Minutes

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 10, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 10, 2013

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate to order for April 10, 2013 at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He welcomed Senators to the meeting and informed them that there were three foundational policies coming before the Senate over the course of the remaining meetings. The first of which was the Facilities Scheduling Policy, and the first slate of legislation surrounding the Tenth-Year Review was also on the agenda.  

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the March 13, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the minutes. Seeing none, he approved the minutes.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Michael Gottfredson

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that President Gottfredson was called away for a very important meeting in Salem, OR and deeply regretted that he could not attend the Senate meeting. David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) would be giving remarks to the Senate on behalf of President Gottfredson.

David Hubin conveyed the President’s regrets at not being able to attend the meeting, and his great pleasure in working with Senate leadership toward the formation a Provost Search Committee. The committee had been appointed, in consultation with Senate leadership, and it was a distinguished and broadly represented group. According to Mr. Hubin, every person who was asked to serve on the committee agreed to serve, which was remarkable.

According to Mr. Hubin, the President was very pleased with the RIGE (Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education) Review Committee. There was one remaining spot to fill, but responses to serve were very positive.

The administration was well along in the search for an Ombuds position at the university. Mr. Hubin met with the FAC (Faculty Advisory Council) and Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace to review the Ombuds job description and then asked the Senate to recommend people to serve on the search committee. The search committee would be comprised of five or six members, and the administration wanted to have the Ombuds appointment made during the spring term.

Mr. Hubin announced that at 5:15 in the Louis Integrated Science Building, a reception was being held to bestow the Distinguished Service Award on Rosario Haugland, a remarkable biochemist and philanthropist in Oregon. The Distinguished Service Award was the universities highest award for individual service and was established in 1956 by the University Assembly. Mr. Hubin would be bringing the next candidate(s) for the Distinguished Service Award to the May Senate meeting.

2.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) commented that he was very disappointed that President Gottfredson could not attend the Senate meeting and mentioned the progress of Senate Bill 270 regarding independent boards for the university. He had recently learned from stated legislators and colleagues at Portland Stated University and Oregon State University that the administrations at those two schools supported having faculty on the independent governing boards. They also supported faculty having voting rights on the board. He then stated that this suggested that the UO resisted having faculty membership on independent governing boards, which was holding up the passage of Senate Bill 270. He asked Mr. Hubin how the UO could justify this divergence from its peers, and wanted to know what was going to happen now.

Mr. Hubin stated that he was not going to comment in depth, but he did not believe that the UO was the impediment to Senate Bill 270 moving forward. The legislation had many moving pieces and there were many models of governing board representation. He then stated that he was not in a position to comment on those dynamics as he was not directly involved with those interactions within the legislature, but he understood Senator Sayre’s concern.

Senator Sayre encouraged Senators and members of the university community to watch the unfolding of the legislative session as he believed it was an extremely important matter.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) recalled that the Faculty Assembly voted for independent board legislation with faculty representation as an explicit bullet point. He suggested that the Senate formally ask President Gottfredson to explain his position on this issue and wanted to hear the President’s comments to the legislature.

Mr. Hubin replied that he was sure that the President would be willing to do that.

Senate President Kyr replied that he would ask President Gottfredson that question at their next meeting.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) commented that he had met with several state legislators and was told very explicitly that the reason for the different governing board models existing was a position by the University of Oregon that strongly opposed faculty seats on independent governing boards. He asked that the administration convey their opinion to the Senate as soon as possible.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that a faculty member was placed on the state board in 1997 and had full voting rights. The faculty member was from the University of Oregon and the stated board did not collapse because of it. He did not understand why there would be any opposition from the administration.

Senate President Kyr stated that he would write to and call President Gottfredson regarding this matter.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion (Policy Adoption): Facilities Scheduling Policy; Kassia Dellabough (AAA), Chair; Senate Facilities Scheduling Policy Committee

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) could not attend the Senate meeting, so the Facilities Scheduling Policy was to be presented by Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law). Senate Vice President Paris moved the policy for adoption. Senate President Kyr called for a second. The motion was seconded, and Senate President Kyr read the policy to the Senate body. The policy can be found at the link above.

Before reading the policy, he gave a brief history of its development. The Facilities Scheduling Policy went through an eighteen month development period during the tenure of former President Richard Lariviere. It was approved by the Senate and given to the President to sign (this was before the adoption of the Policy on Policies). The policy was rejected and not signed by former President Lariviere. The General Counsel provided comments on the policy and it was returned to the Senate. After President Lariviere was fired and with Interim President Bob Berdahl not willing to sign the policy, it was given to President Gottfredson who was very willing to work with the Senate on the policy. A Senate Committee had recently gone through the policy in great detail, with a great effort in particular from Senator John Bonine (Law), and crafted the version before the Senate today. He then read the policy. After reading the policy, Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) mentioned the section on scheduling responsibilities, which was under Article IV of the policy and referenced video and audio recording. He stated that anyone with an iPhone could make a video/audio recording and offered an amendment to the policy language to include the word “commercial” before video/audio recording.

The amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) asked if a member of the Senate Facilities Use Policy Committee was present and if so, had this issue come up during their discussions.

Harlan Mechling (student) stated that the point was not discussed, but he believed it was appropriate to add the word commercial to the policy.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously. He then called for further discussion on the motion.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. Senate President Kyr offered a special thanks to the members of the Senate Facilities Use Policy Committee for their hard work.

3.2 Motion (Legislation): Working Groups for Tenth-Year Review; Committee on Committees, Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr moved the motion to the Senate floor. It was seconded and he read the motion aloud to the Senate body. The motion can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the system of committee service needed to be reformed and redesigned, and the Committee on Committees was going through an exhaustive process toward that effort. He then introduced the members of the Committee on Committees to the Senate body, and explained the supplemental materials attached to the motion. This can also be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that there seemed to be a parallel system of committees set up by the administration and involved matters that were probably under the Senate’s purview. He specifically mentioned the committee that was established for the universities accreditation review, and the administration committee for the review of public records. Senator Harbaugh had heard a rumor that the administration was in the process of establishing a committee for budget planning without consultation from the Senate. He wanted to know if the Committee on Committees had discussed any of these issues and if Senate President Kyr had any thoughts on Senator Harbaugh’s comments.

Senate President Kyr replied that these issues had come up at Committee on Committees meetings, and that was the reason for having working groups as outlined by the Tenth-Year Review process. According to Senate President Kyr, Senate committees and administration formed committees doing the same work could have a diluted effect on the Senate committee’s charge, and the Senate needed to know when this type of interaction was taking place.

Senator Harbaugh asked where in the motion this type of scenario could be identified and dealt with accordingly, to which Senate President Kyr replied that that might be better handled in a different motion and offered Senator Harbaugh the opportunity to suggest an amendment.

Senator Harbaugh offered the following amendment: “Be it further moved that the administration notifies the Senate President and works with the Committee on Committees prior to creating any additional working group or committee relating to Senate functions.”

The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) stated that he was pleased to see the working group for the creation of a police review board as he had been serving on the policing implementation advising group and a separate similar committee had been meeting for over a year and had been working toward the development of a complaint review board, which was to be appointed entirely by the President. Senator Sayre believed that this board needed to have Senate interaction as it was in the purview of the Senate. He spoke in favor of Senator Harbaugh’s amendment and stated that the creation of a shadow cabinet could not be allowed to continue.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) proposed an amendment to the motion that a budgetary working group be added to counteract the rumored administrative budget committee. Senate President Kyr replied that there might be an administrative budget committee and mentioned that the Senate Budget Committee already existed. He then recommended that a bullet point be added to the motion to include a working group that addressed the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Dreiling agreed with his proposed amendment language and Senate President Kyr called for a second. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) remarked that Senate President Kyr had previously mentioned adding incentives to university service, but pointed out that the financial impact statement of the motion was cost neutral. He believed that the financial impact statement should not be cost neutral when discussing incentives, to which Senate President Kyr replied that he was correct to mention that point, but the financial impact of incentives was going to be address through a different piece of legislation. A whole series of legislation would be coming before the Senate in the three remaining meetings regarding the Tenth-Year Review, and incentives would be one part in the series.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) asked Senate President Kyr to ask President Gottfredson about the creation of the rumored budget priority working group, to which Senate President Kyr replied that he would do that at his next meeting with the President.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for a round of applause and thanked the Senate for their participation. He was very pleased with how the meeting was progressing.    

3.3 Motion (Resolution): Regarding Shared Governance at the University of Oregon; Roxann Prazniak, Associate Professor (CHC, History)

Senator Roxann Prazniak (Clark Honor's College, History) moved her motion to the Senate floor. It was seconded and then read aloud by Senate President Kyr to the Senate body. The motion can be found at the link above.

Senator Prazniak stated that her resolution called for an affirmation of the principles of shared governance as defined by the UO Constitution. She believed it was in the best interest of the university to have a contract agreement that clearly recognized the specific terms of the UO Constitution. In recent negotiations between the faculty and administrative bargaining teams, the administration had returned counter proposals that challenged and undermined the principles of shared governance. She referenced and handed out copies of article III of a counterproposal presented by the administration on March 5, 2013, and also distributed copies of an article on shared governance presented by United Academics (UA).

Senator Prazniak stated that the administrations counterproposal referred to shared governance as “a tradition” with no reference to the UO Constitution, Senate By-Laws, or the Policy on Policies, all of which were affirmed by policy put forth by United Academics’ faculty bargaining team. The language found in the UA contract had precedent in contracts negotiated by faculty on behalf of the Constitutions and By-Laws of other universities including Portland State University and the University of Vermont. It was her belief that the administration had pushed the negotiations to effective disregard of the most basic Constitutional precepts and procedures that the Senate had worked so long on and with great devotion to establish in the best educational interests of the university. According to Senator Prazniak, this was unacceptable, and she urged Senators to vote in favor of her resolution, which would encourage President Gottfredson to reinforce and strengthen the administrations commitment to the UO Constitution by ensuring its incorporation into the bargaining agreement with United Academics of the University of Oregon.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) thanked Senator Prazniak for putting her motion forward. She commented that in collective bargaining, to enshrine the UO Constitution and the principles and practices of shared governance at the institution were very advantageous, because it was incredibly important and central to all functions of what took place on campus.

Before the Senate meeting, Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) sent the entire motion to the faculty of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts (AAA) for feedback. One concern that came back dealt with the insertion of the Senate in the negotiations process. No one was opposed to the Senate be mentioned as a key governing body. The primary concern regarded the appropriateness of the Senate passing a resolution on behalf of the members of the UA bargaining team.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) thanked Senator Margerum for bringing those points up and stated that this was an area of concern for him as well. He commented that UA had the power to negotiate a contract for the entire bargaining unit with the administration, and brought up the point that the bargaining agreement was a legally binding document that could negate the precepts of the UO Constitution if it was not included in the language of the bargaining agreement. Senator Sullivan believed that both the Senate and UA should work together with the administration for the benefit of each group and the ideals that they represented.

Senator David Landrum (Officer of Administration Senator) was concerned with the language of Section 2.4 of the motion which dealt with the incorporation of existing policies and articles adopted by the Senate. According to Senator Landrum, once past policies were incorporated into a bargaining agreement, if an existing policy were to be amended, incorporation became more difficult.

Senator Sullivan commented that he had seen the same language and stated that he was glad that the motion was a resolution.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) commented that the motion referenced the UO Constitution and existing policies adopted by the Senate. He believed this statement adequately addressed the concern brought up by Senator Landrum.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of information and commented that the language only mentioned policies, which referred to policy adoptions, not legislation or resolutions.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) stated that as Senators, they represented the entire Statutory Faculty Assembly, and not everyone on the faculty supported unionization. As such, he believed that the Senate should be careful when coming down on one side of that argument.

Senator Randy Sullivan agreed with Senator Sinclair’s comment and stated that there was no language in the motion that endorsed the union or spoke in favor of the union. The language of the motion addressed documents that protected the academic freedom of the institution, which was unanimously endorsed by the entire Statutory Faculty.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) recalled 2.1 of the motion and stated that its content was about the Senate affirming the core elements of academic freedom and shared governance expressed in the UO Constitution. He believed that since the Senate had a voice in shared governance, there was an implicit as well as an explicit duty and responsibility to give instruction to the administration regarding that affirmed priority. The preference in protecting those principles was to include those principles in the UA’s new contract. Not doing so, would risk weakening those principles.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) asked what the Senate’s role was in ratifying the bargaining agreement, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the Senate was not at the bargaining table. The central administration legally represented the university, and the union represented the bargaining unit.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) stated that the Senate was calling for any group that was engaging in contractual negotiations with the administration to be able to exercise their obligations under the model of shared governance.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) stated that the resolution did not state that, but rather it explicitly pointed to the collective bargaining agreement with UA. He did not find anything objectionable with the motion, but felt that it came down rather strongly on one side of an argument that he felt the Senate should avoid.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with three nay votes. 

3.4 Motion (Legislation): Amendment to US12/13-13, UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr moved his motion to the Senate floor. It received a second, and before reading it aloud to the Senate body, he briefly explained the background of the motion. Both the background information and the content of the motion can be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

5. REPORTS

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Termination of the UO-ROTC Contract; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Frank Stahl’s (Biology Emeritus) notice of motion and asked if there were any additional announcements or communications from the floor.

Professor Frank Stahl stated that he had an additional notice of motion which he wished to move at the next Senate meeting. The motion was as follows: “The University will enter into no agreements that grant outside agencies or boards the right to abolish, change, or interfere with the operation of the UO Constitution.”

Senate President Kyr thanked him for his notice, and called for any further announcements or communications from the floor.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology) remarked that since he was involved with placing a faculty member on the state board, if anyone was interested in the details of how that transpired, he would be willing to discuss that after the Senate meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the April 10, 2013 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:26PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 13, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 March, 2013

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for March 13, 2013 to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He welcomed all Senators to the meeting and stated that this meeting was of crucial importance as there were five motions to consider.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the February 13, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr called for any corrections to the February 13, 2013 meeting minutes. Seeing none, he approved the minutes and moved on to the State of the University address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that a new protocol system was in place. He had been meeting with various constituencies including the ASUO who shared with him how they ran their Senate meeting. He thanked the students for sharing their ideas and processes with him. From these meetings, a new seating system was developed wherein all Senators would sit in the raked seating area and all non-senators now had their own seating area. This new system would help with facilitating microphone distribution.

Senate President Kyr commented that both the President and Provost were very sorry that they could not attend the meeting. The President was attending a trustees meeting in southern California, and the Provost was traveling. They would both attend the April Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr stated that his remarks would focus on Senate protocol regarding how a meeting was run, and respectful dialogue. He commented that respectful dialogue was extremely important and that several people had come to him after attending/viewing Senate meetings and discussed how dialogue had evolved on campus. He stated that the Senate must be the model for respectful dialogue. Blurting out, sub-vocalizations, checking email, and other distractions were not acceptable at Senate meetings. He reminded Senators that they were educators and supporters of a university that they loved, and when students brought forward behavior such as those mentioned above, they needed be addressed and dealt with appropriately. Senate President Kyr then mentioned several points of change regarding Senate protocol.

The first protocol change was the new seating arrangement. Senators were instructed to sit in the main seating area and guests were instructed to sit in the seating area off to the side.

The second protocol change was no standing when making comments. Senators were to remain seated when speaking, and a microphone would be delivered to them. Guests/visitors were to approach their microphone when commenting.

The third protocol change was regarding name tags. All Senators were asked to wear name tags during the meetings. Senate President Kyr mentioned that name tags allowed Senators from different constituencies to get to know each other, and it also helped him and Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) in addressing those who were speaking.

The fourth protocol change was the institution of a speakers list. Senate President Kyr thanked the students for their insight regarding this change. Senate Vice President Margaret Paris was the monitor of the speaker’s list. When a Senator wished to speak, they were instructed to raise their hand and the speaking order would be recorded by the Senate Vice President who would then transfer the names to a Google Share, which would keep track of the speaking order during discussion.

The fifth protocol change involved time restrictions during comments. Senate President Kyr stated that a two minute time limit was not going to be enforced, but after two minutes of comments, the speaker would be informed and were then instructed to wrap up their discussion out of respect for their colleagues. Senate Vice President Margaret Paris asked if Senators could raise their nametags when they raised their hands to speak as this would help her coordinate the speaker’s list and would help her to learn the names of Senators.

Senate President Kyr reminded Senators that when they presented a motion (while seated), they must move the motion to the Senate floor, and then ask for a second. The Senate President would then read the motion, which would be projected on the screen. The entire motion would be read on the Senate floor.

He then commented that all protocol changes were in accordance to Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. He then asked the Senate to not enter into a debate about process, but they should trust that all protocol changes were in accordance to Robert’s Rules of Order. Senators would have time to comment on the new system via a survey that was going to be sent out during the next week. He then stated that Senators could also contact him directly by phone or email and encouraged them to do so.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Winter Curriculum Report (Motion for Legislation): Paul Engelking, Chair; Committee on Courses

Senate President Kyr invited Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) to present the Winter Curriculum Report to the Senate body. Professor Engelking remarked that the report had only one correction that he was aware of, which was regarding Anthropology 347 Archeology of Ancient Cities. The course would now be effective spring term 2013. He then asked for any additional corrections from the floor. Seeing none, he moved that 2013 Winter Curriculum Report be approved as presented. Senate President Kyr called for a second. The motion was seconded. He then called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Engelking and the Committee on Courses for their hard work in preparing the Curriculum Report each term, to which Professor Engelking apologized for being late for the meeting, and stated that he had just come from another meeting regarding a newly approved electronic course system that would hopefully be implemented in just over a year, which would save everyone on the Committee on Courses a great deal of time. Senate President Kyr thanked him for delivering the good news.

3.2 Motion (Resolution): Senate Support for the Addition of an Ombuds Office at the UO; Emilio Hernandez, Chair; Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

Senate President Kyr invited Emilio Hernandez (Institutional Equity and Diversity) to present his motion. Mr. Hernandez stated that he would be handing the conversation over to David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), as Mr. Hubin, who was a member of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace, had information from the President.

Senate President Kyr asked Mr. Hernandez to move the motion and to ask for a second. Mr. Hernandez moved the motion to the Senate floor, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr asked David Hubin to present any additional information on the motion. Mr. Hubin stated that on behalf of the President, he accepted the intent of the motion, which was an impulse that came from both the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace and from other quarters across campus including the FAC (Faculty Advisory Council). He then commented that three weeks prior, President Gottfredson spoke with Mr. Hubin regarding the establishment of an Ombuds Office and he was instructed to speak with Jamie Moffitt (Vice President of Finance & Administration, Chief Financial Officer) and prepare a budget and job description. According to Mr. Hubin, this position was a very high priority for the President. Mr. Hubin had been collecting job descriptions from national organizations and comparator institutions. He then commented that the process would be completed during the spring term to ensure participatory engagement, and the Ombuds Office would be in place by the beginning of the fall term. Mr. Hubin reiterated that the administration welcomed the resolution, and it would be enacted.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

The first comment came from Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry). He thanked Mr. Hubin for his comments and remarked that Mr. Hubin had mentioned the UAUO (United Academics University of Oregon), but he did not see that group listed in the language of the motion. Mr. Hubin stated that he thought the UAUO should be included in the motion. Senator Sullivan offered a friendly amendment to the motion and asked that the UAUO be added to numbers five and six of the motion.

Senate President Kyr then called for a second. A second was given, and he called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) asked if the advisory board established by the Resolution was a part of the original proposal, as according to him, the motion did not state what the advisory board did. He was concerned that the advisory board might overlap with other advisory boards that already existed.

Senate President Kyr reminded Senator Margerum that the amendment was being discussed and all other questions would be attended to after voting had taken place on the amendment.

Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages) asked if the amendment involved removing the group AAUP and substituting it for the group UAUO, or were they leaving AAUP and adding UAUO. Senate President Kyr asked Senator Sullivan to restate his amendment for clarification.

Senator Sullivan stated that he would like to add the group UAUO to the list of campus constituencies represented by a bargaining agreement in numbers five and six of the motion.

Senator Steven Pologe (Music & Dance) asked if Senator Sullivan’s amendment was consistent with David Hubin’s remarks, to which Mr. Hubin replied that it was consistent.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) wanted to make it clear that the AAUP was subsumed under UAUO and requested that the group AAUP be substituted with UAUO instead of merely adding UAUO to the list. He then asked if Senator Sullivan was willing to modify his request, to which he replied that he was. Senate President Kyr asked if anyone objected to the substitution. Seeing no objections, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr reopened discussion on the motion.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) commented that the motion was an excellent direction for the university to take and she wholeheartedly supported the motion.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) revisited his question regarding the role of the advisory board created by the motion. He wanted to know what the role and responsibilities of the advisory board was.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Margerum if his question was addressed to David Hubin.

Emilio Hernandez (Institutional Equity and Diversity) replied that the board was put into place by the Committee on Committees, and David Hubin added that the board’s role and responsibilities would be addressed by the Committee on Committees.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) wanted to know how large the Ombuds office would be, to which Emilio Hernandez replied that the Respectful Workplace Committee was considering more than one individual, but an entire building of workers was not required to fulfill the position. The size of the office was to be determined, and comparator institutions with Ombuds offices had two, three, and four person offices. Senator Lin asked if the Ombuds office would potentially grow to ten or eleven people, to which Mr. Hernandez replied that he was not sure how large the office would be, but the Committee on Committees would be handling that decision in conjunction with the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace.

David Hubin commented that the Ombuds person would need a support staff, but the details had not been worked out. He then commented that all staffing decisions regarding the Ombuds office would be made with consultation of the Senate.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) stated that he was not sure if the Senate Rules Committee was allowed to bring a motion to the floor without a financial impact statement. He then asked if that was a proper practice. Senate President Kyr replied that this particular office had been approved, to which Senator Emami rephrased his question and asked if a motion could be brought to the Senate floor without a know financial impact statement. Senate President Kyr replied that this could happen if the funding had been approved, which in this case, it had. He then asked David Hubin if the funding had been approved for the creation of the Ombuds office, to which Mr. Hubin replied that the funding had been approved, and he mentioned that the Senate was voting on a resolution, not a piece of legislation, and resolutions merely supported or did not support a course of action.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was passed with one nay vote. Senate President Kyr thanked the Senate Ad Hoc Committee for the hard work and dedication in their efforts to create a respectful workplace on campus.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of UO Diplomas; John Bonine, Professor (Law) & UO Senator

Senate President Kyr invited Senator John Bonine (Law) to present his motion to the Senate body. It was determined that Senator Bonine was not in attendance and Senate President Kyr moved on to the next agenda item.

3.4 Motion (Legislation): Establishment of a Provost Search Process; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) & UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor. He called for a second, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr then read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr told Senator Harbaugh that he could now provide any additional information regarding his motion.

Senator Harbaugh apologized for the length of his motion and stated that the Senate Executive Review Committee (SERC) had begun to develop a policy on establishing a review process for academic administrators. This process was ongoing, and in the mean time, Provost James C. Bean had resigned as Provost effective July 1, 2013. He believed that because of this resignation, there needed to be a process for instituting an Interim Provost that followed a set of reasonable rules. According to Senator Harbaugh, this motion was originally developed by Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology). Senator Harbaugh was under the impression that the administration was supportive of the motion and asked Senate President Kyr to comment further on that impression.

Senate President Kyr replied that the composition of the committee established by the motion was almost identical to the composition that was offered up by the President’s Office. Senate President Kyr re-read section five of the motion and commented that any changes required by the President would be debatable and discussable.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion on the motion.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) proposed that the motion be amended to include tenure-track faculty under the membership portion of the motion. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator John Bonine (Law) was concerned that the addition of tenure-track and tenured might allow for a committee of all tenure-track faculty with no tenured faculty.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Sinclair to repeat his amendment. He replied that the sentence should read “eight shall be tenured or tenure-track faculty.”

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Harinder Kaur Khalsa (Romance Languages) thought it might be a good idea to include two non-tenure track faculty members; an officer of instruction and an officer of research.

Senate President Kyr asked her to hold her amendment until the first amendment had been dealt with and called for further discussion on Senator Sinclair’s amendment. Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) yielded his statement to Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) so that she could present her amendment. Senator Khalsa’s amendment was added to the end of Senator Sinclair’s amendment and included the following language: “two shall be NTTF, one officer of instruction and one officer of research.” Her amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) asked Senator Khalsa if her amendment would change the overall number of committee members, to which she replied that it would. The number of committee members increased from eight to ten.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked for a point of clarification on the correct number of committee members. He then suggested that the word teaching be eliminated and the number of committee members be raised to ten and asked Senator Khalsa if she accepted his friendly amendment, to which she replied that she did.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections to Senator Bonine’s friendly amendment. Senate President Kyr stated Senator Khalsa’s amendment which was: “The PSC (Provost Search Committee) shall consist of ten faculty, including the Senate President or designee, with none holding administrative positions above the department chair level. Eight shall be tenured or tenure-track, and in addition, two shall be NTTF's, an Officer of Instruction and an Officer of Research.” He then called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Karen Estlund (Library) called for a further revision of the amendment to include one librarian and raise the committee membership to eleven. Senate President Kyr asked Senator Khalsa if she would accept Senator Estlund’s friendly amendment, to which she replied that she would. Senate President Kyr asked if there was any objection to the friendly amendment. Seeing none, he called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Bonine (Law) asked if all committee additions could be heard before the motion was amended again. Senate President Kyr accepted this request and asked if there were any further additions to the committee membership. There was one further addition, which was introduced as a separate amendment.

Seeing no further discussion on Senator Khalsa’s amendment, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated he had several constitutional concerns regarding the motion. He commented that the motion was labeled as legislation, and legislation did not recommend or request, it directed. He then commented that if the Senate wanted to suggest, they should make the motion a resolution, and believed that the Senate was on tricky constitutional ground. Senator Sullivan reiterated his previous comment that legislation did not suggest, it directed.

Senator Sullivan then commented on point five of the motion. He believed that point five allowed Senate legislation to be amended outside of the Senate, and stated that this was a dangerous precedent. According to Senator Sullivan, Senate legislation could only be changed on the floor of the Senate. He stated that point five was reasonable, but believed it was constitutionally dangerous. He recommended that the motion be changed to a resolution if the President was going to have the authority to edit the motion outside of the Senate.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Sullivan was proposing an amendment, to which he replied that he was.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) offered a point of clarification and stated that he would be happy to change the motion to a resolution, but if it was changed, he wanted to keep point five, to which Senator Sullivan replied that if the motion was a resolution, point five could remain.

Senate President Kyr asked if there was any objection to Senator Sullivan’s amendment. Seeing none, the amendment passed.

Senator Tracy Bars (OA Senator) yielded her comments to Senator David Landrum (OA Senator). Senator Landrum stated that based on the number of officers of administration (OAs) that fell directly or indirectly in the Provost’s portfolio he requested an additional representative and asked that the number of OAs on the PSC be increased to two.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Landrum was proposing an amendment, to which he replied that he was. His amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr asked him to state his amendment. Senator Landrum’s amendment was as follows: Under item 1 membership, change the wording “one officer of administration” to “two officers of administration.”

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that the officer of Administration category was a broad category, and some positions already on the list might be officers of administration. He used the example of the financial and academic administrator positions also being officers of administration. Deans and tenured faculty were also officers of administration, and because of this, he believed that there was a need for clarification.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Landrum would like to speak to Senator Martinez’s comment, to which he replied both positions that Senator Martinez mentioned were non-voting positions. Senator Martinez acknowledged that fact, and replied that both positions were officers of administration positions, and the Senate needed to be aware of the overlap.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Martinez if he was suggesting a revision to the amendment, to which Senator Martinez replied that he did not know exactly what the revision would be, but he believed there was work to be done on the set of role designees to clarify the number of voices from officers of administration being asked for by the Senate and in which voices those categories counted.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) stated that adding two faculty members to PSC was a small change, but adding one officer of administration to the PSC was a large change.

Senator John Bonine (Law) jokingly stated that a camel was a horse built by a committee. He then commented that all of the clarifications were becoming confusing and recommended that Senate President Kyr find a way to balance out the membership. He recommended voting against the amendment and stated that there were enough people on the PSC to get the job done. The committee was not in charge of selecting the Provost, but provided a recommendation. He then stated that the faculty was the main responsibility of the Provost.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) supported Senator Bonine’s comments and stated that the intent of the motion was to ensure that faculty had a voice in selecting the next Provost. He then stated that OAs had annual contracts and were subjected to much more scrutiny than members of the faculty were, which was concerning.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Harbaugh was withdrawing his motion, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he was not. He was supporting Senator Bonine’s comments and opposing Senator Landrum’s amendment.

Senator Roger Adkins (OA Senator) believed that adding an additional officer of administration was fair due to the fact that there were over twelve hundred OAs on campus. He was not asking to be represented proportionately to the faculty, and of the twelve hundred, eleven hundred were not high ranking administrators. He stated that he agreed with Senator Harbaugh’s sentiment that OAs had annual contracts, but according to Senator Adkins, this made it even more important that OAs had an additional member on the committee.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) commented that the Provost was the chief academic officer of the university, and even though many if not all OAs reported to the Provost, the Provost was the chief academic officer, not the chief administrative officer. He did not support adding an additional OA to the PSC.

Senator Roger Adkins disagreed with Senator Sinclair’s comment, and stated that OAs were also members of the faculty. He commented that he was an academic officer of the university.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the amendment.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) stated that the discussion had come to a point where it seemed as if the Senate was not willing to add an additional OA to the PSC. She stated that every other group had had their amendment for additional members approved, and she spoke in support of adding an additional OA to the PSC.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) asked Senator Landrum if he would be open to a modification of his amendment to include the language as follows: four officers of administration, one dean or associate dean, one officer of administration, one academic administrator, and one financial administrator. Senator Dreiling commented that while this language did not substantively change the motion, he believed it provided a greater sense of clarity to the motion.

Senator John Bonine offered a point of clarification. He asked if Senator Dreiling intended on removing the non-voting label associated with the academic and financial administrators, to which Senator Dreiling replied that he was not proposing that the non-voting label be removed.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Landrum if he accepted Senator Dreiling’s revised language to his amendment, to which he replied that he did not accept the revised language.

Senate President Kyr closed the period of discussion on the amendment and called for a vote to add an additional officer of administration to the PSC. A voice vote was taken and the results were inconclusive. Senate President Kyr called for a hand vote. A hand vote was taken and the amendment was passed with the result of 23 in favor and 14 opposed.

Senator President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Senator John Bonine (Law) called the motion to question to end the debate on the motion. His request was seconded, and Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections to ending the debate. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote. A voice vote was taken and the debate was closed unanimously. He then called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of UO Diplomas; John Bonine, Professor (Law) & UO Senator

Senate President Kyr asked Senator John Bonine (Law) to present his motion to the Senate. Senator Bonine moved his motion to the Senate floor. His motion was seconded, and Senate President Kyr read the motion to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

Senator John Bonine yielded his comments to Barbara Altmann (Vice Provost for Academic Affaris), and then remarked that many people were unaware of the language printed on diplomas. Once that was discovered, the Senate Executive Committee thought that the field of study should be included on the diploma instead of a general label of Master of Arts. Senator Bonine worked with Vice Provost Altmann on the language of diplomas and on the language of the motion.

Vice Provost Altmann stated that Senator Bonine brought to her attention the LLM (Master of Law) degree in environmental resource law. According to Vice Provost Altmann, the great preponderance of students in that degree program were from outside North America, and the value of the diploma needed to be considered in comparison to the value of the transcript. It was important for international students that their diploma stated their specialization of study. Senator Bonine presented several diplomas from schools abroad.

Vice Provost Altmann worked closely with Sue Eveland (the Registrar) and it was determined that changing the language of diplomas was an easy fix. Half of all AAU (American Association of Universities) printed diplomas with a greater specificity of degree language. The university was prepared to move forward with the LLM degree and she stated that a discussion needed to take place on whether or not this was something that other departments were interested in implementing. She believed that all graduate programs should have this higher degree of specificity, but Vice Provost Altmann wanted those who might have differing opinions to have an opportunity to express themselves.

Senator Bonine remarked that there was no set timeline for implementing this process, but his motion was meant to set things in motion. He was very surprised to discover that there was no policy on the language of diplomas at the university.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) stated that he supported Senator Bonine’s motion and wanted to know if this process would be retroactive for university alumni. Senator Bonine stated that in a previous version of the motion, he included a retroactive clause, but he did not feel that that decision needed to be made at that time.

Vice Provost Altmann supported Senator Bonine’s comment and remarked that there was no technical impediment to reissuing an older diploma with updated language.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) stated that the Senate Ad Hoc Committee created by the motion would handle the details regarding the degree process and asked Senate President Kyr if the Senate could end discussion and proceed to a vote.

Senate President Kyr called for final discussion on the motion.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) quoted the first paragraph of the motion, which he disagreed with and stated that the governance of the university lay in the hands of the President and the Professors. He then commented that the relationship was fairly complex and faculty governance pertained to academic matters. Senator Sullivan stated that the second paragraph of the motion was well crafted and the first paragraph was erroneous and should be deleted.

Senate President Kyr asked if he was suggesting an amendment, to which Senator Sullivan replied that he was, and suggested deleting the first paragraph of the motion.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) remarked that WHERE AS statements were outside of the scope of motions and could not be edited on the Senate floor. The only portion of the motion that could be edited came after the words BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED. As such, Senator Sullivan’s amendment was withdrawn.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Senator Bonine how specific each degree would be altered, to which Senator Bonine replied that he was not going to answer that question, as the motion established a committee that would be responsible for handling those issues.

Senator Bonine replied to Senator Sullivan’s comment regarding the UO Charter and quoted Oregon Revised Statute 352.010, which states that “The University is governed by the President and the Professors.” He then commented that the governance language came from the statute, and since it was near and dear to his heart, and predominant in his opinion, he decided to quote it in his motion.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was passed unanimously.

3.5 Motion (Legislation): Senate-Administration Joint Review of the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education (RIGE); Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) & UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor. It was seconded by Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics), and Senate President Kyr read the motion to the Senate body. The motion can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senator Harbaugh commented that his motion stemmed from activity taking place in the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education. A committee was formed by Provost Bean in November to deal with issues that had arisen in that office. That committee issued the RAP Report, which was given to Provost Bean in January and called for further action. According to Senator Harbaugh, no further action had taken place. His motion was acting as a prod to get the administration moving on issues taking place in this office. He assumed that the administration was in favor of his motion and asked Senate President Kyr to explain to the Senate the extent of administrative support for his motion.

Senate President Kyr remarked that the President was in favor of this review because of the issues related to PI’s, among others.

Senator Harbaugh commented that the scope of the review was very broad, and he recommended that the university hire a new Vice President for Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education. Senate President Kyr stated that that recommendation was not in the motion, and the Senate would not be voting on that point.

Senate President called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer Science) commented that Senator Harbaugh had mentioned PI’s and he then commented that not all faculty members had research funding to become a PI. He wanted to know if it made a difference if the specific subset of faculty that were on the committee created by the motion were PI. He believed that PI faculty might have more to say during the review.

Senator Harbaugh agreed that this was a good idea and he hoped that the President and Senate President would appoint mostly PI’s to the committee.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she served on the faculty research award committee, which was an award administered through the Office of Research, Innovation, & Graduate Education, to which all faculty could apply. Because of this, she believed it would be wise if other faculty, not only PI’s served on the committee. PI’s should be well represented, but so should the rest of the faculty.

Professor Edward Kameenui (Education) stated that he served as the chair of the search advisory council appointed in October by the Provost. He read a statement sent to him by President Gottfredson on March 8 at 10:30am. He wanted to make himself available to the Senate advisory committee as a member of the research advisory panel created by the Provost. He then read the statement from President Gottfredson, which can be found below:

“Earlier this year, the Provost appointed a research advisory panel to explore how we can better support the research mission of the University of Oregon. Based on their inquiry, their report makes a number of important recommendations, which we find consistent with our views about the importance of research and creative activity at the university. We intend to pursue these recommendations with the assistance of the vice presidents, deans, and faculty. We also welcome any additional comments on the recommendations of our research support and infrastructure even as we begin these recommendations.”

Professor Kameenui stated that the charge that the Provost gave the RAP panel was to explore the problem space and determine if there was a problem and what its character was. He reiterated Senator Harbaugh’s comment that the motion before the Senate was very broad, and he believed that the work load ahead for the committee created by the motion was enormous, and given scheduling and time constraints, he encouraged the Senate to base its view on the recommendations of the RAP Report and continuing from that point. Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Kameenui for his comments.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that Professor Kammeenui’s comments were consistent with his concerns regarding Senator Harbaugh’s motion. Senator Martinez believed that it would be difficult to appraise the committee membership if the nature of the review was unknown. He was concerned regarding the level of broadness in the wording of the motion.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification and informed the Senate that in the language of the motion, FAC meant Faculty Advisory Council and the Senate Executive Review Committee was the committee established to conduct the review of the Provost.

Senator Martinez asked if these committees would be undertaking the review of the office, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that this motion stemmed from a previous motion of a vote of no confidence in Vice President Kimberly Espy (Vice President for Research and Innovation and Dean of the Graduate School), which was modified intentionally, and removed the vote of no confidence clause in favor of a broad review of the office. Senator Harbaugh stated that a vote for this motion would put the Senate’s trust in President Gottfredson, Senate President Kyr, and the faculty to follow through on this review.

Senator Martinez thought that the tenor of the review was regarding the performance of Vice President Espy and asked Senator Harbaugh why that was not included in the motion. Senator Harbaugh replied that he agreed to change the wording of the motion because he did not think the Senate had the expertise regarding this issue to make an informed decision on a vote of confidence or no confidence. A review seemed like the only alternative to making progress on this issue.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer Science) asked if this motion concerned Vice President Espy or her office.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification and informed the Senate body that the Senate could not perform a personnel review, to which Senator Rejaie asked if this review was different from the review of the Provost, which was discussed at the February Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr replied that the Senate could review an office and could participate in reviews that were confidential only. Senator Harbaugh’s review was an open review of an office. He then called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Edward Kammeenui (Education) asked if it would be helpful if the Search Advisory Panel’s report was made available to the Senate for background and to determine the viability of the motion.

Senator Harbaugh stated that to his knowledge, the report was not available to the public, but should be. He then commented that it should be the starting point for the committees work.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that he would be abstaining on the motion because he did not know what all the issues were regarding the motion. He wished the Senate would not delay on things that could have been brought to their attention prior to the meeting.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) acknowledged the generality of the motion and the questions that had arisen in wake of that awareness. He then commented that clearly there was a subtext present and there was need for investigation, more information, and clarification that could only be obtained by a general inquiry. Senator Dreiling remarked that the Senate did not have the tools necessary to achieve this in terms of votes and he believed the situation called upon the Senate to connect with the point of transparency in their governance roles as faculty members. He then stated that he would be voting in favor of the motion as he believed a review would bring a greater sense of transparency to the university’s system of shared governance.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that given the presentation from Professor Edward Kammeenui (Education) regarding the RAP Report and the fact that it was not available for viewing by the public, he felt that a possible way to go forward would be for the committee’s work to begin with the RAP Report, now that it would be available to the public.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he did not know how the work of the committee would proceed, but he expected that it would operate in good faith. The RAP Report was valuable information and was a fine starting off document for the committee to begin with. He then commented that the motion should not be delayed because the Senate had not seen the RAP Report.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the Senate could have their cake and eat it too! The motion established a committee, which according to Senator Sullivan could be directed by the Senate when new information became available. He recommended passing the motion, and if a need arose for further direction in the future, the Senate could act on that need at a later date.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion. The motion was called to question, and a voice vote was taken. The call to question was passed with one nay vote, and the period of discussion on the motion ended.

Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Senate President Kyr was very pleased with how the meeting went and complimented all in attendance for their respectful dialogue and excellent discussions.  

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

There was no open discussion portion of the Senate meeting.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Summary of Reports and Postings; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr reminded Senators to be alert. Emails were being sent out with reports attached regarding upcoming events in the Senate, which included the Tenth Year Review of University Standing Committees, the three foundational policies for the university (Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, Facilities Use Policy, and Legal Representation Policy), and at least eleven additional motion that had been given notice at previous Senate meetings. In order to balance these many items, there would be timeline restrictions to motion submission. The Reports portion of the Senate meeting would be done online under the Reports portion of the Senate website and sent out through email so that Senators would always have access to Senate reports.

Regarding the UO Police Department, Senate President Kyr stated that he was sending Senators a letter from the UOPD stating that Senators could meet with UOPD representatives to discuss the issue of arming officers at any time. He then asked Senators to send him their questions or concerns via email or phone at any time.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Comparator Study of Senate Agenda Time; Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics), UO Senator

Senate President Kyr announced the notice of motion to the Senate body, and called for any further comments from the Senate floor.

David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) spoke as chair of the Distinguished Service Award Committee and informed the Senate that the committee would be having an awards reception for last years recipient of the Distinguished Service Award immediately following the April 10, 2013 Senate meeting in the Integrated Science Building.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) applauded Senate President Kyr’s efforts in realigning Senate meeting protocols toward greater productivity and efficiency. She hoped that everyone would offer up feedback regarding the new protocols and also acknowledged Vice President Margaret Paris’ (Law) efforts.

Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) stated that the day prior to the Senate meeting, Senate President Kyr had held a discussion with student representatives regarding meeting efficiency, and he encouraged all Senators to attend a portion of an ASUO Senate meeting to bridge the gap that existed between the UO Senate and the ASUO Senate. An ASUO Senate meeting was being held that night at 7PM in the Walnut Room of the Erb Memorial Union.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Steiner for his comments and offered the students a round of applause for the efforts.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the March 13, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:06PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 13, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 February, 2013

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for February 13, 2013 to order at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He welcomed Senators to the February meeting, and mentioned that this meeting was particularly important as the Senate would be holding an election for the office of the Senate Vice Presidency/President-Elect.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, December 5, & January 16 Senate Meetings

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there were any corrections to the November 7, December 5, and January 16 meeting minutes. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote to approve the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then offered a comment of thanks to Christopher Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) for preparing the minutes.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Michael Gottfredson

President Michael Gottfredson (University President) apologized for his absence during the January Senate meeting. He remarked that he continued to be impressed with the universities student scholars as he had had the opportunity to meet and interact with them at a scholar’s banquet. The President commented that he was glad that they were here as they enriched the campus, and he was also extremely grateful to the generous benefactors who made scholarships available to the university.

President Gottfredson was pleased that the university recognized teaching and providing an exceptional educational experience to students. He was informed that the nominations were closed for the Ersted and Herman Teaching Award, but it was not too late to submit nominations for the Williams Award (March 1 was the deadline). If anyone had questions, they should contact David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President), who encouraged everyone to nominate their colleagues for the award.

The President highlighted several faculty accomplishments which included Professor Andrew Marcus’ (Associate Dean of Social Sciences) atlas of Yellow Stone National Park. President Gottfredson commented that the atlas was spectacular and was the recipient of the American Publishers Association PROSE (Professional and Scholarly Excellence) Awards. He stated that this was a great tribute to hard work and a great example of the connectivity between scholarship and teaching/classroom experience.

According to President Gottfredson, another hallmark of the University of Oregon was its student’s commitment to service. The UO climbed to the number eight spot on the Peace Corps top college rankings, which was a jump of two positions. Currently, there were eighty-two UO alumni serving overseas in the Peace Corps, and the university had produced over 1,100 Peace Corps volunteers since the Corps inception.

On Friday, February 8 the Jordan Schnitzner Museum of Art opened a new exhibit entitled “West of Center Art and Counter Culture Experiment in America 1965-1977.” On Saturday, February 9 the Museum of Natural History held “Darwin Days” that included tours and activities in an attempt to draw the Eugene community in to experience all that the UO had to offer.

A study was recently completed regarding the university’s economic impact for the most recent fiscal year. The President recommended that everyone view the study as he believed it was very well done and truly emphasized the astounding economic impact that the university had both locally and throughout the region. With the multiplier effect, the study reported that the economic impact was 2.6 billion dollars. The President commented that there were many ways in which to present these statistics, but when considering money brought into the state from the faculty and staff through teaching, research, and support, along with other fees and visitor contributions throughout the region, that figure came close to half a billion dollars. If the governor’s budget were to come through the legislature, which was around forty-six million dollars, the half billion figure was, according to the President, a pretty good return on investment.

Developmental activity was proceeding on pace. He was extraordinarily grateful for the steadfast support that the institution continued to receive from the entire UO community in spite of great economic uncertainty. The university had yet another strong year of giving from this community and would again surpass the one hundred million dollar mark for the sixth year in a row. Much of the support was through athletic capital projects, but the academic side was also ahead of 2012’s contributions.

At noon today, President Gottfredson participated in a ceremony that congratulated and honored those classified staff employees who had served the university for twenty-five plus years. He was privileged to have spoken and congratulated these colleagues on their contributions. The President stated that no one at the university could do their jobs without the contributions of the classified staff and with the relationships that their contributions had built. The university owed them a great measure of thanks for their accomplishments and for what they have allowed others to do everyday in bringing the university forward over an extended period of time.

The President commented that he continued to be very active in the state legislature, and remarked that this was a critical period for the university with respect to legislative activity. There was also critical federal legislation that was being attended to as the university was still under the threat of sequestration, which could have real consequences for the university. He stated that the university would be prepared should sequestration take place, but it would be much more beneficial to the institution if it was not put into effect.

President Goffredson testified in Salem on the Tuition Equity Bill that had recently been introduced into the legislature. His testimony was in support of the Bill, and commented that all seven presidents of Oregon institutions of higher education were in support of the bill. They had all collectively provided a letter to the legislature to that effect. He had seen the positive effects of an analogous bill during his time as an administrator in California, which he spoke about to the state legislature. In his own view, the President stated that tuition equity was an important aspect of the university’s commitment to enable Oregonian students to have access to higher education, and likened it to President Abraham Lincoln’s signing of the Morrill Land-Grant Act in 1862. Higher education was critical to an individual’s economic and social mobility, and enabling that access was one of the great attributes of public universities. He believed that tuition equity connected very nicely to the historical traditions that animated the UO.

The President was pleased to host Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler on campus a few weeks ago. During his visit, he met with students to discuss the Oregon Opportunity Grant and the Treasurers idea to create a stable funding source for financial aid for lower income Oregonians. President Gottfredson believed that this was a very good idea, but details needed to be worked out. Part of the attraction of the grant was its ability to provide more reliable and stable financing. The Bill was being developed and would soon come before the legislature for a vote.

President Gottfredson commented that Governor Kitzhaber’s budget would continue to be the focus of his administration’s attention. Significant areas of his budget were critical to the university, and as it worked its way through the Ways and Means Committee, the President would learn more about how the balancing measures faired. The Governor also released his G-bond for capital construction projects. One of those projects included UO’s Straub Hall renovation and the Science and Innovation Library project. His administration was working to insure that those projects would come to fruition.

He was also very focused on the UO governance system that was working its way through the legislature. More information on this topic could be found on the President’s website. The UO was working with PSU (Portland State University) who was also seeking an independent governing board. The bill to establish the governing board was moving through the legislature. A companion governance bill had been introduced in the legislature that would restructure the ways in which higher education was run, and his administration was working diligently with respect to that process.

The President commented on several business items being discussed by the Senate. The first was regarding the establishment of an ombuds office. The President decided that he would authorize the creation of an ombuds position at the UO. The ombuds officer would report directly to the President’s Office. The job description was currently being prepared. According to the President, the ombuds officer’s role would be an impartial third party representative who would help faculty, staff, students, and administrators to resolve disputes through informal negotiation and mediation. He commented that it was a good recommendation by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace.

The Executive Review Committee was convened by Senate President Kyr to develop draft policies and procedures regarding comprehensive reviews for senior academic administrators. The President commented that he had met with that committee, and he believed strongly in animating the ideas of the committee. The President stated that these reviews should take place every five years, at a minimum, and needed to have very broad input from members of the faculty among others. He had provided the committee with a plan for academic reviews and was eager to receive the committee’s critiques and comments on this plan, which would be instituted during the fall term.

President Gottfredson then commented on the IAC (Intercollegiate Athletics Committee). He stated that a portion of the IAC’s charge was to consider the academic experience of student athletes, which was a very important responsibility and that committee should be able to carry out their charge. At the January Senate meeting, a motion was passed that made certain student data available to the IAC, which President Gottfredson supported. He then remarked that the Registrar had institutional responsibilities to protect student privacy, and President Gottfredson had asked the Registrar to make that data that was requested by the IAC available in order to for the committee to continue its work. He recommended that the information be expedited and prepared in a timely fashion.

The next topic of discussion was regarding the Substance Abuse Taskforce. The President had been in several discussions regarding substance abuse on campus, and as a result of those conversations, he asked Robin Holmes (Vice President for Student Affairs) to head a Presidential Taskforce on Substance Abuse. The President was interested in hearing input from the faculty and mentioned that the committee had six members, which were appointed by President Gottfredson. The committee had met, and they were taking a substantial look at substance abuse on campus and the surrounding areas. The committee would put forth a set of recommendations that he would explore with the Senate and elsewhere in an effort to better manage issues of substance abuse on campus.

He then discussed the UO Police Department and whether or not they would begin arming police officers on campus. An advisory ground had been put together to discuss this issue and the group was collecting information and holding campus forums and meetings. President Gottfredson urged everyone to provide their viewpoint regarding this issue if they were inclined to do so. Additional forums were planned for February 24, and March 6, and more information could be found on the Around the O website.

President Gottfredson remained extremely optimistic that the governance issues that were working their way through the legislature would move the university forward. The university was not trying to change its mission of being one of the nation’s premiere public universities. As the state had progressively withdrawn financial support to Oregon public universities, different vehicles had been sought out in an effort to maintain their operation. He believed that the governance change would be instrumental in allowing greater flexibility of funding options to better the university.

The President concluded his remarks by recognizing a member of the university community who had recently passed. Becky Von, a long time employee at the UO’s Office of Public Safety passed away at the end of January. A celebration of her life was held last Saturday.

After President Gottfredson concluded his remarks, Senate President Kyr called for questions from the Senate body.

2.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator Nancy Bray (Education) thanked President Gottfredson for his comments regarding tuition equity and for mentioning the great work that was done by Classified Staff employees. She then mentioned that the Classified Staff union was beginning contract negotiations with the administration, and she hoped that he would lend his support to those employees during that time. Senator Bray asked President Gottfredson to comment on the process of union contract negotiations between the faculty union and the administration.

President Gottfredson replied that the administration was in active bargaining and he believed that that bargaining was progressing forward in a measured and delivered way that was helpful and agreeable to the university and its common shared purpose of having competitive compensation in all ways for the faculty.

Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) appreciated President Gottfredson’s sentiment regarding the release of data to the IAC. One of the difficulties that the committee was undergoing involved not receiving an interpretation on FERPA requirements from administrators who were involved in the data request. Senator Waddell asked if the data would be made available, to which President Gottfredson replied that he believed the data should be made available in order for the committee to complete its work, which he commented was very important. He also commented that the Registrar also had a legitimate interest that needed to be balanced regarding student privacy.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that according to his understanding, legitimate educational interest, the legal standard, would include committees and so forth, and there would be no legal problem with the Registrar to provide information to a committee. He then stated that the question would be whether the Registrar or other officials would consider the committee to be untrustworthy; whereas the Registrar’s office could look at certain records that faculty could not.

President Gottfredson commented that he would not suggest that that happen, and was not interested in making a legal interpretation as that was the General Counsel Office’s purview. He stated that the Senate faculty committees should be able to examine data under the protections of student privacy, which was not an irresolvable matter.

Senator Glen Waddell (Economics) asked President Gottfredson if he would be willing to instruct the General Counsel to provide a similar statement regarding obtaining student data, not specifically for the IAC, but for all campus committees who might need access to similar information. President Gottfredson replied that he would be happy to ask the General Counsel to provide a statement, but he did not view that as a barrier. The real issue was balancing institutional interests with those of the committee in such a way that everyone could get their work done.

Senator Waddell then asked if there was a timeline that he could expect the statement to be issued from General Counsel, to which President Gottfredson replied that some data had been made available to the committee, but the method that he had suggested, which was aggregation, was not suitable to some.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) commented that as he understood it, the data released was an aggregate, to which President Gottfredson replied that the data had been released as an aggregate, which was not an unusual method of releasing data. Senator Harbaugh asked if the President was intent on finding another method of releasing the data that prevented the committee from looking at certain information, to which President Gottfredson replied that there was no intent to prevent people from looking at certain data points. He was interested in providing data in a manner that was suitable for people to do their work.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the data that he requested was in a form that conceivable it would have been possible to identify a student with great effort, but that made the data unsuitable for several people. President Gottfredson replied that that issue needed to be mitigated in such a way that would be accommodating to all involved.

Senator Harbaugh wanted to know if the committee would never be given access to the data that was requested, to which President Gottfredson replied no, and the point was to try to make the data available so that people could use it. If one method did not work, he would find one that would as was commonly done at institutions all over the nation.

Professor Christopher Philips (Mathematics) asked if there was a significant increase in substance abuse around campus. President Gottfredson replied that research had shown that there was a problem with substance abuse and the university was over the national standard for substance abuse. There was also interest in the community, and the Eugene City Council had recently passed a resolution on behavior in the community. The taskforce was developed to ask questions and to find out if the university was doing all they could do regarding education, prevention, and intervention for students.

Senate President Kyr called for more questions and seeing none, he thanked President Gottfredson for his time.

2.2 Remarks by Senate President Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr remarked that he had scheduled an additional Senate meeting on April 17, 2013, one week after the regularly scheduled Senate meeting on April 10. The purpose of that meeting was to focus almost entirely on three foundational policies, which were the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, the Facilities Use Policy, and the Legal Representation Policy. The rest of the time would be spent informing the Senate on the progress of the Tenth Year Review of University Standing Committees. Senate President Kyr commented that this was a very important meeting and asked Senators to mark their calendars. He then thanked them for their willingness to attend and participate.

3. NEW BUSINESS I

3.1 Election for Senate President-Elect (Vice President 2012-2013)

Senate President Kyr invited Senator John Bonine (Law), in his capacity as chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, to present his report on the nominations for the office of Senate Vice President. Senator Bonine stated that the Senate Nominating Committee had received two nominations for the office of the Senate Vice President/President Elect. The two candidates were Professor Margaret Paris (Law) and Professor Christopher Phillips (Mathematics). Each candidate was asked to make a statement of their willingness to accept the nomination and to present their vision of what it meant to be the Senate President. This would be followed by a period of discussion where Senators would be given a chance to ask questions from the two candidates. Senator Bonine commented that after considering both candidates, the Senate Nominating Committee recommended that Professor Margaret Paris be elected Vice President/President Elect.

Both candidates had served on the Senate and on the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) in the past, and had also served on various departmental committees within their respective schools. Professor Phillips had also served on the ROTC Committee for several years, and as an alternate on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). Professor Paris had served on approximately twenty university committees, work groups, and taskforces, and both candidates had been at the UO for twenty years. Professor Phillips was also active in academic advising, while Professor Paris had counseled faculty members who had filed grievances and for women who had been victims of sexual assault.

Senator Bonine commented that he personally knew Professor Paris to be a thoughtful and collegial leader in his twenty year association with her, and given the comparative factors, Senator Bonine and the Senate Nominating Committee recommended that Professor Paris be the next Senate President. He then invited the candidates to present their statements.

Professor Phillips addressed the Senate body and accepted the nomination. He stated that if elected, he would serve and if he was not elected, he would happily go back to research. He then commented that he never wanted to use the microphone. Professor Phillips stated that his experience had been mentioned earlier and that he had spent most of his time on the math department’s Hiring Committee, which had gone through approximately eight hundred applications for one tenure track position. He then commented that he did not have a great deal of explicit things to say, and remarked that his vision of the Senate was one of organization. He wanted to keep things going and ensure that things ran smoothly. He stated that policies were to be decided by the Senate and not the Senate President, Vice President, or some small committee.

Professor Phillips commented that he thought he was expected to say things that he was concerned about, but was not sure if his concerns actually mattered. He was concerned with issues regarding transparency and had not followed the details surrounding former President Richard Lariviere’s firing due to being on sabbatical for the year. Another concern of his was the size of the administration versus the size of the faculty. He stated that this was an issue everywhere. Professor Phillips was also concerned with the online courses initiative that was being considered at the UO. He did not know how this initiative would turn out and mentioned that it might turn a substantial part of what the faculty did upside down and should not be ignored. He then commented that the UO needed better spam blocking and mentioned an example of science research publications, which sent out one spam message per week. The UO had recently accepted a mathematics paper that was generated at random by a computer program. He wanted to know why the university could not get the Computer and Information Services to block these instances of spam.

After he concluded his remarks, Senate President Kyr called for questions from the Senate body.

Senator Pedro Garcia Caro (Romance Languages) commented that he was also a member of the Senate Nominating Committee and wanted to know how Professor Phillips envisioned his role as a mediator between the President’s Office, the Provost’s Office, and the Senate.

Professor Phillips replied that he envisioned his primary role as making sure that the Senate operated properly and the Senate would decide what it wanted to do in response to the President and Provost’s offices. He would be happy to report the decisions made by the Senate to those offices.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) wanted to know Professor Phillips’ thoughts/strategies in strengthening participation in the Senate. She commented that there were very few Senators at the meeting. She also asked how he would increase the visibility of the Senate and its various activities across campus.

Professor Phillips replied that he was asked to accept the nomination for Senate Vice President less than forty-eight hours ago and he had not thought very much about Senator Dellabough’s question, but remarked that he was surprised to see how few people there were at the beginning of the meeting. He then commented that he did not have any specific ideas regarding her questions, but attendance seemed to be a problem which would require some work.

Senate President Kyr called for further questions. Seeing none, he thanked Professor Phillips for his statement, and called Professor Margaret Paris (Law) to the Senate floor to present her statement.

Before she could give her statement, Professor Phillips commented that the Senate Vice Presidency had been vacant for most of the academic year and now there were two nominees for the position. He then pointed out that he was trying his best to do his part.

Professor Paris stated that she thought that it was really cool that there were two nominees for the position and thanked Professor Phillips for accepting the nomination. She commented that they both had served on the FPC. She hoped that in the future there would be at least two people running for all positions relating to faculty governance. She then introduced herself to the Senate body and stated that she was a member of the faculty who had been at the UO for just over twenty years. She was called to serve in an administrative capacity in 2001 and served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in her unit and then served as Dean from 2006-2011. Since that time, she had happily returned to the faculty. What gave her the most joy was working with individuals to navigate through institutions. She commented on her work with faculty, staff, and students regarding grievance appeals and student conduct code issues. She then mentioned that in her former career she had been a criminal defense lawyer and always wanted to be the person who was helping someone to face a massive institutional force.

Professor Paris stated that the Senate’s voice needed to have someone at the helm that was going to help others to navigate the waters of shared governance. As someone who delighted in that process, she believed the Senate would benefit from her leadership. She then discussed the work of the Senate under Senate President Kyr’s leadership and where she thought the Senate was today. The first point discussed was regarding the policy that was being developed by the Executive Review Committee to involve the Senate in reviews of academic administrators. She had previously been involved in this process as a committee member and had very much enjoyed working collaboratively with President Gottfredson and other members of the committee in a way that served as a model for what the Senate was capable of doing.

Her second example of the Senate’s momentum involved the work of the Committee on Committees, which was currently engaged in the Ten Year Review of Senate committees. Through this review, the university would have a better understanding of how service was valued at the UO. She hoped the review would streamline the service structure and get people excited about serving the university. She wanted to see this work continue and stated that if elected, she would happily accept the term of service and looked forward to serving the Senate body. She then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Professor Paris addressed Senator Pedro Garcia Caro’s (Romance Languages) question asked earlier of Professor Phillips. She replied that it was vital that the Senate and Senate President dealt with administrators in a very constructive and cooperative way. Although she came from an adversarial background (criminal justice), she did not believe that that was the best way to do business. The progress that the Senate had made was a function of people deciding what their shared goals were and determining a way in which to achieve those shared goals together.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) asked Professor Paris to comment on her views of transparency and how that related to the Senate’s role in accessing information in order to do the work that was required of them. He then asked her to comment on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee’s (IAC) charge, which was currently being reviewed by the Committee on Committees. Senator Harbaugh stated that the current charge was very broad, which he believed was appropriate.

Professor Paris commented that the work that had been done to increase transparency was very important, and stated that the university needed to have a clear policy and process on providing public records quickly. She also remarked that the university should not be put into a position where it would not be able to carry out its public records requests. With respect to Senator Harbaugh’s question regarding the IAC charge, Professor Paris replied that she was not familiar with the charge, but the Senate’s purview was focused on academic matters.

Seeing no further questions, Professor Paris thanked the Senate for their time.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that each member of the Committee on Committees was responsible for three or four committees in the Tenth Year Review process. The IAC was not one of Professor Paris’ committees.

After both nominees had concluded their remarks, their names were placed on the overhead screen and Senate President Kyr called for any further nominations from the Senate floor. Seeing none, Senate President Kyr called for a vote, and the voting ballots were distributed by members of the Senate Nominating Committee. Senators were instructed to write the name of their nominee on the ballot, fold the ballot in half, and then submit their ballots to the Senate Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian was responsible for counting the ballots and informing the Senate President of the winner. Senate President Kyr reminded those at the meeting that only Senators were allowed to vote in the election.

While the ballots were being distributed, Senate President Kyr asked if there were any Senators who had not signed in. All had signed in.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked if Senate President Kyr was going to cast his vote, to which he replied that the Senate President only voted in the event of a tie.

After all ballots had been submitted, Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) counted the votes and reported the winner to Senate President Kyr who announced that Professor Margaret Paris was the newly elected Senate Vice President/President-Elect.

Senate President Kyr asked if Senate Vice President Paris would like to make any remarks, to which she offered a word of thanks to the Senate Nominating Committee and commented that she looked forward to working with the Senate for the remainder of the year and the year to come.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked for the vote count to be stated before the Senate body, to which Senate President Kyr replied that that was not a customary practice. Senator Lin stated that there had been election disputes in the past and again asked for the results to be stated. Senate President Kyr replied that the election was not close enough to warrant reading the results aloud and that he would not do that. Senator Lin again requested that the results be read aloud, and he wanted to know how many votes had been cast and if the quorum requirement had been met. Senate President Kyr replied that the quorum had been met with twenty-seven votes. He then informed the Senate that if Senators wanted to know the exact results of the voting, they should make a motion asking for the vote tally to be released.

Senator Lin then commented that the results had been released in the past. Senate President Kyr replied that he would be happy to make a ruling on that statement after Senator Lin’s comment had been substantiated.

After consulting Robert’s Rules of Order, Senate Parliamentarian Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) quoted “if the votes on an election were counted, the chair should first give the count before pronouncing the prevailing side.” Senate President Kyr then announced the vote count, which was four votes for Professor Christopher Phillips and twenty-three votes for Professor Margaret Paris.

Senator Taylor Allison (student Senator) asked Senate President Kyr what the quorum requirement was for the UO Senate, to which he replied it was half the membership plus one, which amounted to a requirement of twenty-six.

Senate President Kyr asked for any further questions before proceeding to the Reports portion of the meeting. Seeing none, he welcomed the representatives from the UO Police Department to the Senate floor.

4. REPORTS I

4.1 “Possible Police Arming”; UO Police Department

The female UO Police Department (UOPD) representative thanked the Senate for allowing them to return to the Senate with answers to questions that were asked at the December meeting. Discussions were currently taking place regarding arming police officers. She stated that the officers were limited in the services that they could provide because they were currently not armed. One of those services was response to critical service scenarios. In the event of an active shooter or armed and dangerous person on campus, the police officers were currently not equipped to respond to that type of incident. According to the female representative, other armed forces (Eugene Police Department) would have to be brought in to respond to that type of scenario. By arming UO police officers, the response time would be shorter than having to bring in an outside law enforcement officer.

She then mentioned that if a domestic violence case arose at Spenser View Apartments, the UOPD could not respond and would have to seek help elsewhere. The UOPD did not perform traffic stops on campus because of the safety risk to unarmed officers. She then commented that there was a traffic problem on campus with so many pedestrians and bicycling students, faculty, and staff. If the UOPD was armed, they could make traffic stops and educate the community on safe driving practices.

For prisoner transfers, the UOPD relied on the Eugene Police Department to take people to jail. This was a know fact by people who were arrested on campus, eighty-eight percent of which were non students. She believed that these people viewed the UO campus as a place of opportunity to commit criminal acts.

The UOPD wanted to conduct criminal investigations, but they could not go off campus to contact suspects, conduct interviews, and possibly complete a case because they were not armed. This was particularly difficult when it came to instances of sexual assault. The UOPD wanted to be as sensitive as possible with the victims of these crimes, but each investigation had to be passed on to the Eugene Police Department, which further traumatized victims who were asked to recount their incident a second time.

She then proceeded to answer questions that were asked by Senators at the December Senate meeting.

The first question was; I haven’t heard a gun shot on campus. Why do police need firearms on campus?

She replied that it was not violence that determined the need for arming police officers, but was a matter of what police officers were able to do. A full service police department needed to have a range of tools to do the job. Guns were a deterrent and sent a message that the UOPD would be taken more seriously.

Senator John Bonine (Law) was concerned that several items on the agenda would not be attended to, and wondered if the UOPD should give their report at a later date. Senate President Kyr asked the UOPD representatives if they would prefer to give their report at a later date.

Another UOPD representative commented that he was very sensitive to the Senate’s time and there were a number of public events of various sizes, times, and dates that were listed on the handout that had been circulated. He also mentioned that he was willing to meet at any time separately with individuals and/or groups to discuss the questions that were asked of them.

Senate President Kyr asked the UOPD if they would like to continue presenting their report or would they prefer to stop the report and complete it at the March Senate meeting, to which they replied that they would return in March. Senate President Kyr thanked them for their time.

4.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

4.2 Senate Executive Review Committee Report on “Review of Executive Administrators” and “Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators” (US12/13-03 & US12/13-04); Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the Senate Executive Review Committee was comprised of himself, as chair, Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Douglas Blandy (Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs), Margaret Paris (Law), and Julie Newton (student). The committee had met several times and would continue to meet before they submit a final report to the Senate at the March meeting.

The committee was focusing its efforts on the following items:

1. A list of positions to be reviewed

2. Comprehensiveness of Review: Scope and Content
(a) Job Description
(b) Additional Responsibilities
(c) Additional Review Criteria (per position)
(d) Process
(e) Duration
(f) Solicitation of Input
            (i) Survey Vehicle
            (ii) Inside & Outside of the University (as appropriate)

3. Periodicity of Reviews
(a) Annual Review (by supervisor)
(b) Initial Feedback Review (timing?)
(c) Five Year Review (starts at beginning of fifth year)
(d) Catch-Up Reviews

4. Composition of Review Committee
(a) Staffing
(b) Size of Committee
(c) Membership

5. Confidentiality
(a) Legal Constraints
(b) Policy Considerations

6. Outcome & Reporting
(a) To Supervisor
(b) To Employee
(c) To Senate & Campus

7. Timing of the Provost’s Review

Senate President Kyr commented that the President had given him a list based on dates of hire, that the Provost would be reviewed during the upcoming fall term, 2013. He then called for questions from the Senate body.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) stated that as one of three people who worked on Russ Tomlin’s (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) performance review, she would be more than happy to offer her feedback on how that process went. Senate President Kyr replied that a campus-wide survey was going to be sent out to help formulate the review process, and at that time, she would be more than welcome to submit her feedback and experience.

5. NEW BUSINESS II

5.1 Motion (Legislation Reconsidered): Performance Review of Provost James C. Bean; Nathan Tublitz, Professor (Biology)

Before the motion was considered, Senate President Kyr commented that the question had been asked of the Senate Executive Review Committee as to when the Provost was to be reviewed, to which Senate President Kyr had already replied that the Provost would be reviewed during the 2013 fall term. He then commented that the discussion could continue with Professor Tublitz’s motion and asked for questions and comments on the motion.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) commented that he was the maker of the motion and went on to say that the purpose of his motion was to speed up the review process, and was meant to bring faculty, staff, and students into the university decision making process. The Provost was the chief academic officer, and as such he had responsibilities, along with the President for academic decisions. Professor Tublitz stated that the current Provost had never been reviewed or gone through a formal hiring process, and as a result, the faculty was not able to provide adequate feedback. He then commented that tenure track faculty were reviewed every three years, and non-tenure track faculty were reviewed more often. He believed that a bad precedent was being set by not allowing administrators to go through a similar review. As a result of the lack of review, according to Professor Tublitz, a number of decisions had been made on campus which went against what many felt were appropriate decisions. He then listed several examples including the increase in students, the increase in student teacher ratios, the number of classrooms had not increased, and pay for faculty and staff had not kept up with inflation rates.

Professor Tublitz stated that his motion was the result of the lack of communication and consultation with the campus, and was made to bring the Provost’s review about as quickly as possible so that the campus could have input into not only the Provost’s performance, but to the decision making processes at the university. He then stated that the Senate was just informed that the review would not begin until next year, and commented that there was a history at the UO of preventing things from happening by delaying them repeatedly. He believed that it was time for that to stop and asked Senators to vote in favor of his motion.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Tublitz for his comments and called for questions on the motion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that as the maker of the original motion of the evaluation of administrators, he strongly supported Professor Tublitz’s motion for a quick and thorough review of the Provost. He believed that the passing of Professor Tublitz’s motion would strengthen Senator Harbaugh’s motion and would ensure that there was plenty of time to develop a strong policy for evaluating other administrators.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Reza Rejaie (Computer and Information Science) stated that the idea of reviewing an individual made perfect sense and he thought Professor Tublitz’s point was well taken, but he heard earlier that the process for review was still being developed and asked if there was a process in place to review the Provost immediately, to which Senate President Kyr replied that there was no process for evaluation that had been recommended by the Senate Executive Review Committee. The review process was being formulated. Professor Rejaie asked if that process should be solidified before anyone was reviewed, to which Senate President Kyr replied that it would be very good if that happened.

Professor Tublitz agreed that there was no process that the Senate Executive Review Committee had made and put forward, but these reviews had gone on for years. He then commented that there may be a good reason to establish a process for the future, but in the case of the Provost’s review, he believed that it could be carried out immediately.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion. Seeing none, he reiterated that if passed, the review of the Provost would begin immediately instead of taking place during the 2013 fall term.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked if the Provost would be reviewed during the 2014 academic year, to which Senate President Kyr replied no, the Provost was currently scheduled to be reviewed during the 2013 fall term. Senator Lin then asked when the review would be completed if it took place during the fall term, to which Senate President Kyr replied that these types of reviews usually took four to six months. Senator Lin then asked if Professor Tublitz would consider extending the review period to April 30.

Professor Tublitz replied that the purpose of his motion was to have the review take place during the current academic year. He was happy to move the review period forward as long as the review took place during the current academic year. He then brought up the issue that the UO had recently voted to organize, which in his opinion suggested a real chasm between the faculty and administration, and he viewed his motion as an attempt to bring these factions together.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Professor Tublitz to recommend a date of completion for the Provosts review, to which Professor Tublitz replied that the review could be completed by mid June.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved that Professor Tublitz’s motion be amended and that the date of the review completion take place by the last Senate meeting in May. This motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Professor Tubliz if he agreed with Senator Harbaugh’s amendment, to which Professor Tublitz replied that he did.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the President had the power to veto any Senate motion and had a sixty day grace period before reporting back to the Senate to explain his veto. He then mentioned that President Gottfredson had been extremely collaborative and was responding to Senate decisions within a few days of each meeting. He then asked President Gottfredson to comment on the motion if he felt it was appropriate, and Senate President Kyr mentioned that he did not know how long the review of the Provost would take. President Gottfredson replied that he did not care to comment at that time.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) commented that it took several months to carry out Russ Tomlin’s (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) review and if the Senate wanted to perform this review properly it would need a considerable amount of time. She then commented that she did not know how much time it would take, but she was involved in Russ Tomlin’s review for at least three months gathering data.

Senate Vice President Margaret Paris (Law) stated that the Senate Executive Review Committee had discussed a four to six month time period for the review of the Provost, and she was concerned with the time component of Professor Tublitz’s motion. She urged the Senate to consider having the Provost’s review as one of the first reviews to take place under the new policy that was being formulated by the Senate Executive Review Committee.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) again spoke in support of Professor Tublitz’s motion, and stated that two month would be enough time for the review of the Provost.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) was concerned that the May date was too soon and suggested that the review be carried out by the May deadline and reported to the Senate in September.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that conducting a review of the Provost by the end of March was absurd and he supported the amendment which extended the deadline to the final Senate meeting in May. He then requested that the period of discussion come to an end and voting on the amendment commence.

After a brief period of confusion regarding the date of the amendment, Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) confirmed that the dates of the motion would be changed to reflect the following: the date March 31 was changed to April 30 and the April report date was changed to the last Senate meeting in May. This was confirmed and read aloud by Senate President Kyr to the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed with one abstention. He then called for other amendments to the motion.

A Senator called the motion to question, which Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) informed the Senate that this meant they would be voting on whether or not to vote on what was just passed, and there was no period of discussion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion to vote was passed with one nay vote. Senate President Kyr then called for a voice vote on Professor Tublitz’s amended motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with one nay vote.

Senator William Steiner (student Senator) offered a point of information and informed the Senate that calling a motion to question was not appropriate if no one was on the speakers list, as the motion automatically went to a vote. He then commented that this stipulation was in Robert’s Rules of Order. He then repeated that if no called to question, and if no one was on the speaker’s list, the motion went to a vote.

Senate President Kyr asked both Senator Steven Pologe (Music & Dance) and Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) if their motions could be placed on the agenda of the March meeting, to which they both agreed.  

5.2 Motion (Legislation): Senate Review of Teaching Evaluation Process; Steven Pologe, University Senator and Professor (School of Music)

5.3 Motion (Resolution): Information Regarding the UO Affiliated Golf Course; Bob Doppelt, Adjunct Assoc. Professor (PPPM) Presented by Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

6. REPORTS II

6.1 IAC Report on Random Drug Testing OAR; Brian McWhorter, Chair, Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC)

Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance) stated that he had been asked to read his report to the Senate, which was comprised of questions that the IAC had been asked to consider by the Senate. The questions were primarily regarding scholarships and grants and aide relating to student athletes and the implications surrounding these issues.

Due to time constraints, Senate President Kyr asked that Professor McWhorter’s report be placed on the March Senate meeting and commented that he would look into scheduling an additional Senate meeting as there were many important issues at hand.

He then stated that all reports that were to be given at the February meeting would be posted to the Senate website. Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) moved that the meeting be adjourned.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) stated that before the meeting was adjourned, he wanted to make sure that all notices of motion were accepted by the Senate President. Senate President Kyr replied that all notices of motion had been accepted.

6.2 Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace; Emilio Hernandez, Chair

6.3 Data and Documents for IAC & Clarifying FERPA; Brian McWhorter, Chair, IAC

6.4 Study Space Prioritization; Harlan Mechling, ASUO Director of Academic Affairs

6.5 ASUO Report; ASUO President

6.6 UA Senate Liaison Committee; Gordon Sayre, Professor (English)

7. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

7.1 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Marriage Equity; Ben Bowman, ASUO Senator

7.2 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Meaningful Contributions from the Athletics Department to Presidential Scholarships; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

7.3 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Clarifying the Wording of Graduate Degrees; John Bonine (Law), UO Senator

7.4 Notice of Motion (Resolution): Senate Support for the Addition of an Ombuds Office at the UO; Emilio Hernandez (Chair), Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

7.5 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Academic Credit for Military Science Courses; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

7.6 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Term Limits for the Office of the Senate President; Senate Executive Committee

7.7 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Amendment to US12/13-13, UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)

7.8 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Union Negotiations Regarding Academic Freedom; Roxann Prazniak, CHC & University Senator

7.9 Notice of Motion (Legislation): Union Negotiations Regarding Shared Governance; Roxann Prazniak, CHC & University Senator

8. ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr called the February 13, 2013 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:09PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

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

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

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

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

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

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

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

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

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

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

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

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

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Reports

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

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

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

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

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

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

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

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

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

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

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

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

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

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

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

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Reports

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

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

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for April 13, 2011


Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

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

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

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

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from Robert Kyr,

President-elect of the University Senate

Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture

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

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

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

• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--

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

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

• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--

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

• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Reports

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

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

6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. Adjournment

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 25, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 25 May 2011

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the 11 May 2011 Meeting

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. NEW BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for this award.

Shelley Elliott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, when I tell you that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne Westling Award Acceptance Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            A second provision delineates the power of the President:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            That is up to you.

            Thank you.

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

3.5 Remarks by outgoing ASUO President Amelie Rousseau

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

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

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

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

3.6 Remarks by incoming ASUO President Ben Eckstein

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

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

3.7 Remarks by outgoing Senate President Nathan Tublitz

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

N. Tublitz
Senate talk
25 May 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Oregon Mission Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

3.8 Formal Transfer of Senate Presidency

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

3.9 Remarks by Incoming Senate President Robert Kyr

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

Dear Nathan,

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

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

Sincerely,

Richard Lariviere, University President

Robert Kyr, Incoming Senate President

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

Senate President Kyr then spoke the following words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONNECTIVITY—that is, between all of our constituencies;

COMMUNITY-BUILDING

CREATIVITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. OPEN DISCUSSION: None

5. REPORTS: None

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notices of Motion(s)

7. ADJOURNMENT

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 9, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 9 March 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

1.1 Approval of the Minutes.

Minutes of the 9 February 2011 regular meeting of the Senate

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

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

3. NEW BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear President Lariviere,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. REPORTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

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

7. ADJOURNMENT

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 9, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 9 February 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

1.1 Approval of the Minutes.

Minutes of the 12 January 2011 regular meeting of the senate

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. NEW BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Bonine, Senator

Sent 09 Feb 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. REPORTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motions

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

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

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

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

7. ADJOURNMENT

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

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 12, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate 12 January 2011

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

Excused: J Bonine, Y Tan, L Van Dreel

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

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

Senate President Tublitz introduced President Lariviere who took the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. NEW BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marie Vitulli thought that would work.

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

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

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

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

Senate President Tublitz asked for a vote on the motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

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

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

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

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

SB116: OUS agency bill allowing firearms

SB406: Senate Judiciary bill

SB559: Part of University’s New Partnership bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. REPORTS

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

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

There were no announcements or further communications from the floor.

7. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:59pm.

Syndicate content