Senate Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday November 26, 2014 3:00-5:00 pm Ford Alumni Center Room 403
Attendance information is inexact and can be found at the bottom of this page.
President Kyr called the meeting to order at 3:13pm.
Kyr: I’d like to see us step up to the plate and respond to Chuck Lillis’s challenge. If we want to do that, doubling our normal number of meetings is not going to work. We’ll be adding this to the OARs and the strategic planning task force, completion of the 10th year review of standing committees, and our search for a new Senate Executive Coordinator.
President Kyr emphasized the importance of having everybody in the room and speaking, as well as the importance of the Board’s involvement.
Working with the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC)
Kyr: We’re in a good place, but that place demands much more work. The OUS system is in its last days. New programs are being determined through the University Senate, the Board of Trustees, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC).
Hubin: We need to make sure that the HECC doesn’t become another OUS. It’s supposed to look for unnecessary duplication and focus more on statewide issues.
Kyr: At the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), we’re trying to nurture that relationship with the HECC. It is not their job to control new programs. They are more interested in resource development and distribution. They’re trying to figure out how each school can achieve its mission statement and how to make the finances flow to reach those goals.
Academic Standards and the Potential GTFF Strike
Kyr: On the academic standards motion, which ultimately passed, I’ve heard a mixed response. Some loved the open discussion and the way things ran. Others were concerned about the tone of the meeting and thought it was too critical and negative. I want to ask you what you thought of it.
Kyr: The GTFF strike is scheduled for Dec. 2nd. President Coltrane is very open to meeting with people. Do you think this could be a Senate-hosted discussion? A forum of some kind? Or is it necessary at all?
John Bonine: I don’t understand the fragile nature of people who don’t want to see anger come up in a meeting. They would probably say don’t do it.
Kyr: People might need more time to talk about these things. For many people, a serious line was crossed here. We need to have more communication about what we expect of the academic standards of this institution.
Richard Margerum: I don’t mind debate. I like a strong debate. There is often a fine line separating people from the problem and that line was crossed when people were confronted.
Several senators offered opinions about the Senate meeting, dealing with emergency situations like a strike, the university’s use of outside consultants, and whether or not to hold a campus forum.
Bill Harbaugh: This came to a head at the Senate because the administration tried to act through a confidential memo. People were angry. It’s good they got that off their chest. This shows the lack of an honest relationship between the administration and the Senate. We should direct those involved Senate committees to do the work needed to fix this.
Margerum: If we don't respond, we’ll just be the place that things go to get debated and then die.
Kyr: Should we wait for the president’s response? Or should we make our own statement first? How should we go forward?
Paul Simonds: You can’t always tell when there is going to be an outburst, but you do have the authority to shut that person down when they are going to be off topic or being distracting.
Randy Sullivan: There is a problem in how governance flows between the administration and the Senate. The administration develops a policy all the way and then tries to run it through the Senate. That sets things up for conflict. The president needs to be able to interact with the Senate at all levels, including with the committees. It has to be porous and trusting. If that had happened in this case, we would not have seen what we did.
Jennifer Freyd: I want to respond to the question you initially put out there about whether the conversation should have been shut down. I was shocked to hear that people thought it was too angry. My impression was that the discussion revealed a strong need to talk about the strike. The room was full of stake holders. Everyone is affected by what is happening - deeply affected. It goes right to the core of what they are doing. We are struggling with our ethical responsibilities. Once it was revealed that there was a need to talk about this, I think it would have been detrimental to shut that down.
It is demoralizing and disturbing when we just get a message from on high dictating what we need to do.
There is an important difference between discussing substance and discussing people. We could be doing more to articulate that and set standards.
Bonine: As president, maybe you can mandate that no one mention anyone else by name. there should be no personal attacks. Did we have any personal attacks? I didn’t see any, but some people thought there were.
Mandy Chong: Are you still looking for input on whether or not to respond?
Bonine: I believe in our power, but I also believe in respecting others’ power. How about saying, “We respectfully recommend…”?
Hubin: I would say that the constitution calls for a response. These are my thoughts about the dynamics of the situation.It will be particularly troublesome if the president doesn’t respond.
Bonine: “If the Senate were to try to avoid the pain that this strike may cause….” That almost seems like taking sides.
Mandy: I think this speaks for whether we want to have our students and their education be our first priority or have the strike be.
This strike is emotional and it’s going to be that way, but you have to take it out of that context and come up with a plan.
Rob: Thanks. This has been helpful. Please look at the remaining agenda and give feedback.
Bonine: What is the ombuds standard? I’m concerned that not having full confidentiality could lead to disclosure in the case of rape. The ombuds website and office will have to have notices about confidentiality. If this remains the policy, the ombuds will have to alert people that “If you tell me anything and it is an emergency, I may have to tell it anyway”.
Kyr: Whatever the final language, it has to be understandable.
Bonine: It’s important that we maintain the International Ombuds standard.
Kyr: Let the sponsors of the motion hear this and see what they think.
Senate Process and Scheduling
Kyr: Back on task. Is there any legislation/resolution that should not be on here or should be moved?
Bonine: We need to keep legislation before resolutions. I know the fossil fuels people have been patient, but we have kept Student Conduct Code changes waiting awhile.
After some discussion, there is a straw vote over the order of the agenda. There are 7 votes for putting legislation before resolutions and 2 for maintaining the proposed order.
Freyd: Given that the senate only meets 2-4 hours in a month, is there a reason why we don’t do electronic voting on these things? We could even set a very high bar, like it has to have 80% to pass, otherwise it needs to be discussed.
Bonine: Maybe on resolutions we could vote electronically, if the resolution had been online for a while, or if it has been on the agenda but we didn’t get for it…
Kyr: Moving on…. Does the body approve of scheduling eight Senate meetings during Winter Term? We need to focus our efforts on actual legislation - action items. We should front load more meetings and then have the option of taking meetings off the schedule in the spring.
After discussion, the Senate Exec approves this plan. There will be eight Senate meetings in the winter. For every two Senate meetings, there will be one Senate Exe meeting, three of which are already scheduled.
Responding to Board Chair Lillis
Kyr: On which of his ten points do you think that the Senate can be especially helpful? Or any points that he missed?
Margerum: Number 6 – the university’s endowment. The money’s not coming from the state. We can’t increase the tuition. A lot of these things are at that top Board level.
Sullivan: Actually, I think we need to be in on that. When the donor doesn’t designate where their funds are going - academic or athletic, it usually goes athletic. We should be putting together packages with faculty who are on the Senate. We can’t be hitting up the same people every time. We have to look to some non-traditional donors. There’s lots of room for collaboration on that.
Miriam Deutsch: That ties into Number 4 directly - misunderstanding of research. When students participate in research - at all levels, what is the impact of that research on the student’s earning ability? Doing it from Day One drastically affects their path. We need to educate everyone about this - donors, the community, and Ducks fans. We need to find the right hooks. They have to be rooted in what we do here, which is research. If we can overcome Number 4, that helps the other pieces fall together.
Kyr: Without an understanding of our research, what are donors going to do? They are going to give their money to something they understand.
Freyd: Number 4. Every time I hear the word “brand” for academics, I cringe. It seems like superficial advertising and marketing. Maybe what we could be doing is educating the world and community and Oregon about what we do. I’m struck by the fact that we only have one science writer to do the press releases. He’s always overworked. We need more people to write stories that have truth to them. We have 90 PR people and 1 science writer!
Deutsch: I agree. What matters is where you put your resources and efforts.
Bonine: That’s why all the money is going to athletics. That’s what’s out there! If our research were in the news and out there that would avert some of the problems!
Harbaugh: We can suggest that the university reallocate some of its resources toward writing about research.
Kyr: I think Chuck Lillis wants us to be ambassadors for the university and carry this message out to the state. How would we do that?
Sullivan: Number 7. We’ve lost four presidents since I’ve been here. I don’t recall their leaving being based on the faculty. He never actually said that.
Freyd: Messaging about our identity is driving the ‘best and brightest’ away.
Meeting adjourned at 5:07 pm.
Attendance(13 are noted as attending, but only 10 are named and two of those are guests.):
Senate Executive Committee Meeting Monday December 8, 2014 5:00-7:00 pm Frohnmayer Music Room 178
Attendance information is inexact and can be found at the bottom of this page.
Senate President Kyr called the meeting to order at 5:12
President Kyr started by asking the Senate Exec to respond to the motion.
John Bonine: The resolution has been drawn without any consultation with leaders of the university and the Senate. The resolution is bypassing even the trustees’ executive committee. It proposes to bypass the Policy on Policies. The resolution has nothing regarding the Senate in it. It promises that the Senate will be there, but it will mean nothing. I’m quite upset to see what has come up at the last minute. There is a lack of process or transparency here.
Kyr: The University has 864 policies that need to be realigned. We insisted that the Senate needed to be written into this jurisdiction. The Senate was never mentioned and the flow chart did not align with university standards. The professors are entitled by the constitution to have jurisdiction in these policies.
Policies are always run by the University Senate according to the Policy on Policies that also has a flowchart that details that involvement. We should be a faculty in unity with the administration, devoted to shared governance with shared constituencies working together.
We asked in public settings multiple times that we be included in this flowchart and even specified where.
Bonine: The problem is that this legislation went directly to the Board of Trustees. Suddenly it was very concrete. We could have discussed it if it had gone through the proper motions. On the bright side, I think this is fixable. What we need to do is to take this off of the Board agenda and deal with it in March, so we can develop a constituency. Right now there is a lack of trust and we need the time to fix that. There was a frustrating lack of consultation here.
Jennifer Freyd: What worries me right now is that there is a fundamental lack of understanding about what makes a great university. I learned about this on Friday - found out about it through the grapevine. I spent the weekend trying to figure out what to do with the understanding that there are six days to fix it. This is not how the university should function. We are operating like the military. There is a chain of command and we get directives. Great universities push from the ground up. I don’t know why we do this. I don’t only worry that we’ll loose accreditation. I worry that we’ll lose faculty and graduate students. We are imploding. Let’s not do this. Let academics come from the faculty. It’s how every great university works and it’s how we should work.
Randy Sullivan: I agree with John and Jennifer. In addition, I am concerned that while Coltrane’s letter specifies that we need to do this temporarily, the Board motion does not specify that this is a temporary measure. Let’s sit down and come up with a temporary expedited procedure. If we have to cut some corners to get this policy through quickly, fine, but let’s make sure we include something that brings it back for further review.
Michael --------: If we look at the immediate problems that the university faces with this policy and the Board’s resolution, these are problems that can be fixed without trampling on shared governance. It can even restore trust by using shared governance. I need the value of shared governance to be in there if I am going to be committed to the committee. If I don’t have that reassurance that it was grounded in this governance, the whole thing is moot. This resolution repeals the policies Rob has already mentioned. It destroys the linchpin between the faculty and the university constituency - and the Senate and the UO president. If you snap that without replacing or revising them, we are facing a major problem. It destroys trust. Tonight we need a commitment to move forward. Seriously. The Board can move forward in March. We can facilitate moving forward.
Carla McNelly: This is really difficult for me. In 2001, classified staff joined the senate to make it truly shared governance. It took us 8 years to get voting rights on the senate. We are committed to this. It would be a shame to see this go away.
Marc Alfano, Assistant Professor in Philosophy: The idea of having this promise to the Senate of shared governance be unwritten is fatuous. An unwritten comment is not worth anything.
Jon LaRochelle, Bargaining for the GTFF: We’re 100% committed to helping the Senate maintain shared governance.
Colin Koopman, Assistant Professor for Philosophy: I want to pick up on Jennifer’s statement on shared interest. None of us pursued these career paths for the sake of money. We know we are good at what we do, but we are here because we care about what we do and we are drawn to university culture. We can contribute to our field and the education system here. If the university, if the Board takes this step, we are not going to be in a good position to attract top talent. If those PhD’s come here and learn within a few years that we used to have shared governance, but not anymore, that in effect, “You can do your work here, but your voice doesn’t count”, then they are going to leave here fast. The Senate is the one place where they can collaborate openly with the administration. The top talent is going to slip away if this happens.
David Espinoza: How is this fixable? It’s been mentioned, but how?
Bonine: The president can contact the Board and ask them to take it off the agenda. Ultimately it is probably up to Chuck Lillis. We need to make sure that the Senate is involved early on the flow chart.
Kyr: But there is a question. What’s wrong with the constitution? Why can’t we follow through with the document that already exists? It’s been unanimously ratified. Why are we playing around with it?
John Davidson: I appreciate being a part of a public university. For me, the university serves several purposes, such as training people to be whole human beings and training people to be participants in a democratic republic.
Richard Margerum: We probably don’t care about 700 of those policies. We can pass them along pretty quickly. There’s no reason to fear that things are going to be held up by the Senate.
Kyr: What is wrong with the Policy on Policies? It is working perfectly fine.
Dianne Dugaw: I’ve been here 25 years and been on the senate three times. I remember 2011 and working out those lengthy policies we are talking about. The current Board has not even been in place for a year. It doesn’t make sense for them to undo this in just 6 months. The Board does not understand how complicated and legal some of these issues are. I want to encourage the new Board to go a little more slowly with more consultation.
Michael _____: One more thing. We need to acknowledge what is going on in relationship to the GTFF struggle. The erosion of trust they are experiencing does not come from nothing. This has got to change course. I hope things move in a new direction.
Scott Coltrane: We’re in quite a situation. There are a couple of large forces moving. The new Board is certainly one of them. We’re in a broken place. Things are not going well. The new Board is trying to figure this out. We do have a new unionized environment. And this is different than other environments. We’re learning how to do these things. And there is new leadership. Quite a revolving door. It is difficult and is about a combination of things, including scarce resources.
Anyways, I don’t attribute evil intent to the Board. There was a lack of info and clarity. They have their own ideas of how to move forward and they only move once a quarter. I think their intent was to delegate authority to the president in the same way they did in the spring. It’s been rocky, but I don’t think their intent was to take away rights and undermine the constitution. We need to take time to get the language right. They may not have the appreciation for the Senate’s method of debate that we do.
Why is shared governance so important for the university? We need to help the Board understand that. They should not be managing the campus. Daily operations should be given to the campus. They should be finding a president. How can we carve out a handful of policies that the Senate can tackle? They are a bunch of inherited policies and it is going to take awhile to get through. We need to move forward more quickly. I agree with John Bonine that academic matters are the matters of the faculty. The Senate should not be cut out of the flow chart. Only about 8% of the policies are not academic. The Senate has never seen these despite the Policy on Policies. There is a lot that goes on that needs to be integrated. Having the Senate president at that first meeting allows that person to identify what is needed for discussion. Anything academic, go for it! There are some fuzzy parts of these policies. The Board might think it simpler to do things one way.
The flow chart is still in draft form. The flow chart identifies a lead for every single policy and that will be the Senate. Anyways, I don’t think the intent is to undermine the Senate. I will be happy to portray to the president of the Board that there is profound distrust between the two. But I agree that this is fixable.
Micheal Stern: I live in the world of textual interpretation and for a long time we have not dealt with the intent. I don’t care about the intent. What commitment do we have from you that you will keep the constitution that defends shared governance intact?
Coltrane: In this process for reviewing the policies, we will also incorporate sharing governance.
Stern: Couldn’t the administration advocate to keep things the way they are and keep shared governance involved? Is the administration willing to advocate for the continuation of the Senate as is? I’m asking that the resolution be cancelled.
Bonine: It absolutely should be cancelled. It should not say ‘supersedes’. It should encourage shared governance.
Kyr: The president of the university is the president of the faculty. As such, we need you to advocate for the faculty and for the university through the faculty and the constitution that defends us. We need you to do this.
Gordon Sayre, Professor of English and Folklore: The writing of this resolution is sloppy.
Stern: I’ve heard about this “new unionized environment” many times. SEIU, GTFF,… they’ve been around for years. United Academics is the new union. It is not a fair thing to say this “new unionized environment” is responsible, because it isn’t new.
The advisory committee has the expertise to work through these 800+ policies. This process is already in operation. It already flows. What this resolution does do is get rid of that crucial link between faculty having conversations through the Senate and the president. Until we can say that has to go, there won’t be any legitimacy to the process that follows. Superseding the constitution will break down trust in very fundamental ways.
Freyd: How did we get to this point in these few days? Has the Board been educated about the nature of our accreditation? Has it read and understood those rules… the role of faculty in academics? Does the Board have an understanding of what the AAU states?
Tell us how this resolution got created. It’s almost as though you were saying this was something that the Board created.
Bonine: Clearly, this draft has been in Johnson Hall for a few weeks. When we talk about collaborative effort, it is not the Senate failing to cooperate. Why didn’t we know?
Harbaugh: Regarding the “new unionized environment”, I was opposed to it, but I changed my view after the incidents with previous presidents. We have a faculty union as the result of what has happened to us by the Board and administration. I also want to point out that your presidency and Gottfredson’s have done some things to subvert shared governance. You need to take more on yourself to strengthen these policies.
John Ahlen: I worked on the Board’s delegation of authority policy. We worked in a similar way. It appeared on the Board agenda with very short notice to us. We stepped up to the plate. We have high expectations of you and we can’t keep meeting like this. We need you to step up.
Stern: I honor that you are sitting in a hot seat right now. We have some specific suggestions that if they are relayed will help us move forward. An alternative can be set right now. We can come up with a way of proceeding without taking away from established policies.
Angela Wilhelms (University Secretary): There were compliance issues with having 850-ish policies on the books and needing to go through them in an efficient manner. The new proposal for the Policy on Policies is not meant to be inhibiting.
Bonine: But it blatantly negates these policies. It is really quite radical in the language, maybe not in the intent. We need language that respects the role of the faculty.
Kyr: I’d like to call a Senate meeting on Wednesday for more discussion, so we can draft the legislation or resolution as we wish. It is not fair to deny the voice of the Senate at this critical juncture in our university.
Bonine: I would like to have a Senate meeting on Wednesday where the administration and Angela have announced prior to the meeting that the policy has been withdrawn until March. The Senate is not trying to destroy the university.
What resolution would we put forward? We could vote to negate and that would make national news.
Freyd: I do think we should meet on Wednesday. Our accreditation is at risk. I actually think we could lose it if this is not resolved.
Harbaugh: In favor, but worried that we will get language from the Board or from Coltrane that sounds like a compromise and we’ll end up with a very bad deal.
Mandy Chong: I think a meeting would be a good place for all the voices to come together. This is finals week. Getting people to go is not going to be easy. People who do show up will have a statement. The contrary side of me wants to make sure that we pull together specific statements.
Kyr: 1) We need to affirm the role of the UO President as head of the faculty. This has not been affirmed between us and the Board. 2) We need a motion to postpone. 3) We need to affirm or reaffirm the UO Constitution, the Policy on Policies, and set forth positive engagement. These are three important streams of thought that summarize the thoughts of today.
Angela: It is not bypassing the executive committee of the Board. They don’t have the ability to second motions. The understanding is that it would be discussed by the full Board instead of just a subset.
Kyr: Can you tell us who drafted it?
Angela: I was involved as were some Board members, the General Counsel’s office, administration, etc. It was discussed by executive leadership. Other vice presidents and staff were engaged.
Angela: The resolution is to be a new standing policy - a Policy on University Policies.
Freyd: How the hell did we get this resolution? Who wrote it? At a public institution, this should be publically accessible. It feels like people are not being fully accountable. We need to think about this as we discuss on Wednesday.
Kyr: I call the vote on holding a University Senate meeting next Wednesday.
[Voting by show of hands.]
Kyr: The vote carries. The Senate will meet from 3 – 5 pm on Wednesday. We will be in touch about a place. I would like to ask the Senate Exec to make themselves available over the next 48 hours for consultation. If you have suggestions for wording and such, please send them to me.
Ron Bramhall, Undergraduate Council: The Undergraduate Council established an Academic Integrity Task Force as a result of the GTFF strike. This group has met over the past few days. We have met with administrators, Financial Aid, and the Registrar. We are investigating how we might manage final grades and maintain academic integrity. There is no real solution to that situation, except for ending the strike. Given that, we have agreed on some basic principles. 1) Only the true instructor of record will maintain the grades. There is very clear instruction of what that is and what they can or cannot do. 2) No true instructor of record will be disciplined for ailing to report a grade. 3) No faculty member will need to engage in behavior at the behest of the administration that would violate their academic integrity. The true instructors of record maintain their courses and control their integrity.
Instructors have some options. 1) They can give a provisional grade that can and will be changed when proper grades are completed. 2) They can assign a grade based on the student’s work to date, if it is a good representation of their performance. 3) The instructor can avoid grading entirely by assigning an ‘X’ grade. This could have a financial impact for some students. We are providing this information. Instructors will need to make their decision on their own.
Kyr: The will of the Senate could be helpful in stating a clear purpose and function and relationship with the administration in that regard.
Doug Blandy: The task for report confirmed some of the responsibilities. The “X” grade will hurt people, especially low income people. When an X or other grade is being assigned, there has to be some kind of evaluation on why the X occurred.
Barbara Altmann: There are very few people who do this. It is careful and investigative. You must check in with the student and the professors and we have 30 days to do this.
Freyd: How much of it might be offset by having a new grade, “Z”, meaning that the student participated fully but due to circumstances, the instructor could not assign a grade?
Altmann: You would still have to resolve the grade within the 30 days.
Blandy: There are strict federal guidelines for these things.
Altmann: it’s not just one particular grade; it is when all of them are effected
_______: Why not enlist people to help investigate the X grades, instead of having someone try to provide a letter grade for students they have not been grading all year?
Altmann: I really wish that could be the case. We only have three people doing this, because it is such a complicated process. There are federal procedure and it can’t just be a two-day training job. I honestly don’t think it is feasible. I wish it were.
Kyr: I suggest that we look into this further. We can look at other institutions that have faced this situation and see what exemptions have been given or even if they can be given.
AAA Faculty Member: Let’s talk about grading. To call in people who are not involved in the classroom is the first problem I have. When I give a final exam, it is the culmination of the course. For us to have any integrity in our teaching, we need to have a grading system in which the continuity is an intellectual continuity, not just a continuity of grades. Second, the reason why I thought it was a tactic in negotiating the strike is because that is a conflict between the administration and the GTFs that needs to be hashed out. This now shifts the problem to the faculty and the undergraduates. GTFs are legitimately withholding their labor, but this cheats the students by not letting their knowledge coalesce in a final exam. That is a big problem for me. When I have a graduate student I work with as a GTF, it is a mentoring process. It is cultivating and perpetuating the academic standards we live with. We need to deal with this in a way that the students have their education.
Altmann: You are exactly right. Relationships among colleagues are deeply stressed by this situation. Ethical responsibility has to be present on both sides of the negotiations.
AAA Faculty Member: Ten weeks is very short. We need to keep the integrity of what a final exam does. A grade is in a sense accompanied by instruction and commentary.
Freyd: I want to go back to this “Z” grade. I need to be honest with my students. I need an honest grade I can give to my students. We should investigate it further.
Altmann: We will investigate it further.
Bonine: We need to know if it is already possible to give a provisional grade.
Kyr: Thank you.
Adjourned at 7:59pm
Senate Executive Committee Members 2014-2015
Senate Vice President
Immediate Past President
Academic Council Chair
Faculty Senator - PPPM
Faculty Senator - Economics
Faculty Senator - Psychology
OA Council Chair
Theodora Ko Thompson
Classified Staff Senator
Officer of Research Senator
ASUO University Affairs Coordinator
Physics / FAC Chair
Erb Memorial Union
Senate Executive Coordinator
Guests: Frank Stahl, Dave Hubin, Chuck Triplett, Frances Bronet, Scott Coltrane, Angela Wilhelms
Senate Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday November 12, 2014 3:00-5:00 pm Ford Alumni Center Room 403
Attendance information is inexact and can be found at the bottom of this page.
President Kyr called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm.
Approval of minutes: The temp is still working on the last set. We’ll keep that on hold.
Review Agenda for November 19 Senate Meeting
Bill Harbaugh raised the issue of how academic standards were handled during the GTFF strike and the motion on this issue from Gordon Sayre. President Kyr noted that this discussion would require a suspension of the rules.
Randy Sullivan proposed under New Business that the standing committee reports be pushed back, so the Senate could follow the three week rule in its Bylaws. However, he did support holding an election to fill committee vacancies right away.
Student Conduct Code Motions
John Bonine reviewed the four Student Conduct Code motions. He suggested that the Senate listserv be used to send out copies of each of them. Sullivan suggested the creation of a Senate Blackboard account to facilitate discussion among senators. Bonine felt the motions have been posted online for quite a while, which has afforded senators sufficient time to review them. Sullivan suggested that senators with amendments should have to write them down and run them to the front of the room. That way the person will get clear on their wording before the words leave their mouths.
Ombuds Confidentiality Resolution
Bonine asked where things are with the administration’s review of confidentiality in the operation of the Ombuds office. President Kyr said the discussion is ongoing, but he knows they want to present the issue to the Board of Trustees on Dec. 12.
Sullivan and Bonine offered some thoughts on what role the Board of Trustees might legitimately play in dealing with this issue.
President Kyr noted that Carla McNelly is the main contact person on this resolution. He said the resolution is in its final form. It just hasn’t been posted on the Senate website yet. This resolution has the broadest co-sponsorship we’ve seen. There are a bunch of people who do not want to go to the Ombuds Office until it is confidential.
Time Limits on Senate Discussion
After agreement was reached on the order for the agenda, Bonine raised a concern about how long it would take to complete everything. He recommended there be strict time limits set for each item.
President Kyr suggested the following:
1. GTFF – 15 minutes.
2. Standing Committee – 7 minutes
3. 4.7 – 5 minutes
4. Fossil Fuels – 5-7minutes
5. Student Conduct Codes – 10 on each (4.2-4.5)
President Kyr noted that if Chuck Lillis and Scott Coltrane are given 35 minutes to talk about 75 minutes will have elapsed before the student conduct code discussion begins. He suggested that he announce at the beginning of the meeting what the limits are going to be and what the procedure will be to extend them. Paul Simonds recommended putting the limits on the screen, so everyone will know what is going on. He also noted that under Robert’s Rules of Order senators have priority in speaking.
Teri Rowe asked how the time limits could be extended if a visitor feels strongly about something, but doesn’t get a chance to speak. President Kyr assured her that he would make sure this was possible.
Announcement about the LMS Review Project
President Kyr reported that Helen Chu, Director of Academic Technology and head of the LMS Review Project, aka the “Are we going to keep Blackboard or not?” Project, wants to make a public announcement at the Senate meeting about their group’s preliminary recommendation. This will be followed by an announcement through the Provost’s Office to the student body. We don’t have a lot of details at this point. Kyr recommends that this be the first item under New Business.
Standing Committee on Sexual Violence and Survivor Support
SEC members reviewed the motion that would set up the standing committee.
Miriam Deutsch suggested that the term be two years instead of one and that half the committee be elected every year.
Bonine: What about the ASUO? Will they want to do two years?
Beatriz Gutierrez: They should probably stay one year. We already made appointments and sent them to Lisa.
Gutierrez: Can we add another student appointment – someone from OASA, the organization against sexual assault? This would be in addition to the graduate and undergraduate student.
Sullivan: OASA can elect someone to join.
Gutierrez: I don’t think it was ever an ASUO program. It’s always had grad students and faculty involved.
Rowe: We need to add an OA Council representative.
Bonine: I suggest that the ASUO president be entitled to appoint two people. Sexual assault is primarily a student issue. We should have that population better represented.
Kyr: Should the University Senate president be an ex-officio member?
Sullivan: If they want, they can invite the Senate president to be on it.
Open Committee Meetings
Kyr: Let’s go forward with the committees mentioned in the legislation and make their meetings open. We can discuss confidentiality.
Sullivan: The Faculty Advisory Committee is the main bone of contention. Thursday, November 20th is when they will next meet, which is after the next University Senate meeting.
Deutsch: We should have a conversation about this between the Senate leaders and the FAC members with no one else in the room. FAC meets on Mondays from 11 am – 1 pm. We could reserve an hour and a half for this discussion. This would provide maximum input from the committee.
Kyr: Who would get invited? Randy Sullivan is convening this meeting. He and I can bring this up with the FAC to establish the proper channel for this meeting.
There was further discussion about the FAC recognizing the authority of the Senate and the fact that the legislation that was passed included no language about delaying implementation.
Senate President Kyr adjourned the meeting at 5:07 P.M.
3.1 Report from the Academic Council on Academic Integrity: Frances White, Academic Council (Chair, Committee on Courses)
Frances White announced that the Academic Council has nearly completed its report on the various, complex issues that arose from the GTFF strike during Fall Term. She praised the committee for its work and for its nimble response to an emergency situation. President Rob Kyr assured both “old” and “newly-elected” senators that they would receive copies of the report when it was ready. He also committed that any recommendations for dealing with academic issues in emergencies would be presented to the Senate.
3.2 Remarks from Robert Kyr, Outgoing Senate President
President Kyr said we are now at the end of a journey that started in 2011 with the firing of former UO President Richard Lariviere and ready to begin a new journey. He noted that Lariviere’s firing led to numerous major changes - the signing of a new UO Constitution and Policy on Policies, the unionization of the faculty, the creation of an independent governing board, and a university president and provost stepping down.
These changes placed enormous demands on the University Senate. President Kyr displayed a chart of Senate actions since 2001, which showed a very significant increase in meetings and actions passed over the past 2-4 years. He noted that the Senate and its committees now provide 15,800 hours of service to the university each year. President Kyr praised the Senate for stepping up to meet these many challenges and for demonstrating the strength of our shared governance system. He described these challenges as a “gift” that has allowed the university community to “co-create” our own institution along with the administration and Board of Trustees.
President Kyr said the Senate is both a community and a family that constantly strives to achieve the highest good for all and that reaches for truth, understanding, and self-determination. He expects to continue “co-creating” the university of our hopes and dreams alongside of Mike Schill, our new university president. President Kyr said the University Senate is stronger than ever, because it represents the whole university community. He thanked everyone for their service and commitment to creating an exceptional university.
President Kyr announced that there was only one declared candidate for Vice-President and President-elect – Senator William Harbaugh.
Senator Harbaugh noted that his candidate statement is posted on the Senate website. He said he loves the UO, is not leaving, and wants to make the university better. Our academic freedom policy is one of the best around, he said. He acknowledged that he’s been “the elephant in the room” since he started his blog in 2009. He said he has devoted thousands of hours to the blog in an effort to provide valuable information to the UO community. He knows it’s been contentious and that his relations with the administration have been affected. If elected, Senator Harbaugh said he will make changes in the blog that reflect his new role. He has spoken with Mike Schill and many of the university’s trustees. He knows they want a better university and support its academic mission. He said he won’t “pull any punches”, but will work to “mend fences” with the administration.
Senator Harbaugh listed four goals: 1) ensuring that the Senate’s committee system works, 2) having the Senate play a role in the university’s accreditation process, 3) making sure the Senate has a voice in setting the university’s academic budget, and 4) seeing that UO academics enjoys the same kind of success that UO athletics has experienced.
Ballots were distributed and collected. Senators were able to vote Yes or No for William Harbaugh for the office of Vice-President and President-elect. When the ballots were counted later in the meeting, Senator Harbaugh was elected on a 23-7 vote.
President Kyr asked senators to accept a change in the agenda order, so that Item 4.9 could be considered now. This would allow the presenter to leave for another commitment. Agreed.
Presented by: Senator Colin Koopman. Second: Senator Monique Balbuena. Senator Koopman noted that this is an outdated OUS policy. The workgroup is recommending some amendments and adoption as a UO policy. Much more could be added, but they are recommending minimal changes for now and moving forward. The workgroup consulted various people, including the Provost, Library representatives, and Melissa Woo. Senator Koopman read a statement from Melissa Woo expressing support for the workgroup’s recommendation.
Senator Reza Rejaie asked about the cost neutral designation. Senator Koopman explained that there will be no added cost. The UO is already doing the things that cost money and this policy adoption will not cause added expense.
Moved/Seconded/Carried (hereafter M/S/C) – Unanimously. No abstentions.
President Kyr announced that Johnny Earl is this year’s winner of the Classified Leadership Award. President Kyr read the introduction provided by Senator Theodora Ko-Thompson and presented the award.
Johnny Earl thanked many for their help and support, including his previous and present supervisors who were present. He noted that classified employees make a valuable contribution at Oregon’s seven university campuses, but in many cases are being left behind economically.
Earl described his own personal history of growing up in Chicago, finding his way to Oregon, and getting hired at the UO. The people in Eugene made Earl feel welcome, but Campus Operations initially made him feel out of place. Earl got involved in creating the department’s diversity committee and is pleased to report that it has helped turn Campus Operations into a much more welcoming place.
Earl expressed great concern about the large number of workers on Oregon university campuses who make less than $15 an hour. Something is wrong, he said, when so many regular employees qualify for public assistance. It’s not right that some university employees can buy cars outright that cost more than many other employees earn in a year. Things can’t be allowed to continue in this manner. We need a plan, he said, to raise up the wages of the lowest-paid. Earl expressed the hope that he had planted a seed to make this happen.
President Kyr congratulated Earl and noted that he has seen custodians hard at work at 2 – 3 am in the morning keeping the buildings clean. He thanked all classified employees for the work they do.
4.3 UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust: Michael Dreiling, Associate Professor (Sociology)
President Kyr announced that Senator Michael Dreiling is the winner of the Senate’s inaugural Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust. He read the introduction and presented the award.
Senator Dreiling thanked various faculty members and Senate colleagues he has worked with over the years. He specifically thanked his partner Yvonne for setting an example of generosity, kindness, and living with integrity.
Senator Dreiling said the Senate strives to set up life-affirming experiences for everyone on campus, to humanize the place, and ensure that all voices here matter. He noted that a university administration that listens to its Senate will be one that thrives. The University Senate, he said, works in relationship with the University President – in shared governance. Senators want the voices of those they represent to be heard; they are not trying to take power from the administration. The Senate’s goal is to uphold and advance the academic principles of shared governance, to play a positive role, and to be a wise source of counsel.
Senator Dreiling said we all need more humility and courage. We need to hear each other, acknowledge our mistakes, move on, and continue working together. Dreiling said we shouldn’t compromise respect to gain good will, but we do need to be more generous with each other. We need to stand for what we care about, Dreiling said, and honor the humanity of each other.
John Bonine noted that several pieces of legislation recently passed by the Senate are now awaiting review by the University President who has 60 days to respond. Within a couple of weeks, Spring Term will end and within less than 30 days the UO will have a new president. On behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, Bonine proposed that the Senate put the University President’s response period on hold and start the 60-day timeframe on September 16, 2015 with new President Schill. That will also allow new senators to review the issues involved.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
Bonine also reported on how the UO Board of Trustees’ Academic and Student Affairs Committee had earlier in the day dealt with the Senate’s various policy proposals for the Student Conduct Code. The administration recommended and the Board Committee adopted nearly all of them. The Board agreed to a recommendation from Bonine and ASUO President/Trustee Helena Schlegel that community service and personal journals no longer be considered appropriate sanctions in sexual violence cases. Professor Ibrahim Gassama presented the case for the Senate’s recommendation that the university provide legal counsel for plaintiffs in sexual violence cases when the accused has secured legal counsel. The Board Committee instead adopted the administration’s recommendation that the university will provide free legal counsel to the plaintiff when the accused has secured free legal counsel through the university. University administrators, however, committed to finding the resources to continue providing those services currently provided by the Law School’s domestic violence clinic, so that plaintiffs will have access to representation even when the accused secures legal representation outside of the university.
Presented by: Scott Pratt Second: Senator Monique Balbuena. Andy Berglund reported that the Graduate Council would like to convert the status of the Law School representative on the council from ex officio, non-voting member to permanent, voting member. The Law School Dean has been consulted and is supportive.
Presented by: Maure Smith-Benanti. Second: Senator Regina Psaki. President Kyr reported that the proposed name change involves the use of more appropriate and respectful terminology. This is in keeping with the UO’s ranking as one of the Top Ten most “trans-friendly” universities in the United States.
Presented by: Senator Deborah Healey. Second: Senator Bruce McGough. Senator Healey noted that this is a policy from 1962; it’s obsolete and unnecessary.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
4.10 Passing of the Gavel to the Incoming Senate President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry); Robert Kyr (Music), Outgoing Senate President
President Kyr thanked everyone for their contributions to the University Senate. He said this is a body where everyone needs to work together, where you can’t impose your opinions on others. Incoming President Randy Sullivan thanked Rob for all his work on behalf of shared governance and noted that Rob will continue to be involved in Senate activities. Incoming Vice President Bill Harbaugh presented President Kyr with a gift in recognition of his contributions to the Senate.
Parliamentarian Paul Simonds noted that he was the President when the present Senate was constituted nearly 20 years ago in January 1996. For the past 17 years, he has served as our parliamentarian. The hope at the time was that the reconstituted Senate would be the key to shared governance at the university. Simonds remarked that this year’s Senate was the most productive and relevant he’s ever seen. He presented President Kyr with a bottle of wine from Simonds Vinyard.
Resolution thanking Paul Simonds for 20 years of exemplary service to the University Senate.
Presented by John Bonine. Second: Senator Randy Sullivan.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
Incoming President Randy Sullivan asked for everyone’s help next year. Each person has their own style and he said his will be to delegate work to those willing to help. He wants to see a robust, functioning committee system and said each member of the Senate Executive Committee will have a portfolio of committees to work with. The first Senate meeting in Fall Term will be October 7.
5. Open Discussion: None
6. Reports: None
7. Notice(s) of Motion: None
8. Other Business: None
9. Adjournment: 4:50 pm
10. Reception for Award Winners & the 2014 - 2015 Senate; A Time to Celebrate
University Senate Meeting – June 3, 2015
CAS – Natural Sciences
Lundquist College of Business
School of Music and Dance
Randy Sullivan, Vice-President
Robert Kyr, President
CAS – Social Sciences
Clark Honors College
Other Academic Units
CAS – Humanities
Officers of Administration
Architecture and Allied Arts
Theodora Ko Thompson
College of Education
Career Non-Tenure Track Research
Journalism and Communication
Academic Council Chair
School of Law
Mary Ann Hyatt
Margie Paris, Immediate Past Pres.
Scott Coltrane, President (UO)
Frances Bronet, Provost
Beatriz Gutierrez, ASUO President
Ex Officio: Betina Lynn, Paul Simonds
Guests: Frances White, Frank Stahl, Jette Foss,Maure Smith-Benanti, Cory Brown, Erik Girvan, Ron Bramhall, John Bonine, Kurt Willcox
University Senate Meeting Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:00-5:00 pm 115 Lawrence Hall
NOTE: A video recording of this meeting is available at: http://media.uoregon.edu/channel/archives/9485
Attendance can be found at the bottom of the page.
1. Call to Order: 3:11 pm
2. Approval of Minutes: None to review
3. State of the University:
Senate President Rob Kyr noted that Interim University President Scott Coltrane and Provost Frances Bronet were unable to attend today’s meeting. President Coltrane did provide a statement congratulating those who would be receiving Senate leadership awards and thanking them for their service to the university.
3.1 Restart of the Senate General Election: Senate Executive Coordinator Betina Lynn provided an update on the General Election. The election restarted on May 25 and will continue through June 8. We experienced several technological problems the first time around, but they have all been smoothed out. Please vote and encourage others to do the same.
President Kyr thanked Executive Coordinator Lynn for her tireless efforts to resolve the various problems. He noted that Chuck Triplett, Assistant Vice President for University Initiatives/Collaboration, and Ron Bramhall, Interim Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, had also assisted.
3.2 Call for Nominations for Senate President-elect: President Kyr announced the nomination and election process for Senate Vice President and President-Elect. Nominations should be emailed to Executive Coordinator Lynn by Monday, Jun1 at 5 pm and should include the person’s name, email address, and phone number(s). Candidate statements are due to the Executive Coordinator by 5 pm on Tuesday, June 2 and will be posted on the Senate website. Candidates may also be nominated from the floor at the June 3 Senate meeting. Each nominee will have five minutes to make a statement at the meeting and five minutes to answer questions from senators and visitors. After candidate statements and questions, there will be a further 5 minute period for the audience to ask questions of any candidate.
4. New Business:
4.1 Curriculum Report, Spring Quarter 2015; Committee on Courses, Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee on Courses
Initially, Committee Chair Frances White was not present, so the Senate awards were announced and presented. At that point, Chair White was present and made the Curriculum Report.
Presented by: Frances White. Second: Not needed – committee report. Frances White noted that the majority of the report had been posted on the Senate website two weeks earlier. She then reviewed numerous small changes that the committee had subsequently made, which were included in a supplemental document. President Kyr thanked Chair White and the committee for their hard work.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
4.2 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration: Miriam Bolton, Administrative Director (Dean's Office, College of Arts and Sciences)
President Kyr noted that this award had been created in 2011. The recipient is chosen each year by the Officers of Administration Council to recognize an OA for exemplary service and inspired leadership.
Lisa Raleigh introduced the award recipient. She said Miriam Bolton was being honored for her service to the university and her efforts to raise the profile of the OA Council. Since OAs don’t have union representation, the OA Council is the main way they as a group can pursue common issues. Two of the most important projects Miriam worked on as Chair of the OA Council were compensation and policy reform.
Miriam Bolton said she was honored to receive the award, because it recognizes the value of OA service on Senate and university committees and the importance of shared governance, respect, and leadership. She thanked her OA Council colleagues for the great work they did in bringing key issues to the attention of the university administration and the Board of Trustees, including the creation of the Ombudsperson’s office. Miriam thanked her co-workers and the administration of the College of Arts and Sciences for supporting her efforts. She praised Vice President of Finance and Administration Jamie Moffitt for championing the needs of OAs. She also thanked her husband and children for their support.
Johnny Earl was out of town and so will receive his award at the June 3 Senate meeting.
4.4 UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust: Michael Dreiling, Associate Professor (Sociology)
Michael Dreiling was unable to attend and so will receive his award at the June 3 Senate meeting.
4.5 Wayne Westling Award: Carol Stabile, Professor (School of Journalism and Communication)
President Kyr noted that this award was created in 2001 to honor Wayne Westling who was a law professor at the university from 1979 2001. It’s given by the Committee on Committees to honor a faculty or staff member for inspired leadership and exemplary service to the university.
John Bonine introduced the award recipient. He praised Carol Stabile as a long-time force for good government. He noted her leadership of the Center for the Study of Women in Society from 2008-14 and her focus on gender and sexual violence. Bonine expressed great appreciation for Stabile’s leadership this past year of the Senate’s Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support. He noted that she played a key role in pulling the disparate group together, coordinating the writing and production of the task force report, and doing it all while on sabbatical. Bonine pointed out that Stabile was nominated for the award by a diverse group of 15 people and that she had been selected unanimously by the Committee on Committees.
Carol Stabile thanked everyone involved with the Senate task force. The process was hard, she said, but everyone devoted themselves to it. Stabile felt Wayne Westling would have been proud of the task force’s work. She said the task force taught her about the great work being done in the Student Conduct office and by the victim support staff. Stabile said the task force represented shared governance at its best and called for more dialogue and openness on campus, so we can effectively deal with rape culture.
Presented by: Joe Lowndes. Second: Not needed – committee report. President Kyr reviewed the process for getting new degree programs approved. In this case, there was a faculty vote and a Dean’s review in the College of Education and then a review by the Graduate Council. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to review and approve. President Kyr noted the Program Review Summary that has been included for each of these degree programs and said this will now be a regular feature of the review process.
Joe Lowndes pointed out that these new degree programs have also had thorough external reviews and they enjoy strong support on the Graduate Council. Senator Victoria Mitchell asked why there was no library materials budget for any of these new fields. Lowndes and Kellie Geldreich from the Graduate School noted that these are new, emerging fields without established journals.
Presented by: Randy Sullivan. Second: Not needed – committee report. President Kyr reviewed several elements of the resolution which would put the Senate on record as supporting HR 275, currently pending in Congress, regarding establishing a Presidential Commission to look into the “conduct of intercollegiate athletics”.
Tim Gleason, the UO’s new Faculty Athletic Representative (FAR), said he wasn’t opposed to the motion, but he was concerned that the Senate’s Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) had not researched, met, and formally reviewed it before recommending it to the Senate. Gleason feels the IAC needs to provide due diligence on athletics-related issues before senators are asked to vote on them.
Senator William Harbaugh noted that anyone can bring a resolution before the Senate and that there is no requirement for the IAC to review athletics issues first. He also asserted that the IAC members are well-versed on athletics-related issues and noted that there was no opposition to this motion from committee members. Harbaugh suggested that a high level review will be needed to bring about needed changes in the way the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) operates.
Senator Lisa Raleigh asked about support for HR 275 among other universities and faculty senates. Harbaugh noted that about 30 of the 62 COIA groups around the country had endorsed the legislation and none had opposed it.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
4.10 US14/15-90: Committee to Consider Historical Markers to Acknowledge Diverse History at UO; Jane Cramer (Associate Professor, Political Science), Chair of the Discrimination Policies Workgroup; Alliance for Graduate Student Diversity, Jouapag Lee; Black Student Union; Jennifer Freyd, Professor (Psychology); Carol Stabile, Professor (School of Journalism and Communication); Michael Dreiling, Associate Professor (Sociology)
President Kyr read the resolution which involves establishing a nine-member committee to study and oversee the establishment of new markers on campus
Presented by: Senator Jane Cramer. Second: Senator Regina Psaki. Senator Cramer noted that the focus of this resolution has shifted from changing the names of existing buildings to reviewing current names and those they honor. She said that faculty from History and the Library have been working with the students who originally proposed this resolution. She believes Housing already intends to change the name of one of the residence halls under their control. There were several questions about the composition of the committee, its recommendation process, and the involvement of the Faculty Advisory Council in naming buildings.
M/S/C – Unanimously. No abstentions.
This completed the published agenda for today’s meeting, but since it was about 4:30 pm and the food for the Awards Reception had not been delivered yet, President Kyr entertained a motion to continue the meeting.
Senator Randy Sullivan moved to change the rules and return to the last item of unfinished business from the 5/20/15 Senate meeting. Second: Senator Edward Teague.
Presented by: Senator Deborah Olson. Second: Senator Monique Balbuena. Senator Olson noted that the concerns raised at the 5/20/15 Senate meeting had been addressed. She also indicated that the language proposed by John Bonine – “Hereinafter referred to as ‘academic staff members’” - had been added after the existing list of faculty ranks. The question was called.
M/S/C – 1 Nay. No abstentions.
Senator Colin Koopman asked how this policy will work in conjunction with the United Academics CBA, since the language of the policy differs slightly from that in the CBA. Several senators stated that the CBA language will trump the policy. Senator Dianne Dugaw who wrote the policy language said she tried to make it congruent with the CBA. Senator Koopman suggested indicating in these revised policies that they are subordinate to the CBA, especially since the language in the CBA could change in the future.
Senator Olson then asked generally about the status of all the policies Senate committees are reviewing and revising. Her understanding is that the Senate is preparing each of them for Board of Trustees review and adoption, but that after all the discrete policies have been adopted, there will be an overall review that will produce a coherent new set of policies.
This kicked off a wide-ranging discussion of the policy review and adoption process. President Kyr noted that the immediate effort is essentially to take the many inherited and antiquated policies and bring them into current usage as much as possible. Deb Mailander noted that it will help the new Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) of which she is a member to have more current versions of these policies before they begin their review. Several senators expressed concerns about the interaction of the revised policies and the CBA and how the policies apply to OAs and those faculty not covered by the CBA. Senator Olson noted that the policies that have been reviewed so far are quite simple compared to those still to be considered. Other senators voiced concerns about the sheer volume of policies senators were being asked to review, the limited timeframe available, and the need for thoughtful research and discussion. Senator Mike Strain suggested that the policy review process is iterative and that it will take some time to complete. He compared the current Senate review to scraping the first layer of barnacles off a boat.
5. Open Discussion: None
6. Reports: None
7. Notice(s) of Motion: None
8. Other Business: None
9. Adjournment: 5:05 pm
10. Reception for Award Winners: A Time to Celebrate
Ex Officio: Betina Lynn, Paul Simonds
Guests: Frank Stahl, Sonia Potter, Miriam Bolton, Patrick Chinn, Lexy Wellman, Pauline Miller, Gordon Taylor, Sherri Nelson, Hal Sadofsky, Frances White, Lauralee McIntyre, Kurt Krueger, Carol Stabile, Leonard Unger, Laura Strait, Herlinda Leon, Ron Bramhall, Ken Doxsee, Lisa Freinkel, Deb Mailander, Josh Bolton, Kyle Bolton, Benedict McWhirter, Paula Staight, John Bonine, Dave Hubin, Scott Huette, Ryan McBride,Chuck Triplett, Kurt Willcox
Senate Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday April 29, 2015 3:00-5:00 pm Ford Alumni Center Room 403
Guests: Dave Hubin, Chuck Triplett, Kurt Willcox
Senate President Rob Kyr opened the meeting at 3:11 pm. He noted that the gavel he was using belonged to Parliamentarian Paul Simonds’s father and had been used before to convene the University Senate when it converted from being the Faculty Senate.
Senate President Kyr presented a set of draft agendas and attached documents for the upcoming University Senate meetings scheduled for May 13, 20, and 27.
Information Services Hardware Repair Shop: Robert Bennett, manager of the repair shop, provided a brief history of the repair shop and the current situation. He noted that there had been previous efforts to close it, primarily because it didn’t pay for itself. He said that faculty and students always objected and that each time it had been decided that the service aspects of the repair shop outweighed the loss of revenue.
Bennett reported that the repair shop is currently scheduled to close at the end of May 2015. The arguments being advanced for the closure are that it has been losing about $70,000/year for the past five years, that desktop and laptop computers are being phased out in favor of mobile devices, and that there are several local businesses offering comparable repair options.
Marie Vitulli (Mathematics faculty) noted that the closure will mean that the loss of a valuable resource for the campus community as experienced repair shop staff will be transferred to other positions.
Megan McMillan, a Computer Science student, explained how her two years working in the hardware repair shop had helped her in her course work, because it showed her how the software and hardware work together. The 24 students who are involved in the shop each term will lose this valuable experience.
There was a discussion about several aspects of the proposed closure, including whether the shop’s losses had been accurately calculated, the turnaround time for repairs on campus and in local computer repair shops, and the loaner laptop program available to Law School students.
President Kyr suggested the need for a work group to help the hardware repair shop supporters gather the necessary data and construct a resolution for Senate consideration. Mike Strain offered to help.
Review of May 13 Senate Meeting Agenda: President Kyr reviewed several of the main agenda items, including 4.4, a proposal from John Bonine to amend the bylaws to allow for the election of the Senate president in May of each year.
Teri Rowe: Why should we do this?
Bonine: We shouldn’t be electing the president 18 months before they take office, as we do now, when we designate the vice president as president-elect. Things change. This is a political body. I’ve talked this over with Rob and Randy.
Rowe: By naming a president-elect, doesn’t that person have a chance to learn the position before they assume it? Why change mid-stream?
Bonine: Training is important but not decisive. This is a democratic body.
Rowe: Why not do this in the future, not next month?
Paul Simonds: in the past, we would “confirm” the officers each May.
Frank Stahl: We pay departments for the president-elect’s time. We shouldn’t waste this investment.
Bonine: At this point, this is just notice of a possible motion. If I move forward on it, the text will be out one week before the Senate meeting.
President Kyr reviewed a long list of overflow items from previous meetings that will potentially be heard at the May 13 Senate meeting. This includes curriculum, admissions, discrimination, and student grievances policy work group reports. Strain and Randy Sullivan indicated that some of the workgroups will be ready to report. Bonine suggested that the Senate Exec file a notice of motion today and then add the text next week when the workgroups are ready.
Racist Naming of Buildings and Racist History of UO: Jennifer Freydexplained the background of this proposal, which is coming from students. She’s working with them to try to get their concerns ready for Senate consideration. The most important concern is to get the names of known racists off the buildings named for them.
Dave Hubin noted that the Faculty Advisory Committee recommends building names to the UO President who then decides. Bonine remarked that changing the name of Deady Hall will be a big deal. Rowe asked if there has been any dialogue on this matter with the administration. President Kyr suggested that the Senate should be encouraging the students involved in this effort to do more research about the people the buildings are named after and to coordinate with the administration. He asked if Hubin could assist on this and Hubin readily agreed.
Executive Session: The Senate Executive Committee met in executive session to discuss naming award recipients at about 4:30 pm and returned to public session about 4:40 pm.
Sexual Assault Concerns: Jennifer Freyd expressed concerns about the reputation the UO is creating for itself in Oregon and nationally with the way it is handling various sexual assault matters. She heard many comments after the showing of “The Hunting Ground” yesterday about the UO’s shaming and blaming of victims, particularly by countersuing the victim in the basketball sexual assault case. There seems to be little interest in telling the truth about the way changes were made to Counseling Center confidentiality policies. Counseling Center employees who objected to the disclosure of patient records without consent were retaliated against. The President’s Office has neglected to act on the many recommendations from the Senate’s sexual violence task force. And now they want to hire a Title IX vice president who will make less than the public relations vice president and have to report to the Vice President for Student Life, not the president, despite the recommendation of the Senate task force and guidance from the federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR). She is worried that the UO has more major embarrassment coming.
Bonine seconded her concerns. He reported on recent conversations with Scott Coltrane and Frances Bronet about the vice president position and how it doesn’t appear to be set up in compliance with OCR recommendations. This position deals with everyone on campus, not just students, so it shouldn’t report to the Vice President for Student Life. Bonine is concerned that the administration will claim it has consulted with the Senate, because of informal conversations with him, Rob, and a few others, but these conversations don’t constitute true formal consultation. At the same time, Robin Holmes was opposed to consultation, because she felt the UO President should be out front on this issue.
Randy Sullivan expressed concern about Coltrane’s formation of a new Sexual Assault Advisory Group, since it will bypass the Senate’s Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence. Sullivan said the UO President should be working in consultation with us on next steps, not creating a new committee.
Bill Harbaugh proposed that the Senate Exec sponsor a motion of no confidence in the hiring process and the position of the Vice President for Sexual Assault and Title IX. President Kyr noted that, given the time frame involved, the SEC will need to review and approve the text of such a motion by email.
Rowe asked if there is a possible intermediary step available to the Senate, such as urging the UO President to put the hiring on hold pending direct discussion about our concerns. She feels suspension of action rather than a vote of no confidence would potentially bring about a better result. President Kyr offers to ask Coltrane to meet with the SEC and put the hiring process on hold.
MOTION: Sullivan moves to have President Kyr contact the UO President to propose such a meeting while suspending the hiring process. Mike Strain seconds. M/S/C unanimously.
President Kyr would like to schedule another SEC meeting and will send out a Doodle Poll to members to establish the best time.
Senate Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday April 1, 2015 3:00-5:00 pm Ford Alumni Center Room 403
Attendance information is inexact and can be found at the bottom of this page.
Guests: Dave Hubin,Rebecca Larkin, Chuck Triplett
Senate President Kyr called the meeting to order at 3:18 pm.
Senate President Kyr explained that the meeting was starting a few minutes late because of an Academic Council meeting, which he attended. They are drafting policies dealing with academic continuity and planning at the university. They are also inviting people in who can help create policies for handling various emergency situations involving grading, financial aid, natural disasters, etc. He expects the Academic Council will have something to bring to the Senate regarding these matters by the end of Spring Term.
Senate President Kyr passed out the agenda items for this month and asked for the Senate Executive Committee’s (SEC) help in sorting them into the appropriate individual meeting agendas.
Senate President Kyr indicated that during the April 8th Senate meeting, Interim University President Coltrane would deliver a response to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 5.3 from the March 4th agenda and item 4.4 from the March 11th agenda. The motions relating to athletics (4.5, 4.6, and 4.7) will be postponed for discussion at a later meeting.
Senate President Kyr noted that the motions from previous meetings have been updated online. In particular, the suspension of rules from March 4th was added as S.1.
Senator Freyd expressed concern about a press release from the UO Administration announcing the creation of the new position of Assistant Vice President - Campus Sexual Assault and Title IX Coordinator. She believes the UO Administration has ignored the primary recommendation from the Senate Task Force to prevent sexual assault. The task force recommended that an office be created and empowered to oversee the university’s response to sexual assault. The position described in the recent job announcement, however, does not seem to have this authority, she said, and the listed qualifications are not consistent with a senior level position. She believes the lines of authority are merely being shifted, rather than invested in a new administrative position.
The SEC discussed how to proceed with this issue. Suggestions included setting a meeting with the President’s Review Panel so that the Senate Task Force could explain the conflict; having SEC members address their concerns with Interim University President Coltrane while he is present at the Senate meeting for Q&A; and having the SEC present a motion to the Senate objecting to this action. Senate President Kyr recommended that the SEC schedule a meeting with Interim University President Coltrane prior to the next Senate meeting and address these concerns. This would allow for continuation at the April 8th meeting if necessary.
Senator Freyd and John Bonine both expressed concern that this is just the latest incident of the UO Administration taking actions on their own that ignore recommendations from the University Senate. They questioned whether Interim University President Coltrane was actually aware that the recommendations he was following contradicted the Senate’s proposals and they worried about constantly being in crisis mode as a result.
Senators Mandy Chong, Mike Strain, and Freyd discussed the limited amount of collaboration occurring between the UO Administration and the SEC and the fact that University Senate leaders are routinely having to object to university actions after the fact in the media.
Senate President Kyr suggested that members continue reviewing the list of potential agenda items.
1) Return of Item 4.6 from March 11 meeting—US14/15-27: A Report on UO’s Academic Support for Student-Athletes
2) New Motion re: Gender-Inclusive Bathrooms (Elle Mallon)
3) Legislation: Add/Subtract intercollegiate athletics teams (Harbaugh)
4) Confidential Records Motion – Bonine, Stabile, MacAllister
5) Policy on Faculty, Staff, Student Romantic/Sexual Relationships (MacAllister)
6) Policy on Mandatory/Required/Responsible Reporting (MacAllister)
7) Kellie Geldreich (Grad School):
8) Amendment to the legislation for formation of standing committees
9) Legislative agenda for policy workgroups
10) Amendment to legislation for the formation of the Sexual Violence and Survivor support Standing Committee
11) Faculty Input into Hiring of Executive Administrators (redline)
12) Review of Executive Administrators (redline)
Senate President Kyr suggested that #7 be placed on the April 8th agenda and that the related OUS document be attached. He also indicated that #8 and #10 seem to be resolved and are now unnecessary. He recommended that the documents related to #11 be sent along for review. That would result in items #7, 11, and 12 being considered on April 8th and parts of #9 on April 15th.
The SEC then reviewed #2, the revised gender-inclusive bathroom motion, which would be in addition to the resolution regarding this issue that has already passed the University Senate. Members agreed it would be good to have Elle Mallon, the undergraduate student proposing the resolution, empowered to push the process forward. Senate President Kyr said he would follow up.
Senator Harbaugh noted that #1, which had been tabled on March 11, was an attempt to learn what’s happening with student athlete tutoring services. Since the IAC is not allowed to investigate these issues. It has been revised and is all set to go, he said.
On #3 Senator Harbaugh noted that while the Athletic Director was quoted in a news story as saying that he wants to add two new sports. The IAC has received no information about this. He said the proposed legislation would make it explicit that the Senate gets to decide on the addition/subtraction of student teams.
Senators Chong, Harbaugh, Sullivan, Freyd, Strain, and Parliamentarian Paul Simonds discussed various problems created by the Athletics Department’s refusal to deal with the IAC. Potential solutions included revising the IAC’s charge and disbanding the current IAC and starting over. Senate President Kyr supported the idea of the IAC proposing a new charge for itself.
Bonine suggested that the Senate create a webpage for listing the notices of motion. He also indicated that it would be helpful if the Senate received a written response from the UO President stating which Senate resolutions he agrees with and which he disagrees with, including #1, #2, and #3 on the list of potential agenda items above.
Bonine stated that he favors changing the Senate Bylaws to allow the body to vote for president each year, rather than continuing the current system of considering the vice president to be the president-elect. There are times, he suggested, when continuity is more important than following a pre-established succession plan.
Parliamentarian Simonds noted that when the current arrangements were originally adopted there was a confirming vote before the vice president assumed the office of president. Senator Harbaugh suggested that a working group be set up to consider this issue. Senate President Kyr agreed and appointed an SEC workgroup consisting of Senators Harbaugh, Sullivan, and Ko Thompson and Bonine. Bonine agreed to coordinate the workgroup.
Senate Executive Committee Meeting Wednesday February 4, 2015 3:00-5:00 pm Ford Alumni Center Room 403
Attendance information is inexact and can be found at the bottom of this page.
Guests: Chuck Triplett, Frank Stahl, Lisa Raleigh, Dave Hubin
President Kyr called the meeting to order at 3:15 pm.
Agenda for February 11 Senate Meeting
4.1 - Policy on Policies
Kyr: Our goal is to find common language, a common understanding. We hope to reach agreement with the administration before the policy gets to the Senate for review. Then we can make any necessary changes. Let’s have John Bonine walk us through.
Bonine reviewed the proposed changes. He noted that the policy now includes more references to the Senate and more clearly lays out the Senate’s responsibility for academic policies.
Teri Rowe asked if Section 4.6, which refers to advice from the UO General Counsel, includes a timeline within which a response is required.
Bonine: No. If the policy involved is a senate policy, we will try to work collaboratively. If the 60 day response period runs out and they don’t respond, we still need a Senate vote.
Bonine noted that the dissemination of policies mentioned in Section 4.9 will be to the people listed. This includes a greater variety and diversity of people than was originally proposed. If this isn’t a sufficient change, Bonine urged committee members to write an email to President Kyr saying that you have a problem with this. We would like your feedback.
Bonine expressed concern about Section 4.10 which refers to guidelines from the administration. He said the Senate needs to make sure these remain guidelines otherwise they could end up swallowing up the policies.
Bonine said Section 5 - Academic Policies does a good job of following the UO Constitution. It keeps responsibility where it belongs and directly cites the constitution. It provides direct support for shared governance.
Kyr noted that Scott Coltrane and Frances Bronet helped to draft this language and had reviewed it carefully.
Bonine said the Board of Trustees should not adopt this Policy on Policies. Instead, they should simply approve it. That way they would be acknowledging that we’ve all been working together on this.
Freyd: Can you explain the paragraph on the first page. The last two sentences
Bonine: We didn’t put it in. They did. It is true that the Board has the authority to do whatever, so that sentence recognizes that fact. You don’t really need that paragraph or the one in front of it. It just says, this is how policy making is done.
Freyd: End of the preamble, “The process set forth in this Policy will be the standard procedure for institutional policy-making”. Can we use University instead of Institutional?
[Everyone agreed that would be better]
Bonine: We should strike out the words “Board of Trustees” from the top of the Policy on Policies and just say University of Oregon. We should not have to vote for a policy document that says “Board of Trustees” on it.
4.2 – Resolution to Create and Make Accessible More Gender-Inclusive Restrooms on the University of Oregon Campus
Kyr: The Senate can’t make a motion on what the ASUO is going to do (2.5). They need guidance on the language of this motion, and we should give them that guidance through the SEC instead of the Senate.
Harbaugh: One suggestion, I didn’t get the distinction between a single stall bathroom and a gendered bathroom immediately.
Freyd: If we are going to give statistics, I would feel better if those numbers had references… or if we just took the numbers out.
Committee members offered several suggestions for clarifying/improving the resolution, including making it clear that we are discussing changing the signage on all locking single stall restrooms, so that they are gender inclusive.
Dave Hubin said Section 2.6 doesn’t make much sense. Bonine suggested dropping Section 2.6. Hubin noted that the UO has come a long way on accessibility. In some ways, this proposal is ahead of the curve on the way of doing things. He added that this issue came up 10 years ago and there was a concern then involving Friendly Hall that this approach would discourage women.
Lisa Raleigh noted that the resolution doesn’t call for all bathrooms to be changed, just one in each building.
4.3 (4.4, 4.5) Tenth Year Review
Kyr noted that these resolutions have already been reviewed. There shouldn’t need to be any changes other than minor revisions and wordsmithing.
Kyr noted that we’ll need time at the Senate meeting to go through the gender inclusivity resolution. There are things that some people will not understand, so we will need to give that time, but he felt we could at least get through one of these.
Agenda for February 18 Senate Meeting
Promoting Representation at Senate Meetings
Frank Stahl: As the maker of this motion, I’d prefer that it come to the Senate floor from the SEC. I don’t want to waste time on the floor. Let’s just get it adopted.
Stahl said his first concern is that when we have poor attendance at the Senate, many of our constituencies are not being represented, even though important business is being done.
His second concern is that every time the Senate has about 50% attendance, it is also close to not having a quorum. If that is the case, the Senate cannot make any amendments. If this happens more than twice, the Senate’s credibility will be lost.
Stahl: I want to change some bylaws so that if a senator cannot show up to the meeting, they are authorized to find a substitute representative from their constituency to stand in for them.
Harbaugh: Sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe you can pass on proxy votes, or say that they want to vote the first round, but let the person use good judgment for later votes.
Paul Simonds: Robert’s Rules of Order says there will be no proxies. The whole point of the meeting is for the senators to attend and discuss.
Sullivan: No one person should be able to substitute for more than one senator.
Simonds: The substitute would only be appointed to serve for one meeting. If the real senator needs to miss another meeting, they would need to hire or rehire someone for that meeting.
Sullivan: The Senator involved should have to provide the Senate Executive Coordinator or the Senate President with a written letter of this substitution.
Mandy Chong: How do you feel about a substitute making a motion?
Simonds: Well, any faculty could do that already in any case.
Jennifer Freyd: Do we have to worry about someone continually using a substitute?
Stahl: Our bylaws say that failure of a senator to attend any three consecutive meetings will give the president the right to declare a seat vacant.
Raleigh: We lost a senator last year and her seat went to the person who had the next most votes.
Kyr: This year we had a good turnout for the elections. In 2011, we had 125 answer the call. In 2013, we had 350. The trend is going up. The number of committees has also gone up and so has the work of the Senate. With the increase of the work, I don’t want to dissuade senators from service.
Sullivan: A byproduct might be that we’d get more people involved in governance.
Bonine: This will broaden the number of people who gain experience and knowledge of the workings of the University Senate and will encourage greater participation in shared governance.
Chuck Triplett: The constitution actually says that if a senator is missing two times in one academic term without being excused, the seat becomes vacant. We need to hold the person accountable to at least notifying someone of their absence.
Simonds: Isn’t it two meetings without notification, not just two meetings absent?
Teri Rowe: What is ‘career non-tenure track research faculty’ vs. ‘career non-tenure track teaching faculty’.
Stahl: These are the definitions used in the constitution, so I just stuck with them. ‘Research faculty’ is usually contingent on a grant.
Simonds: ‘Teaching faculty’ can fall into the statutory faculty.
Stahl: Can I take my name off of this if it is coming from the Senate Exec? I’ll just let it come from you.
Kyr: What we are saying now is for every meeting you miss, you should have a substitute and give notification.
Bonine: The substitute has to be in compliance with the Senate Bylaws.
Chong: You have to be ill or on university business technically to be excused.
Kyr: I think this is an important motion. It will signal to people that we are serious about being a representative body.
Ad hoc committee to investigate the role and function of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)
Sullivan: What do we want the FAC to be - closed or open? There have been two completely different versions over the years.
Bonine: If we have a closed FAC, it harms shared governance in this university. You can not have shared governance if there is secret governance that is valued more by the officials.
Kyr: Was it back in October that we asked you to work with the FAC to figure out a way to resolve this question? How did we get to this point?
Sullivan: We had a couple meetings of the working group with a couple members of the FAC there. There are substantial numbers of faculty who have served on the FAC who think it would be impaired if its meetings were open. The UO President has said that he really can’t come to the FAC and speak as frankly as he normally would if its meetings are open.
Bonine: Good. Then he can’t use them as ‘faculty opinion’ and as a crutch.
Sullivan: Others have said that they understand that after deliberation, a decision could go either way. What they want to ensure is that real deliberation happens and they don’t feel this has occurred yet. To what extent should the committee be open or closed? The extent to which it should remain closed depends on its function.
Bonine: I don’t think this makes any difference. Did anyone from the FAC ever say “It’s important to us as FAC members that we do this”? What is the example they gave? If there is no example, it’s all about ego. How would this help decision making?
Sullivan: Well, it’s not necessarily decision making. The president can say, I’m thinking about doing this, what do you think?
Kyr: Section 2.1 is to form an ad hoc committee to look at the role and function of the FAC. Section 2.2 is about asking for advice. Section 2.3. says the committee will report its opinion in May.
Harbaugh: I’m confused as to why it is taking so long to get to this point. Jennifer passed a motion eight months ago. Why are we doing this now?
Sullivan: Everyone has their agendas It’s hard to make time for people to meet. We’ve had to do too many things in haste lately. We shouldn’t be acting so quickly, especially not on this.
Bonine: People already have these opinions. Why can’t they just tell the Senate?
Sullivan: Because motions should be worked out in committee as much as possible before they reach the Senate.
Bonine: But the Senate is the deliberative body and it is going to come to us anyway.
Kyr: Let’s take this discussion offline for the moment and move on. Let’s talk about this more at the next meeting. You three go talk about it.
Straw vote: How many think that taking the legislation is better than going to the Senate? (2), Take it to the Senate? (4) Abstain? (2)
Membership on Senate Policy Workgroups
Raleigh: This workgroup came about because the grievance policies were going to be taken forward to be enforced. Michael Dreiling didn’t realize how many discrepancies there were for Officers of Adminstration or other unrepresented groups. I reached out to Rob Kyr and volunteered to share this.
Motion called for a faculty senator, Gina Psaki, another representative, another OA, another Policy Advisory Council member, and another from the Office of Human Resources.
Personally, I’d like to see an unrepresented faculty member, someone who is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement, serving as a part of this working group. I’m open to suggestions on that.
For an Officer of Administration, I have spoken to David Espinoza. He is great at these kind of policy things. He would be outstanding. It would be great to give someone who is not currently in service the opportunity to serve.
On the Policy Advisory Council, Ceci Lafayette might be an option. I’ll go forward, check things out with these individuals, and come back with a list.
Kyr: We can bring in policy experts. They don’t have to be permanent members, but we want to make sure you always have the support you need.
Summary of Upcoming Meeting Agendas
Kyr: If we look down on the February 18 meeting agenda, we have motions from the policy workgroups. We would like them to convene at least once. We want to get an initial read from each of the workgroups about whether there is anything they can move somewhat quickly.
We can finish up the 10th year review. We’ve got two meetings and then a week off for the Senate. There will be a Senate Executive Committee meeting that week.
Let’s take a look at the points for discussion.
On 1 and 2, Teri and Bill are looking at those together. In my discussions with the UO President and Provost, we would like to form a little group to look at these items and discuss them with the administration. Pres. Gottfredson never signed these two policies.
Number 3 is the Legal Services Policy.
Number 4 is the SBC Budget Report with questions. How did we end up with GTF funding cuts? Why did the Psychology Department find out about this in the middle their recruitment efforts?
Freyd: I’m very distressed about this. “We are killing ourselves.” “This is suicidal.” “If the grapevine gets out, this is going to hurt us, especially after the GTFF strike.”