faculty positions this year, and graduate student applications are up 30% compared with the same time period last year. He commented that we have a lot of financial challenges with the doctorial program, but are finding a strong market place, so we are making real progress.
Lastly, the provost noted that first five “Big Ideas” chosen by faculty committee last spring already are getting underway and progressing better than forecast. Each Big Idea has a resource allocation of $50,000, plus any funds they raise on their own. The first phase of the Big Ideas includes: the Americas in a Globalized World, Global Oregon, Human Health and Performance, Green Product Design, and Sustainable Cities. The faculty committee, now called the Big Ideas Council, includes representatives from each Big Idea group, and has two deans, staff from the development office, and representatives from the corporate world on it as well.
During a brief question period, Senator Phillips asked if the university could find some savings by using classrooms for longer periods of time throughout the day. The provost responded by saying that the university is already doing this. The “discount” that was offered previously to students who took classes offered as less popular times has been discontinued because classes scheduled for early morning, late afternoon, and evening are filling without any financial incentive to do so simply because there are so many students. Provost Bean also remarked that Mac Court is slated to be an academic use facility sometime in the near future. Although the exact academic use has not been determined.
Election of an interim vice president. Senate President Tublitz expressed his desire to fill the vice president position now vacant since he became president of the senate. He suggested that it would be useful to have a leadership team in addition to the reformulated Senate Executive Committee in order to assist in making good choices for the senate. He opined that a vice president would take over for the president in his absence for any reason, and would only be an interim position until the election of a new vice president in October 2010. President Tublitz further explained that when he was elected as vice president last spring, he was also elected as president elect (for academic year 2010-11). When he assumed the presidency (upon Peter Gilkey’s resignation), he was no longer vice president but he did not relinquish being president-elect. Thus, his request is to elect only an interim vice president. At this point, Senator Mary Ann Hyatt, Nominating Committee, moved to elect an interim vice president.
President Tublitz opened the floor for discussion. Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, said that although he was in support of President Tublitz serving as president this year and as president next year, he believed the way the by-laws are written prevented him from doing so, and thus should be amended. He cited by-laws Article 4.3 which states; “The President and the Vice-President are the elected officers of the University Senate. The Vice-President also serves as President-Elect.” Senator Lin contended that when President Tublitz assumed the senate presidency and was no longer vice president, he also was no longer president-elect. Thus, this portion of the by-laws needs to be amended to permit President Tublitz to serve as president next year. President Tublitz acknowledged that the by-laws were not written as clearly as one might like, and in anticipation of this potential issue, had asked Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, emeritus anthropology, for a ruling on the matter prior to recommending the election of an interim vice president. Parliamentarian Simonds then spoke and said he looked at both the by-laws and Roberts Rules of Order, and both sources treat the position of vice president and president-elect as two separate entities; they are not the same office. Thus, Mr. Simonds ruled that there is a vacancy in the vice presidency position, but not in the president-elect position. President Tublitz accepted Mr. Simonds ruling and indicated that the senate would now vote to elect a vice president. Senator Lin indicated that he still felt the by-laws needed amending, and thus indicated that he would give notice of such a motion later in the meeting.
In light of the previous discussion, Senator Phillips suggested that it be made clear that the motion was only to elect an interim vice president only. With that caveat, President Tublitz put the motion to elect an interim vice president for the period of time until a new vice president could be elected in October 2010 to a vote, and the motion passed.
Next, President Tublitz indicated that Mr. Peter Keyes, architecture, said that he would be a candidate for the interim vice president position. The president asked if there were any other nominations from the floor, and hearing none, asked Mr. Keyes to speak to the senate. Mr. Keyes said that he is a former Senate President and has been active in a number of campus issues such as the Westmoreland housing issue, the Diversity Plan, revision of the Student Conduct Code; he is currently a member of the Senate Budget Committee and the Faculty Governance Committee. Further, he indicated that he is interested in producing a product, not just in the processes of governance. During a question period, Mr. Keyes clarified that President Tublitz would continue to head the Committee on Committees, and when asked if he might be interested in being elected as a regular vice president in October, he indicated not at the present time. With discussion winding down, President Tublitz put the election of Peter Keyes as interim vice president to a voice vote, which passed.
Motion US09/10-6 Concerning Nominations for Senate Vice Presidency. The Senate Rules Committee put forth the following motion concerning nominations for the senate vice presidency:
The Secretary of the Senate is directed to write to all eligible candidates on 15 September to solicit self-nominations. The Secretary of the Senate also writes to all members of the then existent Senate to solicit self-nominations. The nominating process closes 1 October with the election occurring at the first Senate meeting of the academic year.
By way of background information, Senator Tracy Bars, Rules Committee, indicated the motion was necessary to amend the Senate By-laws in light of passing Motion US09/10-5 which moved the election of the vice president from an organizational senate meeting in late May of the academic year to the first senate meeting in the fall term each year. The current motion prescribes the process timelines by which nominations for the position of senate vice president are solicited. Senator Bars said that the goal of the legislation was to make sure that all candidates have an equal opportunity to prepare statements regarding their candidacy and senators have an equal opportunity to get to know the candidate before voting on them. With no further discussion forthcoming, President Tublitz put Motion US09/10-6 to a vote, which passed.
Notice of motion. President Tublitz recognized Senator Lin who gave notice that he wished to put the following motion before the senate at the next meeting:
Moved that, In the event that the office of the President becomes vacant, the Vice President will assume the office of the President and will retain the title of the President-Elect. In the event that the Vice President resigns, he/she may not serve as the President-Elect.
Budget Priorities. President Tublitz explained that he intends to have an open discussion period at each senate meeting on a topical issue of importance to the university. The discussion would be an opportunity for senators and other attending the meeting to voice opinions and concerns on the particular topic. To begin this discussion, university budget priorities is the discussion topic for the meeting. President Tublitz commented that the university is in the process of reevaluating budgetary priorities in light of a new budget model that is being implemented. Further, Provost Bean will set up a website to continue the budget priorities conversation initiated at this meeting.
Prior to getting into specific budget concerns, Ms. Sandy Vaughn, director of Club Sports, noted that she would like to see some discussion regarding having new buildings on campus that circumvented the Campus Planning Committee process, and although not directly related to budget priorities per se, it is a concern of some faculty. President Tublitz acknowledged that the issue Ms. Vaughn raised was a complicated one that does involve use of fiscal resources. He suggested that rather than make it part of the discussion at hand, he would come back to it at another time.
As the discussion unfolded, the following general areas of concern were identified by faculty, staff, and student senators as among the top budget priorities the campus needs to address:
Changing the balance in the share of the budget that goes to teaching and research rather than administration so that so that administration is less than 50% of the budget (what is that proportion at the UO?); and, eliminate parts of administration that are not directly related to teaching and research functions (Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics),
Need to make large investment in sustainability and better use of energy in order to save money later down the line (Senator Zach Stark-Macmillan, ASUO),
Maintenance of classroom infrastructure (Ken Doxsee, chemistry and academic affairs),
Support for graduate students and their work facilities as well as sufficient classified staff for support (Senator Susan Verscheure, human physiology),
Comparable Officer of Administration support to accommodate the growth toward 24,000 students (Senator Tracy Bars, AAA ),
Support for GTFs in programs that are not in growth spurts as well as those programs that are (Renee Irvin, PPPM),
Determining, and then funding, the appropriate mix of tenure and non-tenure-related faculty members as it relates to the new budget model and as the number of students increases (Senator Carl Bybee, Journalism and Communication),
Adding to the classroom space, office space, and related equipment needs for NTTF, as well as improving their salaries (Senator Melanie Williams, Romance Languages),
More funding for library resources (Senator Katy Lenn, Library),
More flex-time work scheduling for classified staff, as well as availability of more on-line classes for professional development (classified staff member – name unclear at the meeting),
Greater resources for tutoring and the Teaching and Learning Center, especially math tutoring (Emma Kallaway, ASUO president),
Investment in, and better use of, technology across campus to enable everyone to “do things better” (Senator Chris Jones, AAA),
Improve tenure track faculty pay to maintain the quality of the faculty; also, need better dormitories, classrooms, for the university to be successful in attracting good students, and then need to improve the means for students to attend (scholarships) while keeping the cost down (Senator Jeff Hurwit, art history), and lastly,
Increasing infrastructure maintenance of buildings already on campus (Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics).
President Tublitz thanked everyone for participating in the discussion and for getting a number of priorities aired. He indicated that he would share the items raised with the provost for further discussion. He also encouraged everyone to talk with their constituent groups and other colleagues about this topic and participate in a campus –wide on-line discussion that the provost will be putting in place shortly.
Summary of revised officers of administration (OA) policies. Associate Vice President for Human Resources Linda King began her remarks saying that the full report of the revised OA policies was posted on the senate website (see (http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/LKingOAReport6Jan10.pdf) and the Human Resources website. In summarizing the highlights of the report, Ms. King indicated that OA priorities including: a “home” for OA employment policies, issues and concerns; a consistent set of policies; regular feedback about performance; ability to air concerns and complaints using an accessible, understandable process; opportunity for professional development that targets leadership skills; flexibility in work schedule for personal or family reasons; consistent policy and practices regarding compensation; and consistent policy and practices regarding contracts, particularly timely notice provisions. She explained that there has been success in achieving some of these objectives and there has been progress made on others.
Specifically, Ms. King drew attention to a number of important activities. Responsibility for OA employment has been assigned to Human Resources and funding was provided for a position dedicated to OA employment. Four candidates will visit campus in the next weeks to interview for the position of Associate Director of Human Resources for OA Employment, which is charged with carrying out policy development work and serving as a resource on OA issues. She added that OA employment matters rightfully belong in Human Resources, and that Academic Affairs will continue to provide functions related to academic appointments for tenure related faculty, non tenure track faculty and librarians.
Next, Ms. King said that significant progress has been made on getting a policy and tracking process in place for annual OA performance appraisals. The system will support a renewed focus on OAs receiving annual performance reviews. Regarding professional development, flexible work scheduling, and performance appraisal, policy development is underway and at different stages. The professional development has been forwarded for submission to the university’s new policy-setting process; flexible work scheduling is drafted and ready to post on the OA policy forum, and the OA performance appraisal policy is drafted and being fine-tuned by the policy sub-committee. She noted that an OA Council lunch conversation is planned for later in February to brainstorm the facets of an informal dispute resolution or informal grievance process. The discussion will inform the process involved with dispute resolution and grievances and will help refine the services and expectations of the newly created associate director for OA employment position.
Ms. King remarked that there was an intentional delay in dealing with the lack of consistency in timely notice provisions and contracts types across vice presidential areas, based on advice from the working group to get some of the other initiatives in place first. She acknowledged that many OAs are anxious to see movement on this issue, and that the committee plans to begin working on the topic in the next month. Ms. King concluded her remarks noting that Human Resources will continue to provide a variety of opportunities for discussion of these policy initiatives during OA Council sponsored events, through the Human Resources website, and through other conversations with individuals and groups as requested or as the need arises. Lastly, to a question as to whether top administrators are included under these OA policies, Ms. King replied that they are; she noted that OAs are a very large and diverse employment group on campus.
Update from ASUO President Emma Kallaway. Ms. Kallaway listed a number of activities in which the ASUO has been engaged. Notably, 3,500 students were registered to vote in the recent election on Ballot Measures 66 and 67. Also, the ASUO has changed its office area from an inaccessible space to one that is now accessible. They also are tackling the issue of reining in costs for special services such as LTD bus service and availability of football tickets for students. Just recently they reached an agreement with the athletic department to secure greater availability of student football tickets that also saves the ASUO $185,000. Ms. Kallaway commented, in an understated way, that it has become very apparent to her that football tickets matter.
ASUO President Kallaway noted that the ASUO is still suffering a $300,000 budget shortfall due to complications of previous years. She assured everyone that the ASUO is not in debt, but acknowledged that reserve funds are much lower than in previous years. Nevertheless, ASUO is functioning at a normal level. She said that 2,200 students have indicated that LTD bus service is something they value and use, but the rising cost of that service will be a discussion item for the ASUO over the next few weeks. Ms. Kallaway said there remains a lot of work to do in the few months left of her term, such as expanding the use of the “green fees “, and that the ASUO is committed to the effort. Lastly, she said that the ASUO will continue to support students who have felt marginalized recently (as in the recently painted Nazi symbol in one of the student organization office area).
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Notice of motion. Mr. Bob Bussel, Labor Education and Research Center, gave notice that he will offer a motion at the March meeting concerning the Pacifica Forum whose meetings have generated intense faculty and student reactions to it on campus recently.
Motion to acknowledge former senate president Peter Gilkey. Senator Mary Jaeger, classics, made a motion to thank and recognize former senate president Peter Gilkey, mathematics, for all the service he has given in support of faculty governance and the University Senate over the years. President Tublitz graciously acknowledged the motion which was met with a vote of unanimous support by the senators.
With a motion from Senator Phillips, the meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.