Minutes

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 11, 2015

Present: Paul Dassonville, Jennifer Freyd, Michael Price, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Bruce Mc Gough, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Laura Leete, Charles Lachman, Marilyn Nippold, Deborah Olson, Debra Merskin, Mary Ann Hyatt, Victoria Mitchell, Edward Teague, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Monique Balbuena, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, Connor Lasken, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain, Robert Kyr


Absent: Miriam Deutsch, Ken Prehoda, Jason Brown, Geraldine Pozat-Newcomb, Donna Shaw, Richard Margerum, Jerry Rosiek, William Iversen, Margie Paris

Excused: Weiyong He, Alexandre Dossin, Ron Lovinger

Note: Due to technical issues, the beginning of the March 11, 2015 meeting was not recorded. Consequently, the minutes begin partway through Senate President Kyr’s opening remarks.

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) announced that the Academic Council had convened earlier in the day, and that it would be looking at the two motions that had been passed by the Senate in December regarding academic integrity. He reported that the meeting had been very positive and that the Council had crafted the basis of an action plan. He stated that the Academic Council would be meeting numerous times during the Spring Term with the objective of having a policy to put before the Senate at the end of the year (probably during the second or third meeting in May).

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2.1       January 28, 2015

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the minutes of the January 28, 2015 meeting. He invited questions and comments related to the minutes. None were put forward, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.   STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that Interim President Coltrane was unable to attend the current meeting and that he had offered to reserve his remarks in order to allow the Senate to move forward with its busy agenda.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

S.1      Motion (Legislation): UO Faculty to Nominate UO Faculty Trustee; William Harbaugh (Professor, Economics), Senator

Senate President Kyr, upon advancing to New Business, acknowledged that a point of order had been raised by Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) proposed a suspension of the rules in order to consider the motion "UO Faculty to Nominate UO Faculty Trustee," which had been submitted prior to the meeting.  

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to quickly look at the motion so that a suspension of the rules could be considered.

Senator Debra Merskin (School of Journalism and Communication) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote to suspend the rules. The vote carried. Senate President Kyr then read Senator Harbaugh's motion and invited him to provide some background.

Senator Harbaugh indicated that the "whereas" clauses covered most of the background, and stated that he would be happy to answer any questions related to them. He made a point of noting that the motion was not intended to be a criticism of the current faculty member on the Board of Trustees, adding that it was simply an attempt to establish a process by which the faculty could have some input into who would be the Faculty Trustee in the future.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. He recognized Senator Dassonville.

Senator Paul Dassonville (Psychology) asked if the language in Section 2.2 ("BE IT FURTHERMORE MOVED that the current trustee, if eligible and willing, shall be automatically nominated") referred to the present trustee, or to all future trustees (who would be “current trustees” at some point).

Senator Harbaugh stated that “current trustee” referred to both the present and future trustees.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Hyatt.

Senator Mary Ann Hyatt (School of Law) asked Senator Harbaugh if he could explain the reasoning behind Section 2.4.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the current trustee would automatically be nominated, and that other people could be nominated or self-nominate. He explained that there would then be an election in which statutory faculty could vote on the nominees, and that the top two vote recipients would be sent to the Governor along with a third nominee voted by the faculty members of the University Senate.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Mitchell.

Senator Victoria Mitchell (UO Libraries) asked Senator Harbaugh if he could explain the reasoning for having both a faculty-wide election and a Senate faculty election.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he was probably not the best person to defend the two-election system, because he was not the person responsible for this suggestion. He added that it was his understanding that when the Board was initially set up, the Governor had asked for three names for a potential faculty member, and that this was one way to come up with three nominees.

Senate President Kyr, for general background, briefly described the process by which the current Faculty Trustee, Susan Gary, had been selected. He explained that Margie Paris (then Senate President) had solicited nominations and subsequently vetted the candidate list in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. He stated that the top three candidates from the list (i.e., those who had received the most votes) were then put forward, and from among them Susan Gary was chosen.

Senator Harbaugh indicated that he was happy to have a general vote for three nominees if that was preferable; he added, however, that he liked that current proposal because it gave the Senate extra input. He noted that the Governor would still be free to choose whomever he or she wanted.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) noted that as it was currently written, the motion did not provide classified employees with a means of voting. He asked if non-statutory faculty were left out of the process intentionally. He also suggested that the motion, which was currently set up to provide three nominations for one seat, would benefit from broader language that would allow the other “at-large” Board seats to also be occupied by faculty members. He stated that multiple faculty members could be put forward with the intention that more than one be chosen for a seat on the Board.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he thought this was a great idea. He agreed that there was nothing that prevented the Governor from deciding to appoint two or three faculty members to the Board.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that in his view, the motion was purely a Senate response to a specific seat that had been set up statutorily for a faculty trustee, and that the consideration of faculty for other seats was part of the larger issue of governance and the role of the governing board. He suggested that the motion was positive because it began to institutionalize a practice whereby the Senate and faculty would be responsible for submitting faculty nominees to the Board for the Faculty Trustee seat rather than through an ad hoc process, as it presently stood He stated that having an institutional process that was clear and representative would be invaluable, and noted that it could later be expanded for conversations about other seats on the Board. He went on to acknowledge the effort that Susan Gary had put forward to develop and institutionalize a process that would complement the one on which the Senate was currently working. He stated that it was his hope that she would continue this effort throughout the remainder of her term.

Senate President Kyr noted that Susan Gary had sent a message to Senator Harbaugh outlining her position and what she had done as the Faculty Representative on the Board, and that this message had been distributed to the ListServ. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Espinoza.

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling & Testing Center) stated that the motion had inspired a conversation amongst the “OA-elects” (the OA Senators, OA Council, and OA representatives on the Faculty Advisory Council), who found it problematic that a single staff trustee position currently existed to represent all of the unique and varied perspectives of the classified staff and OAs. He indicated that it was unclear to OAs how the nomination and selection process would work in the future. He noted that the OAs were looking into ways to create another staff trustee seat that would be designated specifically as an OA seat. He stated that he appreciated the spirit of this motion and supported idea of the different constituencies being able to represent themselves.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Lachman for a point of clarification.

Senator Charles Lachman (Architecture and Allied Arts) asked if the intent of the motion, in calling for a third nomination voted exclusively by Senate members, was to preclude the Senate from supporting one of the other two nominees chosen by the faculty-wide vote.

Senator Harbaugh stated that it was not his intent to preclude the Senate from doing this. He stated that the third nomination could be one of the first two chosen by the faculty-wide vote.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Strain.

Senator Mike Strain (CAMCOR) expressed his support for the motion. He added that he particularly supported the role that it gave the Senate. He stated that as a non tenure-track research faculty member who was excluded from the statutory faculty, giving the Senate a nominee was the only way that he and his ilk could have a voice in the process.  

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Healey.

Senator Deborah Healey (American English Institute) inquired as to why the opportunity to vote on the third nominee would be given exclusively to the faculty members of the Senate rather than the entirety of the Senate. She asked if the Senate was creating a division within itself.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he hoped this was not the case, but added that it seemed that the point of the motion was to have the faculty choose the Faculty Representative.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Hyatt.

Senator Hyatt asked whether the Faculty Representative was supposed to represent the University as a whole—i.e., students, classified staff, OAs, and NTTFs as well as the tenure-stream faculty.

Senator Harbaugh stated that it was his understanding that NTTFs were members of the statutory faculty and would therefore be entitled to vote on this.

Senator Hyatt asked what this meant for everyone else.

Senator Harbaugh stated that this was a good question. He pointed out that when the faculty was sold on the legislation to create an independent Board, they were initially promised two Faculty Representatives, and that this had never come to pass. He surmised that this may have also been the case for other University groups. He stated that he would be wildly enthusiastic about a motion to expand University representation on the Board, adding that it might have to be done through the Governor's Office.

Senator Hyatt moved to strike the word “faculty” from Section 2.4 so that the amended language would read: “BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Senate President will then forward the names of the top two vote getters to the Governor, along with a third nomination voted by the members of the University Senate."

Senator Edward Teague (AAA Libraries) seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion of the amendment. He recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he supported the amendment in light of the previous comments.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) commented that while he understood the idea behind the amendment, he believed it weakened the motion because the Faculty Representative (as the title implied) was meant to represent the faculty. He stated that he did not want to induce any divisiveness in the Senate, but added that there were other ways of addressing the Board representation issue. He reiterated that he believed it would weaken the process to have non-faculty voting for the Faculty Representative, because the elected person would not truly represent the faculty. He stated that he did not support the amendment for this reason.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator Ahlen stated that the non-faculty membership on the Senate was sufficiently small that it would not be possible to approve a nominee without strong faculty support.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Healey.

Senator Healey echoed Senator Ahlen’s comment and asserted that it was preferable to have a nominee who was supported by the whole Senate. She suggested that it would be stronger this way, and added that she hated the idea of having non-faculty barred from voting.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ellis.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) stated that she was going to suggest that the motion would be stronger with the inclusion of the word "faculty,” but decided that she may have changed her mind.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) agreed that the motion would be stronger with the Senate voting as a whole. He asked if there was any precedent for having only a subset of the Senate vote on a particular action.

Senate President Kyr indicated that he had not seen subset voting during his time on the Senate, nor had he seen it during the terms of Former Presidents Paris or Tublitz. He also relayed that Senate Parliamentarian Simonds had not seen it in the 20 years during which he had been observing the Senate.

Senator Price suggested that this was probably not the time to set such a precedent. He added that while one could clearly interpret the "Faculty Trustee" as a faculty member, it was not necessary for the nomination to be made exclusively by faculty. He stated that removing the "faculty" portion of Section 2.4 would make the motion stronger and give it broader appeal.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he had received an email from Professor Bonine (who was watching the live webstream of the meeting from Japan) which read: “I support the amendment.”

Senator Harbaugh called the question on the amendment.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. The amendment carried. Senate President Kyr then returned discussion to the main motion. No discussion followed, and he called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried.

 

S.2      Motion (Resolution): Return Therapy Records and Clarify and Strengthen Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantees for Clients of all Mental Health Clinics at the University; Jennifer Freyd (Professor, Psychology), Senator

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) raised a point of order. She requested that the Senate suspend the rules to consider the motion: “Return Therapy Records and Clarify and Strengthen Privacy and Confidentiality Guarantees for Clients of all Mental Health Clinics at the University.”

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to quickly look over the motion.

Senator Samantha Cohen (Student Senator) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion on the suspension of the rules. None followed, and he called for a vote. The vote to suspend the rules carried. Senate President Kyr then read the motion and asked Senator Freyd to provide some background.

Senator Freyd declined to provide additional background, noting that the “whereas” clauses were fairly extensive. She offered to take questions on the motion, and suggested that it might be an appropriate time to read a statement prepared by Professor Bonine.

Senate President Kyr proceeded to deliver Professor Bonine's statement, which has been reproduced in its entirety below:

Dear Senators,

I regret that I cannot participate in today's important Senate meeting, but I am in Japan at an academic conference. In my view, it is essential to suspend the rules and vote in favor of the motion being offered today creating a process for policy changes regarding confidentiality of student counseling at the University. The motion has gone through intensive drafting and re-drafting. I understand there is broad support in both the Administration and the Senate for creating better, more transparent, more certain policies on access to therapy records. Our students' safety is essential to their education and academic success.

Why must we act? It is essential that students who have been sexually assaulted or otherwise abused have confidence in the facilities that the University of Oregon provides to help them. That confidence must not be misplaced. The only way to guarantee that students have confidence in our clinics and counseling centers is for our clinics and centers to be as protective of student confidences as a private clinic would be. Just as a client of a law school clinic does not lose his or her rights to the confidentiality of attorney-client communications when using a University law clinic rather than a private law firm, the student client of a therapy clinic or center must not lose rights to the confidentiality of therapist-client communications. A student who comes to any of our counseling centers must have exactly the same rights as a person who goes to a private therapist elsewhere in the community.

The University has a responsibility to its assaulted students to help them heal. Gaining or regaining trust is essential to that. This motion will begin a committee process to lead to important policy clarifications and, if needed, changes.

John Bonine, B.B. Kliks Professor of Law  

 

Senate President Kyr asked for questions or comments on the motion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

 

S.3      Motion (Legislation): Timeline for Administration's Response to Recommendations Concerning Sexual Violence; Carol Stabile (Professor, Journalism & Communication), Chair of the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Stabile.

Professor Carol Stabile (Journalism & Communication, Women’s and Gender Studies) reminded Senate President Kyr that she had submitted the motion: "Timeline for Administration's Response to Recommendations Concerning Sexual Violence."

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to look over the motion. He stated that it was essentially requesting a particular timeline for the Administration response and collaboration in various ways.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr then read the motion and invited Professor Stabile to give background.

Professor Stabile noted that the process of submitting recommendations to the Administration had begun in September of 2014, and that the formal recommendations were submitted in November of 2014. She stated that it was now almost the end of Winter Term, and that there was a fear that the Administration was “running the clock out on the recommendations.” She added that she thought the Administration needed to move on the recommendations so that the University would not head into approaching Fall Term unprepared.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried.

 

4.1       Motion (Legislation): Winter Curriculum Report; Frances White (Professor, Anthropology), Chair of the Committee on Courses

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.1: the Winter Curriculum Report. He stated that Professor Frances White would be presenting it. He read the motion.

Professor Frances White (Anthropology) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr invited Professor White to provide background.

Professor White began by noting that a last-minute correction to the report had been made earlier in the day. She explained that the error had involved a prerequisite associated with a German class, which was now listed in its correct form.

She then directed the Senate’s attention to the last section of the report, which she noted contained a number of new informational documents. She explained that one of these documents was a report clarifying the procedures for obtaining subject codes, and that another one of the documents dealt with faculty-student engagement in UO courses. She explained that the latter was a statement of understanding of how classes work in instances where a mismatch exists between the student credit hours and the number of hours the class meets in a classroom (e.g., in graduate classes). She noted that classes of this nature often involved extensive exchange over writing or other types of non-classroom engagement, adding that this was especially relevant for online classes. She indicated that the central idea was to ensure student-instructor bilateral engagement.

She stated that the report also contained a particularly important change in procedure involving the Intercollege General Education Review Committee (ICGER), a subcommittee of the UOCC charged with reviewing the gen-ed portion of new course proposals. She explained that it was cumbersome and time-consuming to have new courses go through both ICGER and the UOCC for review, and that consequently, CAS Curriculum Committee Chair Ian McNeely had suggested that the ICGER be disbanded and that its responsibilities be given back to that UOCC. She stated that this suggestion was well-received, and that the ICGER subcommittee had therefore been removed.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

 

4.2       Motion (Policy Adoption): Employee Morale-Building Event Expenditures; Teri Rowe (OA, Department Manager, Economics), Senator and Chair, OA Council

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.2: "Employee Morale-Building Event Expenditures."

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling & Testing Center) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Bruce McGough (Economics) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion. Because the motion’s sponsor, Teri Rowe, was unable to attend the meeting, Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) volunteered to provide background her stead.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) stated that the motivation underlying the motion was that the existing policy made it very difficult to plan events and hire catering. She explained that the catering budget was insufficient to hire the University's own catering service, which was required. She stated that motion would address this issue and create more flexibility.

Senate President Kyr requested comments and recognized Senator Dassonville.

Senator Paul Dassonville (Psychology) pointed out that under "Allowances for Food and Facilities," the motion read: "The maximum per-person expenditures for meals furnished by the university, both on and off campus, at a morale-building event are restricted to 1.5% of the current UO travel meal per diem." He asked if this was an error, because 1.5% of the per diem seemed very small.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved to amend the motion such that “1.5%” be changed to “1.5X” (i.e., 1.5 times the per diem).

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) seconded the amendment. 

Senate President Kyr called for discussion on the amendment. None followed, and he called for a vote. The amendment carried, and Senate President Kyr returned discussion to the main motion. He recognized Senator Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) stated that there were a couple of instances where definitions were given and concluded with an "etc." He stated that this bothered him, adding that he was not sure it was an adequate way to define things.

Senate President Kyr reminded Senator Price that he could propose an amendment if he desired.

Senator Price stated that he was concerned that whoever wrote the motion was anticipating leaving things open. He indicated that he was willing to leave the motion as it stood.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried.

 

4.3       Motion (Legislation): Specifications for Respect and Community Values Committee (Senate Standing Committee); Carla McNelly, Operations Coordinator (School of Journalism and Communication) and Chair, UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.3: "Specifications for Respect and Community Values Committee (Senate Standing Committee)." He stated that the motion would approve a 17-point chart which specified the various aspects of the committee. He read the motion.

Carla McNelly (Operations Coordinator, School of Journalism & Communication) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senate President Kyr invited Carla McNelly to provide some background.

Carla McNelly stated that the motion would create the first of two planned committees to be formed out of the Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace. She stated that the committee would be carrying forward the work of students who had adopted the community standards of affirmation in 2000. She stated that the committee would be available for big issues that would come to campus, and that individuals representing all constituents would be elected by their constituents to serve.

She took a moment to read the following statement of affirmation, which she cited as the driving force behind the work of the committee going forward: "We further affirm our commitment to: respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals; promote a culture of respect throughout the University community; respect the privacy, property and freedom of others; reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind; practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others; and promote the diversity of opinions, ideas, and backgrounds which is the lifeblood of the University."

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments, and recognized Senator Healey.

Senator Deborah Healey (American English Institute) stated that the motion referenced "five [...] governance constituencies of Faculty, Officer of Administration, Officers of Research, and Classified [Staff]." She asked what the fifth constituency was.

Senate President Kyr stated that the fifth constituency was Students.

Senator Healey made a motion to amend the “Membership Requirements” section so that the language would read: "shall include one representative from each of four of the five shared governance constituencies. In addition, there shall be one graduate student and one undergraduate student."

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the amendment.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called the question. The amendment carried, and discussion returned to the main motion. There was no further discussion, and Senate President Kyr called the question. The motion carried. Senate President Kyr extended a special word of thanks to Carla McNelly for her leadership on the committee.

 

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Specifications for Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group (Ombuds AAG); Carla McNelly, Operations Coordinator (School of Journalism and Communication) and Chair, UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.4: "Specifications for Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group (Ombuds AAG).” He read the motion.

Carla McNelly (Operations Coordinator, School of Journalism & Communication) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr invited Carla McNelly to provide some background on the motion.

Carla McNelly stated that the motion proposed the formation of a Senate advisory group that would work directly with the Ombuds Program. She specified that its membership would be recommended by specific constituents and then put up for adoption by the Committee on Committees. She noted that this would give some of the groups on campus the ability to have their own representatives sitting at the table and discussing issues about our specific constituents with Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Cohen.

Senator Samantha Cohen (Student Senator) asked whether the committee intended to have the President of the ASUO, a member of the ASUO Executive, a member of Senate, or a member of the Constitutional Court serve as an ex-officio member.

Carla McNelly stated that the motion was set up so that the ASUO could choose their representative as they saw fit.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried. He took a moment to acknowledge University Ombudsperson Bruce MacAllister for his great work.

 

4.5       Motion (Resolution): ASUO Athletics Ticket Agreement; Andrew Lubash, Senator (University Senate & Student Senate)

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.5: "ASUO Athletics Ticket Agreement." He read the motion.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Samantha Cohen (Student Senator) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr invited Senator Lubash to give some background.

Senator Lubash introduced himself as the Chair of the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee, and a member of the ASUO Senate. He explained that one of the ASUO's duties was to negotiate a contract with the Athletics Department stipulating how much they would receive through the Student Incidental Fee in exchange for student football or basketball tickets. He reported that the Athletics Department had made an initial request for a 10% budget increase (about $160,000) in order to maintain the same number of tickets, and that this amount was eventually lowered to a 3% increase (roughly $51,000). He stated that the ASUO Senate ultimately decided that they would not give any additional money to the Athletics Department without receiving a greater number of football or basketball tickets in exchange, because the Athletics Department had demonstrated a willingness to fundraise for other expenses, and it seemed unfair to force students to pay more money for the same number of tickets. He asked the Senate to support the ASUO's negotiations with the Athletics Department, noting that an agreement had not yet been reached.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) expressed strong support for the resolution. He noted that he had attended some of the meetings in which the students had argued with the Athletics Department about the fee increase, and stated that upon reviewing some of the data, he had concluded that the amount of money that the Athletics Department was able to raise from regular ticket sales had hit a plateau. He asserted that the Athletics Department had resorted to asking the students for a 10% fee increase because their attempts to raise ticket prices for regular fans had met with resistance. He noted that the Athletics Department was receiving a significant amount of extra money from TV revenues, and asserted that they were “not exactly hurting.” He stated that this action was wrong, that it made no sense, and that it was an attempt by the Athletics Department to exercise their market power to get more money from students.

Senate President Kyr asked if the motion before the ASUO had passed unanimously.

Senator Lubash stated that the letter he had written regarding the Athletics budget was signed by a supermajority of senators. He explained that the letter stated that they would not support more money for the same amount of tickets.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) asked how many tickets the Athletics Department intended to remove from the subsidized ticket lottery in response to the 0% increase proposed by the ASUO. She asked if the $1.6 million student fee budget would remain unchanged as a result of removing subsidized student football lottery tickets. 

Senator Lubash stated that students currently received about 3,900 football tickets through a lottery system for PAC-12 football games, and that the Athletics Department wanted to move 300 of those tickets from the subsidized free ticket lottery to the student season ticket lottery. He noted that the student season ticket lottery cost approximately 300 dollars, and that this action would therefore make it easier for the rich students to get season football tickets and harder for average students to get tickets. He stated that the Athletics Department had proposed this in exchange for keeping the student fee budget at $1.6 million.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Clement.

Senator Robin Clement (Accounting) asked how much the students who purchased season tickets paid compared to regular prices.

Senator Lubash stated that students currently paid 42% of the fair market value of a ticket. He explained that the reason the Athletics Department had asked for a 10% increase was because it was trying to move the students up to a 50% subsidy. He stated that the students who purchased season student ticket passes paid $300 in addition to the $71 incidental fee.

Senate President Kyr recognized Michael Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) asked what reasons the Athletics Department had provided for the fee increase.

Senator Lubash stated that their argument was that there had been a history of the ASUO and the Athletics Department agreeing to a 50% subsidy. He stated that the price of tickets has gone up significantly since then, and that the prices had risen faster than the students could afford to see the fee raised.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Mitchell.

Senator Victoria Mitchell (UO Libraries) moved to amend the motion such that the verb "implores" in Section 2.2 be changed to “urges.” She explained that “implore” was a tearful supplication, and that she thought “urge” was a more appropriate word choice.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the amendment.

Senate President Kyr called for discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called the question. The amendment carried, and discussion returned to the main motion. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Cerros.

Senator Abel Cerros (Student Senator) asked Senator Lubash if he could speak briefly about how the money given to the Athletics Department by the government was allocated.

Senator Lubash stated that the fair market value of a ticket was determined by the price of the ticket, as well as a donation fee that is paid essentially to reserve the seat. He explained that the donation fee (which goes to the Duck Athletic Fund) is paid by community members who purchase season tickets, and that it can sometimes be $400-500 on top of the $35-100 ticket. He noted that the donation fee could be used as a tax deduction, and that in the past, the Athletics Department had shifted the burden of the fair market value of the ticket to the donation fee because it made it easier for fans to purchase tickets. Unfortunately, he continued, the ASUO is not allowed to make donations; thus, when the ASUO buys tickets, the money that would normally go toward a tax-deductable donation is instead paid directly to the general fund of the Athletic Department. He stated that this effectively made tickets much more expensive for the ASUO compared to what community members ended up paying after the tax deduction.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Clement.

Senator Clementasked how other schools compared to UO in this matter. She stated that she thought the students needed an accountant present at the negotiations, and added that she would happy to attend in this capacity.

Senator Lubash commented that the problem of paying a large fee for tickets was a national issue. He stated that UO actually did pretty well in terms of comparison to other schools; he noted, for example, that the problem was especially pronounced at Arizona State. He stated that many schools offered separate, optional fees that students could pay specifically for Athletics, but added that this arrangement could be problematic because it stripped students of their control over the fee, which could then be raised significantly.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) stated that he had never really fully understood the connection between the football program and the academic mission of the University. He asked how UO students’ education would be impacted if the ASUO’s unwillingness to provide the Athletic Department with additional financial resources resulted in fewer games being won by the football team. 

Senator Lubash stated that the Incidental Fee was intended to contribute to the ASUO’s mission to promote the cultural and physical development of the student body. He added that the Athletics and Contracts Finance Committee worked with contracts to fulfill that mission. He stated that generally speaking, students paid the fee so that tickets would be available to them.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he wanted to comment on the actual resolution (specifically the language in Section 2.2), which urged the UO Athletics Department to begin a fundraising campaign instead of demanding a fee increase. He noted that the Athletics Department had done a lot of successful fundraising to build their facilities, and that it seemed like it would be an appropriate next step for them to contribute to the academic side of the University. He added that he thought this was a great opportunity for the Athletics Department to take steps toward serving the mission of the University as a whole.

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried.

 

4.7       Motion (Legislation): Appointing an IAC Faculty Member to the Special Athletics Admit Group; William Harbaugh (Economics), Senator

Senate President Kyr suggested that the Senate change the order of the agenda so that it could proceed to Professor Tublitz's Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Report.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) requested that the Senate consider agenda item 4.7 before moving on to the report. He stated that it would be brief, and that it came with the unanimous approval of the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.

Senate President Kyr, upon receipt of Professor Tublitz’s approval, asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.7: “Appointing an IAC Faculty Member to the Special Athletics Admit Group.”

Senate President Kyr read the motion.

Senator Harbaugh gave the motion to the Senate.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh to provide some background.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) was uncertain of what the University was currently doing with regard to the admission of student athletes who did not meet the typical academic standards. He stated that the IAC needed to find out in order to fulfill its charge, and that the motion was an attempt to put someone from the IAC on the group responsible for admitting these athletes. He made a point of noting that the Administration sometimes changed the names of these groups, and that the IAC would continue to insist that an IAC member be on the group regardless of the title.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Senator Lubash.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) stated that the Special Athletics Admit Group was clearly an academic committee that needed to have a lot representation from the statutory faculty. With this in mind, he moved to amend Section 2.1 such that a member of the UO Faculty Senate would be appointed to the group in addition to the IAC member.

Senator Laura Leete (PPPM) seconded the motion.

Senator Harbaugh pointed out that “Faculty Senate” was an inaccurate word choice.

Senate President Kyr agreed, noting that the Senate was a “University Senate.” The language was therefore modified to read: “and a faculty member of the UO Senate.” He opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Hyatt.

Senator Mary Ann Hyatt (School of Law) asked if there were any faculty members currently on the Special Admit Group.

Senator Harbaugh indicated that it was unknown, and that it was somewhat difficult to find out. He stated that he thought there might be one faculty member in the group, but added that he was not sure.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) asked if it was important to the maker of the amendment that the member of the UO Senate be a faculty member. He noted that some of the members of the Senate worked in Admissions, and that these people might be able to add value to the group.

Senator Lubash suggested that because the committee was academic in nature, it was necessary to have academic faculty representation. He added, however, that Senator Ahlen could make an amendment if he wished.

Senate President Kyr requested further discussion on the amendment. None followed, and he called the question. The amendment carried, and discussion returned to the main motion. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he would like for people to consider the possibility of also having the Senate, in consultation with the President, appoint somebody from Admissions to the Special Admit Group. He added that the group might already have representation from Admissions.

Senate President Kyr asked for further discussion. None followed and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

 

6.   REPORTS

6.1       COIA Report (Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics); Nathan Tublitz, UO COIA Representative

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 6.1, the COIA Report (Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics). He invited Professor Tublitz to deliver the report.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) introduced himself as the UO Senate Representative to COIA (Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics). He stated that the coalition was a group of 63 FBS (Division IA) senates that had gathered together to try to reintegrate athletics back into academics. Professor Tublitz informed the Senate that the coalition had been started at UO by Jim Earl, and that he (Professor Tublitz) served as Vice President. He recalled that he and Jim Earl had been upset by the University’s decision to move a football game (the Civil War game) from the week prior to Thanksgiving to the Saturday before finals week without considering the implications on academics, and that this eventually led to motions passed by seven of the ten PAC-10 Senates stating that football games should not be held before finals week. He stated that the President of the Indiana Senate, Bob Eno, had worked with Jim Earl to develop the national alliance of faculty senates that would become the COIA. He noted that the COIA was the only organization of faculty senates in the United States on any subject, adding that all other organizations (e.g., the AAUP) were groups of individuals.

Professor Tublitz stated that the COIA’s mission was twofold: to promote the academic integrity of its member universities, and to represent the interests of faculties, students, and other stakeholder groups in all matters related to college sports so that college sports could be reintegrated into the original missions of the member universities. He stated that at the campus level, the COIA worked to help individual institutions collect data, develop best practices, and share information. He stated that COIA also partnered with peer-faculty groups, such as the Faculty Athletics Representative groups, in order to bring a faculty voice to conference and national (i.e., the NCAA) levels.

Elaborating the organization’s involvement in data collection, Professor Tublitz proceeded to show the Senate a graph of concussion percentages in various sports based upon student-athlete exposures in formal contests. He noted that football had the highest concussion percentage, but added that problems with concussions extended to many other sports, as well. He also noted that there were some gender-specific differences; for example, he stated that men's lacrosse had a higher percentage of concussions than women's lacrosse, but that women's soccer had a higher percentage than men's soccer. He stated that the COIA had asked its member institutions for information regarding how they dealt with concussions, and that it had received 32 responses. He indicated that all schools reported having some sort of concussion assessment, but added that these assessments programs were highly variable.

Further discussing the coalition’s functions, Professor Tublitz stated that the COIA had issued a number of papers on best practices in a variety of aspects of athletics, which he noted were available on the COIA website. He also shared that the COIA partnered with national athletics organizations, all of which it met with at least once a year (he noted that the COIA met the NCAA four times a year to discuss athletics issues).

Describing the organization’s objectives, he stated that one of the COIA’s goals for 2015 involved academic integrity, with a focus on academic fraud. He explained that many institutions had problems with athletics-related academic fraud, and that the COIA was partnering with the NCAA to develop definitions of fraud and guidelines related to it. He also relayed that the COIA was working on student athlete welfare. He explained that this was a broad category with many issues—graduation rates being one of them. He reported that black male athletes had a significantly lower graduation rate than average students, and that concerns about this had prompted the COIA to develop a Mental Health and Student Athletes Survey in response. He stated that anecdotal evidence, along with evidence from the NCAA, suggested that student athletes have three times the number of mental health issues as the regular student body, and rates of sexual violence that are four times higher. He asserted that student athletes are an at-risk population, and that while the reasons for this are not yet well-understood, the survey would help the COIA get a start.

Professor Tublitz noted that the COIA also collected data on the role of money in Athletics. He stated that this had to do with matters such as the athletics arms race of facilities, issues about paying student athletes, and other things of this nature. He indicated that he would momentarily present a comparative analysis of spending at a variety of different levels, and noted that the database for this analysis was the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. He stated that the Knight Commission was a group of retired college presidents who were willing to speak critically about various issues relating to their universities. He stated that the Knight Commission also developed a public database on athletic spending.

He informed the Senate that according to this database, from 2005 to 2012 the FBS increased the athletics spending per athlete 71%; he added that the PAC-12 increased 59%, and that UO increased 104%. He reported that football spending per football player had nearly doubled from 2005 to 2012 in the FBS, that it had increased 81% in the PAC-12, and that UO had seen a 196% increase (from roughly $60,000 to $178,000) over the same time period. He relayed that coaching salaries had increased 76% in FBS, 75% in the PAC-12, and 376% at UO; and that that football coaching salaries per football player had increased 74% in FBS (median), 60% in the PAC-12 (median), and 405% at UO.

Addressing the annual debt servicing ratio (i.e., how much money was owed on athletics facilities, thereby preventing spending in other areas) Professor Tublitz stated that from 2005 to 2012, the FBS had increased 54% (median). He stated that it had increased 40% in the PAC-12 (median), and 443% at UO. He stated that most of the 443% increase at UO was due to the Matthew Knight Arena, which was funded by borrowing—not by private donors. Finally, he stated that total outstanding debt on athletic facilities had increased 93% for the FBS (median), 335% for the PAC-12 (median), and 501% for UO. He explained that he was giving these numbers to the Senate because the Senate needed to take an active role in this area. He urged the Senate to think about what these numbers meant. He stated that the COIA Annual Meeting Report and the Annual Report to Membership were on the Senate website. He explained that the 2015 Annual Report was in the process of being put together, and added that the 2014-15 report to the membership would be out in about a month.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Tublitz for his report and informed the Senate that the remaining motion on the agenda would be postponed until the next meeting.

 

9.   ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr closed by extending his deep gratitude to Dan Daly, who was finishing his service with the Senate, and by welcoming Betina Lynn, the new Senate Executive Coordinator. He called the meeting to a close at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for March 4, 2015

Present: Paul Dassonville, Miriam Deutsch, Jennifer Freyd, Weiyong He, Ken Prehoda, Michael Price, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Bruce Mc Gough, Jason Brown, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Ron Lovinger, Laura Leete, Deborah Olson, Mary Ann Hyatt, Robin Clement, Alexandre Dossin, Monique Balbuena, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, William Iversen, Connor Lasken, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Jun Li, Donna Shaw, Richard Mergerum, Charles Lachman, Marilyn Nippold, Jerry Rosiek, Debra Merskin, Victoria Mitchell, Margie Paris

Excused: Edward Teague, Jennifer Ellis 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the March 4, 2015 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Ford Alumni Center Ballroom. He noted that the current meeting was the first of two that remained for the Spring Term (the final being scheduled for the following week, on March 11) and indicated that there would be several important issues on the agenda.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the minutes of the January 21, 2015 meeting. He invited questions and comments; none were put forward, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.   STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

3.1       Remarks by Interim President Coltrane (delivered by Robert Kyr, Senate President)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that he would be delivering the State of the University Address on Interim President Coltrane’s behalf, as he was regrettably unable to attend the meeting. Senate President Kyr proceeded to read Interim President Coltrane's prepared remarks, which have been reproduced in their entirety below:

Colleagues,

The University of Oregon is at a critical turning point. We have an historic opportunity to make meaningful change in our campus culture, to reduce sexual violence, and increase survivor support. We have all been working very hard for many months to effect change. I am very pleased to share some key initiatives we are launching that will help coordinate our efforts, and I ask for the Senate's continued support as we work together and get into the more challenging policy and detail work.

On Monday, at a campus forum, I provided an update on our progress and plan to better address sexual violence and support survivors. I thank everyone who attended and participated in our discussions. At that forum, I reviewed some of the policy changes, staff hires, and program investments we've made recently to improve prevention, reporting, investigations, support, and accountability.

Some of the recent progress of the last 18 months includes: investing additional resources for prevention, education, and compensating student SWAT members; creating a new prevention and response website, printed material, and a 24/7 confidential reporting hotline; hiring two new Office of Affirmative Action Sexual Violence Investigators; hiring new additional Prevention and Response staff members; allocating an additional $15,000 for emergency survivor support; creating new women's self-defense credit classes; approving new Student Conduct Code changes to improve process and accountability; creating more confidential reporting options in the Dean of Students Office and the Ombudsperson's Office; signing an agreement with Eugene Police to coordinate investigations with UOPD and the University; completing an internal audit of Fraternity and Sorority Life and launching an external audit; and posting sanctions of fraternity and sororities on FSL websites. 

As you know, we have received three primary reports, as well as input from the ASUO, which included more than 120 recommendations for how to improve our campus and to address sexual violence. We are very supportive of the direction and intent of the recommendations and will implement the vast majority of them. A few of the recommendations need further discussion.

There are a few key steps to implement this comprehensive plan. First, we need high-level coordination. To that end, I have authorized hiring a new Assistant Vice President for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, who will be dedicated to coordination of sexual violence prevention, response, survivor support, and Title IX investigation. This position will have responsibility and authority to work across units and departments. Secondly, I am appointing a permanent advisory group on addressing sexual violence that will work with the new AVP and other VPs to guide, assess, and track the work to prevent and address sexual violence. This council will be representative of campus and include our own experts. I am accepting nominations now for this advisory body.

To address issues of prevention and assessment, we are working on plans to conduct two sexual violence campus climate surveys this spring; begin a new bystander intervention program next fall; increase SWAT funding; and employ more consistent, student-centric, year-long messages.

To improve our response and survivor support, we are immediately increasing our capacity for Title IX investigations. That includes designating two new Title IX deputy officers, as well as increasing the number of confidential reporters. Additionally, we will be reviewing our reporting policies to address concerns about mandatory reporting.

Finally, I am extremely grateful for the leadership the Senate has taken on key issues. During Monday's forum, we also had a conversation about the Senate's effort to create proposals for mandatory classes, create syllabi and classroom discussion language, and look into the review or revision of the Faculty-Student Relationship Policy.

I again want to thank all who were able to participate. The forum was productive, challenging, and illuminating. I learned that we have a lot of work to do on this issue, and that many on our campus believe that we are moving too slowly on this issue. I also heard from others who cautioned us to move carefully and deliberately, and not simply throw money at the issue, hoping that it solves the problem. The most passionate voices in the room came from students. I appreciated hearing their perspective, and I heard their anger and urgency loud and clear. This spring we will launch many of these initiatives, and I will continue to press for progress. I look forward to sharing more about our discussion and next steps in the coming days and weeks. I thank President Kyr for reading this on my behalf while I attend the Board of Trustees committee meetings.

 

Sincerely,

Scott Coltrane, Interim President

 

3.2       Senate Updates: Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr, proceeding to Senate updates, noted that Interim President Coltrane would also be absent from the March 11 meeting due to a prior commitment. Consequently, he indicated that he would be reading Interim President Coltrane's remarks at that time, as well. Senate President Kyr reminded the Senate that the March 11 meeting would be held in the normal location (115 Lawrence Hall) from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and briefly mentioned some of the items the Senate would be looking at, including: three motions related to Athletics, two motions related to the Ombuds Program, an employee morale-building motion that Interim President Coltrane had directed to the Senate, the end-of-quarter Curriculum Report, and the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) Report delivered by COIA Vice President Nathan Tublitz. He then took a moment to share the Senate’s Spring Term schedule, noting that there would be three meetings held in both April and May. He added any of these six meetings could be canceled if they were not needed.

Senate President Kyr announced that the first three Senate meetings for the Spring Term would be held on Wednesday, April 8 (Room 115, Lawrence Hall), Wednesday, April 15(location to be determined), and Wednesday April 22 (Room 115, Lawrence Hall). He stated that the May Senate meetings were scheduled for May 13 (Room 115, Lawrence Hall), May 20 (location to be determined), and May 27 (Room 115, Lawrence Hall). Senate President Kyr also shared that there would be a series of meetings held over the coming week for each of the Senate policy workgroups, and that he would work with the workgroups to formulate an action plan. He added that he would then slate various policies to be considered throughout April and May, and that this would determine how many Senate meetings were ultimately needed. He stated that the policies being considered by the workgroups were crucial to the functioning of the University, and that it was important to make sure that the policy review was done right.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

Senate President Kyr, upon advancing to New Business, acknowledged that a point of order had been raised.

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) proposed a suspension of the rules in order to consider a motion.

Senate President Kyrinvited Senator Freyd to briefly explain the motion for which the Senate would consider suspending the rules.

Senator Freyd stated that she was asking the Senate to consider the motion: "Not In Our Name: The UO Senate Rejects UO's Response to the Lawsuit from the Student Survivor of Alleged Rape."

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to take a very quick look at the motion in order to decide whether it would be considered. He called for a vote on suspending the rules. The vote carried, and Senate President Kyr asked Senator Freyd to give the motion to the Senate.

Senator Freyd gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Senator Freyd to provide some background.

Senator Freyd stated that the University’s amended response to the sexual assault lawsuit contained language that she considered to be victim-blaming. She referred the Senate to paragraph 102 of the response, which read:

Plaintiff's attorneys filed a lawsuit with unfounded allegations that damage a good man's reputation [Coach Dana Altman] in an attempt to curry favor and gain traction in the media, and create pressure for a public university to pay a hefty sum to plaintiff, even though it has done nothing wrong. In this case, plaintiff's counsel's false allegations threaten to harm not only Oregon and Altman, but all sexual assault survivors in Oregon's campus community. The publication of false allegations about Oregon's handling of a report of an alleged sexual assault create a very real risk that other survivors will wrongly be discouraged from reporting sexual assaults and sexual harassment to Oregon in direct contravention of the goals of both Title IX and the University of Oregon. Conveying the facts about how Oregon properly handled plaintiff's case is necessary to demonstrate the high priority Oregon gives to honoring the rights guaranteed by Title IX.

Senator Freyd asserted that a number of the sentences therein blamed the survivor for doing harm to the campus, and that this was a form of victim-blaming that was harmful not only to the plaintiff, but to all survivors on campus. She also stated that it was simply a “lawyers' game” to blame the plaintiff's attorney instead of the plaintiff herself.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) asked Senator Freyd if she could elaborate on the false allegations to which paragraph 102 referred.

Senator Freyd clarified that the phrase “false allegations” appeared in the University’s response and stated that she did not think she could explain the University's use of that language.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) stated that he was supportive of the Senate taking a stance, and indicated that he was in favor of the resolution. He added that if students were going to be encouraged to report, the University needed to avoid treating the act of reporting as frivolous or harmful.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Brown.

Senator Jason Brown (Creative Writing) stated that he was supportive of the idea of the resolution, but added that it seemed strange for the Senate to insert itself midway into a legal process. He added that he was not well-informed about the facts behind the University’s statement and asked if the Senate needed to understand what had possibly damaged the reputation of the coach.

Senate President Kyr clarified that the motion was a resolution, and that the Senate could weigh in on the issue according to the UO Constitution and Bylaws.

Senator Ken Prehoda (Chemistry) stated that he appreciated the intent of the resolution, but added that he was concerned that it implied that all of the Administration’s actions were done in the name of the Senate unless the Senate explicitly stated otherwise.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the Administration did act in the name of the Senate, and that in fact, it was their job to do so. He expressed his opinion that the Senate was free to act on the resolution. He added that he thought the damage done by the Administration's language outweighed the damage that might be done by having to soften the University’s legal defense. He stated that the University was called upon to be a moral leader for the community, and that it was ill-advised to lead by condoning the language that appeared in the University’s response.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) expressed her support for the resolution. She stated that she thought it was important to recognize that such a clamorous sexual assault case was an unusual event, and added that the counterclaim—which many found to be ontologically and ethically reprehensible--called for some kind of response.

Senate President Kyr invited further discussion. Hearing none he called the question, and the motion carried.

4.1       Motion (Legislation): Repeal of Original University "Policy on Policies"; Senate Executive Committee  

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.1: "Repeal of Original University 'Policy on Policies.'" He asked Senate Vice President Sullivan to give the motion to the Senate on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Bruce McGough (Economics) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, along with its background. He then opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.2       Motion (Legislation): Minor Revision to Section 5.3 of the New University "Policy on Policies"; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.2: "Minor Revision to Section 5.3 of the New University 'Policy on Policies.'"

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Samantha Cohen (Student Senator) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, followed by its background. He then opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.3       Motion (Legislation): Ad hoc Committee to Investigate the Role and Function of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC); Senate Committee on Committees 

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.3: "Ad hoc Committee to Investigate the Role and Function of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)." He stated that the motion had been put forward by the Senate Committee on Committees and the Senate Executive Committee.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Dianne Dugaw (English) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion. He asked Senate Vice President Sullivan to provide background.

Senate Vice President Sullivan stated that toward the beginning of the year, the Senate had passed legislation that charged the Committee on Committees to form working groups to try to figure out how to deal with committees in which openness could be problematic (e.g., the FAC). He stated that in the working groups, there was a strong feeling that the role, job, and function of the FAC was unclear, and that the working groups were not sure what the FAC was, or what it should be. He noted that historically, the FAC had been closed, and that this had led to concerns that the FAC would give confidential advice to the President that could be adopted without any sort of open process accompanying it. He stated that questions about the best way for the FAC to give effective advice to the President needed to be answered before the working group could determine if the committee should be open or closed. With this in mind, he stated that the motion was asking the Senate for more time to work on this question. He added that it was important to have the time to figure out how to get the best advice to the President in a way that was consistent with the principles of open governance.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) expressed his general support for the motion; however, he noted that he was concerned about the deadline of May 1. He stated that the University would presumably have a new president soon, and that it was possible that this person would have his or her own ideas about what the FAC should do, and how it should be done. He added that he thought it was important to be prepared to take those potential ideas into consideration. He asserted that keeping the May 1st deadline would just result in having to extend it later, and proposed that October 15th would be a better deadline. He stated that this would allow the committee to get set up, and that they could involve the new president once he or she was chosen. He moved to amend the deadline to October 15th, 2015.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh to verify that the proposed amendment applied to the deadline in Section 2.3.

Senator Harbaugh stated that this was correct, and made an additional suggestion that the language be changed to require a report to Senate “as soon as is practical” instead of “before the last Senate meeting of the 2014-15 year.”

Senate President Kyr stated that the only concern with this was that it did not specify when the Senate wanted the new president to have a committee that was functional (either confidential or not). He stated that the Senate would need to weigh in on that fairly early in the year.

Senator Harbaugh agreed and suggested that the committee could report to the Senate on the first meeting of the 2015-16 academic year. He stated that this would give the committee the summer to work on the issue.

Senate President Kyr, summarizing the amendment, stated that it would change Section 2.3 to read: "BE IT FURTHER MOVED that said ad hoc committee will present its findings to the Committee on Committees on or before October 15, 2015. The Committee on Committees will then draft a motion based on the report of the ad hoc committee for presentation to the full Senate on the first Senate meeting of the 2015-16 academic year."

Senator Harbaugh gave the motion to amend to the Senate.

Senator Bruce McGough (Economics) seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion.

Senate Vice President Sullivan endorsed the amendment.

Senate President Kyr, hearing no additional comments, called the question. The motion to amend carried. Senate President Kyr returned the discussion to the main motion. No discussion followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Temporary Exemption of the Faculty Advisory Committee from the Provisions of US13/14-19, "Open Committee Meetings"; Senate Committee on Committees          

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.4: "Temporary Exemption of the Faculty Advisory Committee from the Provisions of US13/14-19, 'Open Committee Meetings.'"

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Senate Vice President Sullivan to provide background. 

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that there were arguments on both sides of the issue, but that he felt it was best for the Faculty Advisory Council to remain closed until the Committee on Committees figured out a path forward. He stated that the FAC seemed to be operating responsibly, and that fears about the abuses of previous administrations repeating themselves were thus far unfounded. He added that he also had serious doubts about whether the committee could function as an open committee. He stated that it was best to leave the FAC closed so that it could continue to give high quality advice to the President.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) suggested that the language “the end of the Academic Year 2014/15” (found in Section 2.1) be replaced with “the beginning of the 2015/16 Academic Year.” He moved to amend Section 2.1 to read: "BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the Faculty Advisory Council shall be exempt from the provisions of the US13/14-19 until the beginning of the 2015/16 Academic Year."

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr opened that floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion to amend carried. Senate President Kyr returned discussion to the main motion and recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) stated that he was reluctant to propose changes that would not significantly impact content, but noted that Section 2.2 of the motion would be more appropriately installed as a “whereas” clause. He therefore moved that Section 2.2 be changed to Section 1.6, and that  the language "BE IT FURTHER MOVED" be changed to "WHEREAS" accordingly.

Senator Harbaugh seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called for a vote, and the amendment carried. Senate President Kyr then returned discussion to the main motion. None followed, and he called for a vote; the motion carried.

4.5       Motion (Legislation): Payments by Athletics Department for General Academic Purposes; William Harbaugh (Economics), Senator    

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.5: "Payments by Athletics Department for General Academic Purposes." He stated that the motion was being proposed by Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Senator Harbaugh to provide some background information.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he did not have anything to add to the "whereas" clauses, but added that he would be to try to answer questions if anyone had any.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) asked if Senator Harbaugh could comment on the rationale that underlay the way that the increases were scheduled.

Senator Harbaugh explained that he was trying to make things as unobjectionable as possible. He stated that a three percent increase (the total increase proposed) would be roughly one year's growth in the Athletics Department's revenues. He added that once fully implemented, this would essentially shift their revenues back by one year of growth. He stated that he proposed phasing this in as gradually as possible in order to avoid objections from the Athletics Department.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Senator Clement.

Senator Robin Clement (Accounting) asked Senator Harbaugh if the amount discussed in the motion would actually be more than what the Jaqua Center costs to operate.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the operation costs of the Jaqua Center were currently 2.2 million dollars, and that by the time the legislation would be fully implemented, the Athletics Department budget would probably be about 115-120 million dollars. He stated that this motion simply called for payments from the Athletics Department to the academic side of the University. He noted that this was originally proposed in the 2004 task force report, and that it had been reaffirmed repeatedly by the Senate. He stated that three percent of the Athletics Department’s budget was roughly comparable to the cost of running the Jaqua Center, but that the motion was not an attempt to fully recover the costs.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) recalled that the Senate had discussed this issue in 2012, and that members of the Athletics Department had been present at the time. He stated that the Senate was told that there were prior commitments that made it difficult to implement the type of plan proposed in the motion. He stated that the Athletics Department had been put on notice (from the 2012 resolution), and that they therefore had been given plenty of time to allocate resources to plan for the current motion. He stated that he felt comfortable that the Senate was not asking for something unreasonable. He added that the Athletics Department had seen a budget increase that was disproportionate to the amount of money that the motion was discussing.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he thought the plan proposed by the motion was a modest request. He noted that at Penn State, for example, the Athletics Program provided all kinds of benefits and support to the academic side, and that this relationship differed greatly from the one that existed at UO. He added that it suggested a much clearer commitment to the role that the academic programs play in relationship to the university mission as a whole—namely, that academics are central and athletics are ancillary. He stated that the motion was a modest move in this direction, and that it reminded everyone that the basic principle of the University of Oregon was that the academic side was central, and that athletics were secondary. He stated that it was also a reminder for the University to recommit and recenter it's mission around academics.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Espinoza.

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling and Testing Center) stated that it was his understanding that the repayment plan began in 2004 as a voluntary financial contribution. He stated that there appeared to be an unwillingness to make this happen. He asked Senator Harbaugh if he could talk about how this motion would change this.

Senator Harbaugh confirmed that the 2004 Task Force Report had called for a voluntary contribution from the Athletics Department, and added that other Senate resolutions were similar. He stated that this had not worked, which consequently prompted him to ask for a specific schedule with dates and amounts. He noted that since the motion was legislation, the President would have 60 days to explain how he planned to implement the plan, or voice objections. He stated that the required action or objection from the President would open the door for negotiations and results.

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.6       Motion (Legislation): Selection of the UO Faculty Athletics Representative; Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages), William Harbaugh (Economics), Senator

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.6: "Selection of the UO Faculty Athletics Representative." He stated that the motion was being proposed by Senator Harbaugh in collaboration with Professor Pedro Garcia-Caro.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Senator Harbaugh to provide some background.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the University was required by the NCAA to have a Faculty Athletics Representative. He explained that this job involved two main things: keeping an eye on the academic progress of student athletes, and representing (or being one of the people who could represent) the University at NCAA meetings. He stated that for the past 25 years, a former law professor had served as the Faculty Athletics Representative for UO. He explained that this individual had retired during the previous year, and that President Gottfredson had made the decision to replace him without adequate consultation with the Senate. He noted that the search committee set up by President Gottfredson had included faculty, but pointed out that it was done without appreciable Senate participation. He added that President Gottfredson had made it very clear that he would ultimately be responsible for deciding who would be hired, and what that person's job responsibilities would be. He stated that President Gottfredson also made it very clear that he could terminate the individual at will. Senator Harbaugh explained that the motion was an attempt to reclaim the job of Faculty Athletics Representative for the faculty. He stated that he thought the logical way to do this was through the Senate, which was why the motion outlined the procedure for an election by the Senate.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Hyatt.

Senator Mary Ann Hyatt (Law) asked if anyone was currently serving in the Faculty Athletics Representative position.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the position was currently held by Tim Gleason, and that he had been appointed by Gottfredson roughly one year ago.

Senator Hyatt asked if Tim Gleason had an end of term.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he was unable to recall the specifics of the contract, but that it clearly indicated that Gleason would serve at the President's discretion. He stated that he did not see any problems with ending this.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that on the surface, it seemed obvious that a Faculty Athletics Representative should be someone from the faculty, and that the faculty should have some input regarding the selection of this individual. She added, however, that in reality this was a very contentious kind of motion. She noted that it looked as though the motion might be implying that Dean Gleason was not a faculty member, or that he did not represent a faculty point of view. She stated that it seemed the appointment of the Faculty Athletics Representative should be a responsibility that moved back to the Senate, but added that she hoped this could be done peacefully and harmoniously. She concluded by expressing her support for the motion.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Karduna.

Professor Andrew Karduna (Human Physiology) stated that he had chaired the committee that conducted the search for the Faculty Athletics Representative during the previous year, and noted that he had no fundamental problem with faculty being part of the process. He added, however, that it was his understanding that the Faculty Athletics Representative was intended to be a faculty member who represented not only the Athletics Department, but the University as a whole, and that one of his concerns was that the appointment process in the motion was not collaborative (i.e., that it essentially presented a single candidate to be approved by the President). He stated that it was important for the President to have input considering how closely the Faculty Athletics Representative works with the President. He added that he was willing to answer questions about last year's FAR selection process.

Senate President Kyr asked Professor Karduna if he was suggesting an amendment.

Professor Karduna stated that he did not have a specific motion. He explained that he was just concerned about how the motion excluded the President from the selection process. He added that President Gottfredson would not have been happy with the language of the motion as it currently stood.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he thought Professor Karduna had a point. He noted that the motion was legislation, which meant that there would be 60 days to hash out his concerns. He stated that he would not be surprised if President Coltrane responded to the legislation by requesting more input in the selection process. He suggested that the Senate avoid entertaining motions that included the President in the legislation, because the 60-day review provided a means to address any issues the President might have.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if the Faculty Athletics Representative was the only voice representing the University at NCAA meetings.

Senator Harbaugh stated that it used to be the case that the President, the Athletic Director, the Faculty Athletics Representative, and possibly other individuals were allowed to vote and have input at NCAA meetings.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that the nomination process, the solicitation of nominees, and the requisite criteria established by the NCAA seemed to provide a workable framework for the President to have input. He suggested that the Senate avoid including extra provisions about the President until the new president responded to the legislation.  

Senate President Kyr requested further comments; none followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.7       Motion (Legislation): To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the last agenda item under “New Business.” He noted that this item would require a 2/3 majority of the quorum to pass. 

Before continuing, he took a moment to introduce the new Senate Executive Coordinator, Betina Lynn. He stated that she would be joined by another half-time, classified hire soon, and that the current Senate Executive Coordinator Team (Dan Daly and Rebecca Larkin) would be leaving at the end of the quarter.

He then moved on to agenda item 4.7: "To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings." He stated that the motion was being proposed by the Senate Executive Committee.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, along with part of the background. He called the Senate’s attention to language in Section 2.3, which read: "An act of substitution shall not be counted as an absence." He then asked Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan for further background.

Senate Vice President Sullivan stated that he thought the motion was a good idea. He stated that it not only accomplished Professor Emeritus Stahl's aim of making sure that the Senate had a good representative attendance, but also gave individuals serving as substitutes the opportunity to find out what being a Senator was like.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) asked how many Senators were absent at the present meeting according to Section 8.1 of the Constitution. He asked if the Senate kept track of attendance.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would simply look at the sign-in list to see who was absent. He noted that the people who were absent would be expected to provide a substitute.

Senator Price asked what the recent trend had been for vacated seats (i.e., how often Senators had two or more unexcused absences during a session).

Senate President Kyr responded that there had been “a fair number” of unexcused absences. He stated that not everybody got in touch with the Senate before being absent (he noted that many absences were the result of unavoidable issues, such as illness or emergencies). He stated, however, that he did not have any specific data related to absences.

Senator Price asked how vacated seats would affect quorum.

Senate President Kyr stated that quorum was based on the total number of Senators, and that vacating Senators’ seats would not necessarily solve the quorum problem. He recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Philosophy) stated that he was curious about the process of seats being vacated. He observed that a few people on the list had never signed in. He asked if their seats were being vacated (as per 8.1) so that someone else could fill them.

Senate President Kyr stated that 8.1 had not yet been enforced. He explained that the Senate had needed to exercise leniency because the University was in a time of crisis, and because people were already busy and overworked. He noted, however, that the problem of attendance was prevalent at many other institutions including other Pac-12 schools.

Senator Koopman asked if the combination of the legislation and the enforcement of 8.1 would make sense. He stated that it might seem counterintuitive to enforce 8.1 if the goal was to have more people, but added that he would also argue for having a letter sent to a department head notifying them that their representative had been removed from the Senate because they have failed to discharge their obligation to attend meetings. He stated that it was really disappointing to vote for somebody and have them not bother to show up.

Senate President Kyr encouraged everyone to continue to discuss the issue of attendance, and to find a way forward. He acknowledged that the Senate had issues with attendance, but stated that this problem was not the fault of the individuals. He noted that current times were very challenging, and that a change was needed to stimulate greater participation and a greater sense of responsibility. He recognized Chuck Triplett.

Chuck Triplett (Assistant Vice President for University Initiatives and Collaboration) stated that according to the minutes of the Senate, from October 22 to January 14 there were 15 vacancies. He stated that this was only counting people marked “absent,” and not those marked "excused." He stated that he was supportive of the motion, and asked if anyone had consulted with the ASUO or OSU Senates regarding the efficacy of a proxy system

Senate President Kyr pointed out that the motion read: "EXPERIENCE WITH SUBSTITUTION: The concept of substitution is not novel. Other Senates (e.g. ASUO and OSU Senates) have demonstrated its effectiveness in ensuring the aims described in SECTION I."

Chuck Triplett clarified that he was asking if anyone had actually spoken with their counterparts at Oregon State about the proxy system.

Senate President Kyr stated that such discussions had, indeed, occurred. He also noted that Chuck Triplett's calculation was not correct, because he did not have access to all of the emails that had been received by the Senate Executive. He stated that attendance in the minutes was not necessarily correct, because the minutes were not currently being done by the Senate Executive Coordinator, and that the attendance for the previous minutes should be double-checked. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) commented that he thought the motion was interesting, but added that he still did not know what to think of it. He stated that he was not going to move to enact it, and asked people to consider postponing it for a week in order to give people a chance think over whether it was a good motion.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh to clarify what he was suggesting.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he was wondering what other people thought about postponing the motion.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) commented that he was curious about what the Senate was looking to accomplish with the motion. He stated that he thought legislation had already been passed that essentially guaranteed Senators time off to be able to attend Senate business. He added that he liked the idea of encouraging larger participation, but that a motion like the one being considered was not needed in order to accomplish this. He noted that members of the public were welcome to show up and participate in every single way except for voting, and that all the motion would do was enact some sort of proxy voting. He asked if there was a real problem that the Senate was hoping to address with the motion.

Senate President Kyr noted that the issue of proxy voting was important, because the substitute would need to know quite a bit about the Senate in order to participate responsibly. He recognized Senator Healey.

Senator Deborah Healey (American English Institute) stated that she had been a member of the OSU Faculty Senate for a number of years, and that in her experience, the proxy system worked quite well. She noted that as a Senate member, she was careful about who she asked to come and vote in her stead. She added that the proxy system had encouraged a number of her colleagues to learn a lot more about the Senate, as well.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Cramer.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) pointed out that it was not mutually exclusive to enforce attendance and have a proxy system.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Lubash.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) noted that the ASUO did not use substitution.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) stated that he had one concern with the motion related to the time limits. He explained that if a Senator tired of their position and effectively donated it to someone else by making them their proxy for the rest of the term, this would undermine the whole election process. He added if the Senate did implement the proxy system, it would also be nice to have a list of the relevant constituency that a substitute could be chosen from.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Balbuena.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) stated that Section 8.1 stipulated that a Senator had to be absent two times in one term in order for his or her seat to be considered vacated. She asked if this took into account the number of meetings that had recently been added to the schedule.

Senate President Kyr commented that the need for so many meetings had not been anticipated, and noted that the enforcement of the rules had been a little bit lenient because of this. He noted that attendance had generally been good, but also stressed the importance of regularly meeting or exceeding quorum in order to be able to conduct Senate business.

Senator Balbuena stated that she thought it was important to find a way to take the number of meetings into account. She added that she liked the idea of having a little more time to think about the motion.

Senate President Kyr stated that if the Senate was going to postpone, the issue would probably be revisited during the first or second meeting in April. He recognized Senator Lubash.

Senator Lubash stated that he was in favor of the motion. He explained that he thought it would be beneficial for student representatives who might have classes or other conflicts during the Senate meetings.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Sullivan stated that faculty (and other constituency) service was at the core of shared governance and maintaining a focus on the academic mission of UO. He stated that it was important to give faculty and other constituents the “wiggle room” that the proxy system would provide, and added that this would facilitate faculty service. He stated that Professor Emeritus Stahl, who was behind the motion, was concerned that constituencies would not have a representative present to discuss the motions that affected them. He stated that he supported the motion.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he liked the idea of the motion, but added that he was reluctant to take a position to vote on it at the present meeting given the questions and concerns that had been raised. He requested that the new Executive Coordinator and the Senate President clarify the protocol for the Senators to communicate the reason for any absences. He asked the other Senators to think about what a proxy was, and what it meant. He moved to postpone the motion to the second meeting of April.

Senator Ron Lovinger (Landscape Architecture) seconded Senator Dreiling's motion.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion on the motion to postpone, and recognized Senator Cramer.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) stated that she thought the proxy would work, because people were not required to nominate untrustworthy proxies, and because they could still be absent if they were unable to find a proxy. She stated that she did not see how the legislation would be harmful.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Freyd.

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) stated that she felt there was a conflict between the reality and what was being proposed as a solution. She stated that the reality was that the responsible senators were likely away on University business or illness, and that these were the same people who would be motivated to get substitutes. She added, however, that the people who were simply not showing up would probably also neglect to get substitutes. She asserted that the motion would not be able to solve this problem.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) stated that he wished to call the question to postpone.

Senate President Kyr stated that according to the Parliamentarian, the Senate had to keep the discussion focused on the amendment.

Senator Price agreed, and specified that he would like to end the discussion.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote to end the discussion. The motion carried, and he recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling reiterated that the intention of the amendment was not to dissuade the Senate from eventually adopting the motion. He explained that it was simply to postpone to the second meeting of April, with the request that the Senate clarify the mechanisms by which data on attendance could be accumulated.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion to postpone. The motion carried, and consideration of the motion was postponed until the second meeting in April. He asked the Senate Executive Committee (and Randy Sullivan, in particular) to look into issues related to the motion and prepare for the future discussion.

 

9.   ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr called the March 4, 2015 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:52 p.m.

 

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 11, 2015

Present: Bruce Mc Gough, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Marilyn Nippold, Deborah Olson, Mary Ann Hyatt, Edward Teague, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Alenandre Dossin, Monique Balbuena, John Ahlen, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain, Paul Dassonville, Jun Li, Michael Price, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, William Harbaugh, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Laura Leete, Victoria Mitchell, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, William Iversen, Andrew Lubash, Connor Lasken, Theodora Ko Thompson, Edward Teague

Absent: Miriam Deutsch, Michael Dreiling, Jason Brown, Donna Shaw, Richard Margerum, Charles lachman, Jerry Rosiek, Debra Merskin, Debra Thurman, Margie Paris

Excused: Jennifer Freyd, Weiyong He, Ken Prehoda, Ron Lovinger

Note: Due to technical issues, the beginning of the February 11, 2015 meeting was not recorded. Consequently, the minutes begin directly following Senate President Kyr’s opening remarks.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2.1       January 14, 2015

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) asked the Senate to consider the minutes of the January 14, 2015 meeting. He requested questions, comments, and recommendations regarding the minutes. Following none, they were approved.

 

3.   STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr stated that at this time, the Senate would hear remarks by University of Oregon Trustee Connie Ballmer regarding the presidential search process. He noted that this would be followed by a presentation from Laurie Wilder, President of Parker Executive Search Firm, and Porsha Williams, Vice President. He welcomed Connie Ballmer to the podium.

3.1       Remarks by Parker Executive Search Firm about the Presidential Search with questions; Laurie C. Wilder, President, and Porsha L. Williams, Vice-President  

Connie Ballmer thanked the Senate for giving her the opportunity to speak. She stated that she would spend a few minutes reviewing the presidential search process, after which she would invite the representatives from the search firm to provide further details. She added that she hoped to devote a lot of time to answering questions, as well.

She stated that one of the most important functions of the UO Board of Trustees was the hiring, firing, and evaluation of the University of Oregon President. She offered her assurance that the Board took the responsibility of finding a new president very seriously, and added that the Board had every intention of finding a great leader. She noted that she had spent the day having a series of conversations with different groupings of faculty, staff, and students, and stated that it was a privilege to be able to hear people's questions.

She took a moment to revisit what had been done thus far in the search. She stated that the search had officially begun in September, and explained that this had involved forming both the Search Committee and the Advisory Committee which supports it. She relayed that a series of online surveys and public forums had been held to gather comments from people throughout UO's community regarding what they sought in a President, and that with these comments in mind, the Search Committee had created a position profile. She stated that importantly, a professional search firm had been selected in the fall to aid in the search process; she noted that the Atlanta-based Parker Executive Search firm had been involved in prior searches on the Oregon campus and brought a wealth of experience to the search. She shared that an ad officially declaring the search open had recently been posted, and that it appeared in publications all over the country, including The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and local papers. She stated that the Search Committee also had a large list of nominations, and noted that they had begun the process of contacting the nominees to notify them and assess their interest. She stated that roughly 250 had been contacted to date, and added that proactive recruitment of candidates was ongoing.

Addressing the future of the presidential search, Connie Ballmer stated that she would describe how the process would work going forward. She explained that the Search Committee had a large list of candidates that they were actively narrowing down, and that this list would ultimately be whittled to a smaller group of eight to ten semi-finalists. She stated that the C.V.s and materials for the semi-finalists would then be presented to the Advisory Group, who would vet the candidates and give their recommendations, comments, and questions to the Search Committee. The Search Committee, she continued, would then interview each of the semi-finalists and pare the list down to the finalists. She stated that the final candidates would be brought before the Board of Directors, and that the Board would be responsible for making the final selection of the President. She clarified that due to the confidential nature of the search, the interviews of the candidates would not be held on campus. She stated that there was no definite deadline for the search, but added that the Search Committee would ideally have the semi-finalists selected as early as March, and that the Board would interview the finalists as early as April. She reported that the search had received a great response thus far, and that she believed there would be a strong candidate pool. With that, she invited Laurie Wilder and Porsha Williams from Parker Executive Search to deliver further remarks.

Laurie Wilder (President of Parker Executive Search) thanked the Senate for inviting her to speak and indicated that she wanted to talk about the role that Parker Executive Search would play in the search. Briefly acquainting the Senate with the firm, she stated that Parker Executive Search was based in Atlanta, Georgia and that roughly 80% of what the firm did on a daily basis was done on college campuses around the country. She stated that Parker Executive Search was committed to the aggressive recruitment of outstanding candidates, and that the firm was thrilled to be engaged in the University’s search.

She indicated that the firm had been working very closely with the Search Committee and the Search Advisory Group throughout the process. Taking a moment to address the subject of confidentiality, she noted that privacy was very important to the potential candidates, as they were typically happy at their current jobs and could not run the risk of being associated with a search for a position with another institution. She stressed that Parker Executive Search had not been hired to select the next president, but rather to aggressively recruit, facilitate, and advise the process. She stated that the objective was to make the process easy from a logistical standpoint, but difficult in terms of having to choose just one candidate from a high quality pool. She stated that Parker Executive Search's role was also to go out and proactively canvass the marketplace in order to identify individuals who would be the best fit for the University of Oregon. With that, she invited questions.

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) asked if one of the roles that Parker Executive Search played was to ensure the confidentiality of the people they recruited in the early stages. He asked if a consequence of this confidentiality would be that the committee would never know about certain candidates (i.e., those who were interested in the job, but who had not been made semi-finalists by the firm).

Laurie Wilder stated that Parker Executive Search was 100% transparent with the Search Committee, adding that the Search Committee had access to everything that the search firm had access to. She stated that the firm would not vote in the selection process, explaining that it was simply their job to build the candidate pool—not to make a judgment on it. She continued that Parker Executive Search would not take candidates out of consideration, and that only the Search Committee would do so. She reiterated that the search firm would go through the process of identifying candidates, but would not participate in ruling candidates out.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that it was his understanding that the Board would decide who was going to be the next President, reach an agreement with that person, and then bring them to campus—meaning that there would be no campus visit prior to the final decision. He asked Laurie Wilder to explain the rationale behind this procedure.

Laurie Wilder confirmed that the Board would make their selection and bring the individual to campus to announce them as the next President. The reason for this, she explained, had to do with the nature of the candidate pool. She stated that the candidates required confidentiality because they were typically in very senior-level positions. She explained that it would be difficult for them to return to their institutions following an unsuccessful public bid for a position with another university.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) asked how diverse the final applicant pool was expected to be, and whether there would be a public tally of the Board of Trustees’ vote on the next president. He added that it would be nice to know what the dissenting opinions were, should there be any.

Laurie Wilder stated that she would let Connie Ballmer address the question about the Board vote. She stated that presidents and chancellors of AAU universities were roughly 19% diverse in terms of gender, and about 11% diverse in terms of ethnic minorities. She stated that it was very important to ensure that there was a diverse pool of candidates. She added that she felt very confident that the candidates would be diverse with respect to gender and ethnic minorities.

Connie Ballmer, after consulting with University Secretary Angela Wilhelm, confirmed that the Board vote would be public.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) stated that he had a question regarding the role that the search firm would play in populating the candidate pool. He noted that the quality of the pool ultimately determined the quality of the president, and asked if the search firm was pursuing candidates who would generally make good president, or if they were specifically seeking individuals who would be a good fit for the University of Oregon. He asked if there were any criteria for deciding if an individual would be the right fit for the University of Oregon.

Laurie Wilder indicated that one of the more straightforward aspects of building a candidate pool was seeking out candidates that had the domain knowledge, experience, and skill set to do the job. She suggested that the more difficult task was finding a person whose strengths and weaknesses matched with the institution’s strengths and weaknesses. In terms of evaluating whether candidates would be a “good fit,” she stressed that the most important measure of compatibility was not necessarily how well-liked they were among the university community, but rather by how closely their skill set matched the university’s needs. She stated that the firm was looking for candidates who exhibited leadership, who believed in the approach of shared governance, who understood the importance of listening, and who would be able to engage with faculty, staff, students, alumni, and the legislative community. She stated that it was up to the Search Committee to decide whether someone could be a great president. She noted that someone who was a good fit at UO was not necessarily going to be a great president.

Professor John Bonine (Law) asked Laurie Wilder what she had discovered that was different about the culture, spirit, and understanding of UO compared to other universities. He asked if UO was just like any other place, or if it was different in some way. He also asked her if she had studied the successes and failures of previous University of Oregon presidents. He noted that success or failure was a question of perspective. He stated that he thought there would be a broad consensus among the people who constitute the heart and soul of the University that there had been both successful and unsuccessful Presidents in the past. He stated that looking at the successes and failures of past Presidents was important for determining who the next President should be.

Laurie Wilder stated that she believed that UO needed someone who specifically wanted to be at the University of Oregon—not someone who just wanted to be a president. She stated that there were things about UO that were very much like other institutions, but that the thing that separated UO from other universities was the passion people had for the institution.

Professor Bonine commented that this seemed like a “vanilla” answer. He asked Laurie Wilder if she could do more in the way of answering the question.

Laurie Wilder insisted that passion was not “vanilla,” adding that she had observed its absence at many other institutions. She stated that she also saw the University of Oregon as a phenomenal institution with a forward trajectory, and that this could not be said of all universities. She stated that some presidential positions are just jobs in which the president is expected to simply maintain the current course of the university. She stated that UO had something to sell in this regard, because it was a great place that was continually becoming better. She observed that there were also aspects of UO that needed work from the standpoint of metrics and AAU standings.

Addressing the second of Professor Bonine’s questions, she stated that the search firm had, indeed, evaluated the successes and failures of previous University of Oregon Presidents, and that this had been accomplished mostly by talking with people at UO. She shared her observation that in instances where presidential turnover was too rapid, there was a tendency to select new presidents who differed completely from their predecessors. She stated that she thought it was important for the Search Committee to be open, to look at the totality of the candidate pool, and to avoid trying to choose a new president based solely on the differences between a candidate and his or her predecessor. She stated that it was important to look at the human being and their experience base when assessing whether or not they would make a good president.

Senator Robin Clement (Accounting) asked how it would be possible for a candidate to learn about the people at UO with a closed search. She stated that the candidates would just be meeting with the Search Committee, which did not represent the diversity and the different points of view of the people at UO.

Laurie Wilder stated that Senator Clement made a valid point. She noted that oftentimes, candidates in closed searches find their way to the universities. She suggested that a candidate might, for example, come to UO—without necessarily presenting themselves as a candidate—to walk around, listen, and observe. Having said this, she stated that both the Search Committee and the Search Advisory Committee had broad-based representation.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked how much information about the candidates would be available to the Advisory Group.

Laurie Wilder stated that the Search Advisory Group was going to have sufficient access to be able to provide feedback and commentary prior to the interviews of the semi-finalists.

Senator Ahlen asked if the Search Advisory Committee would get to meet any of the candidates.

Laurie Wilder stated that the Search Committee would meet the candidates, but that the Search Advisory Committee would not.

Senator Rejaie asked what the interview included.

Laurie Wilder stated that the interview was typically about two hours, and that it would involve the candidate speaking with the full committee. She stated that the committee would have a set of questions that they wanted to address with the candidates, and noted that the Search Advisory Group was in the process of beginning to put together questions they would like the Search Committee to ask. She indicated that there would also be time for the candidate to ask questions of the Search Committee. She stated that the Search Committee would make some decisions based on the candidate's background and the interview, and indicated that they would also provide a strengths and weaknesses report to the Board.

Senator Clement asked Connie Ballmer if there was any way that the Search Advisory Committee could also meet with the candidates. She stated that there was something to be said for meeting someone and getting to know them a little bit, and suggested that it would better inform the Search Committee’s decision-making process.

Connie Ballmer stated that it would not be possible for the Search Advisory Group to meet the candidates while still protecting their confidentiality. She explained that getting another committee to meet with the candidates outside of Eugene would be difficult, and that it would increase the chance of leaks.

Senator Ahlen asked if there was a minimum number of candidates that would go before the Board of Trustees for a final vote.

Laurie Wilder stated that the number of candidates that would go before the Board was three (more or less). With that, she stated that she appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Senate, and ceded the podium.

Senate President Kyr recognized Connie Ballmer.

Connie Ballmer thanked the Senate for its questions and interest, and stated that she would like for the Senators to be ambassadors for the search process. She noted that the she was trying to keep the search as transparent as possible, which was difficult, given that she was unable to share lists of candidates and disclose information about each of the individuals.

Laurie Wilder encouraged the Senators to submit recommendations or nominations if they had any in mind. She stated that anyone who was recommended would be contacted, and added that recommendations were a great way to find candidates.

Senate President Kyr thanked Connie Ballmer and Laurie Wilder for attending the meeting and offering their remarks.

3.2       Report from the Senate Budget Committee

Senate President Kyr stated that at this time, the Senate would hear a report from the Senate Budget Committee. He stated that the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, John Chalmers, was unable to attend the meeting because he taught a class during the Senate Meeting time slot. Senate President Kyr noted, however, that Professor Chalmers had written the report and asked him to read it to the Senate. Professor Chalmers’ report has been reproduced in its entirety below:

Dear Rob,

At your request, the Senate Budget Committee looked into the issue of reduced instructional GTF appointments. We learned that these reductions were located within the College of Arts and Sciences, and only among instructional GTFs. As a result, we met with Interim Dean Andrew Marcus and Associate Dean Bruce Blonigen as part of our review. We learned that the reductions were cost-saving measures to address the fiscal deficit in the College of Arts and Sciences. Reductions in the offers to next year's incoming class were determined using a wide array of factors, but undergraduate student credit hours were a significant factor in the decisions. The number of new instructional GTF offers was reduced by 23. For reference, total instructional GTF positions in CAS are slightly under 900. CAS has about 300 additional GTFs on research contracts. It is also important to recognize that affected department heads were notified of these reductions—and the rationale for these reductions—in a letter from Dean Marcus on January 22, 2015. Dean Marcus is planning on attending this week's Senate meeting, and will be available to discuss the instructional GTF reductions. Given the short turnaround time, this letter is from me alone. Given that Dean Marcus will be available at the Senate meeting on Wednesday, the Senate will have an opportunity at that time to ask further questions.

 

Best Regards,

John Chalmers (Chair, Senate Budget Committee)

 

Senate President Kyr welcomed Dean Marcus and recognized Professor Bonine for a question.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that a deficit was based upon what someone has allocated. He asked Dean Marcus if he could say who it was that had allocated him less money than would have supported a broader degree of giving fellowships, and on what basis that allocation had been made.

Dean Andrew Marcus (CAS) stated that the allocation had been made using the Oregon Budget Model (just as it was for every college on campus) and that the Oregon Budget Model was based on student credit hours, on majors, and on degrees. He stated that the allocations were not made with specific intent to look at any one component of a college, and that it was left to the dean to allocate the budgets within a college. He reported that within the College of Arts and Sciences, there had been a 26% increase in GTF numbers on the instructional side over the last five years, and that this was in line with the mission to try to grow the graduate programs across the University and across CAS. He noted that the reductions being discussed were only a 2.5% decrease in the instructional GTF numbers, leaving a 23.5% total increase over the last five years. He explained that he was sharing these numbers because the amount of decrease in the current year was not something that fundamentally changed the overall trajectory of the last few years.

Professor Bonine asked Dean Marcus if he was saying that the actual allocation to every part of the University was run by a computer program, and that decisions about funding different parts of the University were now entirely driven by enrollment rather than by things like improving or maintaining department status, for instance. He asked Dean Marcus if he was suggesting that all allocations were made automatically by a system based upon enrollment. Professor Bonine noted that this had not always been the case.

Dean Marcus stated that not all allocations were made based on a simple equation. He explained that when there was a particular need within a college, or within a particular unit, Central Administration would often step forward and address those needs. He noted that there were currently many needs at UO, and that Central Administration was trying to make allocation decisions across many different segments of the University. He added that many different colleges had been addressed in one way or another. He stated that CAS occasionally received supplemental funds for a particular issue, or for a particular kind of activity. For example, he pointed out that a large portion of start-up costs were not included in his allocations, and that that money came from the Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation. He stated that start-up money was not allocated by a Budget Model kind of allocation, and that there was a great deal of flexibility around the edges of the core budget.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he had heard a rumor that CAS was now being much more stringent about determining the allocation of funds within a department. In the past, he explained, departments were given a lot of flexibility about where they wanted to spend summer money, for example. He asked if the rules about allocation within a department had changed.

Dean Marcus stated that the rules had, indeed, changed during the previous year, and that this had been done in consultation with department heads. He noted that there was a committee made up of department heads and office managers across the college who contributed to the system that was now in place. He explained that the main change that had taken place was that the budget-making authority within the College of Arts and Sciences had been centralized. He stated that departments were told that CAS would commit to maintaining the necessary personnel needs within the departments and the necessary operating costs, but that CAS did not want to see large accumulations of carryforward within individual departments. He stated that these carryforward amounts were accruing because some departments were able to bring in a lot more summer revenue than others (as a consequence of having more faculty on leave), and that this would result in some departments having very large amounts of cash that CAS could not delegate strategically across the rest of the college. He stated that CAS now met on a quarterly basis with every single department head and office manager in the college to go through their budget, evaluate their needs, and to try to address any urgent needs that they may have.

Senator Harbaugh asked, regarding the GTF appointments being discussed, if the departments would have been able to say: "You know, we really need these slots. Can we readjust the budget a little bit so that we get them?"

Dean Marcus confirmed that they could. He stated that of the 35 departments and programs with instructional GTFs, cuts were given to only 12 of those within the overall college. He noted that three of these departments and programs had come back to CAS and registered concerns that the cuts would be problematic. He stated that a fourth department/program was going to make a similar request later in the day.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) asked if the elimination of 23 instructional GTFs was the initial number, or the number after people complained.

Dean Marcus stated that the initial number was 26, and that three GTFs were re-installed three across multiple departments.

Senator Psaki noted that the timing of the instructional GTF reductions—January 23rd—was really detrimental, because it coincided with recruiting and student visits, among other things. She asked why the information had come out at such a sensitive and “morale-busting” time.

Dean Marcus explained that the initial hope was to have the reductions go out in November, but that CAS was sidelined in a very serious way by the graduate students' strike. He stated that CAS did not want to hand out these cuts on a piecemeal basis, and thought it would be more morale-busting to just hand out cuts college-wide. He explained that CAS had put a lot of time into developing metrics that tracked student credit hours, changes in discussion section sizes, FTE, etc. in an effort to figure out where cuts could be made. He added that these metrics would eventually be shared with department heads and office managers.

Senator Psaki stated that everyone was stunned to learn of the CAS budget deficit when Dean Marcus had come to her department last month. She asked Dean Marcus if he could speak about this, and if it was accurate to say that the CAS budget had not looked like this during the previous year.

Dean Marcus stated that the CAS budget actually had looked like this during the previous year, but added that it had not looked like this a year and a half ago. Elaborating, he noted that at this time, there had been changes in the Budget Model that altered the amount of money moving out into the different colleges. He stated that there were also a lot of expenses associated with implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that had been held back. He added that across the college, there had been a decrease in particular humanities and social sciences courses, which—through the Budget Model—decreased the amount of money that flowed into the college by millions of dollars. He stated that the suite of factors he described had come together in one particular moment and made things really tough.

Senate President Kyr thanked Dean Marcus for his willingness to have a dialogue with the Senate.

Dean Marcus stated that he was glad to come anytime, and that CAS was trying to be as transparent as possible with its budgeting. To this end, he stated that a utility called "Dashboard"—which tracked enrollments, trends over time, and overall allocations for every department in the college—had been posted on CASWeb,.

3.3       Remarks by Interim President Coltrane with questions

Senate President Kyr stated that at this time, the Senate would hear remarks from Interim President Scott Coltrane.

Interim President Scott Coltrane stated that he wanted to reiterate that some of the changes in the College of Arts and Sciences that Dean Marcus had mentioned were tied to campus-wide budgeting. He noted that graduate funding, in particular, had shifted about three or four years ago, and that as a result of this, colleges bore much more responsibility for how decisions were made about funding graduate students. He stated that the RCM model used over the last four years had improved budget predictability and led to funding that was more commensurate with needs. He noted that the model was recalibrated during the previous year to revalue graduate education, and that the University was working to get things right.

Moving along, he indicated that he would provide the Senate with an update on the comprehensive plan to address sexual assault. He stated that the leadership team (the Vice President, the Provost, and himself) had now thoroughly reviewed all of the recommendations from the President's Review Panel—which had been received in December—as well as those from the Senate Task Force, which had been received during the fall. He reported that there were nearly 100 recommendations from these two reports, and stated that the next step was to meet with the Senate Task Force and the President's Review Panel to look at proposed responses and actions. He noted that his staff was setting up a meeting with both of these groups, and that he, Vice President Holmes, Vice President Moffitt, and Acting Provost Bronet would all be attending. He stated that a meeting had also been scheduled for the purpose of informing the campus about the plan, and indicated that the Administration would continue to work internally on some of the recommendations relating to its implementation. He reported that progress was being made, and that he had already committed to hiring new faculty, reorganizing offices, and designating specific responsibilities by the end of the academic year. He indicated that he planned to provide additional progress reports on the recommendations. He stated that the next campus conversation he had referred to was scheduled for March 2, at 4:00 p.m. at the Ford Alumni Center. He stated that there had been another meeting date that had to be pulled back, because it conflicted with the Strategic Planning Forum. He stated that it was possible that additional meetings would be scheduled, depending on how things went and what kind of feedback was received. He encouraged everyone to give the Administration more input.

Addressing the Policy Review Process, Interim President Coltrane stated that the Senate would be considering the revised "Policy on University Policies" later in the meeting. He noted that he was very pleased that this work had come to this point, adding that there had been great cooperation. He expressed his hope that the Senate would take action during the meeting so that the policy could be given to the Board. He anticipated that the new policy-making process would be much more streamlined and much more collaborative—especially regarding decisions about how the University would inherit the policies from State level and make sense of them.

Regarding the Federal Budget, Interim President Coltrane stated that President Obama had released his Administration's budget proposal and called for an end to sequestration funding caps. He stated that the budget would provide for funding increases for several research agencies, including the National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy Office of Science. He stated that the budget unfortunately made no new investments in the National Center for Special Education Research or high-energy physics—two areas of particular interest for some members of the UO faculty. He noted, however, that the budget did include a request for funds for earthquake sensors, which was an item of special interest to the UO Geology faculty. He stated that the UO Administration continued to advocate for the faculty and for important research funds, and encouraged everyone to work with their deans and department heads for any special initiatives that they wanted the Administration to advocate for on the Hill.

Regarding State Higher Education Day, Interim President Coltrane stated that he would be going to Salem where all of the community colleges and public universities in the state would be lobbying the Legislature. He stated that the effort would focus on a substantial reinvestment in higher education, and that the hope was that the co-chairs of key committees would return state higher education funding to pre-recession levels.

Ending with a word on Strategic Planning, Interim President Coltrane encouraged everyone to participate in the workshops. He stated that Provost Bronet and President Kyr had announced to campus that the next session was Tuesday from noon to two in the EMU Ballroom. With that, he closed his remarks and invited questions.

Senator Jimmy Murray (UO Libraries) stated that his questions were about the recent records release incident. He wondered if Interim President Coltrane had any updates on the outside investigation, and asked if someone from the Administration would be willing to speak with the University Library Committee about what had happened and how to move forward.

Interim President Coltrane answered “yes” to both questions. He stated that the investigation was almost done, and that the goal was to have a report by the end of the week. He stated that the extent of the breach was still being assessed.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) prefaced his comment by noting that he belonged to a fraternity on campus. He stated that national studies had shown that men in fraternities commit rape at roughly three times the rate as non-Greek men, and that Professor Freyd's research had similarly shown that involvement in FSL on campus led to significant increases in sexual assault and rape. He asked Interim President Coltrane why he had not yet committed to halting the chartering of new chapters of fraternities on campus.

Interim President Coltrane asked Senator Lubash if his fraternity brothers supported halting the chartering of new chapters.

Senator Lubash stated that some of them did; he noted that they would not be directly impacted by the halting of new chapters.

Interim President Coltrane relayed that one of the recommendations that the Task Force had issued was to stop the process of chartering new chapters. He noted that some of the charter application processes were long-term, and had been going on for years. He indicated that the comprehensive plan would deal with the issue. He stated that there were pros and cons, and that it was a tough issue, adding that the fact that there was a correlation did not necessarily imply causation. He stated that each sorority and fraternity had a representative that was working with advocates in Student Life to really look at the problem. He stated that this was a "boots on the ground" approach to evaluating what was happening and bringing bad practices to a halt. He noted that in order for this to work, FSL needed to “buy in,” and that banning new chapters might not be the way to get FSL to do so.

Senator Lubash reiterated his concerns, suggesting that in light of the correlation that existed, to add more chapters would be to risk making the problem worse. He stated that his next question concerned the Athletics Department. He noted that large raises had recently been awarded to Athletics Director Mullens and Coach Helfrich, and that the Athletics Department had suggested in the Register-Guard that if they could not support these raises with their existing budget, they could work to fundraise to maintain them. At the same time, Senator Lubash continued, the Athletics Department came to the ASUO asking for a ten percent increase in allocation from the mandatory Incidental Fee to pay for the same number of football and basketball tickets that were reserved for students during the previous year. This year, Senator Lubash explained, every student paid about 71 dollars (1.7 million dollars total) for their chance to participate in the ticket lottery. He stated that he questioned the Athletics Department's commitment to the student body, because they were more willing to fundraise to support their own raises than they were in order to decrease their significant burden on students. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he would support and direct the Athletics Department to run a fundraising campaign to decrease the amount that students pay for Athletics tickets so that the department could ultimately wean themselves off of the Incidental Fee without reducing the number of student tickets enjoyed by the student body.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would not comment on his willingness to endorse Senator Lubash's proposal, but added that he would certainly look into it. He indicated that he thought the extent of the subsidy for student tickets was something that was important. He stated that the Athletics Department was self-supporting, and that a lot of the salaries were driven by what people were worth on the market. He added that these people were worth a lot because they were successful. He stated that it was a dilemma, and that he hoped it did not fall on students.

Senator Lubash stated that it did fall on students, and added that 1.7 million dollars was a lot of money.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) stated that she was hoping that Interim President Coltrane would have time on Friday to join the UO Divestment Rally at Johnson Hall. She stated that students had voted during the previous year to ask the UO Foundation to divest from its fossil fuel holdings, and added that the Senate had voted unanimously to support this, as well.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would be in the building.

Senator Cramer encouraged Interim President Coltrane to help the divestment movement.

Interim President Coltrane noted that he was in discussions with the Foundation, and indicated that he thought it was a complicated issue. He stated that the Foundation had some socially responsible practices, and added that he hoped to set up some meetings with the Foundation representatives.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he was hopeful that the Senate would take action on the Policy on Policies during the current meeting, and that the Board would find that it was not necessary to take action (contrary to what Interim President Coltrane had suggested). He explained that the policy regarding delegation of authority that had been adopted during the previous year suggested that the Policy on Policies before the Senate was one that it could adopt on its own, and that the Board would accept it.

Senate President Kyr thanked everyone for their remarks and their civil discourse.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Winter Quarter Meeting Schedule & Policy Workgroups; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr gave a brief Winter Term meeting schedule update. He announced that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, February 18th in Beall Concert Hall. He added that the following two meetings would be held on on Wednesday, March 4th in the Ford Alumni Center Ballroom, and Wednesday, March 11th in the current room (Lawrence Hall, Room 115).

He noted that the Senate would be looking at the progress of the policy realignment workgroups starting March 4th. He requested that each work group get back to him with a plan for how many policies they would like to be put before the Senate at particular meetings during the year. 

4.2       Motion (Policy Adoption): Revision of the University’s “Policy on Policies”; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the motion: "Revision of the University’s 'Policy on Policies.'" He stated that Professor Bonine would be speaking for the Senate Executive Committee, and asked him to give the motion to the Senate.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Mike Strain (CAMCOR) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr stated that the policy had been given to the Senate for review and public comment at the last meeting. He added that those who had responded had suggested no significant revisions. He asked Professor Bonine to provide some background information on the motion.

Professor Bonine stated that the policy was the result of a tremendously productive working relationship with the Administration, the union, various other faculty members in and out of the Senate, and the Secretary of the University. Referring to a change that he had made, Professor Bonine noted that the policy was formerly titled "The Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon Policy;" he added, however, that in reality it was not necessary for the Board of Trustees to adopt the policy. He stated that in addition to adopting the policy, the Senate Executive Committee was talking with representatives from the Board and the Administration in order to help craft a motion that would essentially endorse or recognize the policy. He stated that the goal was for the Board to accept that the University leadership knew what it was doing, and that the Board did not need to step in and redesign things that they had already delegated to the Senate. He stated, for this reason, that the policy was now just the University’s policy. He added that if the Senate and the President accepted it, the hope was that the Board would simply accept what had been done under the University Constitution.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Senator Mitchell.

Senator Victoria Mitchell (UO Libraries) observed that the term "Policy Advisory Committee" appeared in Section 3.3, and that further along, the term "Policy Advisory Council" was used. She asked if these were supposed to be the same entity.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Mitchell for catching the error.

Professor Bonine moved to substitute the phrase "Policy Advisory Council" wherever "Policy Advisory Committee" appeared.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried, and discussion was returned to the main motion. Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Emeritus Frank Stahl.

Professor Emeritus Frank Stahl (Biology) noted that in contrast to the existing policy, the Senate was called upon to deal more explicitly with matters of curriculum, whereas before it had been dealing with matters of academic interest. He stated that he wondered if it might be time to think about activating the Academic Council.

Senate President Kyr indicated that it was already being activated. He then recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she really appreciated the people who had spent hundreds of hours and lots of brainpower, experience, and insight bringing the policy to the Senate.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Psaki for her comments and recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Philosophy) stated that he had a question about the fifth paragraph (which began with the language "The policy recognizes…"). He noted that this paragraph had to do with the "Emergency and Temporary Powers Policy," and asked for a bit of background regarding the policy. He noted that in the Constitution, the term "emergency" was mentioned in such a way that powers of this kind were delegated in Section 7.2.2.2.1. He stated that the section read: "If the University needs to comply immediately with Federal, State or local statutes, or in case of an immediate emergency, then the President has..." these powers. He stated that the "Policy on Policies" indicated that emergency and temporary policies could be enacted "when the Board or the President deems it necessary or appropriate." He stated that this seemed like a much lower standard then the Constitution language of "needing to comply immediately with Federal, State or local statutes, or in case of an immediate emergency." He asked if there was a reason for lowering the standard.

Professor Bonine stated that he did not like the lowered standard, but explained that the Board of Trustees had adopted a policy on delegation and retention of authority last spring, rejecting many recommendations from the faculty from the University Senate on how to write a better policy on delegation of authority and retention of authority. He stated that the policy adopted by the Board on June 12 read: "Emergency and temporary actions: Board actions shall have the force of law to extend...” and “emergency and temporary Presidential actions may have the force of law to the extent set forth therein." He stated that the fifth paragraph essentially recognized that the Board decided to add the word "temporary," as well as "emergency," in the concept. He added that elsewhere in the policy, there was a stipulation that a six-month duration be applied to temporary measures. He stated that this basically amounted to treating temporary events like emergencies and putting a limit on them.

Senate President Kyr stated that those who crafted that policy were very careful to make sure that it would not adversely affect the Constitution. He recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that there were references to the Constitution throughout the document. He stated that this was in response to the Board proposal from December, which basically stated that everything contrary their policy was to be ignored.

Senate President Kyr requested further questions. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried. He stated that the policy would be forwarded to the President and then to the Board.

4.3       Motion (Resolution): Resolution to Create and Make Accessible More Gender-Inclusive Restrooms on the University of Oregon Campus; Samantha Cohen (Senator; Undergraduate, Family and Human Services), Elle Mallon (Undergraduate, Psychology), Atticus Kazarian (Undergraduate, Linguistics), Miles Sisk (Undergraduate, Political Science), LGBTQA, Theta Pi Sigma; ASUO Executive; The Women’s Center

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.3: "Resolution to Create and Make Accessible More Gender-Inclusive Restrooms on the University of Oregon Campus."

Elle Mallon (ASUO Gender and Diversity Advocate) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and invited Elle Mallon to provide some background.

Elle Mallon stated that although the University of Oregon advertised itself as one of the highest-ranking LGBT-friendly universities in the country, many of the buildings on campus did not have gender-inclusive restrooms. She explained that this meant that transgender students often had to leave the buildings where their lectures were being held in order to find a bathroom that they felt safe to enter, which resulted in a significant amount of missed instruction time. She encouraged the Senate to pass the resolution as a sign of support that it would continue to do the policy work to make the University more inclusive.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion, and recognized Dulce Castro.

Dulce Castro (Student) stated that she was student in the Conflict and Dispute Resolution Program and an intern for the Bias Response Team. She proceeded to read the following letter from the Women's Center staff:

As an institution of higher learning, this university has an obligation to make our campus a safe and accessible space for all students. It is unacceptable to expect students to go out of their way to access such a basic human right as a restroom. The Women's Center believes that we need students, faculty, and staff to work toward equity by supporting and pushing for policies that center on our disenfranchised students. Gender-inclusive restrooms—and a comprehensive map informing students where they are located—is a basic step toward supporting not only emotional security, but physical safety from discrimination on campus and real health effects of not having access to a restroom. This university needs to join colleges like New York University, Ohio University, UCLA, the University of Colorado Boulder, and UCSD in the initiative to guarantee basic health and human rights for our students, which undeniably includes safe spaces for trans and gender-nonconforming students to use the restroom.

Senate President Kyr recognized Maure Smith-Benanti.

Maure Smith-Benanti (Assistant Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Education and Support Services) noted that her office had been working on getting gender-inclusive restrooms for over a decade, and stated that the support of the Senate would be very helpful. 

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she was embarrassed that she did not know that this was a problem on campus. She indicated that she had a question about Section 2.1, which read: "The University of Oregon shall create at least one gender-inclusive restroom in every building." She asked if the intent was to designate restrooms as gender-inclusive, or to actually insert new constructions. She stated that it did not make a difference in terms of what was right, but that it made a difference in terms of what was easily feasible.

Elle Mallon stated that just re-marking bathrooms would be fine.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Cramer.

Senator Jane Cramer stated that she was also embarrassed that the University had not handled this issue earlier. She stated that having gender-inclusive restrooms was very financially doable.

Senate President Kyr recognized Acting Provost Bronet.

Acting Provost Frances Bronet asked Maure Smith-Benanti what barriers she had come across in her efforts to address the issue.

Maure Smith-Benanti stated that the barriers were numerous. She noted that money had always been an issue, and that some buildings on campus did not have single-stall restrooms. She also noted that there was a city code that required a certain number of gendered restrooms in each building, but that there was no requirement (federally or otherwise) to include any single-stall, locking restrooms in new buildings. She added that there were no requirements on campus that all newly-constructed or remodeled buildings should have single-stall, gender-inclusive restrooms. She pointed out that UO was one of the top ten trans-friendly universities in the nation, and that it needed to be thinking about issue like gender-inclusive restrooms if it wanted to remain so. She noted that the University also needed to consider multi-use gender-inclusive restrooms. She reported that there would be a multi-use, gender-inclusive restroom installed across from the LGBTQA in the new EMU, and that there would be two single-stall, locking restrooms down the hall from it. She stated that this was important due to the restrooms’ close proximity to the Women's Center; she noted that there were some individuals who had experienced trauma and would not feel safe using a multi-use, gender-inclusive restroom. She stated that it was easy and cheap to make a gender-inclusive restroom, noting that it could be done by simply changing the signs and putting a lock on the door.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine. 

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he did not think the question of installing locks was in the motion. He suggested that the motion could be amended to stipulate that all single-stall restrooms on campus be converted to be locking and gender-inclusive. He noted that there was no clear time limit in the motion and suggested that the University could first change the signage on the restrooms that already locked, and then start installing locks on restrooms that did not have them.

Elle Mallon stated that she was fine with Professor Bonine's proposed amendment. She stated that the original goal of the motion was to change the signs on restrooms that were already locking, but added that she would be happy to have all single-stall bathrooms changed.

Professor Bonine made his proposed motion.

Maure Smith-Benanti indicated that she had a quick point to add. She stated that there were some restrooms that had a stall and a urinal, and that these were considered "two-fixture" restrooms. She stated that if two-fixture restrooms had a lock on them, that they could also be gender-inclusive.

Professor Bonine stated that he thought it would be enough if the record would show that the motion meant "single toilet stall," so that an additional urinal stall did not interfere.

Senate President Kyr asked Elle Mallon if she preferred the language to be “single toilet stall,” or “single-stall.”

Elle Mallon asked, for clarity, if a resolution was essentially a broad statement of support.

Professor Bonine confirmed that it was only a statement of support. He stated that the Administration could ignore it completely, but added that they would not. 

Senate President Kyr stated that a resolution offered guidance and showed intent.

Elle Mallon stated that either phrasing would probably be fine. She suggested that a phrase like "single occupancy" or "single or double fixture" might work.

Professor John Bonine, inspired by Elle Mallon’s suggestion, stated that he would actually like to be able to convert double-stall restrooms.

Acting Provost Frances Bronet stated that there could be a problem with the regulations regarding how many restrooms were needed for the occupancy of the building. She stated that it was better to keep the resolution as open as possible so that it could move quickly.

Professor Bonine suggested that the proposal could call for double-stall restrooms to be converted where it was possible within the regulations.

Acting Provost Bronet stated that it was better to keep the resolution open, and that she believed the intent was for the University to work as much as possible with people who had been devoting their efforts to the issue.

Professor Bonine clarified that his proposed motion to amend should refer to “single stalls.”

Senate President Kyr stated that the resolution as amended would read: "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the University of Oregon shall convert all single stall restrooms on campus so that they are locking and gender-inclusive and indicated as such by appropriate signage."

Senator Cramer seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. None followed and he called for a vote. The amendment carried and the discussion returned to the main motion. Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that he had a question for those who understood the code. He asked whether a single-stall, locked restroom would count toward the required number of both male and female restrooms, or if it would count toward neither.

Maure Smith-Benanti stated that she was no expert on code, but added that she did not understand why a single-stall or double-fixture restroom that was  gender-inclusive and locking could not count toward both.

Professor Bonine stated that he wished to make a motion to add an additional "resolve" clause that would read: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the University of Oregon Senate requests the City of Eugene to modify or amend its building code to recognize gender-inclusive restrooms as meeting the quota requirements for gendered restrooms in buildings, unless that is already the case." He stated that he would appreciate getting some wording suggestions from Senator Davidson before he gave his motion to the Senate.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) suggested that if the bathrooms that were being discussed were all going to be locking, then the word “locked” could be put in front of "gender-inclusive." He stated that this would make it more self-evident to the city that the restroom was meeting the purposes of gendered bathrooms.

Professor Bonine gave the motion to the Senate as modified by Senator Davidson.

Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. Seeing no hands, he called for a vote on the amendment. The amendment carried, and discussion returned to the main motion. No additional comments or questions were put forward, and Senate President Kyr called the question. The motion carried.

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 5 (Tenth-Year Review); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.4:  Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 5 (Tenth-Year Review).” He stated that the term "Senate Nominating Committee" had been struck in the revision, because it was no longer applicable.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

 Senator Dianne Dugaw (English) seconded it.

Senate President Kyr read the motion. He stated that he did not think there was a need for background and opened the floor for discussion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) Observed that there was nothing in the motion about whether the committee meetings were open. He asked if this was intentional.

Senate President Kyr stated that the larger legislation would cover that.

Senator Harbaugh asked if the motion was essentially just a "housekeeping" measure.

Senate President Kyr confirmed that it was a housekeeping measure.

Senator Harbaugh called the question.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote, and the motion carried.

 

7.   NOTICE(S) OF MOTION

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Emeritus Stahl.

Professor Emeritus Frank Stahl (Biology) stated that he had two notices of motion that dealt with the issue of open committee meetings. He stated that they had been submitted to the President, and noted that they should appear on the web page shortly.

Senate President Kyr confirmed that they had been received and that they would be posted on the web page.

 

8.   OTHER BUSINESS

Senate President Kyr announced that the Divestment Rally would be held on Friday at 3:00 p.m. in Johnson Hall. He stated that there was also a request from Jane Cramer to sign the Open Letter.

 

9.   ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr thanked the Senators for their service, and called the February 11, 2015 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 28, 2015

Present: Paul Dassonville, Jennifer Freyd, Weiyong He, Jun Li, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, Bruce Mc Gough, Jason Brown, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Ron Lovinger, Laura Leete, Marilyn Nippold, Debra Merskin, May Ann Hyatt, Victoria Mitchell, Edward Teague, Robin Clemet, Jennifer Ellis, Robert Kyr, Monique Balbuena, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, Will Iversen, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Miriam Deutsch, William Harbaugh, Richard Margerum, Charles Lachman, Deborah Olson, Jerry Rosiek

Excused: Ken Prehoda, Michael Price, Donna Shaw, Alexandre Dossin, David Espinoza

 Note: Due to technical issues, the beginning of the January 28th 2015 meeting was not recorded. Consequently, the minutes begin partway through Senate President Kyr’s opening remarks.

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) informed the Senate that the current meeting would focus on the ongoing policy review process, adding that the body would consider legislation to create policy review workgroups.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2.1        November 19, 2014

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the minutes of the November 19, 2014 meeting. He requested comments and questions regarding the minutes. Hearing none, they were approved.

2.2        December 10, 2014

Senate President Kyr requested comments regarding the minutes from the December 10th, 2014 meeting. None followed, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.   STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

3.1       Remarks by Interim President Coltrane with questions

Senate President Kyr invited Interim President Coltrane to deliver the State of the University Address, noting that there would be time for questions following his remarks.

Interim President Scott Coltrane informed the Senate that his address would focus on three topics: the comprehensive plan to address sexual assault, the work on policies, and the recent records release incident. He noted that Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim would be speaking about the records incident following his remarks.

Interim President Coltrane reminded those present that the University was in the middle of reviewing hundreds of policies following its shift to self-governance. He noted that the policies had formerly been housed by the State Board of Higher Education, Oregon Administrative Rules, management directives, and other state-level policies, and that it was necessary to review these policies in order to ensure that they remained current, relevant, and applicable to the University. He stated that the full membership of the Policy Advisory Council had recently been appointed to help find a path forward for enacting new policies, and for reforming or revising current polices. He added that the Council membership was diverse, noting that it drew its membership from the faculty, staff, and students. He stated that the Council would meet for the first time in the following week, and that they would advise him on prioritizing and organizing the review process so that all of the various departments and people on campus who were affected by the policies would have input.

He stated that the Administration was working with the Senate and Trustee Susan Gary to finalize a Policy on Policies, and noted that it was on the Senate’s agenda to bring the policy forward to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees for consideration. He stated that a great deal of hard work had gone into hammering out language that synchronously worked with the Board, ensured that the Senate had oversight on academic matters, and still allowed the University to be organized and efficient. He went on to thank the Senate for all of the work it had done reviewing the policies relating to academic matters. He explained that the policy recommendations of the Senate were currently under legal review, and stated that he would act on them—or return them with suggestions—within 60 days (as set forth in the Constitution).

Interim President Coltrane took a moment to mention that the University was making headway on the Strategic Planning effort and stated that President Kyr—and perhaps Provost Bronet—would comment on this after the State of the University Address.

Regarding the comprehensive plan to address sexual assault, Interim President Coltrane stated that the University was moving forward with its efforts to determine how to put together the three different reports. He invited everyone to attend the town hall meetings that had been scheduled for Tuesday, February 24th at 12:00 p.m. in the EMU ballroom, and Monday, March 2nd at 4:00 p.m. in the Ford Alumni Center. He stated that the town hall meetings were designed to facilitate discussions that would help inform the campus about the different recommendations. He added that he would report on which recommendations might be feasible (and in what order), and get feedback. He added that there would also be an opportunity for both written and electronic input regarding the recommendations, and stated that his office would be providing more information on how to participate in the near future.

Interim President Coltrane went on to report that the Campus Climate Advisory Group had met several times, and stated that the group would help oversee the administration of campus climate surveys. He reminded those present that he had signed on to participate in the AAU survey, but that he was still expecting the Climate Advisory Group to advise him on the quality of the survey and how to move forward in that regard. He stated that the goal for the Winter Term was to put all of the relevant information together and forge a comprehensive plan outlining which initiatives the University would participate in, the order of participation, and how to make sure that the reform would happen in the best possible manner.

Interim President Coltrane mentioned that the Senate had recommended some changes to the Student Conduct Code in December, and that it had subsequently voted to clarify that these were policy proposals rather than legislation. He stated that in response, he had sent a letter to President Kyr indicating that the Administration would consider the proposals in conjunction with all of the other codes as planned. He expressed his hope that this work would be expedited, adding that the Administration would be looking at them as a package. He stated that some of the recommendations from the President's Review Panel differed from those of the Senate Task Force with regard to whether the Code should be totally separate on the issue of sexual violence, or whether it should be integrated. He stated that the Administration would have to adjudicate between these two viewpoints.

At this time, Interim President Coltrane indicated that he would speak briefly about the electronic documents issue. He stated that the documents had not gone through the typical archival processing procedures, and that they had been released without the kind of review that was normally expected. He noted that the documents had been returned to the University, and that their contents could now be reviewed in the normal fashion. He stated that the University was still investigating what had transpired, and that it wanted to make sure that something like this did not happen again. He stated that he would not be sharing the details about what had led to the return of the documents, or about any of the parties involved, as it was a personal matter.

He expressed the wish to clarify why the University had sought the return of the documents. He stated that he thought it came down to the University's moral and legal obligation to students, faculty, and staff. He explained that the documents were the combined electronic records of the President's Office dating back four years, and that these were typically given to the Archives Office without any kind of vetting or culling. He noted that there were standard practices—some set by State Law—about how the documents should be made available to the public. He stated that the 22,000 pages included a lot of trivial items (e.g., "thank you" notes), but also a lot of sensitive materials, such as personal complaints. He added that these included such things as statements containing protected information about students, allegations against faculty members that might not have come to fruition, and many other things that should not be revealed to any third-party source. He asserted that people placed their trust in the President's Office to keep private material out of the public records. He indicated that there would be an investigation by an outside legal firm into what had gone wrong, and that the Administration would figure out how to fix the process of releasing records.

Interim President Coltrane informed the Senate that he had asked the Dean of Libraries, Adriene Lim, to speak about some of the complicated issues regarding the different missions of the Library—both as archivists and as librarians. He stated that the Library had the capacity to deal with the complex privacy rights, and that they were working to protect access to documents—as well as to protect privacy—on a daily basis. Interim President Coltrane stated that the President's Office was fully committed to making sure that it did not leak documents or release private records, while also ensuring public access where appropriate. With that, he invited Dean Lim to speak, and stated that he would be available for questions after her remarks.

Adriene Lim (Dean of Libraries) stated that she felt honored to have joined the University of Oregon six months ago, and to have worked with some of the most dedicated and creative librarians, library workers, faculty, staff, and students that she had ever known. She added that she wished her first remarks before the Senate would have allowed her to highlight the Libraries’ many outstanding programs, services, and resources, but that she instead found herself needing to address the recent records release incident that had occurred. She shared that for almost two decades, she had served as a librarian and library administrator at large public universities, and that she had dedicated her life and career to helping students, faculty, and community members obtain the outstanding library services and resources that they needed in order to succeed and transform their lives. She added that since 1996, she had been an active member of the American Library Association, and that she was a passionate advocate for open and transparent government, equal access to information, and the protection of individuals' privacy rights. She noted that she believed an individual’s privacy rights were a universal human right.

She expressed the belief that the recent records incident was related more the UO Libraries' records management role than its library archives role. She stated that the UO Libraries handle a significant portion of the University's records management infrastructure—including records from units like the President's Office. She stated that some of the records the Library handles are non-permanent, and as such, are retained for a limited period defined by the University's records retention schedule. She explained that other records are permanent, and are placed in the University Archives after transfer from the originating offices and appropriate processing by the Libraries. She went on to state that the Oregon Public Records Law defines categories of non-exempt records (i.e., those subject to disclosure) and exempt records (i.e., those not subject to disclosure), and noted that both non-permanent and permanent records may fall into either category. She explained that in the event that exempt records or federally-protected data are released to unauthorized users, the Library is bound by its legal and ethical obligations to disclose the breach—not only by notifying data stewards at the institutional level, but also by notifying all those individuals whose privacy and confidentiality may have been compromised. She stated that the University has an additional obligation to try to secure the return of the data. She stated that the Library workers adhere to a professional code of ethics—including those of the American Library Association and the Society of American Archivists—which informs their philosophies and practices, and their protection of patron privacy and confidentiality. She noted, however, that fellow librarians at the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom had affirmed that libraries and archives are within their ethical rights to conduct internal investigations if they suspect that a data breach has occurred, or if they suspect that library users have not complied with institutional policies, library policies, or the law when using library services and resources. She stated that if a data breach occurs, or if a violation is suspected, the Library maintains its commitment to keep any internal investigation as confidential as possible—especially when personal matters are involved.

She stated that she believed in openness and transparency, but not at the expense of the privacy and confidentiality of ordinary citizens. She stated that librarians, archivists, and records managers had to balance their interest in promoting openness and transparency with their interest in protecting the privacy and confidentiality of individuals—especially in instances where information might also be legally protected. In closing, she stated that she and her colleagues looked forward to strengthening the Library policies. She stated that the Library had obtained an expression of support from the Senate's University Library Committee to help complete a review over the next few months. She offered her assurance that she and her colleagues remained dedicated to carrying out their mission with integrity, dedication, and passionate commitment. She stated that she hoped that the Senate would continue to support the Libraries and allow them to support the University in all of its teaching, learning, and research endeavors.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he was the person who had obtained the presidential archives from the University Library. Having reviewed the documents, he expressed his concern that there were many things missing from them. He explained, for example, that there were email messages that referenced attached documents, but that there were no attachments to be found. He acknowledged Dean Lim's concern about the potential release of illegal documents and offered his assurance that he had been very careful not to do that. He added that the only thing he had posted on the internet was a legal opinion from the former Interim President's General Counsel. He stated that his concern was not that too much had been put into the University's Presidential Archives, but that that there were obviously some important things that were missing. He asked whether the investigation conducted by the Hershner Hunter firm would also consider this possibility.

Dean Lim conveyed her understanding that the investigation was more related to this particular incident and the personnel matters that were involved, but noted that after the investigation was over, the Library planned to review its entire process surrounding records management, public records, and their treatment. She stated that the Public Records Law spelled out the types of records that should be public and available for scrutiny, and that she would be the first person to advocate for openness and transparency. She added that the Library only handled the records management, and that it may not have control over some of the documents that enter the archives.

Senator Harbaugh asked if the meetings reviewing the records management policy would be public.

Dean Lim stated that it was her hope that this would be the case, adding that if they were conducting the public business, they should be public and open.

Senator Harbaugh, now addressing Interim President Coltrane, noted that the source of “all this trouble” had been the document containing the former Interim General Counsel’s legal opinion. He stated that he was obviously very concerned about the release of these legal opinions, noting that this document was clearly about faculty governance and how the University would be run. He stated that it proposed a drastic change, and guessed that there were many other legal opinions that really should be shared with the public and with the Senate. He stated that he had made a public records request for some of those opinions, and that the response was very quick and very clear: that Interim President Coltrane had not waived his attorney-client privilege on these sorts of documents. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he was willing to do this, at least in some cases.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was certainly willing to talk about it. He added that he thought attorney-client privilege was important, and that there were lots of decisions that the President needed to make based on sound legal advice.

Senator Harbaugh suggested that the Senate would like to have the opportunity to see the sound legal advice, as well.

Interim President Coltrane stated that sometimes the questions asked needed to be narrow, and that there were many things that he would not want released. He stated that there were some things that he would like to share, and that he was happy to talk with the Senate about the conditions under which certain legal opinions should be shared. He stated that the legal opinion Senator Harbaugh was referring to—had it been shared at the time—would have been fairly inflammatory, but also noted that the advice was not taken.

Senator Harbaugh responded that not all of that advice was taken.

Interim President Coltrane stated that as little as possible was taken, as far as he could tell. He stated that he did not want to undermine the Constitution, and indicated that there was some advice in the legal opinion that he would not have taken, either. He stated that he thought having more open dialogues about the kind of advice that should be shared was a good thing. He added that the release of legal opinions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Dean Lim added that there was a large section in the Public Records Law that talked about the public right to scrutiny, but that there was also an exemption for some things. She stated that the Law talked about the public's interest in allowing its public agencies and institutions to be able to freely consider options and plans, for instance.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she had a few questions concerning process, policy, and resources. She noted that she was perplexed as to why so much data would leave the President's Office un-vetted and unfiltered. She stated that she was curious about whether it was really the Library's responsibility to have to vet the documents. She added that as a member of the ULC for half of her career, she had never known the Library to have the resources to carry out such work.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he thought there needed to more consideration about how much information the President's Office was sending. He stated that it did not seem appropriate for the President's Office to selectively prune its own records, but suggested that it should be done by someone in a systematic way. He added that once the investigation was done, the University needed to have a conversation with the Dean of Libraries and the Public Records Office about whether they should be consolidated in some way. 

Senator Psaki stated that she wished to add, as a coda, that all of the communications coming from the President and the Provost had pointed to confidential faculty records and confidential student records being leaked, and stated that these types of records should certainly be removed before leaving the President's Office. 

Interim President Coltrane stated that he tended to agree, but that it still had to be worked out moving forward.

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) stated that she had a comment and a couple of questions regarding the AAU survey plans. She commented that she was heartened to hear that the Interim President would take advice on the AAU survey. She added, however, that earlier in the week, Around the O had released a story saying that the University of Oregon was going to participate in the AAU survey. She stated that it seemed like “double speak” to say that the University was going to participate, while reserving the right to not participate. Regarding the process that the University was going to undertake to review the ethics of the AAU survey, Senator Freyd stated that she was deeply concerned about the ethics of the survey on a number of grounds. She stated that she was startled to hear that the University might believe that it could make these ethical considerations without going through the IRB. She asked Interim President Coltrane if it was his understanding that the AAU survey would get a standard IRB review if the University decided to participate.

Interim President Coltrane stated that it was his understanding that it would get an IRB review. He stated that he did not know the difference between standard and expedited review, but added that he was unaware of any plan to have it be different. He added that the AAU document dictated that it had to go through campus IRBs. He asked Senator Freyd if she had seen the AAU survey.

Senator Freyd confirmed that she had. She went on to state that it was not standard in her view, because the materials that had been circulated had indicated that IRBs could not make changes to the survey. She stated that this was exceedingly bizarre for research, and that the ethical issues touched on each of the fundamental principles outlined by the Belmont Report concerning what should guide ethical decision-making in research—including justice, beneficence, and respect for persons. As an example, she stated that the AAU proposal was to ask every single student at the University of Oregon to participate in the study, and then to only select the data from some subsample for actual analysis. She stated that it would not be clear to students that they might be investing some amount of their time, their heart, and their soul into completing a survey that would not be used. She argued that this raised questions about respect for persons by Belmont standards. As another example, she stated that the survey produced a definition of “sexual assault,” and started out with questions about victimization specifically on physical force. She argued that this was an intervention that would communicate to students a certain picture of what constitutes nonconsensual sexual experiences—one that is at odds with what is known from empirical research.

Interim President Coltrane thanked Senator Freyd and stated that these important issues were why he needed the committee to advise him. He stated that there were three AAU institutions—the University of Michigan, Michigan State, and UO— that had plans to conduct their own surveys along with the AAU survey. He explained that the University had to commit to doing (and paying for) the AAU survey at the beginning, but noted that if the survey failed to meet UO's needs, the University could decline to use it.

Senator Freyd stated that the documents that were released to participating universities at the end of December made clear that the plan was to do something that she had never heard of in research—namely, to invite every single student to participate, but to use only a subsample for analysis. She stated that on the surface, this was a census approach, but at the data-analytic level, it was a sample approach. She stated that one problem with this approach was that it gave students a misleading impression of what they were doing with their time. She added that there would be implications for science at every single university if students were getting intervened with in the very act of going to participate in the survey.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he and Senator Freyd would have to talk to the advisory group and work it out. He requested other questions.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he had several questions. First, he asserted that the AAU survey was done for political purposes. He explained that it was very clear that Hunter Rawlings, the Head of the AAU, had stated that the reason for the survey was to get out ahead of the White House and to create information that could essentially be used for political lobbying. He stated that he thought it was important to keep this in mind when considering the survey. He asked if non-members were allowed to listen in at the meetings of the advisory committee.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would defer to the committee members' preference with regard to the meetings being public. He noted that it would be his preference to make them public, as well.

Professor Bonine asked Dean Lim if the Public Records Act would be used in determining which documents would be made available.

Dean Lim stated that her colleagues in the Special Collections and University Archives Unit in the Libraries were far more familiar with the usual processing and review standards that were in place. She stated that she was going to be reviewing all of these items with them, and that there were standards and best practices that would be incorporated into how the Library would treat all records.

Professor Bonine asked if documents that were not initially made public through the Library’s normal processes could be made accessible if someone filed a public records request. 

Dean Lim stated that this was correct.

Professor Bonine asked if there would be an index created of all documents that were withheld so that they could at least be identified, and—as an example—a person could say: "Actually, I want to know why Mrs. Jones was writing to the President, because she might not have been writing about her daughter, but offering a bribe or something like that.” He explained that in this hypothetical case, the index would include: “Letter from Mrs. Jones not available."

Dean Lim stated that some of the best practices that she had reviewed required exactly this approach. She stated that under this practice, the existence of confidential documents would be known through an index, a list, or a finding aid.

Professor Bonine thanked Dean Lim for her comment, adding that he believed that it was very important that the index be included. 

Dean Lim added that all of this required human processing, and noted that many archives have backlogs for that processing. She stated that the Library would have to be examining their staffing levels and their processing capacity for different collections and different parts of collections.

Professor Bonine asked Dean Lim if she was willing to share any legal opinions she had received, or might receive.

Dean Lim stated that she would probably be willing to share them, but that she would have to know what the situation was.

Professor Bonine explained that he brought this up because there had been lawyers at UO and elsewhere who liked to keep everything confidential under attorney-client privilege. He noted that attorney-client privilege applied to facts provided to an attorney and that it did not apply to the attorney's opinions. He added, for example, that the State Attorney General often writes legal opinions, and that everybody sees them and understands what the law is. He stated that there was no particular reason that the General Counsel's analysis of the law should be kept from the members of UO who were participating in shared governance and be available only—for example—to the Executive Branch. He stated that he thought it was very important that the Senate be able to talk about the legal opinions, and that he would like to see a new era at the University of Oregon in which the analysis of what the laws were would be generally made available. He stated that the Senate needed to know the legal opinions, and asserted that sometimes people write bad legal opinions that should be subject to scrutiny.

Dean Lim stated that she thought many of the decisions about legal opinions were at a higher institutional level. She stated that at one of the institutions where she was formerly employed, the University Archives would keep legal documents and legal opinions in a separate folder in the collection, and that if any interests or requests came that were related to that folder, they would refer them to General Counsel and other people within the institution.

Professor Bonine stated that he just wanted to make sure that General Counsel did not make the decisions about what was confidential, because General Counsel—like every institution—wanted to protect its position. He added that this was really a Presidential decision. He noted that Sweden had established public access terminals so that people could monitor the conversations of bureaucrats, and similarly, that President Obama had issued new instructions at the Justice Department dictating that material should not be withheld strictly because there was an exemption.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) stated that recently, Board Chair Lillis had visited the Senate and commented that he was embarrassed about the deteriorating relationship between administrators and faculty on campus. Senator Lubash suggested that it seemed clear that the reason for this dynamic was the power struggle that was occurring regarding shared governance, and the seemingly constant attempts by administrators and their General Counsel to cut faculty and students out of the decision-making process. He stated that in his view, if the Interim President were to waive his attorney-client privilege—especially in cases regarding shared governance issues and student fee issues—it would go a long way toward repairing and rebuilding the relationship. He asked Interim President Coltrane what factors he considered when contemplating whether or not to waive the privilege.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was a firm believer in shared governance with students (where appropriate), and certainly with faculty on the curricular side. He stated that most of the legal opinions were not really about shared governance, noting that many of them had recently been about the authority of the Board. He stated that he believed such opinions were worthy of scrutiny by everybody in the University community, explaining that the University was—in some ways—now under the control of the Board. He added that this was why the University was working on the Policy on Policies. He stated that he thought more transparency was better than less, but that he had not been in the job long enough to know which opinions he should waive.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he had been sleeping pretty well at night up until he heard Professor Bonine say that his release of the legal opinion from Randy Geller to Bob Berdahl might have been illegal. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he would waive his attorney-client privilege on that particular document in order to help put his mind at ease.

Interim President Coltrane laughed and stated that he would.

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim President Coltrane for his remarks and proceeded to provide the Senate with an update on the Strategic Planning process. He stated that the steering committee of the Strategic Planning initiative had met twice—on January 15th and January 22nd—and reported that the four task forces were not only doing what they initially set out to do, but that they were also planning additional sessions. He stated that these efforts would contribute to the all-campus forums, and that he hoped the entire Senate would be there to participate. He stated that the first public forum would be in February, and that more information would be forthcoming soon. He stated that each of the fora would focus on a specific topic or cluster of topics.

Regarding the Student Conduct Code, Senate President Kyr stated that he had received Interim President Coltrane's response earlier that day, and that he would post it online for everyone to read.

Now addressing the Senate's schedule for the rest of the term, Senate President Kyr stated that the next meeting would be held on February 11th. He added that Connie Ballmer, the Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, had asked if the Senate would like to hear from two representatives from the Parker Search Firm about the process. He stated that he had welcomed the opportunity, and that they would speak on February 11th. He stated that that February 25th would become a Senate Executive Committee meeting week instead of a full Senate meeting. He added that the final two meetings for the term would be held on March 4th and March 11th.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Motion (Legislation): Change of Membership for the Graduate Council; Joe Lowndes, Professor (Political Science) & Graduate Council Chair

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.1: "Change of Membership for the Graduate Council."

Professor Joe Lowndes (Political Science) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Professor Lowndes to provide background.

Professor Lowndes’ initial comments were inaudible, but he went on to state that it made sense for the Law School to have a member on the Graduate Council, since the other Professional Schools did. He noted that the Law School had graduate programs, and that it seemed logical to integrate it into the broader category of graduate work. He also pointed out that the Graduate Council currently had a member of the Law School, Erik Girvan, serving in an ex-officio capacity, and stated that it been very helpful to have him there. He stated that he was not sure what the institutional history was that precluded that Law School from having a member on the Council, but that it seemed like a good idea to include them now.

Senate President Kyr requested comments and recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he knew the institutional history behind the Law School not being on the Graduate Council. He explained that he had memoranda in his files explaining that the Law School was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Graduate School, and stated that he suspected this was the reason why the Law School was not on the Graduate Council. He indicated that he preferred autonomy for the Law School, and requested that the motion be postponed—or, alternatively, that the reference to the Law School be temporarily deleted and brought back after discussions. He reiterated that there was definitely an institutional history for why the Law School was not part of the Graduate Program.

Interim President Scott Coltrane stated that he and a previous provost had engaged in conversations with the Dean of the Law School, and that he had a different interpretation as to whether degrees offered by the University of Oregon should report through the Provost/Chief Academic Officer and thereby have a role in the Graduate Council as other graduate offerings. He stated that correspondences from previous provosts to the contrary were possibly misinformed. He explained that the awarding of UO degrees was automatically subject to the oversight of the Chief Academic Officer.

Professor Bonine stated that he respected the Interim President's point of view, but added that he did not necessarily accept it. He stated that he would like the opportunity to review the proposal and hear the arguments, adding that he would prefer for the Senate to not act precipitously on something that the Law faculty was not aware of. He explained that the Law faculty had not talked about the proposed change in a faculty meeting, nor had it reviewed the different point of view. He requested that the legislation be postponed until the next meeting, and subsequently made a motion to do so.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr asked if Professor Bonine's motion was to postpone to a time definite.

Professor Bonine stated that he was fine with postponing for two weeks, or—if it was preferred—to  postpone to a time indefinite.

Professor Lowndes stated that he did not have a strong feeling about postponing the motion, except that it should not fall to the wayside entirely. He stated that action was needed at some point to avoid unclear situations. He related, as an example, that during the previous spring the Law School had brought forward a proposal for a change to the Graduate Program that the Graduate Council was not sure what to do with it at the time.

Professor Bonine stated that he would make the motion to postpone the legislation for one month. He explained that he just wanted to make sure there was time for a faculty meeting to discuss it.

Senate President Kyr requested discussion. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried, and Senate President Kyr stated that Professor Lowndes' motion would be postponed for one month. He asked that Professor Lowndes, as Chair of Graduate Council, and Professor Bonine, as a representative of the Law School, confer about the legislation and work out the problems.

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

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.2: “Amendment to US12/13-13, ‘UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS).’"

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Dianne Dugaw (English) offered a second.  

Senate President Kyr read the motion and opened the floor for comments. He recognized Senator Raleigh.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) asked, in relation to Senate Position III, if a member of the statutory faculty could not be a Senator.

Senate President Kyr stated that it was meant to be a member of the statutory faculty according to the IFS.

Senator Raleigh asked if this was consistent with the IFS language.

Senate President Kyr stated that it was, indeed, consistent with their language and their practice.

Senator Raleigh asked if a member of the statutory faculty could be elected to Position III, and if this excluded Senators.

Senate President Kyr indicated that any Senate or non-Senate faculty member could be elected. He noted that most other schools did not have Senators serving, and that it was usually a member of the statutory faculty. He stated that he was currently the only sitting Senate President who was an IFS Senator, for example. He requested further comments. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.3       Revised “Policy on Policies”: An explanation and open period for comment (January 28 through February 10); Senate Executive Committee (through Professor John Bonine, SEC member)

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.3. He stated that most of the motions for the rest of the meeting were a combination of the will to form some kind of a workgroup, and the request for volunteers from the Senate to serve.

He stated that the Senate would consider the University "Policy on Policies," which had been renamed "Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon Policy on University Policies." He stated that the wording had just been finalized in a very collaborative and cooperative process between Central Administration, the Board of Trustees (including Susan Gary), John Bonine, Scott Pratt, Ron Bramhall, Michael Dreiling, and himself. He stated that the Senate would have a period of two weeks to review the policy, and that it would also be put out to the campus for comments. He stated that on February 11th, the Senate would make a decision and vote. After that, he explained, the policy would go to the Board of Trustees, which would consider it in March. He noted that the Senate was on track to beat the February 18th deadline for sending the policy to the Board. He recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he and members of the Senate Executive Committee had caused a “kerfuffle” at the beginning of December, because Senate governance was not being respected by the Board. He stated that the Policy on Policies that was now before them was a significant improvement over what the Board had originally proposed. He explained that the policy now followed the Constitution and referenced it in various places. He added that it put the Senate at an earlier stage in the policy creation process than it had been before, thereby making it less likely that there would be unacceptable confrontation at the end.

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to take a look at the new Policy in Policies in detail and to direct comments to him, or to the Senate Executive Coordinator. He stated that the Senate Executive Committee would look into whatever comments were put forth and compile them. He indicated that the Senate would consider the new Policy on February 11th, and that further discussion could occur at that time, as well. He recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if there was some sort of document available that highlighted the major changes between the previous Policy on Policies and the proposed new policy.

Senate President Kyr stated that such a document would likely be very confusing, and suggested that it was probably better to just look at the policy as a comprehensive entity when forming an opinion. He stated that the old policy would also be made available if it was not already.

Professor Bonine stated that the major changes in the policy concerned the Administration, adding that there were no changes to how the Senate did its job, or to how the Senate interacted with the President. He explained that the changes basically specified that the Administration would have a different process, and that the Senate would come in earlier. He stated that the Administration would have a Policy Advisory Council, and that they would have a different way of organizing the advice to the President. He reiterated that the Senate had not given any of its powers away, and that the intent of the policy was to simply streamline some of the Administration's processes.

Senate President Kyr noted that the Senate had also worked to streamline its own process. He asked those present to take a look at the new policy, and to send forth any thoughts or questions before it would be considered by the Senate on February 11th.

4.4       Motion (Policy Adoption): Endorsement of Thirteen Policies and Formation of a Workgroup on Grievance Procedures; Senate Executive Committee; Michael Dreiling (Sociology), Senator, and Lisa Raleigh (Director of Communications, CAS), Senator

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.4: "Endorsement of Thirteen Policies and Formation of a Workgroup on Grievance Procedures."

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the policy, skipping the "whereas" clauses. He then asked the sponsor of the motion, Senator Dreiling, to provide background.

Senator Dreiling stated that the motion was the result of looking through the OARs and realizing that there was a need for clarification for OAs. He stated that the need was particularly necessary for policies concerning grievances and appeals, as there was not a clear policy pathway for OAs to conduct grievances or initiate an appeal. He stated that the 11 "571 policies” brought forth for consideration by the Senate concerned the grievance processes, as well as some appeal processes. He stated that some of these policies were very specific to tenure-track faculty, and that some had a broader range of interpretation that could include OAs. He stated that after identifying the major OARs that were under question concerning grievances in policy procedures for appeals, the motion called for their endorsement as continuing standing policies. He stated that the faculty who were not represented through United Academics—as well as many OAs—were represented through these policies. He stated that the next part of the motion established a Senate workgroup on grievance and appeal policies that would be composed of one statutory faculty member from the Senate, one Officer of Administration from the Senate, an additional faculty member, an additional OA, one member from the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), and one administrative representative from the Office of Human Resources. He stated that the workgroup would be charged to: "a) review the OARs listed above and identify all of the necessary criteria for grievance procedures and appeal processes as they pertain to coverage for all Officers of Administration and faculty not otherwise represented;” and “b) consult with the Senate Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee to incorporate any recommended revisions to the following [OAR]." He stated that a third part of the charge would be to propose a revision and consolidation plan, and to present it to the University Senate by March 11th. He stated that the report to the Senate should clarify plans for policy development and adoption, and that the charge would also include drafting revisions from the OARs into a group of policies that would ensure that grievance procedures and appeals processes would be available for all OAs and non-represented faculty. He stated that the last part of the charge was to present the draft policies to the Senate on April 19th, 2015.

Senate President Kyr recognized the motion’s co-sponsor, Senator Raleigh.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) stated that she wanted to provide a bit of background on the OAs’ point of view on the issue. She stated that the question of whether the term "academic staff" applied to Officers of Administration was open to debate, but that in a way, the point was moot because the policy explicitly applied to Officers of Administration. She added that there had been a discussion between Officers of Administration and Human Resources about the appropriateness of this policy for that classification of employment. She stated that in the past week, Human Resources had reached out to elected OA representatives to have a meeting to talk about the policy, and added that Human Resources had a vested interest in the direction that the policy was going.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Chuck Triplett.

Chuck Triplett (Assistant Vice President for University Initiatives and Collaboration) stated that his question was about the organization of the motion. He stated that he was under the impression that the endorsement of the Senate was a sign of support or approval, and suggested that it was confusing to follow this with a call for a workgroup to amend the policy. In light of this, he asked if the endorsement was an appropriate first step. He noted that the policies were already in effect regardless.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he thought it was appropriate to keep the policies, to know that they had been looked at it, and still to be able to look at them in the future. He stated that endorsing the policies showed that the Senate had reviewed them and confirmed that they were a good start toward better policies. He stated that he thought it was within the discretion of the Senate to express its endorsement while acknowledging that the policies were going to be changed.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling stated that he and Senator Raleigh had considered the question raised by Chuck Triplett, and decided that the endorsement was intentional because it affirmed that the policies should remain intact until the policy revision process was fully initiated. He stated that the policies were good enough for the time being, but that they were also inconsistent and unclear in some areas. He stated that it was workgroup’s task to fix this aspect. He added that it was also possible that some of the policies would not receive significant modifications, and that it would be a benefit to have these policies already endorsed.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) added that it was also possible that grievance cases would arise during the interim period, and suggested that it was good for the guidelines to have the endorsement of the Senate in this case.

Senate President Kyr stated that the policies were already enforced, and added that the Senate was endorsing them while also specifically focusing on them with the workgroup. He requested additional comments. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried. He commented that he would be writing to individuals in the Senate—one statutory faculty member, and one Officer of Administration—about serving on the workgroup. He indicated that the other non-Senate members would be approached with consultation of the Senate Executive Committee.

4.5       Motion (Legislation): Establishment of a Student-Centered Workgroup to Consider Policies 36-41 (Student Grievance Policies); Senate Executive Committee (through Professor John Bonine)

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.5: "Establishment of a Student-Centered Workgroup to Consider Policies 36-41 (Student Grievance Policies)." He stated that he would present the remainder of the motions in the meeting, and that Professor Bonine would be explaining policy matters. He read Section II of the motion, skipping the “whereas” clauses.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) offered a second.

Professor Bonine stated that he thought that it was time to reexamine the current student grievance procedure, and noted that the proposed workgroup was intended to be student-centered.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. Seeing none, he called the question, and the motion carried. He then called for volunteers to serve on the workgroup. Senator Cohen, Senator Lubash, Senate Vice President Sullivan, and Senator Cramer volunteered.

4.6       Motion (Legislation): Establishment of a Senate Workgroup on Curriculum and Program Matters; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.6: "Establishment of a Senate Workgroup on Curriculum and Program Matters." He read the motion, omitting the "whereas" clauses.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) provided a second.

Professor Bonine stated that this workgroup would consider things such as: new programs, new instructional programs, off-campus instruction, research, computing, program closures and eliminations, honorary degrees, college courses taught for credit, community college transfer, approval of new academic programs, credit for college course taught in high school, and accreditation. He stated that there was a lot of work, but that it really needed to be looked over by the Senate because the core responsibility of the Senate was to deal with curriculum and programs.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried, and he requested volunteers for the workgroup. Senator Ko Thompson, Senator Koopman, Senator McGough, Senator Balbuena, Senator Healey, and Senator Cohen offered to lend their service.

4.7       Motion (Legislation): Legislation to Refer Athletic Policies to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.7: "Legislation to Refer Athletic Policies to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee." He stated that no volunteers were needed for this motion, but that the Senate had to affirm it. He read Section 2.1 of the motion.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) seconded the motion.

Professor Bonine stated that the IAC would be considering policies such as: the "Role of Athletics in a College or University," "Academic Progress and Degree Attachment," and "Code of Ethics."

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.8       Motion (Legislation): Legislation to Establish a Workgroup on Employment Matters; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.8: "Legislation to Establish a Workgroup on Employment Matters." He read Section 2.1 of the motion.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that this workgroup would consider important policies such as: "Family Relationship and Employment," "Tandem Appointments," "Employment of More Than One Member of a Household," "Academic Rank," "Definition of Unclassified Service," "Additional Pay for Full-Time Staff," "Working Hours,” "Fellowship Leave," "Vacations," "Sick Leave," "Consecutive Annual Appointments," "Seventh Annual Appointment," and "Criteria for Faculty Evaluation." He reiterated that these were really important policies, and added that they needed some heavy thinking.

Senator Mike Strain (CAMCOR) seconded the motion.

 Senate President Kyr requested comments and questions. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried, and he requested volunteers for the workgroup. Senator Sayre, Senator Strain, and Senator Dugaw came forward to lend their assistance. Senator Psaki volunteered for the “Grievance” workgroup discussed earlier.

4.9       Motion (Legislation): Legislation to Establish a Workgroup on Admissions; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.9: "Legislation to Establish a Workgroup on Admissions." He read Section 2.1 of the motion.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) offered a second.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that this workgroup would consider policies such as: "Standards for Admission," "Affirmative Action Goals," "Review of Undergraduate Admission Requirements," and "Minimum Standards for Entering into Programs." He stated that some people had claimed that the faculty had given up the role in Admissions that it had traditionally held. He stated that the Senate needed to decide if Admissions was something that was going to be done administratively, or if the faculty wanted a role.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion, and recognized Senator Cohen.

Senator Samantha Cohen (Student Senator) asked Professor Bonine if "standards of admission" included admission to individual colleges within the University, or if it just referred to admission to the University.

Professor Bonine stated that he did not know, and asked if there was a member of Administration present who could provide clarification on this matter.

Senate President Kyr recognized Dave Hubin.

Dave Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) suggested that the policies that the workgroup would consider had more to do with admission to the University as a whole. He also noted that at comparator institutions, such the University of California schools, faculty had involvement in setting broad policies for admissions. He stated that UO should look into establishing a similar role for its faculty.

 Senate President Kyr stated that the workgroup would have an interaction with the Office of Enrollment Management and other offices of the Administration. He requested further comments. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried and he asked for volunteers. Senator Lovinger, Senator Ko Thompson, Senator Cerros, Senator Iversen, Senator Rejaie, and Senator Clement came forward to offer their service.

4.10     Motion (Legislation): Legislation to Refer Discrimation Policies to the Senate Committee on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider agenda item 4.10: "Legislation to Refer Discrimination Policies to the Senate Committee on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion." He proceeded to read Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

Senator Dianne Dugaw (English) seconded the motion.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that this workgroup would be considering policies such as: "Definition of Discrimination," "Marital or  Parental Status," "Comparable Facilities," "Investigation of Complaints," "Written Statement of the Case," "Conduct of the Hearing," and "Requirement of Prompt Attention to Complaints." He stated that these policies would be assigned to the committee discussed in the last Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr stated that he would also ask for additional volunteers after the motion passed. He opened that floor for discussion and recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) indicated that he wanted to request a minor amendment to the motion. He suggested that the Advisory Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion be encouraged to review Policy 35 with some urgency so that the Workgroup on Grievances could have input on suggested changes to the policy before they proceeded with drafting grievance policy language. He specified that this should be done by March 12th, 2015, and in collaboration with the Workgroup on Grievance and Appeal Policies.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the amendment.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and recognized Senator Raleigh.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts and Sciences) asked if Senator Dreiling meant to specify the date after a Senate meeting.

Senator Dreiling’s response was inaudible, but following this, it was decided that the proposed date would be changed to March 11th.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine asked if the motion should read something like: "for consideration of a plan for possible changes by March 11 and action by April 29" or "of a plan for possible changes, as appropriate, by March 11 [...] and for action by April 29."

Senate President Kyr stated that this would have to be another motion to amend.

Senator Cramer seconded the motion to amend the amendment.

Senate President Kyr called for discussion. None followed, and the Senate voted in favor of considering the motion to amend the amendment. Senate President Kyr requested discussion and recognized an unidentified speaker.

The unidentified speaker asked that a comma be added after the word "appropriate" so that the language would read: "as appropriate, by March 11." She also suggested that the "and" before "in collaboration" was not necessary.

Professor Bonine suggested that the Senate try—whenever possible—to avoid making grammatical changes, as these would require additional amendments.

Senate President Kyr asked for additional comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The amendment to amend carried. Returning to discussion of the legislation itself, Senate President Kyr requested comments. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried, and Senate President Kyr requested volunteers for the workgroup. Senator Cerros, Senator Cramer, Senator Li, and Senator Cohen volunteered.

 

7.   NOTICE OF MOTION

7.1       Motion (Legislation—Change in Senate Bylaws): To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Senate President Kyr reported that a new motion, sponsored by Professor Emeritus Frank Stahl, would be considered by the Senate in a future meeting.

 

8.   ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr called the January 28, 2015 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 21, 2015

Present: Paul Dassonville, Jennifer Freyd, Jun Li, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Bruce McGough, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Ron Lovinger, Deborah Olson, Victoria Mitchell, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Robert Kyr, Monique Balbuena, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Miriam Deutsch, Ken Prehoda, Randy Sullivan, Jason Brown, Laura Leete, Richard Margerum, Charles Lachman, Marylin Nippold, Jerry Rosiek, Debra Merskin, Mary Ann Hyatt, Edward Teague, Alexandre Dossin, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen

Excused: Weiyong He, Michael Price, Reza Rejaie, Donna Shaw, David Espinoza, Theodora Ko Thompson

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the January 21, 2015 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 Lawrence Hall. He reminded those in attendance that the Senate was in the midst of working on the policy realignment, and that this would continue for the rest of the year. He added that there were other important motions that the Senate would consider during the meeting, including the approval the membership for the Senate Equity Inclusion and Diversity Advisory Group, and the approval the UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust.

He took a moment to thank Professor John Bonine for putting together the policy motions. He noted that Professor Bonine had devoted many hours to this project, and thanked him for applying his legal expertise to the issue.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Senate President Kyr stated that there were no minutes to approve, as the previous meeting had only occurred just one week prior.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Motion (Legislation): Approval of Membership for the Senate Equity, Inclusion and Diversity Advisory Group; Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion

Senate President Kyr introduced item 4.1, a motion requesting "Approval of Membership for the Senate Equity, Inclusion and Diversity Advisory Group." The sponsors of the motion gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) seconded the motion.

 Senate President Kyr read the motion, after which he invited Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Vice President for Equity Inclusion, to give some background.

Yvette Alex-Assensoh (Vice President for Equity and Inclusion) stated that the idea behind the motion went along with the University’s general vision to make equity and inclusion commonplace. She explained that in order to do this, the University would need structures of accountability at every level—especially in the structure of the relationship between the Senate and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. She stated that at the end of the previous year, around 40 different members were listed as people who would possibly be interested in serving on the committee and advisory group. She stated that this list was subsequently whittled down to the list currently before the Senate. In addition to this, she noted that a couple of members from the Senate were also serving on a related pipeline committee. She expressed her appreciation for the Senate’s consideration of the motion, and stated that she looked forward to working together.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and questions regarding the motion. He recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if the committee was a temporary, ad hoc advisory group, as opposed to a standing committee.

Senate President Kyr stated that it would be one of the administrative advisory groups. He stated that it would continue as a committee would, but noted that it had a specific function: to advise an administrator according to the legislation that was initially crafted.

Senator Davidson stated that if it was to be a continuing (i.e., permanent) committee, it should be noted that the specific people who constituted its initial membership would not be on the committee forever. With this in mind, he asked if there needed to be a provision to account for turnover in membership.

Senate President Kyr stated that he thought the group would turn over in the appropriate way, adding that he believed there was a two-year term for administrative advisory groups. He asked Professor Bonine for his input.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that the motion specifically decided that membership needed to be approved by the Senate. He added that he was unsure whether this made some people members for life.

Senate President Kyr stated that membership typically rotated on a two-year basis. He recognized Senator Bill Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) shared his view that it was acceptable to let the membership be established in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee and approved by the Senate. He stated that this was a good example of proactive shared governance, and added that he thought the Senate could pass the motion as it was currently written.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Deborah Olson.

Senator Deborah Olson (Special Education) asked for a point of clarification. She noted that there was another University-wide diversity committee, and asked what the different responsibilities of each would be.

Senate President Kyr asked Yvette Alex-Assensoh if she would respond.

Yvette Alex-Assensoh stated that University-wide diversity committees represented appointed committees that came from vice presidents, deans, and—in some instances—vice provosts. She explained that the people on these committees served to inform the University about diversity in their own areas. She stated that she thought about the Senate advisory committee in a similar fashion, with the caveat that it would cover a broader constituency. She indicated that there was some overlap with existing committees, but that there was also a great deal of distinction in terms of providing a sense of infrastructure and accountability.

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments. Seeing none, he called the question, and the motion carried.

4.2       Motion (Legislation): The UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics) & UO Senator

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.2: the UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Deborah Healey (American English Institute) offered a second.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and asked Senator Harbaugh to provide some background.

Senator Harbaugh stated that the inspiration for the motion had come from James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, and from his mother, Virginia Wayne Talbot Harbaugh, the former President of the Pennsylvania State League of Women Voters. He explained that James Madison was the founder of transparency and public records access, and quoted him: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy—or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

Senator Harbaugh stated that he had spent a lot of time trying to increase access to public records and transparency at the University, and that he had spoken with his mother about this great deal. He stated that his mother had told him that when the President of the University of Virginia retired, he started an institute to promote the First Amendment. He stated that one of the things that he did was to give an annual award to the state administrator who had done the most to damage trust, transparency, and good governance in the state. He stated that making a similar award at the University seemed mean-spirited, which was why the award would be given to the person who had done the most—not the least.

Upon delivering the background, Senator Harbaugh stated that he wished to amend the motion to remove Section 2.2 completely, and to change Section 2.1 to read: "to be awarded annually to the administrator, or other member of the UO community." He explained that this was an attempt to broaden the possible pool of awardees.

Senate President Kyr, after acknowledging receipt of a second, opened the floor for discussion. None followed, and he called for a vote. The amendment carried, and Senate President Kyr returned to the discussion of the motion itself. He recognized Senator Victoria Mitchell.

Senator Victoria Mitchell (UO Libraries) asked if the award would include students. There was an inaudible reply, to which Senator Mitchell responded that she just wanted “to make sure [everyone was] on the same page.”

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried, and Senate President Kyr lauded the motion as a wonderful step forward for the recognition of shared governance, transparency and trust. He recognized Professor John Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) called a point of order. He stated that he wanted to explain something, and asked for the Senate to suspend the rules to allow an additional motion to be put into the agenda. He noted that the Senate had adopted many changes to the Student Conduct Code, and recalled that they had been referred to as "legislation." He stated that looking more deeply at the University’s policy process, it had become apparent that changes to the Student Conduct Code were policy—not legislation. He acknowledged that this perhaps seemed like a minor thing, but asserted that it mattered in terms of whether the changes would go into effect automatically, or whether the President would need to sign them. He added that “legislation” tends to refer to things such as the approval of new courses. He therefore asked for a motion to suspend the rules to allow this point to be considered and debated.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote to allow Professor Bonine's motion to be discussed. The motion carried.

Professor Bonine stated that he would explain the motion. He reiterated that legislation goes into effect automatically unless the President intervenes. He stated that policies are approved by the President, and that if the President objects, they return to the Senate for another round of discussion. He noted that eventually, if a policy that has been passed by the Senate for the second time is vetoed by the President again, it then goes to a faculty assembly. He stated that all of this occurs—and should occur—for policy for shared governance. He stated that this was not what was done for the changes to the Student Conduct Code, and that the motion would deal with this by simply re-designating them. He stated that it was not clear whether legislative action was needed to do this. He stated that the motion would request that the University President deal with the Student Conduct Code motions under the part of the Constitution applicable to policies (rather than legislation). He added that he wanted the Senate to start cleaning up what it called “legislation,” “resolutions,” and “policies.” He added that a policy, as being defined in the new Policy on University Policies, is something that states rights, responsibilities, and obligations—which is what the Student Conduct Code does.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion and recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if it was known whether the President had been treating legislation like policies and running it through normal policy procedure. He also asked how many other policies had been wrongly passed under the name of "legislation."

Professor Bonine stated that he did not know, but added that he would like to get this cleaned up.

Senate President Kyr stated that Senator Davidson's question would be looked into. He requested further comments. Seeing none, he called for a vote. The motion carried.

4.3       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal of Two Duplicative Policies on Post-Tenure Review; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr directed the Senate's attention to item 4.3: "Repeal of Two Duplicative Policies on Post-Tenure Review."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

 Senator Gordon Sayre (English) offered a second.

Senator President Kyr read Section II of the motion, omitting the “whereas” clauses to save time. He then asked Professor Bonine to provide some background.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he had served on a committee in 1999 that was charged to come up with a modern post-tenure review process. He added that post-tenure review was not about firing people; he stated that it was about helping people to become better, and helping to provide resources. Professor Bonine explained that all State Board policies were in effect unless the University repealed them, which—he pointed out—meant that the State Board policy requiring a tenure-review process was currently in effect. He stated that continuing to have this State Board policy did not make sense, since the post-tenure review process was already in place. He stated that the motion before the Senate would simply repeal this duplicative State Board policy.

Senate President Kyr asked for comments. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried unanimously.

4.4       Motion (Policy Adoption): Adoption and Amendment of 21 Due Process Termination and Resignation Policies; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.4: "Adoption and Amendment of 21 Due Process Termination and Resignation Policies." He read the motion, omitting the “whereas” clauses.

Professor John Bonine(Law) proceeded with background on the motion. He explained that there was no University policy on firing tenured professors—only a statewide policy. He stated that he had gone through the statewide policy—and also through the AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulations—very carefully to make sure that the policy was as good as was nationally recommended. He stated that the policy basically gave tenured faculty the right to a due process hearing before they could be terminated. He stated that the motion before the Senate sought to adopt the statewide policy as a University policy, and that he found no conflicts with the policy. He added that there would be time to modify the policy in the future if the need arose, and that it was not prudent to spend time redesigning a policy that worked fine. As an example, he noted that there was a policy that allowed union members to have union representation at hearings, and commented that he hoped to eventually see this extended to Law professors who were not in the union; however, he asserted that it was better to deal with the inadequacies of the policy at a later date. 

Chuck Triplett (Assistant Vice President for University Initiatives and Collaboration) stated that Officers of Administration were not represented, which meant that OAs were subject to this policy in a similar way that unrepresented faculty would be. He stated that he thought that Section 24 of the CBA had conflicts within the OARs in question. He explained that for represented faculty, the CBA trumps the OARs, but that for Officers of Administration and unrepresented faculty, the OARs were in effect currently, and needed to be revised at some point.

Professor Bonine stated that he doubted that the OARs needed to be revised very much. He noted that he had gone through the specific provisions and had found no conflicts. He added that the Head of the Faculty Union, Michael Dreiling, had done the same. Professor Bonine asked Senator Dreiling if he would like to comment.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that these policies covered OAs and non-represented faculty (i.e., faculty who are not part of the bargaining unit that is covered by—and represented through—United Academics). He stated that it was important, therefore, that statutory process remained intact and enforced for those constituents. Thus, he stated that he supported the motion going forward, and added that he did not see how there was a conflict with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Professor Bonine reiterated that he found no conflict in procedures. He noted that the Collective Bargaining Agreement stated that everyone in the University was subject to University policies, and stated that the motion would provide a more specific set of procedures before tenured faculty could be fired. He added that if the motion was passed by the Senate, it would go back before General Counsel and they could make their argument.

Senator Dreiling stated that he hoped that any longer-term revision process that the PAC or the General Counsel recommended would involve an extended conversation that considered the kinds of coverage that represented and non-represented groups wanted. He noted that similar steps would occur in the collective bargaining process through United Academics, as well.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) stated that supported the policies as written, given that the Senate was essentially looking to adopt the language of the OARs that had already been in place, and that these had proven to be adequate up to this point. Besides this, he noted that the Senate was recognizing that the CBA was going to trump whatever was in these policies anyway. Having said this, he stated that he believed there were probably some opportunities for the Senate to polish some of the language. He stated that some of the policies did not make much sense in the context of University Policy, as opposed to the context of the OARs. For instance, he stated that sabbatical policies talked about "fiscal year employees," which would mean that non-faculty would suddenly be entitled to take sabbaticals.

Professor Bonine stated that the motion did not deal with sabbatical policy. He stated that there were a bunch of things—grievance procedures, for example—that needed more attention, but that the motion was dealing with just the issue of firing a tenured faculty members. He explained that he was trying to get the less controversial policies taken care of before trying to deal with policies that would require more careful consideration.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Lisa Raleigh.

Senator Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences) noted that previous speakers had mentioned that these policies applied to Officers of Administration; she observed, however, that the language seemed very focused on faculty. She asked if there was some overarching policy that indicated that this policy applied to categories of employment that were referenced in the language of the policy itself.

Professor Bonine stated that he was equally surprised by the notion that these policies applied to OAs. He agreed that the policies had nothing to do with OAs, and that they only applied to tenured faculty members.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Michael Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling indicated that he had confused this group of policies with another group of policies that he had looked at concerning grievances (among other things) which were not exclusive to faculty. He stated that the policies being discussed actually were exclusive to faculty.

Professor Bonine indicated that he had found two regulations within the set of policies that needed minor tweaking. He explained, for example, that the first of these had referred to "the Chancellor and the institution presidents," and that this language had been changed to "university president." He noted that the word “OAR” had been removed from the second regulation, and that all language referring to “the Chancellor” had also been stricken.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Ahlen.

Senator Ahlen stated that he read the policy language as applying to Officers of Administration. He stated that frequently, these policies specifically reference faculty, and also "academic employees" or "academic staff members." He stated the he read this as including OAs. He stated that he had no problem with the motion, but that he thought there might be some opportunities to polish some of the language in the future.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Debra Thurman.

Senator Debra Thurman (Law School) pointed out that Officers of Administration were non-teaching faculty, and that some of the policies would affect their employment.

Professor Bonine stated that it was a strange designation to call Officers of Administration faculty.

Chuck Triplett agreed that Officers of Administration were labeled as faculty in many things, and that the policies being discussed did have direct implications. He stated that the OA Council, and others, were actually organizing to review some of the policy work. He stated that he did not think there was any harm in passing the motion, and that it would simply mean that the current policies would remain in effect.

Professor Bonine agreed that the policies were in effect. He reminded those present that the point of the policy review was to repeal the policies that the University wanted to get rid of, and to re-enact the policies it wanted to keep. He stated that most of the 781 policies did not really need to be reviewed, but that it was important to take action on each one in the interest of clarity and completeness.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that Chuck Triplett's point, from the administrative perspective, was very correct; but that from the point of view of the Senate maintaining its role in policy development, it was important to be involved. This would be to prevent people from thinking: "A bunch of policies just got rolled over without Senate involvement."

Senate President Kyr also pointed out that these were not University policies to begin with, and that the Senate was only doing policy adoption. He recognized John Ahlen.

Senator Ahlen stated that he thought the Senate could adopt these policies, because—as others had pointed out—they had already been in place without much controversy. He noted that these policies would not necessarily apply to represented employees, due to the CBAs that were in place. He added that the policies would probably not apply to unrepresented employees where termination issues were concerned. He stated that most of the OARs were often ignored anyway—at least through past practice. He stated that the policies could be revisited if needed.

Professor Bonine reiterated that he had not dealt with the policies that involved contract renewal or termination of a fixed-term contract. He stated, referring to the motion, that he thought it was important for due process protections to be endorsed by the Senate. He added that the 21 policies in the motion were at the core of academic freedom and tenure, and that every respectable university in the United States had due process protections.

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried.

4.5       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal and Adoption of Two Policies on Academic Calendar; Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr directed the Senate to consider item 4.5: "Repeal and Adoption of Two Policies on Academic Calendar."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion.

Professor Bonine pointed out that part of the policy included the history of how the academic calendar came into its current form. He stated that he thought it was good to keep a record of the history of the policy for the future.

Senate President Kyr asked for comments and recognized Chuck Triplett.

Chuck Triplett (Assistant Vice President for University Initiatives and Collaboration stated that he loved a good history, but added that the Board policy was not a policy—merely history. He stated that the “policy” was simply the minutes of the Board of Higher Education as it related to conversations around moving from a semester system to a quarter system—and specifically, to the Law Program, which deviated from the standard policy. He stated that the Internal Management Directives (IMD), which were subject to repeal in the motion, read very clearly: "The regular academic calendar of the system shall consist of the Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms, and the Summer Session." He stated that this was “much more policy language than the history that [was] suggested to be retained.”

Professor Bonine stated that he was happy to keep the IMD and make it part of University Policy. He made an amendment to change the word "repealed" in Section 2.2 to "enacted." He added that he still wanted the history to be preserved.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. None followed, and he called for a vote. The amendment carried, and Senate President Kyr returned the discussion to the motion itself. He recognized Senator Robin Clement.

Senator Robin Clement (Accounting) asked if the Senate really wanted to enact 2.1 as a policy if it was a history.

Professor Bonine stated that the problem was that the history was presented to the Senate as one of the policies, and he did not want to lose it.

Senate President Kyr noted that the policy was reaffirmed September 13th,1982.

Professor Bonine stated that he saw no harm in making it policy, adding that simply leaving it as history could result in it eventually being lost. He acknowledged that it might seem sloppy to preserve the history in this way, but added that he did not know of any other way to make sure that it remained as part of the history.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) stated that he was simply going to suggest that the Senate could re-reaffirm the conversation that had already taken place, rather than adopt it as a formal policy.

Professor Bonine made a motion to amend Section 2.1 to say: "be reaffirmed as a University Oregon Policy, and be combined with IMD by an appropriate technical drafter." He then changed his mind and withdrew the amendment, stating that the policy did not affect anybody. He added that if people had a problem with the policy, the Senate could always come back and rewrite it later.

Senate President Kyr requested additional comments, and seeing none, called the question. The motion carried.

4.6       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal of Duplicative Policy 337 on Academic Freedom (OAR 580-022-0005); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr turned the Senate's attention to item 4.6: "Repeal of Duplicative Policy 337 on Academic Freedom."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, omitting the “whereas” clauses.

Professor Bonine, providing background, directed the Senate’s attention to Section 1.2: "Whereas the University of Oregon has an excellent Policy on academic freedom, recently adopted by the Senate and University President." He stated that the Senate had spent months on the academic freedom policy, and that the University did not need another policy at the State level defining academic freedom. He stated that the State level policy was not as good as the University policy, and that it should be repealed so that there was only one policy on academic freedom.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. None followed and he called the question. The motion carried.

4.7       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal of Duplicative Policy 338 on Public Activities (OAR 580-022-0010); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.7: "Repeal of Duplicative Policy 338 on Public Activities."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Robin Clement (Accounting) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, omitting the “whereas” clauses.

Professor Bonine stated that the Senate had worked on a policy regarding conflict of interest a few years prior, and that it had come up with one that was completely adequate. He stated that the State Policy should be repealed because the University policy already covered the same area.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried.

4.8       Motion (Policy Adoption): Adoption of amended Policy 339 on Candidates for Public Office (OAR 580-022-0015); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.8: "Adoption of amended Policy 339 on Candidates for Public Office."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, skipping the “whereas” clauses.

Professor Bonine stated that the motion simply changed "Board" in Section 2.1 to "University." He explained that it was University Policy that employees could seek political office. He noted, for example, that Dave Frohnmeyer had served on the Legislature while he was a faculty member.  He added that people serving on the Legislature needed to take a leave of absence during the legislative session, and that the President also had to be consulted before taking the leave of absence. He stated that this was all old policy that he simply wanted to localize to the University. He added that the policy basically encouraged faculty to be involved in public life by running for office, and stipulated that taking a full-time job with some executive department would require taking a leave of absence, or resigning.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried.

4.9       Motion (Policy Adoption): Adoption of amended Policy 340 on Relationship with State Government (OAR 580-022-0020); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.9: "Adoption of amended Policy 340 on Relationship with State Government."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion and recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that the motion changed the term "Chancellor" to "President," and "Department" to "University." He stated that Section 2.2 included the language: "Nothing in this rule shall be construed as inhibiting an employee of the University from exercising the right of citizenship in a personal capacity, or be construed as inhibiting any employee of the University from appearing before a body of state government..." He explained that this meant that involvement with the Legislature or a bureaucracy could not be inhibited by the University. He stated that the language had also been changed from "Faculty members are authorized to visit the Legislative hearing with students...” to "are encouraged to visit the Legislative Sessions and Hearings with students...."

Senate President Kyr requested comments and recognized Senator Andrew Lubash.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) asked if this would prevent students who were, for example, in the Student Government, from identifying themselves as representatives of the Student Government when they were lobbying legislature.

Professor Bonine stated that he did not know. He stated that it was certainly not allowed for someone to purport to represent the University, but added that he did not know how the ASUO would be considered in this policy.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Regina Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) asked if it was necessary for it to be specified that an activity was encouraged. She asked if there were other things the faculty might want to take students to that were not authorized or encouraged.

Professor Bonine stated that he would be willing to say: "...are encouraged to visit Legislative Sessions and Hearings, and other governmental bodies—with or without students..."

Senator Psaki stated that she just wanted to make sure there was not some hidden reason for specifying that something was encouraged.

Professor Bonine stated that there was no hidden reason that he knew of. He stated that he just wanted to adopt the relevant policies, and that revisions could be made later if needed.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that he wanted to revisit Senator Lubash's question about whether he could go as an ASUO representative, because that impinges upon one’s rights for freedom of assembly, and to petition the government. He stated that there were many subunits of the University that had deliberative and representative processes, such as the ASUO. He stated that he did not see anything in the clauses that would inhibit someone from saying that they represented a section of the University. He stated that he could not see how, if someone was authorized by their own constituent group, they could be prohibited from saying that they represent that constituent group. He added that he thought that clause was meant to inhibit people from saying they represent the University at large.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried.

4.10     Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal of Duplicative Policies 515 and 628 on Honorary Degrees (Board Policy and IMD); Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider item 4.10: "Repeal of Duplicative Policies 515 and 628 on Honorary Degrees (Board Policy and IMD)."

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Victoria Mitchell (UO Libraries) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, omitting the “whereas” clauses, and invited Professor Bonine to provide some background.

Professor Bonine stated that the University of Oregon already had adopted a policy regarding honorary degrees, and that it did not need a second or third policy.

Senate President Kyr requested comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried.

 

5. OPEN DISCUSSION

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that the Senate had now completed almost 85 out of the roughly 315 policies that were of Senate interest. He noted that the remaining policies would get more difficult to deal with.

Senate President Kyr stated that in the coming week, the Senate would be getting a very brief survey to ask where people felt they had expertise regarding policy, and where they would like to participate. He encouraged the Senators to fill out the survey quickly so that the rest of the meetings for the quarter could be organized. He stated that it was very important for Senators to continue attending the weekly meetings, because a quorum was required each time. He noted that the Senate would not be meeting during the first week of February. He then recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator Davidson commented that the job security that came with tenure was not available to almost anyone else in the public. He added that this was, on one level, a neo-feudal remnant that a lot of people in society resent. He stated that he wanted to go on the record as reminding the Senate that with these very special privileges come very special responsibilities. He stated that the faculty served as an enclave for society which could freely discuss novel ideas and unpopular ideas, and that this provided a social service, but that it also meant that the faculty needed to remember to be willing to voice unpopular or unwelcome truths about society, or about ourselves. He stated that he thought this was the price of tenure.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Davidson for his comments and recognized Senator Andrew Lubash.

Senator Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) stated that the ASUO was called two hours prior about the documents that were released accidentally by the President. He asked if the Senate was going to say something or make a resolution regarding what should be done about the situation.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate had only heard of this one day prior to the meeting, and that the President's memo was being reviewed. He offered his assurance that the issue was being taken very seriously, and that as more information came forward, the Senate would definitely be communicating about it. He noted that if a motion were to be made, it would need to come from Senators or a member of the statutory faculty. He added that the Senate Executive Committee eagerly awaited whatever Senators wanted to consider. He thanked Senator Lubash for his question.

 

9. ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyr called the January 21, 2015 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:12 p.m.

 

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 14, 2015

Present: Paul Dassonville, Weiyong He, Michale Price, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Ron Lovinger, Charles Lachman, Marilyn Nippold, Mary Ann Hyatt, Edward Teague, Jennifer Ellis, Alexandre Dossin, Monique Balbuena, Robert Kyr, David Espinoza, Debra Thurman, Samantha Cohen, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Jennifer Freyd, Jun Li, Bruce McGough, Laura Leete, Richard Margerum, Deborah Olsen, Jerry Rosiek, Debra Merskin, Victoria Mitchell, Robin Clement, Abel Cerros

Excused: Miriam Deutsch, Ken Prehoda, Donna Shaw, Lisa Raleigh

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the January 14, 2015 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 Lawrence Hall. He thanked those present for their attendance and stated that the next two quarters would see as many Senate meetings as were typically held in two years. He explained that this was because the University was in the midst of a policy realignment, which he noted had begun that day. Related to this, he stated that the Senate would be looking at two motions: one that would be directed toward faculty records rules, and the other regarding student records rules. He added that during this process, the Senate would be given some training in how to use an Excel worksheet that would aid in the assessment of policies. He stated that by the end of the meeting, the Senate would have gone through 15% of the policies that applied to academic matters out of a total of 300 that had been identified as being relevant to the Senate.

1.1        Structure of Senate Meetings

Senate President Kyr stated that the structuring of Senate meetings had been changed in an effort to enable quick movement through items on the agenda, and policy items, in particular. He stated that this would involve the Senate members being seated at the front of the room, and visitors behind them. He explained that this organization was helpful, because it allowed for the easy identification the Senate members, and also allowed for easier movement of the microphones. He added that visitors would also be allowed to speak only after the Senators had been given a chance. He stressed that this was not intended to limit participation, but merely to modify the format of the meetings in order to allow them to proceed more quickly. He noted that the meetings had been structured in this way during his second administration, and that it had worked very well. Senate President Kyr asked those present to feel free to contact him if they had any ideas about how to improve the flow, general demeanor, or respectful dialogue that he wanted to encourage in the Senate.

1.2        2015 Senate Agenda: Overview

Senate President Kyr reiterated that the Senate would be having two more meetings in January—one on January 21st, and the other on January 28th. He noted that these would be focused on policies, adding that the goal was to consider two motions on policies per meeting. In addition, he stated that there would be three Senate meetings in February and one in March for a total of seven throughout the Winter Term. He added that in Spring Term, the Senate would hold three meetings in April, and three in May, for a total of six throughout the next quarter.

 

2.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2.1        December 3, 2014

Senate President Kyr, moving on to the approval of the minutes, requested questions and comments regarding the minutes from December 3rd, 2014. None followed, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.   STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

3.1        Remarks by Interim President Coltrane with questions

At this time, the Senate proceeded to the State of the University Address delivered by Interim President Scott Coltrane.

Senate President Kyr  stated that there would be time for questions following the address.

Interim President Scott Coltrane informed the Senate that he had a number of updates that he wanted to provide, related to: the University's efforts to address sexual assault, work on policy review, hiring in the General Counsel's Office, and the Strategic Plan. He stated that he would read through his remarks, and noted that a copy would be available on the Internet.

Addressing sexual assault on campus, Interim President Coltrane stated that he was moving forward with the proposed initiatives and noted that the Administration would be working with the campus to create a comprehensive plan in the coming months to address the issue. He took a moment to acknowledge the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support for their report and recommendations. He then indicated that he would provide an overview of the University's commitment to creating a safe and respectful campus from sexual misconduct and violence.

Proceeding with this discussion, Interim President Coltrane stated that he had received three excellent reports during the previous term:  the President's Review Panel, a University-wide gap analysis of prevention efforts conducted by Student Life, and the report from the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support. He elaborated that these reports contained dozens of recommendations about how to make improvements to the University's current practices, and covered the prevention, response, and reporting of sexual assault. He added that all of these assessments had been made public, and that they were posted on the President's Website. He noted that many of the proposals overlapped, but stated that there were also several that were unique to each of the reports. He explained that the Administration would work to put the reports together and develop a comprehensive plan out of the different recommendations.

Interim President Coltrane stated that since the latter part of the summer, the University had been implementing many of the programs and policies recommended by the reports. He mentioned several of the recent policy actions that University units had made, including: the authorization of two campus climate surveys (to be conducted as soon as April); the appointment of a campus climate survey advisory group to help oversee and provide counsel on administering the surveys; the initiation of a memorandum of understanding between the University of Oregon and the City of Eugene regarding how the Eugene Police and the University share information about reports of sexual offenses in order to ensure timely reporting and investigation of sexual assault offenses; the removal of restrictive policies that prevented the University Ombudsperson from operating with appropriate standards of confidentiality, neutrality, and independence; the provision of an additional ninety thousand dollars during the current academic term to support Prevention and Education staffing; the offering of several self-defense classes on campus; the implementation of several permanent and temporary changes to the Student Conduct Code designed to protect students;  and communication to all faculty and graduate teaching fellows regarding Title IX responsibilities and resources. Interim President Coltrane stated that his office was in the process of reviewing the three reports in order to continue to prioritize its efforts. He added that the Administration was looking for ways to coordinate—and perhaps centralize—some of the oversight and administration of services related to addressing sexual assault, which had been suggested in both the Senate Task Force Report and the Presidential Review Panel recommendations.

Still addressing sexual assault, Interim President Coltrane stated that progress would require the community to continue to work together and seek input. He stated that the Administration was the process of scheduling at least two community information fora that would allow for feedback regarding the University's efforts on the issue. He stated that the Administration wanted more student input— particularly regarding the Student Conduct Code and representation.   Interim President Coltrane reiterated that his goal was to have a comprehensive plan in place by the end of the academic year. He added that addressing sexual misconduct and violence would remain one of his top priorities.

Turning to the topic of the Policy Review Process, Interim President Coltrane stated that the Administration was working with the Senate and the Board of Trustees to create a process that would ensure that all UO Policies—existing, inherited, and developed in the future—could be organized and managed efficiently and effectively. He added that since December, his staff had been leading a collaborative process with key Senate representatives, the Board Secretary, and with Trustee Susan Gary. He stated that this group had drafted a revised version of the Policy on University Policies, and reported that they were making real progress. He expressed his hope to have a version ready for review and comment before the Board's March meeting. For their efforts in this matter, he thanked: Trustee Susan Gary, General Counsel Doug Park, Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms, Senate President Rob Kyr, John Bonine, Scott Pratt, Ron Bramhall, and Michael Dreiling. He stated that this group wanted to set up the work that had been envisioned for the Policy Advisory Council (PAC). Regarding the PAC, Interim President Coltrane reported that the membership was now confirmed; he indicated that it would consist of Senate President Kyr and thirteen additional members representing students, faculty, and staff. He added that the membership and inaugural meeting dates would be announced as soon as they were scheduled. He stated that the group working on the Policy on Policies would be educating the PAC members on the current policy status and the proposed work plan, and added that meetings would be open to the public. He stated that policy development and review would begin in earnest in March once the Board of Trustees had adopted the new Policy on University Policies. Regarding the upcoming policy reviews to be performed by the Senate, Interim President Coltrane stated that the repeal recommendations approved by the Senate would be reviewed by the PAC, and by General Counsel for legal concerns. He added that these steps were hoped to be completed within the 60 days outlined in the UO Constitution.

Interim President Coltrane announced that the University had officially launched a search for a new General Counsel for the University of Oregon. He stated that this was a critical administrative position for the University, and that the search would remain open until February 6th. He asked those present to encourage excellent candidates to apply, and noted that the search would include an opportunity for participation and input from faculty and campus community members to meet the finalists. He added that Doug Park had done an incredible job as Interim Counsel. Interim President Coltrane reported that three attorneys had been added to the office this year. He clarified that this was in addition to the hiring of Samantha Hill, a Tulane University law graduate who worked most recently with the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, and who had also served as Assistant General Counsel at Oregon State University prior to joining UO. He stated that the other three new hires were: Melissa Matella, a UO Law graduate who graduated with honors and Order of the Coif who had worked in both the private and public sectors, and had expertise in construction, labor, and contracts law; Brian Dearinger, of the Department of Justice Civil Division, who graduated Order of the Coif from Drake University Law School and had expertise in constitutional law, employment issues, and private and public records; and Craig Ashford of the Office of the Chief Counsel for the IRS, a UO Law graduate who graduated Order of the Coif and had expertise in tax law and litigation.

Moving to the update on the Strategic Planning process, Interim President Coltrane—on behalf of Acting Provost Bronet—reported that the process was moving along very well. He stated that the steering committee had been named and would be holding their first meeting the next day. He added that more than 50 people representing all segments of the campus community were taking part in the Strategic Planning process and shaping the University's Strategic Planning efforts. He stated that there were four task force work groups, and noted that these work groups would hold campus engagement forums during the present term. He added that the Provost's website was the best place to find information and updates, and to provide feedback. With that, Interim President Coltrane invited questions. He recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics), addressing sexual assault prevention, stated that it was his understanding that there was not going to be any real investigation of the University's response to the basketball rape allegations of March 2014. He asked Interim President Coltrane if, in the event that a similar incident was to occur, his response would differ from the response of his predecessor, President Gottfredson.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was not sure his response would be different. He reiterated that there was now a memorandum of understanding between the Eugene Police Department and the UOPD that very clearly articulated that the University would stand down in order to avoid interfering with an ongoing investigation. He stated that this was the same response that the University had taken in reaction to the March allegations, and so he would be likely to respond in the same way in the future. Interim President Coltrane added that he thought a better job could have been done in terms of communicating with the public. He stated that the University had been caught without saying anything, which looked bad.

Senator Harbaugh indicated that he had an additional question regarding the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). Senator Harbaugh stated that the Senate Task Force report had charged the Senate IAC to get involved in implementing changes in how the Athletics Department dealt with recruiting, among other things. He noted that he was on the Senate IAC, and that they had been unable to accomplish much because the Athletics Department was not cooperating. He explained, as an example, that the Athletics Department had not been attending the meetings. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he had any plans to encourage the Athletics Department to interact more with the Senate IAC.

Interim President Coltrane stated that there were two parallel committees: the Presidential Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics and the Senate IAC. He stated that he thought this needed to be resolved. He added that the Senate IAC was not working to the benefit of giving the President advice, and that this had prompted him to stay with the two committee structures for the time being. He stated that in the past, the Senate IAC had been viewed as being “anti-athletics,” and that some of the Athletics representatives felt that they had been unfairly attacked when they attended the meetings. He explained that as a result of this, they did not want to go anymore, and the previous President had not required them to do so. Interim President Coltrane stated that he thought this needed to be fixed. He asked Senator Harbaugh to invite him me to the next Senate IAC meeting so that he could come and start talking about it more.

Senator Harbaugh stated that this sounded good, and thanked Interim President Coltrane for his comments.

Interim President Coltrane recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) asked Interim President Coltrane if he could tell the attendees of the meeting where they could find the new memorandum of understanding between the EPD and the UOPD.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he did not know where to find it, but that it would probably be on the website. He stated that he would look into it. At the prompting of Professor Bonine, he added that he did not think that it would be proprietary.

Professor Bonine then stated that he had read a complaint filed against the University regarding incidents from the previous spring. He stated that there were allegations that information involving a student's counseling had been revealed to persons other than her counselor. He asked if there were situations in which a student who had been assaulted could not be assured that their therapy information and their personal information would be kept confidential.

Interim President Coltrane challenged the accuracy of the allegations, and stated that HIPAA and FERPA regulations required the University not to divulge information. He stated that he had not received any confirmation that anything like this had happened.

Professor Bonine clarified that he was not asking whether the allegations were true. He stated that he was asking—for the future—if the University was certain that student victims could be confident that what they shared with a therapist would be confidential.

Interim President Coltrane stated that students could be confident of this, except in situations where there was an imminent threat to oneself or others. He explained that it was mandatory for the University to report if there was a safety concern.

Senator Deborah Olson (Special Education) stated that she was concerned about the AAU sexual assault survey. She added that Professor Jennifer Freyd's survey had gone through numerous reviews by the University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects, and that she was confident of its legitimacy and protection of subjects, as a result. She asked Interim President Coltrane if the AAU survey would also be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects.

Interim President Coltrane confirmed that it would. He explained that every research project on campus had to be reviewed by the IRB. He added that he had appointed a committee that included Carol Stabile, Jocelyn Hollander, Robin Holmes, Benedict McWhirter, and a grad student from the College of Education's Counseling Psychology program (from Jennifer Freyd's Lab) to advise him on the survey. He added that he had approached Jennifer Freyd, and that they thought it was better if she was not on the committee. He stated that the committee had yet to meet, but that it had been appointed.

Senator Olson stated that such a committee was a very good thing to have, but added that the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects best knew the laws and the regulations on the issue.

Interim President Coltrane agreed, and reiterated that both the AAU survey and Jennifer Freyd's survey would go through the IRB.

Professor Bonine reiterated that it was important that the IRB weigh in. He explained that the AAU had stated that it would not accept any changes to its survey requested by local Institutional Review Boards. He stated that he wanted to be sure that if the IRB had objections, there would be no survey.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was awaiting his committee's advice on this issue.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he was wondering about the economic implications of the National Football Championship game. He stated that during the previous year, there had been a discussion about ending subsidies for the Athletics Department and getting the Athletics Department to start contributing money for student scholarships. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he knew of any recent changes in the Athletics Department’s financial condition—perhaps related to the Bowl game playoffs and recent ESPN contracts—that had improved the Athletics Department's financial situation and made it possible to make progress on this.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was not aware of any substantial changes. He added that there were revenues associated with the playoffs, but that the cost of sending the team was enormously high. He stated that he had not seen any reports, but speculated that it might have been a wash for the Athletics Department financially.

Senator Harbaugh asked if the Senate IAC could get information on this from the Athletics Department. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he would be willing to facilitate a request for financial information.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would talk to the Athletics Department about it. He then asked Acting Provost Frances Bronet if she had anything to say about Strategic Planning.

Acting Provost Frances Bronet stated that the steering committee would meet the following morning, and that the plan was to lay out what was going to happen over the next two terms. She encouraged everyone to come to the fora, and to get engaged. She stated that the goal was to wrap this up by mid-May, and that the plan would be presented to the Board during their June meeting.

Interim President Coltrane thanked Acting Provost Bronet for her remarks and ceded the floor.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal and Adoption of Faculty Records Rules; Senate Executive Committee       

Senate President Kyr  turned the Senate's attention to the policy realignment efforts, stating that they would consider the motion: "Repeal and Adoption of Faculty Records Rules." Senate President Kyr took a moment to thank Professor Bonine for the time that he had devoted to the policy realignment effort. He explained that the Senate was initially tasked to look at 100 out of roughly 800 policies, and that Professor Bonine had utilized his expertise in administrative law to identify 200 additional policies that he felt related to the Senate. Senate President Kyr related that Professor Bonine, in the interest of preparing the Senate to go through the policies, had gone through all of the 300 policies and made a policy-tracking Excel chart. Senate President Kyr explained that Professor Bonine had organized the 300 policies into tabs that focused on different categories, and noted that the Senate was about to consider the "Faculty Records" tab and the "Student Records" tab. He indicated that Professor Bonine would explain how to utilize the spreadsheet to the Senate. He then asked Professor Bonine, on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, to give the motion to the Senate.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Deborah Healey (American English Institute) offered a second.

Senate President Kyr, with the permission of the Senate, indicated that he would skip reading the “whereas” clauses of the motion and instead move directly to Section II. He stated that there had been some minor—albeit important—changes under Section II that Professor Bonine would go on to explain. He noted that there was a link (titled "Policies of Senate Interest Excel workbook") to Professor Bonine’s Excel “policy tracker” at the bottom of the motion. He explained that the text of the individual policies was not yet in an easy-to-edit format, and stated that the Excel workbook was intended to make accessing the policies easier and more organized. He also mentioned that the workbook had an internal number system for the policies, which he referred to as the “Bonine Number.”

Senate President Kyr read Section II of the motion and invited Professor Bonine to provide some background information, and to guide the Senate through the spreadsheet training session.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he wanted first to express his happiness that former General Counsel Randy Geller's advice to abolish the University Senate, the Faculty Assembly, and most of the committees on which faculty members would serve, had apparently been rejected. Referring to the Board proposal discussed in the previous Senate meeting, Professor Bonine stated that the Senate had experienced a real crisis in December regarding shared governance. He stated that this was not due to venality or ill intentions, but rather to a lack of collaboration. He expressed his appreciation for Interim President Coltrane and others who got involved to halt the proposal. He also noted that he believed there had been a lack of adequate legal analysis of what the proposal before the Board would have done, such as eliminate the University of Oregon constitution.

He echoed Interim President Coltrane in mentioning that a group was working to craft a better plan. He noted that some people—generally members of the Administration—felt that the Policy on Policies needed to be changed.  He added that although he did not necessarily share this feeling, the Policy on Policies principally applied to the Administration. Given that, he stated that he was fine with changing the Policy on Policies as long as the essential roles for the Senate were preserved.

Proceeding with background for the motion, Professor Bonine stated that Senate Bill 270 had created the new independent Board and reorganized the way that higher education was being run at the University. He stated that Senate Bill 270 stipulated that the former rules of the State Board of Higher Education would remain in effect until the University decided to keep them or throw them out. He noted that these were sometimes referred to as the “580 rules,” because most of the regulations of the State Board of Higher Education were either in Title 166 or Title 580. He explained that the “580 rules” were not University of Oregon rules at present, noting that that UO rules were “571 rules,” and that these did not need to be changed in any way. He added that Senate Bill 270 removed UO from the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Procedure Act, and as a consequence, what were formerly referred to as "Oregon Administrative Rules" needed to be changed to "University of Oregon Policies."

Professor Bonine went on to state that legal advice solicited by the University had indicated that if the UO did not repeal the “571 rules,” only the State Legislature could do so in the future. The "571 rules” were therefore repealed and subsequently adopted by the President on June 18th. He explained that the “571 rules” were repealed as a State regulation and adopted as a University of Oregon policy regulation, which meant that the “571 rules” were still in effect. Professor Bonine noted that the “580 rules” were also in effect, but that they needed to be changed. Professor Bonine stated that he would go through the Excel workbook at this point, because he wanted to set up a process through which everybody could volunteer to take on a little bit of this work.

Professor Bonine proceeded to explain how the spreadsheet organized the policies and drew attention to various features that could be helpful to the Senate. These included: color-coding which policies which applied to the Senate, marking policies that should be kept or repealed, linking redundant policies together, and organizing policies by their general field of applicability. He added that the policies being considered for repeal or adoption by the Senate had been vetted by the Senate Executive Committee, but that this was not true of the other policies in the worksheet. He encouraged those present to check that the workbook was accurate. Professor Bonine then fielded a question from Bruce MacAllister.

University Ombudsperson, Bruce MacAllister noted that there were many “570 rules” that flowed directly from the “580 rules.” He also observed that several of the “570 rules” were “hopelessly outdated.” He asked Professor Bonine if he was doing substantive clean-up along the way, or if he was focused on simply mapping over the “580 rules” for the time being.

Professor Bonine stated that he had not found “571 rules” to be hopelessly outdated. He stated that there were, perhaps, some things that could be tweaked, but added that it was important to focus on getting a system in place to deal with the “580 rules” first. He added that if the Senate tried to take 783 policies and make them perfect, it would never get anything accomplished. He stated that his plan was to first get rid of the rules that were duplicative and unnecessary, and second, to look at what was being kept in more detail. He added that it was always possible to change policies, and that there was no reason to do everything to the best standards before “[getting] rid of the junk.”

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that there would need to be deeper substantive work around addressing some of the policies, but noted that Professor Bonine was merely going though to eliminate, for example, redundancies and “580 rules” that simply called for the creation of a “570 rule.”

Professor Bonine agreed that this was his primary goal. He added that there were some “580 rules” that needed to be made into University policies, and that the simplest way to do this was to adopt them in order to ensure that no one accidentally threw them away in some other cleanup process.

Senate President Kyr mentioned that a survey would be sent out in the following week that would ask Senators to volunteer, based on their expertise, for work dealing with the various categories of policies. He asked that every member of the Senate work together to accomplish this.

Professor Bonine, addressing the motion, stated that it asked the Senate to repeal the “580 rules” that were listed, and adopt the "570 rules” listed. He added that Section 2.3 asked that two additional “166 rules” (State Board rules) and “580 rules” should become regular University policies, because there was nothing equivalent on the books. He explained that these were record retention rules. He added that the "Retention of Evaluative Materials Concerning Candidates for Possible Employment" rule required that materials for job candidates be kept for seven years, for example.

Senate President Kyr requested comments and questions from the floor. He recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) thanked Professor Bonine for putting the spreadsheet together.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she was astonished at the thoroughness of Professor Bonine's work, and that she appreciated it.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) also thanked Professor Bonine. He suggested that people take a look through the policies, noting that they contained interesting things.

Professor Bonine agreed.

Senate President Kyr, seeing no further questions or concerns, called for the vote. The motion carried.

 

4.2       Motion (Policy Adoption): Repeal and Adoption of Student Records Rules; Senate Executive Committee

Professor John Bonine (Law) introduced the "Student Records" motion. He explained that this motion accomplished the same thing as the previous motion, except that it applied to student records. He stated that it called for the repeal of nine rules that were redundant. He added that Section 2.2 stipulated that one "580 rule," inherited by the State system, should be adopted. He explained that this rule had to do with petitions by students for changes in personal records, and stated that there was not an equivalent rule in the current University rules. He stated that the motion also called for the retention of all the "571 rules."

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for debate on the motion. None followed, and a vote was called. The motion carried.

4.3       Motion (Resolution): UO Foundation Fossil Fuel Divestment; Jane Cramer (Senator, Political Science); John Davidson (Senator, Political Science); Helena Schlegel (Senator; Undergraduate, Spanish)

Senate President Kyr turned the Senate's attention the next motion: "UO Foundation Fossil Fuel Divestment." He stated that the co-sponsors were Jane Cramer (Senator, Political Science), John Davidson (Senator, Political Science), and Helena Schlegel (Senator; Undergraduate, Spanish). He asked a co-sponsor to give the motion to the Senate.

Erik Young (Student, Environmental Studies) volunteered to give the motion to the Senate.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) stated that she and John Davidson would present the motion to the Senate.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) offered a second.

Senate President Kyr asked for background on the motion.

Nicole Hendrix (Student, Environmental Studies) stated that she was a member of the Climate Justice League working on the divestment campaign. She stated that the campaign had begun in December 2013, when the Climate Justice League approached the UO Foundation and asked them to divest their alumni funds from fossil fuel industries. She noted that this made up about 1% of their funds, or seven million dollars. She indicated that their response to the request was that they were not willing to consider it until there was more support for the campaign. She stated that this had prompted the Climate Justice League to gather about 1,500 petitions to put the issue on a student ballot. She reported that in April 2014, the ballot went out and 73% of 3,000 students voted in support of the divestment. She explained that following this vote, the resolution before the Senate was created. She stated that the goal was to approach the UO Foundation again to show that divesting from fossil fuels was something that the University community would be proud to do.

Senate President Kyr read the motion to the Senate, and recognized Erik Young for more comments.

Erik Young stated that Section 2.1 was probably the most important, noting that it called on the UO Foundation to divest from fossil fuels and to stay divested. He explained that Sections 2.2 and 2.3 were intended to make the UO Foundation's investments more transparent. He noted that Section 2.4 was intended to get the support of the President in advocating for the divestment. He stated that passing the motion would send a strong message to the Foundation that both students and faculty are united in calling for the UO Foundation to divest.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and questions. He recognized Senator Harbaugh.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) recalled that this issue had come up roughly a year and a half before, and that at the time, he was somewhat opposed to it. He stated that what had happened to the prices of energy stocks in the last six months made him wish that the University had gotten the motion passed earlier, and that the Foundation could have responded.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he had read during the previous spring that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund was divesting from investments in fossil fuel. He pointed out that this was the same Rockefeller family of the first American billionaire, and the founder of Standard Oil. He stated that while fossil fuels provided a good boost to the civilizational moves that were made by human beings over the last 150 years, that it was now time to phase out. He added that he hoped that the Senate and the University community would make the same wise decision that they had made. He also recommended an amendment to the motion: to set a date before which divestment had to occur.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Dreiling for the exact wording of his motion to amend.

Senator Dreiling proposed adding the language “within six months from the approval of this motion” so that Section 2.1.1, as amended, would read: "Sell its investments in fossil fuel extraction companies within six months of approval of this motion and use its power, connections, and influence to address the issue of climate change."

Senator Monique Balbuena (Clark Honors College) seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion. He recognized Senator Cramer.

Senator Cramer noted that a similar motion that had passed at Stanford. She stated that the Climate Justice League was hoping to make the University of Oregon the first institution to pass such legislation, but that they were unable to do this because of the amount of time it had taken to get the motion before the Senate. With this is mind, she urged the Senate to pass the motion. She added that when universities began divesting from apartheid, it was the beginning of the movement to change things in South Africa. She stated that this motion was a similar step in the right direction that could lead to larger, more important changes.

Senate President Kyr asked for further comments on the motion to amend. He recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) noted that Cornell had voted to dump oil and gas investments by 2035. She joked that a six-month time table would give Cornell a good example.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments on the amendment. None followed, and he called a vote on the amendment. The amendment carried. Moving back to the discussion of the main motion, he recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Philosophy) voiced his support of the motion and asked if the sponsors could speak more broadly about the campaign that was being conducted and the feedback that had been received from the UO Foundation and other administrators as to where this would go.

Erik Young stated that the UO Foundation was reluctant to divest, and that they saw no reason to do so. He stated that passing the motion would hopefully be another step in putting more pressure on the Foundation to do something. He added that it would not be that difficult to do financially, and that it would make a big impact symbolically.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) pointed out that the financial impact was not mentioned on the divestment motion. He asked if there were any reliable numbers on the extent of the University’s investment in fossil fuels, and what divestment would cost the Foundation.

Zach Mulholland (UO Alumnus, Co-Founder of UO Divest Campaign) stated that the University of Oregon Foundation's Chief Investment Officer reported that they had a little over 700 million dollars of investments—of which around 1% was invested in the 200 companies listed on the Fossil Free website as the worst polluters. He stated that in terms of overall economic impact, this was a relatively small portion of UO's investments. He added that this spoke to Senator Harbaugh's point that fossil fuel investments were not going to be good for the University over the long term.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) commented that some people might be under the impression that the University of Oregon Foundation made all of its decisions and actions based upon the best economic investment for the University, and wonder: why should they be dealing with this? He stated that thirty years ago, members of the University of Oregon Foundation had tried to shut down one of his classes—the Environmental Law Clinic. He stated that the UO Foundation was, at times, willing to do social things, and that this was a chance for them to do something socially good.

Senate President Kyr, seeing no further discussion, called for the vote. The motion carried unanimously. Before moving to the next item on the agenda, Senate President Kyr took a moment to recognize that students who had worked on the motion, stating that it meant a great deal to the entire body and all five constituencies representing the University.

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Change of Membership for the Graduate Council; Joe Lowndes, Professor (Political Science) & Graduate Council Chair

Senate President Kyr introduced that next motion to be considered by the Senate: "Legislation: Change of Membership for the Graduate Council." He stated that this would be a quick “housecleaning” motion, and asked someone to give the motion to the Senate. Senate President Kyr noted that the maker of the motion, Associate Professor Joe Lowndes, was unable to attend due to a class. With no one available to present on Associate Professor Lowndes’ behalf, Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would address the motion at a later date.

4.5       Motion (Resolution): Senate Support to Uphold and Implement a Confidential Ombuds Program and Office; Committee on Respectful Workplace (Carla McNelly, Chair), UO Ombuds Search Committee (Carol Silverman, Chair), UO Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support (Carol Stabile and Randy Sullivan, Co-Chairs), Officer of Administration Council (Teri Rowe, President)

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would now consider a resolution: "Senate Support to Uphold and Implement a Confidential Ombuds Program and Office." He noted that the co-sponsors represented: the Committee on Respectful Workplace (Carla McNelly, Chair), the UO Ombuds Search Committee (Carol Silverman, Chair), the UO Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support (Carol Stabile and Randy Sullivan, Co-Chairs), and the Officer of Administration Council (Teri Rowe, President). He asked Carla McNelly to give the motion to the Senate.

Carla McNelly (Operations Coordinator, School of Journalism and Communication) stated that she was representing the Respectful Workplace Committee. She thanked her colleagues for their work on the motion, and expressed her gratitude to President Coltrane for helping to establish a confidential Ombuds Program. She explained that it was crucial for anyone who visited the Ombuds office to be able to express themselves and to feel comfortable. She added that this would also help these individuals find the resources they needed to address the issues they were facing, and—with the support of the Ombuds Program—to work to fix, to change, to survive, and to go forward in the wake of the events that they had dealt with on campus. She stated that the motion was to memorialize the work that had been done together by all of the constituents on campus, who were able to work collaboratively with the President and Central Administration to realize a confidential Ombuds program. With that, she presented the motion to the Senate, and asked them to memorialize the fact that the University of Oregon had a confidential Ombuds Office.

Senator Theodora Ko Thompson (Admissions) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr read the motion, and asked for further comments from Carla McNelly.

Carla McNelly thanked everyone who put effort into the motion including: the Respectful Workplace Committee, the Chairs, the members who served on the Search Committee, the members of the Sexual Violence Task Force, and the OA Council.

Senate President Kyr recognized Teri Rowe, co-sponsor of the motion.

Teri Rowe (Department Manager, Economics) introduced herself as the Chair of the Officers of Administration Council and stated that the OA Council was very disappointed by how long it took for the Ombuds Office to become a confidential office. She added that the OA Council was enormously appreciative of President Coltrane for taking up the issue, and that they were excited about having Bruce MacAllister be able to launch the Ombuds Office.

Senate President Kyr asked University Ombudsperson, Bruce MacAllister, to stand and be recognized.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) stated that he was thrilled that the Senate was finally able to take action on the resolution. He stated that he thought it was a wonderful way to memorialize having an Ombuds Program that was consistent with how Ombuds Programs are run at universities throughout the country. He stated that he thought the program was a successful collaboration between Administration, Senate, and University communities; he added that it filled a tremendous need that the University had.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that he hoped that the Administration, from the top, made sure—through constant reiteration—that power did not exist in any employee, and that everyone was respectful, fair, and non-arbitrary.

Senate President Kyr , seeing no additional comments, called for a vote. The motion carried.

 

9.  ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyrthanked those present for a great meeting, and called the January 14, 2015 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:36 p.m.

 

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 10, 2014—Special Emergency Session

Present: Paul Dassonville, Miriam Deutsch, Jennifer Freyd, Reza Rejaie, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Bruce McGough, Dianne Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Gordon Sayre, Ron Lovinger, Richard Margerum, Charles Lachman, Deborah Olson, Debra Merskin, Victoria Mitchell, Edward Teague, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Robert Kyr, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Jun Li, Ken Prehoda, Randy Sullivan, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Laura Leete, Marilyn Nippold, Jerry Rosiek, Alexandre Dossin, Debra Thurman, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, Quin Haaga, Kate Klosno

Excused: Weiyong He, Michael Price, Regina Psaki, Donna Shaw, Mary Ann Hyatt

 Note: Due to technical issues, the beginning of the December 10th 2014 meeting was not recorded. Consequently, the minutes begin partway through Senate President Kyr’s opening remarks.

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) noted that the controversial Board of Trustees Resolution (Adoption of a Policy on University Policies) had been postponed. He stated that this postponement was the result of Interim President Coltrane negotiating with the Board in the interest of the faculty and shared governance. He added that a result of this postponement was a new, more collaborative process for the revision of University policies.

 

3. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

    3.1       Announcement and Updates: Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that he would read a statement from Interim President Coltrane (who was unable to attend the meeting) regarding the Policy Review Process proposal. President Coltrane’s statement has been reproduced in its entirety below:

Colleagues, the University of Oregon lived up to its reputation as a place of lively debate and passionate discourse this week in our discussion of a policies proposal before the UO Board of Trustees. I have heard your concerns and, as President, have carried your voice forward to our Board of Trustees. The Board graciously responded by postponing consideration of the policies proposal at the December meeting, but charged us to work expeditiously toward a revised process that allows the University to review policy efficiently and collaboratively. The Board would like to see a new resolution in time for consideration at its March meetings.

As many of you may know, the University Senate leadership expressed concern about a proposal before the UO Board of Trustees to create a more streamlined process for reviewing the 700-plus policies the UO inherited from the State during our governance transition and for policy development going forward. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all UO policies—existing, inherited, and developed in the future—are organized and managed efficiently and effectively. Our current process is not efficient, and did not envision the inheritance of many hundreds of additional policies to review, revise, or repeal in an abbreviated timeframe. It also doesn't contemplate the new Institutional Board, which took effect just this summer.

Provost Bronet, members of the leadership team, and I understand the concerns presented. We acknowledge that these proposed changes could have been communicated better, and that the Senate's leadership could have been more involved sooner in the process. More importantly, we commit to doing better in the future. 

We now have a good opportunity to demonstrate to each other, and to our Board, that we can move forward together. I hope we can put the distrust and negative assumptions behind us, and continue to work through this transition in a way that elevates our University and our shared commitment to academic excellence.  As a starting point, I offer a few details of my proposed process below and look forward to working with the Senate and others to begin this important work. The proposed process honors the constitution and our collective commitment to shared governance by: 1) Creating a standing position on the Policy Advisory Council for the Senate President; 2) Ensuring that every new or revised University policy proposal generated by the Administration shall be sent to the Senate President (University Constitution 7.2.2.1) early in the process, creating greater efficiencies; 3) Enabling the Senate President, as a PAC member, to flag all policies that involve “academic matters as commonly understood in higher education” for Senate consideration through Senate-defined processes; 4) Requiring the Senate President, during final PAC review, to verify that Senate procedures were followed and Senate approval on such academic matters was achieved before moving forward for action; and 5) Providing a forum for the President to receive and consider new or revised “policy proposals approved by the University Senate within 60 days” as defined in the UO Constitution, Section 7.2.2.2.

In summary, the statutory faculty—through the Senate—will continue to serve as our policy leaders for all academic policy leaders for all academic policies. My sincerest hope is that these changes strengthen our faculty's voice in policy-making by increasing opportunity for faculty to influence policy development—both academic and non-academic—through participation in the PAC, as subject matter experts, and in an open public comment period. A visual depiction of these process changes is available here [a link to the document has been provided], and I’m happy to receive any questions or concerns.

Senate President Kyr stated that there would be many opportunities to engage with the President going forward. He expressed his gratitude for the President exercising his authority, advocating for the faculty, and advocating for shared governance.

 

4. NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Motion (Resolution): Resolution Affirming the University of Oregon Constitution; Michael Dreiling (Sociology), Senator & Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would consider a Resolution Affirming the University of Oregon Constitution, written by Senator Michael Dreiling and the Senate Executive Committee. Senator Dreiling gave the motion to the Senate, and it received a second. Senate President Kyr proceeded to read the motion, which he noted had been revised immediately prior to the meeting. He then invited Senator Dreiling to provide background.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that the University community had recently been made aware of a Board resolution that would supersede all existing policies, and would also repeal policies as they existed in the current University of Oregon Policy Library. He explained that this resolution was developed without consultation of the University Senate, the Senate President, or the faculty. He stated that this had mobilized the faculty, the Senate, and Senate Executive Committee to collaborate to quickly analyze the implications of the resolution, to issue a call to postpone the resolution, and to begin a process of collaboration as called for by the University of Oregon Constitution, Section 7. He stated that President Coltrane had consulted with the Board of Trustees, and that the Board of Trustees had withdrawn the resolution and called for consultation moving forward. He stated that the motion was intended to honor and celebrate the transition towards collaboration, while also recognizing that the original Board resolution was concerning.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Senator Margerum.

Senator Rich Margerum (Planning, Public Policy, & Management) indicated that he wanted to emphasize Section 2.3 of the motion. He noted that the Administration had flagged at least 100 policies as being directly relevant to the academic matters of the University, and that these needed to be addressed. He stated that this would require a lot of committee work, extra meetings, and that it could result in other things getting bumped from the Senate agenda. He asserted that it was important for the Senate to work through the policies efficiently.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate was aware that extra work would be required, and added that twice the normal number of meetings had been scheduled to accommodate this. He then recognized Moshe Immerman.

Moshe Immerman asked that the Senate be mindful of the context of their work. He stated that the Senate needed to be wary of “the rise of unaccountable power,” and that the vision of the founding mothers and fathers required keeping freedom of thought at the center of one's actions. He shared that he had attended a recent meeting of the Board of Trustees, and commented that he had observed some positive things, but also a lot of elitism and shallow thought. He asked those present to remember their past so as to “prevent the rise of a cannibal power,” ensure maximum transparency, and maximize collaborative vision and wisdom.

Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Immerman for his remarks. He asked the speakers to keep their comments under two minutes in order to ensure that there would be enough time to cover the remaining items on the agenda. He also requested that people try to see the best in each other, and encouraged everyone to work from their best selves through respectful dialogue. He then recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) suggested that a member of General Counsel begin to attend the Senate meetings, explaining that the new policy put General Counsel in a critical role. He asked those present to look at the Request to Postpone; he noted that it referenced various national organizations, and that it was important for everyone to read it. He asked how many Senators were present, with the implication that the current numbers were insufficient.

Senate President Kyr stated that more than half of the Senate was present.

Professor Bonine stated that he wanted to start a process by which Senate seats were declared vacant when people did not attend meetings after some period of time. He stated that the Senate was being given the responsibility to work with the Administration, and that if the Senate wanted to “step up to the plate,” the Senators had to be present. He also asked people to volunteer for the working groups that were being set up. He asserted that not participating would result in another crisis.

An unidentified speaker asked if people other than Senators could participate.

Professor Bonine stated that people did not have to be Senators to participate. As a final comment, he mentioned that the meeting of the Executive Committee on the Monday prior to the Senate meeting had been very important. He noted that Helena Schlegel had been confirmed as the student representative of the Board at this meeting.

Senate President Kyr reminded those in attendance that Helena Schlegel had been a Senator during the previous year. He stated that her service as a Senator was exemplary, and that he was sure that she would do well on the Board. He took a moment to recognize Professor Bonine and Professor Forell for their work on the revisions to the Student Conduct Code, among other things.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ellis.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) suggested that a sign-up sheet for the working groups be sent around while enthusiasm was high.

Senate President Kyr asked Senate Executive Logistics Coordinator, Dan Daly, to prepare sheets and send them around. He asked those who were interested to supply their name, contact information, and area of expertise or interest. He then recognized Professor Mann.

Professor Bonnie Mann (Department Head, Philosophy) asked that the members of the GTFF be recognized for their efforts during the strike. She reminded those present about the dispute between the faculty and the Administration over grading policies during the strike, and urged the Senate to be careful and to “not be too happy too fast.”

Senate President Kyr noted that the Senate would be receiving an update from the Academic Integrity Task Force after finishing with the present business. He stated that he appreciated Professor Mann’s comments, and that they would be further discussed after the update. With that in mind, he asked those present to remain focused on discussing the motion. He recognized Senator Freyd.

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) asserted that the motion was a wake-up call for the Senate. She stated that it emphasized how deeply important shared governance was to the future of the University. She added that it was also important that the faculty continue to have primary responsibility for academic matters. She stated that it was important to consider the policies that the Senate was required to review, and also to be vigilant for every other decision being made that was fundamentally academic. For example, she shared her observation that decisions had been made regarding cluster hires, and that the faculty had not had a proper role in these decisions. She also shared her belief that preventing sexual violence was part of the academic mission, and that decisions were being made about how reform would proceed on campus without proper inclusion of the faculty.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) thanked Professor Mann for her comments and stated that he shared her feelings. He asserted that it was important for stakeholders at a university to be heard. He added that the GTFF had demonstrated this. He stated that he was looking forward to reaffirming shared governance.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senior Instructor of Business, Ron Bramhall, whose comment was inaudible. Senate President Kyr responded to the comment by stating that the Senate was very realistic about the amount of work that the Senate needed to do, and that it was ready to follow through. He then recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that the word "Senate" was not clearly included everywhere that it was needed in the revised draft of the Policy Review Process. He added that it was there implicitly, but that it needed to be explicit.

Senate President Kyr reminded the body that the Policy Review Process was still a draft, and that there was still important work to be done on it. He stated that updates would be forthcoming. He recognized an unidentified speaker.

The unidentified speaker suggested that attendees of the meeting silence their cellphones.

Senate President Kyr asked those present to silence their cellphones. He then called for a vote on the motion, which carried. Senate President Kyr announced that he would be making a standing report to the Board during which he would present the motion. He added that the standing report of the Senate President would now be a part of every Board meeting, and that the ASUO President would be delivering a standing report, as well. He stated that he would take the comments on the motion into consideration, and that his statement would be available after the Board meeting.

4.2       Update: Academic Integrity Task Force

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would consider item 4.2: the update on the Academic Integrity Task Force. He gave the floor to Associate Professor Joe Lowndes to present the update.

Associate Professor Joe Lowndes (Political Science) introduced himself as the Chair of the Graduate Council. He explained that the Academic Integrity Task Force had been charged to respond to the Administration's Academic Continuity Plan and to come up with possible ways to implement academic integrity in grading during the strike. He stated that the Task Force had consulted with Department Heads, members of the committees, Head of Financial Aid Jim Brooks, and University Registrar Sue Eveland to determine if there was a way to preserve academic integrity and allow grades to be given where they were not issued by professors. He reported that the Task Force had found that there was no way to preserve academic integrity. He added that the Task Force had written a report that chose to uphold the principles of academic integrity for faculty. He stated that these principles were: that the true instructors of record maintain control over their classes; that no faculty member should be disciplined for refusing to violate his or her academic integrity; and that faculty not be asked to compromise academic integrity to solve administrative problems.

He stated that the Task Force decided to lay out the faculty's options to preserve and defend instructor choice. These options were: to enter a provisional grade as a final grade that could be changed later; to enter a final grade based on work done thus far or some other criteria; and to elect to not submit a grade altogether. He noted that the non-submission of grades was a controversial option, because it could potentially imperil students with financial aid. He explained that the Task Force had spoken with the Head of Financial Aid and the Registrar to see if there was any way that this option could be exercised without interfering with financial aid, and that it was clear from these discussions that it would not be possible in the short run. He stated that the Task Force had also considered whether another grade category could be created that would allow faculty members to say that students had attended class up until the very end. He stated that the purpose of this was to demonstrate that students had been in class, which would preserve their financial aid. He added that the Task Force decided to postpone looking at this possibility until Winter Term, because the strike ended.

Senate President Kyr reminded those present that the Academic Council would be reconvened. He asked if there were any questions or comments on the update. He recognized Senator Freyd.

Senator Jennifer Freyd (Psychology) asserted that it was important for the University to solve problems—such as how to approach grading in a crisis—using a bottom-up approach, which she stated was at the heart of a great university. She added that universities not use a corporate, military, top-down, authoritarian approach, because it squelches creativity and great ideas.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Berk.

Professor Gerry Berk (Director of Graduate Studies, Political Science) asked if there would be a place—as the Senate moved forward—to review future processes and policies related to academic integrity. He   explained that there were many faculty members outside of the Senate who needed a voice. He asked if there existed some kind of forum that would allow such individuals to communicate directly with Administrators about the gravity of what had transpired.

Senate President Kyr stated that there was, indeed, a process. He reminded those present that seeking communication with Senate representatives was one way to have a voice. He then stated that he would like to commit to having a forum related to the topic of healing that the Senate would host in January. He stated that the Senate would invite everybody involved, including the general public and administrators. He then recognized Senator Cramer.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) stated that in the wake of the strike, there remained significant concerns that academic integrity had not been maintained. She explained that many students were issued heavily inflated grades, and she underscored that these grades were final—not provisional. She stated that she did not think this preserved academic integrity.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Stabile.

Professor Carol Stabile (Women’s and Gender Studies, Journalism and Communication) stated that she respectfully disagreed with the spirit of optimism regarding recent events. She expressed that, as the Chair of the Senate Task Force on Sexual Violence and Survivor Support, she had been shocked by the Administration’s response to the Task Force's recommendations. She stated that she believed there had been a good deal of disrespect directed toward certain faculty members on campus and their efforts to conduct research about sexual violence. She stated that she felt as though one of the Task Force's major recommendations—to not to sign on to the $85,000 AAU survey—had been completely disregarded, and that until she had a sense of how decisions were being made and who was in charge, it was difficult for her to determine how to move forward. She added that an alarming decision had been made by General Counsel concerning the provision of counseling to survivors. She stated that it appeared to her that unilateral decisions were still being made—behind closed doors, and without discussion—that deeply affected her ability to mentor students and to do her job on campus.

Senate President Kyr stated that he understood Professor Stabile’s frustration, but that it was important to work positively toward their goals. He stated that part of the process of going forward was to give everybody a voice, and to promote healing.

Professor Stabile stated that she did not need a voice. She stated that she just wanted to have some meaningful impact on the decisions that affect her working life and her students' working life.

Senate President Kyr sympathized with Professor Stabile's frustration, but asserted that it was important to continue together to make a difference, because that was the only way to move forward. He recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he was done with the “Kumbaya,” and that he agreed with Carol and the other speakers. He stated that he was in favor of praising the Administration when it was warranted, but added that he was also disappointed by many of their actions. He noted that despite the Administration’s stated intentions to collaborate, it had still set up a separate, non-Senate Athletics Review Committee. He also asserted that the Administration was not respecting the Sexual Violence Task Force, as they had set up a separate group to decide what surveys would be done on campus. He added that some of the University’s expert researchers had been demeaned by University Administrators, and that the Administration had never apologized for this. He added that the group responsible for deciding which surveys would be done was in complete control of the process instead of being in a partnership with the Task Force. He stated that the "Kumbaya" positive stuff was great, but that the Senate still had to insist that the Sexual Violence Task Force be taken seriously.

Senate President Kyr offered his assurance that the Senate would not let go of the important issues. He recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Philosophy) stated that he did not think that Senate President Kyr was expressing an overly optimistic “Kumbaya” point of view. He stated that everybody was aware that there were a number of crucial problems on campus. He shared his observation that Senate President Kyr was simply urging the Senate not to get mired in cynicism, because that would be to lose the game. He invited the Senate to hear some of Senate President Kyr's remarks in this light.

Senate President Kyr stated that going forward, the Senate would be getting very direct and clear communications about how things were proceeding at each step of the way. He stated that the Senate needed to improve its mode of communication and outreach, and offered his assurance that it would be doing just that. He gave the Senate his word that he would not budge in the defense of the faculty or the University. He recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he wanted to acknowledge that the Senate had avoided a serious problem (the Board proposal) by being vigilant and moving swiftly. He commended Senate President Kyr, the members of the Senate Executive Committee, and others who had opposed the initiative. He added that this would not be the last time that faculty, students and staff would need to be vigilant, active, and mobilized on campus. He stated that this sort of bottom-up energy would make the University better.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Mann.

Professor Bonnie Mann (Department Head, Philosophy) stated that she wanted to address the question regarding Academic Integrity. She stated that the philosophy department had been at the center of the tensions between the faculty and the Administration, because it had seven solo-taught GTF courses. She stated that she was the instructor of record for one of these courses, along with Judith Baskin. She explained that her strategy of dealing with the GTFF strike was the non-submission of grades. She added that after meeting with Dean Marcus Judith Baskin, they agreed to tell all 226 students in the seven GTF-taught courses that they should complete any work that had been assigned. Professor Mann then explained that without consulting with her, Judith Baskin had sent an email out to students telling them: "You don't have to complete your final assignments." She stated that Judith Baskin also went on to raise the grades of students who complained. She explained that this meant that she essentially recalculated the complaining students’ grades until they were what the students wanted. She reiterated that this was what had been done, and that it could not be undone. She also noted that many of the GTFs had planned for a possible strike, and as a result, that they had given final assignments before they left—along with a due date for that final assignment and exact instructions of how to turn that assignment in. She asserted that if the grading of the GTF-taught courses had been left alone, these classes would have been in the process of being properly graded as she spoke. She stated that because of the premature and unnecessary intervention by Judith Baskin, students received grades on the basis of partial work that was able to be renegotiated until they received the grade they wanted. She stated that this was an extremely egregious event, and added that she hoped the Task Force would look at what happened, and how bad it was.

Senate President Kyr recognized an unidentified speaker.

The unidentified speaker expressed that the GTFF strike demonstrated that “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

Senate President Kyr recognized Michael (he was not identified beyond his first name).

Michael stated that women on campus were under assault in a way that men were not. He also stated that the Senate needed to take the denigration of Professor Freyd's research seriously. He stated that this was a really big problem that needed to be addressed.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that he wanted to make a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow Senator Freyd to present a motion to give a charge to the Academic Integrity Task Force to carry out the kind of investigation that Professor Mann had suggested.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion on the motion to suspend the rules and recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked what specific proposal the Senate would be suspending the rules for.

Professor Bonine stated that the proposal was to charge the Academic Task Force to conduct an investigation, but that the details would have to be expressed by the maker of the motion.

Senator Davidson asked if the Senate knew what was going to be investigated.

Senate President Kyr added that it was customary to gives such details.

Senator Freyd stated that the motion was to ask the Academic Integrity Task Force to investigate the situation regarding grading in the Philosophy Department as described by Professor Mann. She added that the investigation should be done in light of the standards of accreditation that govern the University—standards without which the University would not be in a position to grant degrees to students.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) informed Senate President Kyr that a motion to suspend the rules was not debatable, and that a vote needed to be called.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion to suspend the rules. The motion carried with a majority. Senate President Kyr then asked Senator Freyd for a clear statement of her motion.

Senator Freyd proposed that “The Senate charge the Academic Integrity Task Force to conduct an investigation of the alleged grading irregularities in the Philosophy Department, and any other cases that were brought forward during Fall 2014." At the request of Senate President Kyr, Senator Freyd gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Debra Merskin (Journalism & Communication) seconded the motion.

Senate President Kyr invited Senator Freyd to provide background.

Senator Freyd noted that the University of Oregon is accredited by an accrediting body, and that this is an extremely important aspect of the University's ability to function. She stated that there are accreditation standards that have to do with academic integrity and grading, which made the alleged grading irregularities a very serious matter.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion, and recognized Senator McGough.

Senator Bruce McGough (Economics) stated that he felt the Senate should ask the Academic Integrity Task Force to provide a report, perhaps with recommendations.

Senate President Kyr stated that they already had to provide a report due to their existing charge. He then recognized Senator Rejaie.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) asked if the result of the investigation was intended to be a report of the investigation, or list of possible solutions for the cases that the Task Force identified.

Professor Bonine stated that it was too early to know. He explained that if everything was clean, there would be no reason to ask for recommendations. If things were not clean, he continued, then the Senate could charge the Task Force with providing recommendations.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Berk.

Professor Gerry Berk (Director of Graduate Studies, Political Science) stated that he was concerned about the language "being brought forward." He explained that people who were instructors of record in courses might be in particularly vulnerable positions, and to expect people in vulnerable positions to come forward as a form of investigation was suspect. He added that similar alleged grading irregularities had occurred in Political Science by the Department Head.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Ellis.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) agreed with Professor Berk and suggested that the motion be amended to read "in the Philosophy and other departments during Fall 2014.”

Senate President Kyr explained that with the proposed amendment, the language would now read: "The Senate charges the Academic Integrity Task Force to conduct an investigation of the alleged grading irregularities in the Philosophy and other departments during Fall 2014."

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion. None followed, and Senate President Kyr called a vote. The amendment carried, and discussion returned to original motion as amended. Senate President Kyr recognized Instructor McQuilkin.

Instructor Terry McQuilkin (School of Music and Dance) suggested that the motion be amended to replace "alleged" with "reports of."

Senator David Espinoza seconded the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion on the motion to amend, and recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Philosophy) stated that he preferred "alleged" to "reports of," because the spirit of the motion intended for the Task Force to investigate the irregularities—not just reports of the irregularities. He added that “reports of” might also connote that the Task Force would investigate the reporters of the irregularities rather than just the irregularities themselves, which were actions by the Administration. He therefore stated that he opposed the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr recognized an unidentified speaker.

The unidentified speaker stated that he wanted to second what Senator Koopman had brought up. He stated that "alleged grading irregularities" allowed the Task Force more leeway to look into what happened as things came to light.

Senate President Kyr recognized Associate Professor Lowndes.

Associate Professor Joe Lowndes (Political Science) asked if something should be said about irregularities stemming from the Academic Continuity Plan.

Senate President Kyr explained that Associate Professor Lowndes’ suggestion would require a separate discussion, and that the Senate had to deal with the present motion to amend first. He recognized Instructor McQuilkin.

Instructor McQuilkin stated that he would like to withdraw his motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr, on the advice of the Parliamentarian, stated that the motion to amend belonged to the Senate and that it had to be voted on. A vote was called and the amendment was defeated. Senate President Kyr then noted that Senator Dreiling wished to call the question. Senate President Kyr held a vote to close debate, which carried. Senate President Kyr then called the question. The motion carried. Senate President Kyr asked if there were any further questions regarding academic integrity. He recognized Moshe Immerman.

Moshe Immerman stated that the "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." He went on to comment that he saw the current situation facing the University as a “micro-cycle, which is embedded in yet-to-come, […] more concerning, macro-cycles.” He suggested that everyone seek ways to be “more operationally capable, […] both individually, and collectively.”

Senate President Kyr politely reminded Mr. Immerman that the focus of the discussion was academic integrity.

Moshe Immerman stated that the “faculty of a great university [...] is like the pineal gland, pituitary gland, and heart of a culture.” He stated that the University was facing “still larger forces trying to shut down the democratic process in America.” He asked those present to “become skillful—but very spiritual, and effective—attorneys, recognizing this is just the beginning of a deeper reclamation [the] right to mental and spiritual freedom as a faculty.”

Senate President Kyr recognized Associate Professor Epstein.

Associate Professor Maram Epstein (East Asian Languages and Literatures) stated that she was concerned about the alleged threats of sanctions against Department Heads who refused to cooperate with the Administration. She stated that she would like some investigation of this, and that it was something that needed to be discussed in terms of collaboration in the future, and cooperative performance.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine asked if he could make an inquiry of the maker of the earlier motion (Senator Freyd). He asked whether the phrase "alleged grading irregularities in departments" could include—without passing a new resolution—anything that might have been potential to lead to that (i.e., possible retaliation).

Senator Freyd stated that the phrase was, indeed, meant to include such things.

Senator Cramer proposed a motion which read: “The Senate charges the Academic Integrity Task Force to conduct an investigation of the alleged threats to discipline, or to establish disciplinary procedures against, Department Heads in relationship to the Academic Continuity Plan of the Administration in Fall 2014.”

Professor Frances White (Anthropology) asked for clarification of Senator Cramer's motion with regards to the previous motion (Senator Freyd's). She explained that the Academic Integrity Task Force was made up of the Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, and the Committee on Courses, and that these committees had delegated to their Chairs. She stated that the Chairs had thus been functioning as the Task Force. She asked whether the motion was referring to the full three committees, or to the Chairs.

Senate President Kyr stated that it would ultimately refer to the Academic Council in which the Academic Integrity Task Force was subsumed.

Senate President Kyr noted that Jane Cramer's motion had not yet been seconded, and that it did not yet belong to the Senate. He explained that this allowed for further comments and friendly amendments. He recognized Senator Ellis.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) suggested altering the language of the motion to read: “...disciplinary procedures against Department Heads who refuse to participate in the Academic Continuity Plan..."

Professor Bonine stated that there was no need for details about what happened. He explained that this would come out in the investigation. He suggested that the language be left broad.

Senator Cramer agreed that it should be left broad.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Mann.

Professor Mann stated that the source of the information the motion was referring to was a meeting between herself, Lizzie Reis, Ellen Herman, Dean Marcus, and Judith Baskin. She stated that she did not think the word "threat" was accurate, because Dean Marcus had tried “very hard not to say that’s was what the meeting was about.” She stated that it was only when she pushed Dean Marcus and said, "But I just told you last week I wasn't going to enter grades; why are you asking me yet again?" that he replied, "Well, to tell you the truth, I want to be very clear about what your responsibilities are, because I have to do that in order to set the ground for any future disciplinary action."

She stated, consequently, that she wanted to change the language to "the alleged plans to establish the groundwork for disciplinary procedures against Department Heads." She explained that she did not want to be inflammatory, because Dean Marcus did not actually call her in to threaten her. She reiterated that he called her in to remind her of her duties, and to let her know that lawyers were looking into disciplinary options. She added that Lizzie Reis was included in this because she also signed the letter refusing to enter grades.

Senate President Kyr asked Professor Mann if the wording now accurately reflected what happened in the meeting.

Professor Mann confirmed that it did.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Freyd.

Senator Freyd stated that she would suggest very broad language that would include what Professor Mann had just discussed, but would also be open to other possibilities that could emerge—including faculty or staff who were threatened if they did not agree to go along with it.

Professor Bonine suggested that the language "Department Heads or others," be included. He also suggested that "establish the groundwork for disciplinary procedures" be changed to "establish the groundwork for disciplinary procedures, or otherwise move against."

Senate President Kyr read the entire motion for clarity: "The Senate charges the Academic Integrity Task Force to conduct an investigation of the alleged plans to establish the groundwork for disciplinary procedures or otherwise move against department heads, or others, in relationship to the Academic Continuity Plan of the Administration in Fall 2014." He then recognized Senator Davidson.

Senator John Davidson suggested that the language read "disciplinary procedures or other action against Department Heads" on grammatical grounds.

Senate President Kyr confirmed that the language would now read: "to establish the groundwork for disciplinary procedures or other action against Department Heads, or others, in relationship to the Academic Continuity Plan of the Administration in Fall 2014." He then asked if Senator Cramer gave the motion to the Senate.

Senator Cramer gave the motion to the Senate. The motion was seconded, and the floor was opened for discussion. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling called the question.

Senate President Kyr called a vote to close the debate. The vote carried. He then called a vote on the motion itself, which carried with a majority.

 

8. OTHER BUSINESS

Senate President Kyr reminded those present that he was preparing a statement that would be delivered to the Board the following day. He stated that it would be a forward-looking statement of working together with the Board and the Administration, but that it would also take into account the comments that he had heard during the Senate meeting.

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) stated that other Senators also planned to deliver comments to the Board during the Public Comment portion of their meeting. He suggested that Senate President Kyr and the Senators who planned on giving remarks should coordinate.

Senate President Kyr agreed that they should coordinate their remarks, and asked the participating Senators to meet with him after the Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was given to the Senate and seconded. A vote on the motion was held, and the motion carried.

9. ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyrcalled the December 10, 2014 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

 

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 3, 2014

Present: Miriam Deutsch, Jennifer Freyd, Weiyong He, June Li, Michael Price, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Jason Brown, Diane Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Richard Margerum, Laura Leete, Marylin Nippold, Deborah Olson, Debra Merskin, Mary Ann Hyatt, Edward Teague, Robin Clement, Alexandre Dossin, Robert Kyr, Monique Balbuena, David Espinoza, Abel Verros, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Paul Dassonville, Ken Prehoda, Ron Lovinger, Charles Lachman, Jerry Rosiek, Victoria Mitchell, Debra Thurman, Samantha Cohen, Quin Haaga, Kate  Klosno, Andrew Lubash

Excused: Bruce McGough, Colin Koopman, Donna Shaw, Jennifer Ellis, Lisa Raleigh

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the December 3, 2014 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 Lawrence Hall. Alluding to the GTFF strike, he explained that the University was in the middle of an unprecedented situation. He requested that those present be respectful in their comments and dialogue with each other. 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the minutes of the November 5th, 2014 meeting. He requested questions and comments related to the minutes. None were put forward, and the minutes were approved.

3.  STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr proceeded to the State of the University Address, informing the Senate that Interim President Scott Coltrane would be delivering remarks and receiving questions.

Interim President Scott Coltrane thanked Senate President Kyr and stated that the University faced a challenging time. He explained that the GTFF strike had been difficult for everyone, and that no one had wanted things to escalate to this point. He stated that he, Provost Frances Bronet, and their team had been working day and night to work toward an agreement. He added that no one wanted to see the GTFs—who the University valued so much—on the picket lines, but noted that he respected their right to be there. He stated that the strike was also putting great strain on the community. He thanked the faculty and staff who were working to ensure that the undergraduate students were served during the strike. He added that he believed that the Administration's offer provided the flexibility and security that the GTFs had asked for, and that it offered non-GTF graduate students (who were not eligible for tuition waivers and health benefits) a safety net, as well.

Interim President Coltrane noted that the University was presently faced with closing out the Fall Term. He commented that he was pleased with the mostly respectful and smooth operation of both the strike, and classes, over the previous two days. He offered a response to the Senate’s motion on academic continuity, stating that he appreciated the Senate's efforts to promote dialogue and to maintain the University's academic standards during the strike. He added that the continuity plan for the strike was intended to provide faculty with a range of tools to help minimize impacts on the undergraduate students. He asserted that the Academic Affairs Office—under the direction of the Provost's Office, and in collaboration with Deans—had endeavored to be as open about academic continuity planning as possible. He explained that the academic continuity plan called for extending options to faculty to allow them to conduct and conclude their classes in ways that met their academic standards, and added that he hoped that all faculty would help the Administration to maintain those academic standards. He stated that the strike was an emergency situation, and that Academic Affairs did not have as much time to confer and collaborate with the normal committees on these matters as it would have liked. Nevertheless, he stated that he was compelled—by the authority delegated by the Board of Trustees—to take action to ensure that undergraduate students received the best educational services possible under the circumstances. He stated that he continued to welcome guidance and recommendations from the University Senate about ensuring academic continuity. He added that everyone present shared a desire to serve undergraduate students, and to guarantee that they would receive grades in their courses. He asserted that the University would maintain its academic standards during the strike by the GTFF.

Turning to the issue of sexual assault on campus, Interim President Coltrane stated that he expected to receive the report and recommendations of the President's Review Panel in the following week. He noted that he would make the report public, and explained that this report—in addition to the Senate Task Force recommendations and the Student Life gap analysis—would form the basis of the University's comprehensive plan to address sexual assault. He stated that the University had spent the last year implementing new practices in this area, including adding staff and doing various assessments. He added that a critical element of the University's ability to make progress was to have high-quality data and information regarding these issues. To this end, Interim President Coltrane stated that he planned to establish a Campus Climate Survey Advisory Group to provide him with counsel about conducting surveys at the University on the topic of sexual violence and its prevention. He added that he had begun reaching out to experts on campus to serve on this advisory group. He continued that the President's Office would also be providing funds for two surveys at the University of Oregon—one in conjunction with AAU efforts, and one to be developed and administered locally. He stated that he would ask the Campus Climate Advisory Group to help oversee the administration of the AAU campus climate survey during the coming spring, as well as the administration of the UO-specific survey during the next academic year. He added that he valued both the national perspective offered by the AAU-sponsored survey, and the focused perspective of the UO-specific effort. He stated that he believed a high volume of data was preferable when tackling such an important problem. He stated that the University needed to be able to better measure incident levels (and any correlations relating to them), and to eventually assess the effectiveness of various educational enforcement and prevention efforts. He stated that he thought taking advantage of both approaches would enable the University to contribute to local and national debates about how best to measure, assess, and address this pressing social problem. He stated that he had hoped to delay decision-making about the surveys in order to let the debate play out on how the surveys should be conducted, but stated that he could wait no longer.  He added that he needed faculty committee representatives of different perspectives to be at the table with the AAU, and to be involved in the UO-specific efforts.

Addressing the policy review process and strategic planning efforts, Interim President Coltrane stated that 67 outdated or inapplicable policies were going to be recommended to the Board for repeal. He noted that the policies were listed on the policy library for review. He added that on October 15th, the University had provided the Senate President and the Senate Executive Committee with 100 initial policies focused on academic areas for the Senate to prioritize and review. He stated that the Administration had conferred with this group about a process to review nearly 800 additional policies in order to ensure that they were relevant, current, and updated. He stated that this process was getting closer to being finalized and having a representative group appointed for the Policy Advisory Committee. He stated that he expected that group to form in the next couple of weeks, and to convene in January.

Speaking on Provost Bronet's behalf, Interim President Coltrane stated that he was pleased to report that the University-wide Strategic Planning Task Force work groups had met for the first time during the previous week. He stated that more than 50 people had gathered to discuss how the University would take its aspirations to elevate its academic and research endeavors to the next level. He added that the Provost had posted information about the groups, the process, and the goals on the Provost's website.  With that, Interim President Coltrane closed his remarks and requested questions.

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling & Testing Center) stated that it was his understanding that there was an agreement about the proposed safety net that Coltrane had referred to. He asked why the Administration was reluctant to include language regarding the safety net in the CBA, given that the idea had arisen out of the GTFF negotiations.

Interim President Coltrane stated that several proposals had come forward to address the issue of medical or paternal leave. He stated that the University had initially come up with a proposal of flexibility, which would have institutionalized ongoing practices and guaranteed two weeks of time off without loss of benefits or salary. He stated that this proposal was not satisfactory to the GTFF, so the University then proposed a hardship fund that would be available to all graduate students.  He noted that about half of the graduate students were GTFs, while the other half were not, and that this fund would be available to both. He stated that it was inappropriate to have only half of the graduate students collectively bargained for on this matter, and that it was therefore inappropriate to include it in the CBA. He stated that the Administration had proposed an MOU between the Office of the President and the Graduate Dean to guarantee that funding for the program was going forward. He stated that the Administration also offered to put some things regarding the fund into the CBA, including: the amount of the annual commitment, the fact the GTFF would have full access to it, and even that a GTFF member would be part of the advisory group that managed it. He stated that this was where negotiations currently stood. He explained that he thought there was appreciation for the offer on both sides, but that the details still needed to be worked out. He then recognized Senator Michael Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he had a question regarding the November 19th Senate motion and Interim President Coltrane's response to it. He added that he thought this was important question for the future of governance—and the commitment to shared governance—at UO. He asked Interim President Coltrane if it was his understanding that the University Senate was the body that the statutory faculty had delegated authority to on all matters of academic governance.

Interim President Coltrane agreed that the President and the faculty were responsible. He added that the President was primarily responsible for administrative matters, and that the faculty was responsible for policy and other matters, such as: academic integrity within the classroom, curriculum approval, and the awarding of degrees.

Senator Dreiling asked Interim President Coltrane if it was it sufficient, in his view, to only consult with select Deans or Department Heads—and not the Senate—on matters of academic governance at the University.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would not say that there was lack of consultation; he conceded that there had not been consultation as it was normally carried out. He explained that this was because the University was in a strike situation, and as such, administrative procedures needed to be put in place that allowed Deans, Department Heads, Program Directors, Presidents, and Provosts to conduct the business of the University. He stated that the Administration could not consult about everything, and this was just due to the nature of the situation.

Senator Dreiling asked Interim President Coltrane if he was not confident that the matter could have been handled in within the appropriate Senate bodies.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was not sure exactly what Senator Dreiling believed should have been done. He stated that he was certainly willing to hear what that was. He offered his assurance that consultation had occurred; he added that more consultation was always better, but that the Administration had also faced a short time-frame. He explained that the normal process for administrative reach-out was through Deans, Department Heads, and other constituted faculty members who have administrative roles. He stated that involving other members introduced complications in a bargaining situation. He stated that the Administration was open to more consultation, but added that he did not feel as though there was a profound distrust. He explained that the Administration was simply trying to make the necessary decisions, and asserted that Academic Affairs had included faculty in suggestions about how to deal with the strike. He reiterated that he was interested in hearing how the Administration could have done better by consulting with specific committees.

Senator Dreiling stated that he believed there were many other options that could have been included in the plan, but were not. He stated that this was largely due to the nature of the consultation that was sought.

Interim President Coltrane recognized Senator Regina Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she had read, in several places, that one of Interim President Coltrane’s stated priorities was to ensure that faculty retained autonomy over their courses. She added that she felt a very strong sense of investment and belief that she was the best person to make decisions about the evaluation, assessment, and closing out of her course. She stated that this did not square with making Department Heads instructors of record on GTF-supported classes. She asked Interim President Coltrane if he could talk about this, explaining that she was perplexed about how the principle she described matched with this procedure.

Interim President Coltrane stated that it was the University's obligation to award grades and to complete classes. He explained that in the absence of an assigned instructor, the University had to go down the chain of command—in this case, to the Department Heads. He added that if there was already an instructor of record who had a GTF working with them, then the University would defer to their interests and judgment.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that Interim President Coltrane had mentioned “input into the AAU process” as something that he wanted to see happen with regard to the AAU survey. Professor Bonine pointed out that the AAU prohibits any campus institutional review board from making changes to the survey questions. Similarly, he added, the committee that President Coltrane had described was prohibited from changing any of the questions or methodology in the AAU survey. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he would be willing to discontinue participation in the AAU survey if either the Advisory Committee, or the IRB, found the questions in the AAU survey to be inappropriate (whether because of potential risk to survivors, or because of bad science).

Interim President Coltrane stated that this was exactly why he needed the committee. He explained that he needed experts to help him decide if the University would make a financial commitment to the AAU survey. He added that he wanted to have as much input as possible, and that if it got to the point that AAU was offering a survey the University did not like, then the University would not participate.

Professor Bonine added that an estimated eighty-five thousand dollars would be put into the AAU survey.  He stated that, so far, six universities (seven including UO) had signed up for the survey, and nine had refused. Professor Bonine went on to state that the Task Force at UO had recommended that about seventy-five thousand dollars be devoted to a campus-specific, UO-designed survey. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he was willing to say that he would consider the same amount of financial commitment for the UO-specific survey as was being made available for the AAU survey.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he was prepared to do this. He added that part of the reason that he wanted a committee to advise him on this matter was in order to see if UO could somehow combine the two surveys.

Professor Bonine stated that he believed an effort to combine the surveys would be interesting, because there could be a benefit in doing both surveys simultaneously. Professor Bonine asked Interim President Coltrane if he would be willing to have the UO-specific survey done at the same time as the AAU survey.

Interim President Coltrane indicated that he was, adding that this would be subject to the committee that would advise him.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he wanted to return the discussion to the academic continuity plan. He asked whether the academic continuity team—whose membership, as he understood it, was unknown—received advice from legal consultants and other outside groups to prepare the plan.

Interim President Coltrane stated that the continuity plan, prepared by the Office of Emergency Services, was primarily advised by people on campus. He stated that this included legal advice from counsel, and financial advice from various administrators, vice presidents, and vice provosts.

Senator Harbaugh asked if any outside input had contributed to the plan.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he did not know of any outside input.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) stated that he had a practical question about the continuity plan. He explained that he was hoping to post grades sometime soon, but that half of the grades for his course might not be available to him. He shared his thought that it would not be difficult to add a box to DuckWeb that could be checked to indicate: "This person attended and participated in class, but there's no grade available yet." He stated that this would seem to solve a lot of financial aid and other problems. He asked whether or not this option had been investigated.

Interim President Coltrane stated that it was his understanding that the option Senator Davidson had mentioned would not satisfy the financial aid requirements. He explained that Arts and Sciences, for instance, had many faculty who were electing to take the grades as of the date the GTFs walked, and entering those grades with the intention that they could be changed subsequently.

Senator Dreiling stated that he did not understand why faculty with GTF-supported classes were being asked to insert grades that were based upon partial information. He stated that to do so would be to fail to assess the students upon the full scope of the contract of the course. He added that the faculty had been told that the Deans or Department Heads would insert grades based upon the information they had. He asserted that grades entered in this way would not be distinguishable on students’ transcripts from a true grade, and that they would not be accurate reflections of the work completed by the students.

Interim President Coltrane stated that they would be accurate reflections of the work completed by the students up to the date of submission.

Senator Dreiling asked if these grades would show up as final grades in transcripts if they were never reassigned. He stated that there would be no way to tell if a final grade that was inserted was a final grade based upon a completion of the course requirements, or some partially-informed grade.

Interim President Coltrane stated that the partial grade would reflect the work done by the student and the grade earned according to the instructor of record. He stated that professors working with GTFs would be obligated to make decisions about how to handle the final exam. He added that professors do this all the time—for example, when deciding that some students, who are in good standing, do not have to take the final.

Senator Dreiling stated that turning over 440 grades to an Associate Dean to input grades based upon information in the Blackboard gradebook was something that never happened, and asserted that there were other options that had not been explored. He added that he was disturbed, as a faculty member, that there were monitors in his class. He stated that there were elements of the implementation of this plan that did not jive with the academic integrity and academic standards that the University stood for. He added that he was not hearing that there was concern about this in the Administration.

Interim President Coltrane offered his assurance that there was plenty of concern. He stated that the Administration’s first obligation was to have the students fulfill their grades, and to give them the grade that they deserved so that they would be able to stay in line for graduation or financial aid. He stated that the Administration was trying to support that. He added that the United Academics contract called for faculty to continue doing their work and to decide what was appropriate in this situation.

Senator Dreiling stated that he knew what to do, and that he would continue to do his work. He noted, however, that he had 440 students turning in 440 papers, and stated that grading these papers would not be possible without the assistance of the graduate students in his class. He added that grading the papers was not his job, and he asked who would be responsible for putting grades in. He stated that somebody other than himself was going to put the grades in for his students.

Interim President Coltrane stated that Senator Dreiling was the instructor of record, and that the University depended on him to do it. He stated the Senator Dreiling could make his own choices.

Senator Dreiling stated that he saw the dilemma the Administration was putting faculty in.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he saw the dilemma everyone was put in, adding that everyone was in it together.

Senator Dreiling added that he hoped that Interim President Coltrane would be able to fix the problem the next day.

Interim President Coltrane offered his assurance that the Administration was working on it.

Professor Bonine stated that he had looked at the financial aid website, and recalled that financial aid had to be done by roughly the second week of January—not December 19th.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he would defer to his colleagues on that point. He stated that the Registrar told the Administration that turn-in on the 16th (the normal date) needed to be extended to the 19th. He stated that anything past that date would begin to affect various processes, including financial aid, matriculation, enrollment in classes, and so forth.

An unidentified speaker asked Interim President Coltrane what he would suggest the undergraduates do while they watched their grades teeter, and their mentors and instructors picket all over campus.

Interim President Coltrane suggested that the undergraduates initiate dialogue with instructors and classroom monitors, and that they make their own decisions. He stated that the Administration would ensure that undergraduates received grades as normally as possible given the situation.

An unidentified speaker, who identified himself as a faculty member in the philosophy department, was recognized. He stated that Interim President Coltrane’s comment reminded him of the end of the Wizard of Oz.  He recalled that the Scarecrow had asked for a brain, and instead received a diploma. He stated that he interpreted what Interim President Coltrane had just said as: “Well, the students might not get an education, but they will get grades.” He asked whether this was actually the position of the University, or if he was simply misunderstanding what had been suggested.

Interim President Coltrane stated that what he had suggested was that the University would, as much as possible, reward students for what they had earned in the class. He stated that the University still needed to give grades in order to fulfill its obligation to the students. He added that students were paying high tuition, and that they expected to be served through the end of the term. He explained that the University had to do what it could in order to make that happen.  With that, Interim President Coltrane thanked those present and yielded the floor.

3.2       Senate Meetings for Winter Quarter 2015; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim President Coltrane for his remarks. He stated that he wished to make a remark about what the Senate faced going forward. He stated that during the Fall quarter, the Senate had planned to focus its meetings largely on action items. He explained that the Senate was also in the process of developing a great relationship with that Board, and noted that this had involved hearing presentations from Board members. He stated that in the Winter term, the Senate was going to be focusing almost exclusively on action items and new business. He added that, because of the charge that the Chair of the Board of Trustees has given the Senate, two additional meetings for the Senate in winter would be necessary. He asked those present to support this decision so that the Senate could complete the work before it. He added that he would be in touch regarding the scheduling of the extra two meetings. He recognized Senator Regina Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) requested that the Senate hear a motion to suspend the rules so that a resolution could be considered.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections. None followed, and he asked that the resolution be examined before it was given to the Senate as a motion. He noted that the Senate would not be voting on the "whereas" clauses, but simply Section 2. After everyone had a chance to see the resolution, the motion was given a second by Senator Deborah Merskin. Senate President Kyr asked if Senator Psaki would like to provide background.

Senator Psaki deferred to Senator Dreiling, the maker of the resolution, for background.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he was moving the motion forward in response to information he had received.  He began by noting that he had observed monitors in his classroom the day before. He stated that according to the academic continuity plan, the monitors were only to be assigned to courses that were formerly taught by graduate student instructors who were currently on strike; Senator Dreiling indicated that he was therefore disturbed to find that there were people attending his class as monitors. He stated that he was also struck by information he had received which indicated that groundwork had been laid for the discipline of Department Heads who refused to conduct the assignments that they were directed to conduct under the academic continuity plan. He added that under the academic continuity plan, grades would be assigned through people who could be assigned as instructors of record. He emphasized that this would not be the actual people who had signed the contract, led the syllabus, and led the class. He reiterated that new instructors of record could be assigned to input grades at the end of the term at any cost—without regard for whether or not the assessments were completed by appropriate graders, whether the assessments were completed at all, or whether the assignments were completed at all. He stated that this was concerning, and that it was a breach of the social contract between a faculty member and students. He explained that the syllabus represented that contract. He asserted that there were other options besides inserting grades at any cost at the end of the term. He pointed out that Professor Bonine had just brought up such an option: there could be delays that would not impact a student's financial aid status. He went on to state that the larger context at play was a concern about shared governance, about the institutional role of the University Senate, and about the importance of having consultation on matters such as the academic continuity plan. He stated that these aspects had been part of University for 148 years, and that they were a fundamental feature that could not be breached. He added that it was the duty of the Senate to uphold these responsibilities, and that it was with this in mind that he drafted—with help—the motion being considered. He stated that it was his hope that the Senate could be viewed as a body with the capacity to initiate a thoughtful, creative, proactive solution to an academic contingency, and still maintain clear academic integrity in the process. He stated that he thought this was something the Senate committee leaders were quite capable of doing, and that this was why the motion directed that the Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, and the Chair of the Committee on Courses be assigned to immediately come up with alternatives that would retain academic integrity for faculty in the event that the strike with the GTFF should continue.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Dreiling, and asked that everyone be very respectful during the following debate and discussion. He recognized Senator Psaki.

Senator Psaki agreed with Senate President Kyr’s call for respectful discourse, but stated that she still supported the resolution. She explained that she thought the resolution was a positive—rather than a slap-on-the-wrist—kind of resolution, that called into action bodies that already existed for this kind of purpose. She stated that she understood President Coltrane's sense of urgency, but that she also understood that the strike was coming for many, many months. She stated that it was pretty clear that there was not going to be a quick settle. She added that she thought it was a great idea to have colleagues on the Senate bodies be galvanized and activated with their creative thinking. She stated that this was what the Senate subcommittees were for. She pointed out that there was an additional problem even if grades got submitted: the students would question their grades. She stated that faculty would be flooded with questions like: “Why did I get this grade? Why is this grade fair? What are you going to do about this grade?”

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) asked Senator Dreiling if he intended to have the words “and report thereon” at the end of Section 2.2. He explained the current wording did not suggest that there would be a document expressing the evaluation discussed in Section 2.2.

Senate President Kyr asked if Professor Bonine meant: “report to the Senate thereon.”

Professor Bonine stated that he did not know, but added that to report it at least got the process going, and that people could do whatever they wanted. He added that reporting to the Senate suggested that nothing could then happen until the Senate took action.

Senate President Kyr asked if this was a motion to amend.

Professor Bonine stated that he could not make motions.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) made the motion to amend.

Senate President Kyr acknowledged that the motion had received a second and invited discussion. None followed; a voice vote was held, and the amendment carried unanimously.

Professor Bonine asked whose name, if any, would be on the transcript for classes that were graded by a department head. He explained that the name on the transcript suggests who taught and graded the course, and that it would be dishonest to put either the department head or the professor down in this context. He asked if there would be an asterisk that would indicate "graded by administration" or something similar.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he thought it should say “graded by the Wizard of Oz,” but that he thought the discussion was getting off topic.

Senate President Kyr requested further discussion.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) observed that several people had expressed the sentiment that there had been top-down pressure on professors regarding how to deal with the strike. He stated that, from his perspective, it had not felt that way.  He then asked Senator Dreiling what his expected timeline for the motion was.

Senator Dreiling read from the motion: "That the Senate directs the Senate President to convene an emergency joint meeting." He stated that he took this to mean “as soon as possible,” and that the chairs of the committees would establish a workable set of alternatives that would complement the recommendations by the academic continuity plan. He added that this could also serve as a guidepost for future events and assure the faculty and the Administration that consultation with the University Senate was the appropriate avenue to carry out these kinds of planning steps.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Deborah Healey.

Senator Deborah Healey(American English Institute) stated that she liked the idea of having a clear process for involving the Senate that would be there for similar situations in the future.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Deborah Merskin.

Senator Merskin (School of Journalism and Communication) stated that one of the implications of giving a grade that might be higher than what the student would ultimately earn, was that the student would remain eligible for something that he or she should not be eligible for. She continued that once the strike was settled, a student could ultimately get a much lower grade, and that this would amount to falsifying information and artificially inflating grades.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Jane Cramer.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) stated that her class was set up in such a way that students with lower grades had a lot of potential to raise their grades with research papers and finals. She stated that her students were in a panic, because partial grades would leave many of them with C's, D's, and F's even though they would not end up that way if the entire coursework was graded. She stated that she had promised her students an X if the strike continued, and that this was the only fair thing to do.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that he wanted to clarify an aspect of the financial aid question. He stated that according to the financial aid website: "Since X, Y, F, N, I, and W do not confirm participation, students who receive these grades are required to prove last date of participation. Proof of participation may include, but is not limited to, statements from professors detailing your participation in courses and/or graded work..." He stated that students would maintain their financial aid—even with an X –as long as their professor provided a statement.

Senate President Kyr recognized Lisa Freinkel.

Associate Professor Lisa Freinkel (Comparative Literature and English) stated that one of the things she had discovered was that the University was far bigger than even faculty, instructors, graduate students, and undergraduates. She continued that the current conversation was difficult because no single person was in complete command of all the knowledge.  She noted that she was on the Undergraduate Council, which she explained would be considering convening in Winter Term to talk about the aftermath of the strike. She stated that the general idea was to bring forward the Academic Council as a body that might consider how to move forward. She added that this did not answer the issue of how people should approach deciding what to do with their own class. She guaranteed, however, that pulling together the Heads of Subcommittees to "fix this now" would yield poor results.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling stated that he wanted to point out that the current motion would be the second motion requesting action on the GTFF bargaining front. He stated that the University Senate had been attentive to the questions raised by the academic continuity plan. He added that it was good that the Senate was being diligent in pushing this along and reminding everyone of the Senate’s role in the governance of academic policy and matters on the campus.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Rich Margerum.

Senator Rich Margerum (Planning, Public Policy, and Management) stated that he supported the resolution, adding that he thought it was much more constructive than the one seen in the last Senate meeting in that it was actually suggesting a role that the Senate might play in the governance process. However, he noted that he had some doubts that it would actually result in much, given the timeframe.  He urged that Senate to think about this as a permanent committee, because there were a lot of emergency situations (such as strikes, snowstorms, power outages, etc.) that could disrupt grades. He stated that having some sort of policy in place in all of these circumstances would be important. He added that he did not want to change the current resolution, but that this was something that the Senate should think about.

Senator Harbaugh stated that he was not sensing a lot of opposition, and that he would like to call the question.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections to calling the question. None followed, and the vote to call the question carried unanimously. Senate President Kyr recognized an unidentified speaker.

The unidentified speaker identified himself as an undergraduate, and stated that he would like to ask a question regarding the issue of academic integrity. He stated that he had been hearing the phrases "academic continuity plan" and "academic integrity" used—almost exclusively—within the context of grades. He related that the GTF teaching his math course was able to explain math in a way that made sense to him as it never had before, and stated that he cared more about learning calculus than any letter on his transcript. He asked, therefore, "Why, when discussing academic continuity and academic integrity, does the focus tend to be on grades, as it is in this motion?” He explained that he cared much more about his education than his letter grade.

Senate President Kyr began to state that the Senate had to vote on the motion because the question had been called, but the speaker explained that his hand had been up—albeit unnoticed—before the question was called.

Senate President Kyr apologized and stated that he had to call the vote, and that he would allow time for a response afterward. The motion carried unanimously, and Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling.

Senator Dreiling, responding to the undergraduate student, stated that it was the dialogue, the exchange of ideas, and the passion for learning that was the spirit of learning. He added that this was what academic integrity was about, and that it was the inspiration in his life as a faculty member. He stated that grades were meant to capture this, as much as possible, through the communication of a contract that everyone has as faculty members, instructors, and students. He stated that he wanted integrity in grades because it was the best way for instructors to approximate what has been learned by the student.  He added that it was important, therefore, that grades were done well—consistently and fairly.

4.  NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Motion (Legislation): Fall Curriculum Report; Frances White (Professor, Anthropology), Chair of the Committee on Courses

Senate President Kyr stated that at this time, the Senate would move to the next point on the agenda: the Fall Curriculum Report. He stated that it would be presented by Frances White (Chair), and asked Frances to give the motion to the Senate.

Professor Frances White (Anthropology) gave the motion.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Dreiling, who offered a second for the motion. After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr invited Frances White to give some background.

Professor White stated that the Committee on Courses was a wonderful committee to serve on, and that it took its charge very seriously. She stated that it was a functional group of faculty that gave a very rigorous review to all of the classes that came before it. She stated that the committee had reviewed approximately 60 classes for administrative action, 30-35 new classes, three additional classes undergoing change, and three or four dropped classes this term. She added that about 80-85% of the classes that were reviewed required changes, and that those changes happened through an intense dialogue between the faculty members on the committee, and the instructors proposing the classes. She stated that the vast majority were approved, and that there were one or two denials of the multicultural component based on the committee’s assessment of what the multicultural requirement was meant to be. She stated that a summary of the Committee’s conclusions were in the report that was being put before the Senate.

Senate President Kyr asked if anyone had questions or comments for Professor White about the report. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion to approve the report carried unanimously.

4.2       Motion (Legislation): New Program Approval—M.S. Sports Product Management; Joe Lowndes (Associate Professor, Political Science), Chair of the Gradute Council

Senate President Kyr stated that next on the agenda was a new program approval: the Master of Science and Sports Product Management. He stated that the maker of the motion was Joe Lowndes.

Associate Professor Joe Lowndes (Political Science) gave the motion to the Senate, and the motion was seconded by Jane Cramer. Senate President Kyr then invited Assistant Professor Lowndes to give some background regarding the motion.

Associate Professor Lowndes stated that Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Ruth Keele, would give the background, and that he would then talk about the proposal itself as it went through the Graduate Council.

Senate President Kyr read Section 2 of the motion and invited Ruth Keele to give background.

Ruth Keele (Assistant Vice Provost in Academic Affairs) stated that bringing an independent motion for a new academic program was a departure from past practice. She explained that in the past, these programs would come to the Senate in the quarterly curriculum report under the heading of “other curricular matters.” She stated that the majority of these changes would be effected at the university level, meaning that the University had the authority to approve and implement them. She stated that this was not so for new degree programs. She explained that until the past July, the State Board of Higher Education authorized new degree programs, as well as new locations for existing programs. She continued that under the new governance model, this authority had been transferred to the HECC—the Higher Education Coordinating Commission. She added that what was transpiring was that new degree programs came to the Senate after they had been approved by the State. She stated that it had been proposed that the Senate vote at an earlier stage in the process, at which point the new degree program could be forwarded to the Board of Trustees, and then to the HECC. She stated that this was a more logical progression that more appropriately recognized the role of the faculty with respect to academic matters. She stated that it was also consistent with the procedures at OSU and PSU.  She noted that this new model applied only to items that moved out of the University and to the State for approval, and that other curricular changes would continue to come to the Senate in the quarterly curricular report.

Associate Professor Lowndes stated that the proposal was originally brought to the Graduate Council in October.  He stated that Roger Best had presented the proposal, and that there were a lot of questions from Council members. He elaborated that these questions regarded: clarity of the program requirements, availability of courses and faculty, and questions about how the internship program would work. He stated that the proposal was returned in November, and that the Council had decided the proposal met the criteria for a new program—provided that a few more changes were taken up. He stated that overall, he thought that the program had a coherent curricular design, appropriate content and rigor in its offerings, and institutional feasibility.  He added that it met existing student demands and that there were clear commitments from the other schools involved. He stated that there was also a thorough external review that recommended the program. He stated that there was still a need for a more substantive description of courses that were not yet on the books, and for syllabi for the courses. He stated that there was also a need for specificity in terms of which faculty expected to be teaching, and some formal cleanup of the proposal presentation. He stated that the proposers got these items together quickly and fully, and that the program was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine stated that he had been looking through the Board statement on Delegation of Authority, and had not yet found that the Board of Trustees needed to approve these programs.  He stated that previously, approval of a program had gone from the State Board to the Higher Education Coordinating Committee, and that involving the Board was an additional step the University had never had before. He stated that he wanted to make sure that somebody would check to see if this was the case.

Senate President Kyr stated that he would get back to the Senate with clarification on Professor Bonine’s comment. There were no further comments on the motion, and it carried unanimously via voice vote.

4.3       Motion (Legislation): Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence; Randy Sullivan (Vice-President, University Senate & Co-Chair of the Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support)

Senate President Kyr asked those present to read the motion. After allowing time for the motion to be read, Senate President Kyr pointed out that Section 2.3 had been divided into two categories. He then asked Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan to give the motion. The motion was given and seconded by Senator Michael Price. Senate Vice President Sullivan then proceeded to provide background for the motion.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the Senate Task Force on Sexual Assault had been doing great work, and that the intention of the motion was to empower them to do further great work.  He stated that the original Task Force had several specific charges, and that the Standing Committee was intended to have a more general charge so that it could be effective moving forward.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for comments and recognized Professor Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) respectfully requested that the Senate not spend time trying to amend the motion “to change the number of members of this or that category,” but instead pass it and move onto Student Conduct Code revisions.

An unidentified speaker moved to end the discussion.

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any objections, and recognized Associate Professor Jason Brown.

Associate Professor Jason Brown (Creative Writing) stated that he did not see how the Senate could look into sexual violence without looking into alcohol abuse. He explained that was his experience—both as a student, and in teaching for 17 years—that these two things were inextricably linked. He stated that there would be no progress on what actually happens to women on campus if the culture of alcohol abuse was not addressed.

Senate President Kyr asked Professor Carol Stabile to talk about the recommendation in the report related to alcohol abuse.

Professor Carol Stabile (School of Journalism and Communication & WGS) stated that the Task Force’s recommendation suggested that the President reboot the President's Task Force on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse. She explained that this task force had come up with a number of excellent recommendations—some of which were implemented, many of which were not. She added that this issue was not just about alcohol abuse.  She explained that one of the things that the Task Force had learned in its research was that there was a lot of evidence about perpetration that suggests that perpetrators are not drinking very much.

Senate President Kyr, hearing no objections, called the question. The motion carried unanimously.

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 3; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Senate President Kyr invited the maker of the motion, Professor Bonine, to give the motion to the Senate.

Professor John Bonine (Law) gave the motion to the Senate, and the motion was seconded. He specified that he was only giving the part labeled “first” in yellow, which stated: “where sexual conduct is alleged, the complainant is entitled to the same opportunity as the accused student to have an advisor." He added that the Student Conduct Office agreed with this language.

Senate President Kyr invited discussion. None followed, and he called the question. The motion carried unanimously.

4.5       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 7; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Senate President Kyr stated that part seven of Professor Bonine’s legislation was next on the agenda.

Professor John Bonine (Law) moved the motion.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) offered a second.

Professor Bonine stated that this motion dealt with mediation being inappropriate for cases of sexual assault. He added that this had been recommended by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education three and a half years ago, and by the Groves report a year ago. He read from the motion: "Mediation is encouraged [...] where appropriate, except for sexual misconduct involving unwanted penetration or nonconsensual personal contact as set out in OAR 571-02-0105 (30) (a) and (b), which shall not be subject to mediation." Professor Bonine added that this left the possibility that sexual harassment could be subject to mediation. He suggested that if people felt that sexual harassment should not be subject, the issue could be taken the up in January.

Senate President Kyr invited comments and questions. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried unanimously.

4.6       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 8; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would now consider part eight of the legislation.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) offered a second.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that the first part of the legislation allowed for filing complaints against non-enrolled students. He explained that this allowed sanctions against students who continued as students, but who were not enrolled during the relevant quarter. He stated that the second part of the legislation required that the alleged perpetrator of sexual assault be notified of the complaint against them within ten calendar days, unless an extension was provided in writing by the Vice President of Student Life. He added that there was no time limit for the extension. 

Senate President Kyr recognized Sandy Weintraub.                               

Sandy Weintraub (Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards) stated that with the extension process written into it, he was fine with the motion. He added that having extensions was important, because an extension might be necessary in situations involving active criminal investigations, where the notification of a student would be detrimental to the process. He stated that his only concern was that "complaint" was not defined. He explained that typically, an allegation is received by the Dean of Students Office, and the case is then investigated by an officer from the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. At this point, he continued, the student who is being investigated is notified that there is an investigation. He emphasized that it was necessary to wait to receive the full investigation before sending a formal notice of allegation. He stated that he had no issue at all with having a ten-day period once the full investigation had been received. He expressed concern that there would not be enough time for a full investigation if the ten-day period applied to when an allegation was initially received.

Professor Bonine stated that the word "complaint" was everywhere in the Code, and that he had made no change to that. He also added that the text read: "…once the Office of Community Standards receives a complaint."

Sandy Weintraub stated that there was no such thing as an Office of Community Standards. He explained that it was the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.

Professor Bonine stated that he understood this, and that it was not his fault that the language had been left this way for ten years.

Sandy Weintraub agreed with Professor Bonine.

Professor Bonine proposed changing the language to "Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards," and asked Sandy if he approved of the motion now that there was an extension.

Sandy Weintraub voiced his agreement.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments and questions. None followed, and a voice vote was held. The motion carried unanimously, and the Senate moved on to Part 9.

4.7       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 9; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Professor John Bonine (Law)stated that this motion stipulated that "if a student withdraws after a complaint has been made, but before a decision is rendered, the transcript will be withheld." He explained that this was to prevent people from dropping out in order to avoid a formal complaint that has been filed against them. He stated that the second part of the motion was to remove the so-called “statute of limitations,” which currently required someone to complain within six months if they had been raped or assaulted.

Senate President Kyr recognized Sandy Weintraub.

Sandy Weintraub (Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards) stated that he thought the Registrar's Office should be consulted before this was enacted. He agreed with Professor Bonine that it was fine if this was done later.

Professor Bonine stated that there were still many opportunities to come back and tweak the Code if the Registrar's Office (or anyone else involved) had a problem with it.

Sandy Weintraub stated that he had no opposition to taking away the statute of limitations, but that it was also tremendously difficult to find someone responsible if they had been gone from the University for a great deal of time.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if he was correct in understanding that the removal of the statute of limitations would apply if somebody was accused of misconduct outside of the state, with somebody who was not a community member at the University of Oregon. He asked if such a person could still be called into this process fifteen years after the fact.

Professor Bonine stated that Senator Davidson was correct in his understanding.

Senate President Kyr requested further comments. Seeing none, he called the question. The motion carried unanimously via voice vote. The Senate then moved to the second part of part nine (9B).

Professor Bonine read from the motion: "If either student retains a legal advisor, the other student is entitled to one funded by the University at no cost to the student, if he or she so chooses. The University will provide this assistance through reasonable reimbursement, through a contract with an organization, or through other arrangement." Professor Bonine explained that the current system allowed those accused of a violation to receive legal counsel through the ASUO's office, and that this offer did not extend to survivors. He explained that the ASUO does not represent people who have been wronged—only those who have been accused of violation. Professor Bonine stated that he suspected that there would be problems regarding the potential cost of this legislation from the Administration’s perspective.

Senate President Kyr stated that there was a procedural problem with dividing part nine, and suggested that Professor Bonine ask for a suspension of the rules so the Senate could consider this motion as an individual motion.

Professor Bonine explained that the division of part nine had been in place for months, and that he did not see any problem with referring to them as 9A and 9B, and voting on them separately.

Senate President Kyr, for the clarification of the body, reiterated that the Senate had just passed 9A and was now considering 9B. He invited comments and recognized Senator Reza Rajaie.

Senator Reza Rejaie (Computer & Information Science) asked if the language that read "if he or she so chooses" was redundant, noting that it previously stated that individuals were “entitled.” He noted that the redundancy did not change the meaning.

Professor Bonine suggested that the motion be left as is, and that the redundancy could be dealt with later.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Rich Margerum.

Senator Rich Margerum (Public Policy, Planning, and Management) asked if the ASUO had considered funding both parties and rejected it, or if they had discussed it at all.

Professor Bonine stated that the ASUO was very clear that they only represent people accused of violations.

Senate President Kyr recognized Sandy Weintraub.

Sandy Weintraub stated that he firmly supported equity of representation in this process, but that he also thought it was very dangerous to codify that advisors are attorneys. He stated that the student conduct system was not designed to be a secondary legal process. He added that, in his experience, bringing in attorneys trained outside of the Student Conduct Process made the process unproductive, and did not serve survivors.  He stated that passing this motion as is was would discourage people from coming forward. He reiterated that codifying attorneys in a system that is not part of the legal process was not going to serve anybody.

Professor Bonine stated that attorneys are already potentially part of the process. He stated that if the Senate wanted to get rid of attorneys, that that would involve a different approach that had not been proposed here.  He stated that until that was proposed, he wanted equality.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Carol Stabile.

Professor Carol Stabile stated that she saw Sandy’s point, but that she thought that this motion was necessary to make it equitable. She pointed out that the Groves Report flagged this as a real problem that needed to be addressed.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that this actually provided an opportunity for the Administration to work with a cadre of lawyers who were trained to deal with sexual assault cases handled through administrative processes. He stated that it provided an opportunity to fix a broken system, because a lawyer trained in this way would have the ability to keep the process on track.

Senate President Kyr recognized Sandy Weintraub.

Sandy Weintraub disagreed that the motion would fix what was broken. He stated that the legislation was asking the University to do something that it was not equipped to do correctly. He stated that he was concerned that lawyers would become a codified part of the process, and that it would be damaging.

Senate President Kyr recognized University Ombudsperson, Bruce MacAllister.

Bruce MacAllister (University Ombudsperson) stated that the amendment was fundamentally based on a faulty premise. He explained that in criminal law, it is not the victim that is responsible for prosecuting their case against the alleged perpetrator—it is the State's responsibility. In a student justice system, he continued, it is the University taking action to enforce its own rules.  He stated that he completely supported the idea that victims needed additional resources and advice, and he thought this could be provided through additional services to survivors of assault in a more cogent way. He stated that he tended to support Sandy in the sense that infusing attorneys into the system inadvertently modifies the expectations of what the system intends to do. 

Senate President Kyr asked for the meeting to be extended fifteen minutes. The body agreed to the extension.

Professor Bonine explained that the Senate was not discussing a criminal process, and that therefore, a prosecutorial model should not be followed. He stated that the University could not be in the position of both adjudicating and, in a sense, prosecuting. He stated that the motion allowed for victims to have some advice, and that it said nothing about lawyers going to do the arguing. He reiterated that the motion referred to an advisor. He stated that under the current system, one side could have a lawyer helping them figure out the strategy, and the other side could not. He reiterated that the motion was about providing equality.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Ahlen.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) reminded that Senate that the GTFF was patiently waiting for the Open Discussion.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Carol Stabile.

Professor Carol Stabile stated that if a student is being stalked, and the student’s stalker is being provided legal counsel, it does not build trust in the institution to say: "Well, I don't know why your stalker is being defended by ASUO, but you don't have legal counsel." She stated that something needed to be done if trust in the institution was to be rebuilt.

Sandy Weintraub stated that someone had just been hired, within the Law School, who was designed specifically to fill the role that Professor Stabile had described.

Professor Bonine pointed out that this was covered in the text when it said: "or through other arrangement." He stated that it was completely within the discretion of the Administration to fulfill its responsibility this way.  He then suggested that a vote on the motion be taken.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) stated that the language of the motion referred to a "student." He stated that his understanding was that the Conduct Code did not require the alleged victim to be a student. He asked if the legal representation was to be meant for non-students.

Professor Bonine stated that it was not. He stated that the University had a responsibility, in this instance, to help only students.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) called the question. The vote carried.

Senate President Kyr then called for a vote on the motion. He reminded the Senators that the motion being considered was 9B, and that 9A had already been approved. The motion carried unanimously.

5.  OPEN DISCUSSION

Senate President Kyr recognized Jonathan Turbin.

Jonathan Turbin stated that he was speaking as a Graduate Teaching Fellow and fourth year Ph.D student in Anthropology, as well as the Vice President of Organizing for the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation. He stated that the GTFF President, Joe Henry, could not be present because he was in Washington D.C. meeting with Congressman Peter DeFazio about the strike. Jonathan stated that he was speaking in order to thank the Faculty Senate, who had moved to protect the quality of education offered at the University of Oregon. He stated that doing so exemplified the democratic and Oregonian value of shared governance. He went on to explain that, as a GTF, he lead discussion sections, held office hours, and graded papers and exams for Introduction to World Cultures. He stated that this meant that he had come to know the individual quirks, learning styles, and names of up to 100 students per term. He stated that he learned that Kevin was shy and taciturn—but that he opened up if he had time to write out and prepare his thoughts—and that Vanessa was brilliant and thoughtful, but that she spoke English as a second language, and therefore needed some reasonable accommodations. In short, he continued, GTFs come to care about their students. He stated that he was fully ready to walk over to his office, boot up his laptop, log onto Blackboard, meet with students, and help the undergraduates catch up. He stated that if the Administration and GTFF bargaining teams reached a deal the following day, he would hold extended office hours, hold supplemental exam prep sessions, and proctor the World Cultures final exam. He stated that he would also hold the last set of discussion sections for that class. He stated that the University still had a chance to allow the GTFs to make up for lost time and lost work, and that all that was needed was a fair contract. He invited those present to join the GTFF's end-of-day rally at Johnson Hall. He closed by stating that the GTFF fully embraced the creation of a Faculty Senate Task Force to protect academics during current and future strikes.

9.  ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyrcalled the December 3, 2014 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:15 p.m.

 

 

 

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 19, 2014

Present: Paul Dassonville, Miriam Deutsch, Jennifer Freyd, Jun Li, Michael Price, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, Michael Dreiling, William Harbaugh, Bruce McGough, Jason Brown, Colin Koopman, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Regina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Donna Shaw, Ron Lovinger, Richard Margerum, Charles Lachman, Debra Merskin, Mary Ann Hyatt, Victoria Mitchell, Edward Teague, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Alexandre Dossin, Robert Kyr, Monique Balbuena, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Abel Cerros, Samantha Cohen, Quin Haaga, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Jimmy Murray, Mike Strain

Absent: Ken Prehoda, Diane Dugaw, Laura Leete, Jerry Rosiek, Kate Klosno

Excused: Weiyong He, Deborah Healey, Marilyn Nippold

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the November 19, 2014 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 Lawrence Hall.  He thanked the Senate and guests for their attendance, and noted that there was a great deal of excitement about the meeting because the Chair of the Board of Trustees, Chuck Lillis, would be addressing the Senate and the campus community.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate to consider the minutes of October 22nd, 2014. He requested comments and corrections related to the minutes. None were put forward, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.  STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

3.1       Remarks by Interim President Scott Coltrane with questions

Senate President Kyr stated that at this time, the Senate would move to the State of the University Address, which would be delivered by Interim President Scott Coltrane. He added that there would be time for questions following Interim President Coltrane's remarks.

Interim President Scott Coltrane began by stating that he was honored to welcome the Chair of the UO Board of Trustees, Chuck Lillis, who would be speaking shortly.  He added that in view of the Senate’s busy agenda, he hoped to keep his remarks short. 

He stated that the items he wished to touch on included: the University’s Mission Statement and the way in which it related to the campus-wide strategic planning effort; federal higher education research funding; issues relating to sexual assault, the GTFF bargaining, and Open Meetings legislation; and the relaunching of the campaign for an on-campus audience.  He stated that all of these issues carried some urgency, and added that he felt the need to touch on all of them.

Interim President Coltrane noted that the Mission Statement revision had been made available and stated that the University was committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. He asserted that within the “competitive excellence” framework, the University needed to improve its metrics and its national and international standing.

Next, he offered an update on the strategic planning effort. He stated that there would be a list of task force groups on the Provost's website within the next couple of days. He added that these four task force groups were designed to look at parts of the University's near-term and long-term strategic objectives, which included: attracting high quality, diverse students and promoting student access, retention, and success; elevating research, scholarship and creative profile including expanding graduate education; attracting and retaining high quality, diverse faculty and staff; and enhancing physical and IT infrastructure to ensure academic excellence. He stated that each task force would have twelve to fourteen members, including: four or five faculty, two students, one classified staff member, one or two OA's, and four or five administrators. He added that the members were sought by nomination, and that some were representatives from the relevant Senate standing committees. He stated that the kick-off for the task force groups would be held the next evening at the McMorran House, and that the final rosters would be made available. He stated that the task force groups were going to be part of the switchboard for getting other campus input into the process, but that they would not be making the final decisions, per se.  He stated that each of the committees would be chaired, jointly, by one faculty member and one administrator, adding that the administrator would bring staffing to the committee.

Interim President Coltrane proceeded with an update on federal funding. He commented that the Oregon delegation was exceptionally supportive, and that he had met most them while they were in Eugene campaigning. He added that the midterm elections saw Ryan Zinke, a geology major who graduated from UO in 1984, elected to represent Montana in Congress.

He noted that the federal budget, which is hugely important to the University, was expiring. He explained that each year, the University receives more than 180 million dollars from the Federal Government—mostly in the form of financial aid to students, as well as almost 100 million dollars in federal research dollars. He stated that, taken together, this amounted to about six times the funding the University receives from the state government. He stated that the University was working with the delegation to ensure that its interests were met. He added that the University was also working with other organizations—including the APLU and the AAU—who have a very strong advocacy effort at the federal level. He stated that the Portland Business Alliance and the Eugene and Springfield Chambers of Commerce had recently become members of a business coalition for federal research funding, and that this was important because the Federal Government had backed away from funding basic science. He added that the University needed the Federal Government to reinvest, and stated that there had been some misguided efforts to undermine how important federal funding was for universities.

Addressing the subject of sexual assault, Interim President Coltrane stated that he wanted to update the Senate on the recommendation of the Senate Task Force concerning the Ombuds Program. He stated that the University had consulted with the Ombuds Program and the General Counsel, and that he had commissioned outside legal advice to help iron out their differences. He stated that he believed the University now had an opinion that gave it a way forward, and that the Ombuds Program and the General Counsel were working to craft legislation that the Board of Trustees would look at. He stated that the legislation would work to change the relevant Oregon Administrative Rules and the charter for the Ombuds Office. He stated that this would enable the University to launch a fully functional Ombuds Office that would have the best practices regarding confidentiality, and would fulfill the University's reporting obligations. He stated that he thought the process was going well.

Continuing with his update on sexual assault, Interim President Coltrane stated that that Professor Jennifer Freyd and a group of national experts on sexual violence were pushing back against the AAU survey. He stated he would be meeting with Professor Freyd to discuss this issue, and that he would also be speaking with the AAU. He stated that the University had not yet made any decisions, but that it would be looking at what the best practice was, what the campus would do, and what kind of data it would be getting regarding the campus climate. He added that he thought campus climate surveys were a great idea, and that the University just needed to figure out the best way forward.

Interim President Coltrane also stated that he was still awaiting the results of the President's Review Panel and the gap analysis from Student Life. He reminded those present that these would be available during the last week of the term. He added that, during Winter Term, he planned to have a series of discussions with the Senate and with student groups about how the University could have a comprehensive campaign to address sexual assault prevention.

Regarding the GTFF bargaining, Interim President Coltrane indicated that the latest information was available on the Provost’s website. He stated that the University had made considerable movement in mediation over the last week, but that their offer had not been accepted by the GTFF. He added that there were still opportunities for mediation, and maintained that the University wanted to avoid a strike.  He expressed concern that people were receiving misinformation regarding the Administration's position, and reiterated that the Administration had moved considerably. He also noted that members of the faculty had approached him about wanting to get involved in the bargaining. He explained that although he thought it was important for everyone to be able to state their own positions on the matter, bargaining was not something done by unit members. He stated that bargaining was handled by administrative teams that are not members of bargaining units, and that it was important to keep these things separate. He added that the Administration would provide financial resources and support to faculty members to help with their classes in the event of a strike. He stated that the Administration's first obligation was to the students, adding that it was important for the students to get their grades, and that the Administration did not want to jeopardize their financial awards. He went on to say that the Administration was under great pressure—including from State Collective Bargaining laws—to operate at the bargaining table, and not outside of that process. He added that the Administration was still hopeful that the mediation would result in an agreement.

Addressing the Senate legislation that called for all Standing Senate Committees to have open meetings, Interim President Coltrane stated that he needed to ask the Senate to modify the time limits associated with the Open Meetings legislation such that the Committee on Committees would have time to complete its work on the matter. He noted that the legislation was originally intended to be applied Fall Term. He stated that the Committee on Committees was meeting with subgroups including the FAC (Faculty Advisory Council), the SBC (Senate Budget Committee), and the FPC (Faculty Personnel Committee), and that all three of these groups had arguments regarding whether they should be subject to the open meetings rule. He stated that the Committee on Committees was reviewing this, and that it would be making a recommendation. He added that unforeseen events—including the Presidential shift—had kept the Committee on Committees from addressing these concerns. Interim President Coltrane stated that he had sent a memo to the President of the Senate, as specified in the Constitution, asking for an extension of the timeframe so that the Senate Committee could do its work and make a recommendation to the full Senate, and then to the President.

Regarding the fundraising campaign, Interim President Coltrane stated that the University had invited many of its top donors to a very extravagant and uplifting event. He stated that part of that event involved faculty demonstrating to the donors what the University was doing academically, and how it could achieve a lot more with their private investment. He stated that the University would be taking a similar type of presentation to cities across the U.S. in order to see how much money it could earn toward its goal of two billion dollars. He explained that the University wanted to double, or triple, its endowment so that it could have financial security in the future. He stated that Connie Ballmer and her husband had recently given 50 million dollars to the University: 25 million dollars for PathwayOregon; 20 million dollars for health promotion cluster hire (enough to hire 3 to 5 faculty); and five million dollars for a branding initiative that would be rolled out after the first of the year. He stated that the University would be working the firm 160over90 for its branding initiative, adding that they also represent UCLA, Notre Dame, and the University of Florida. He stated that they do a great job branding academics, recruiting private giving, and recruiting the best students. He stated that the University wanted the branding initiative to be funded by private gifts, and that Connie Ballmer's generosity helped the University do that. He added that five million dollars was not enough to sustain the effort, and that UCLA spent about the same amount every year. He stated that the University needed to be selling itself in the same way.

Interim President Coltrane explained that just six percent of the University's operating budget came from state funding, and that the University had to rely more on private giving as a consequence. He stated that the branding initiative was focused on conveying that fact. He added that he wanted to give a special thanks to all of the faculty who were involved in the branding efforts, and stated that the branding was really about what University did in its labs, in its classrooms, with its scholarships, for its students, and for the State of Oregon. He stated that the University was the innovator for the state, and that it had to sell that to the Legislature so that it could increase the six percent to (hopefully) something double that.

Interim President Coltrane closed his remarks and stated that he would take a few questions before the Senate heard from Board Chair, Chuck Lillis.

An unidentified speaker indicated that she had multiple questions. First, she stated that she questioned the University's priorities, explaining that she felt that research and athletics were prioritized over education and that the University’s money was being wasted on legal teams and scabs, rather than on the GTFs’ cost of living and living conditions. She stated that she questioned what Joan Acker would think about flexible paternity hours, rather than actual paternity leave. She continued that she questioned the academic standards of a University that believed that a scab would be able to grade her 12-page research paper comparing different theorists, explaining that she thought only her GTFs were prepared for that. She stated that she questioned the motives for discriminating against women and families—and why it was allowed—even though it went against everything that the Interim President had researched as an academic. She stated that she questioned (here she stated that this was the question that she would like the Interim President to respond to) why any woman would ever come to the University if the Administration failed to protect them against sexual violence and actively discriminated against them in their efforts to be graduate students and family women at the same time. She asked that Interim President Coltrane specifically address why women should come to the University.  Lastly, she stated that she would have gotten her degree from Lane Community College if it were possible, because she felt that her money would have been better spent there than at the University. She stated that her comment on the GTF contract negotiations “in words that everyone here understands” was: "Just Do It."

Interim President Coltrane stated that he appreciated that the speaker had some assumptions about what was going on; he added that he challenged many of the premises of the things that she had said. He stated that the University did not discriminate against women, and that the mandatory, flexible time off that the Administration was putting on the table was a better benefit than almost all of the University's peers offered. He stated that serving undergraduates was very important to the University, but that research, equal opportunity and protecting students was also important. He suggested that the discussion could be continued later and invited more questions.

Debra (full name not provided) asked if the “mandatory time off” referred to the FMLA.

Interim President Coltrane explained that in the latest mediation session with the GTFF, a guaranteed, flexible two weeks leave was put on the table to meet students' needs, and that it was rejected. He suggested that Debra visit the Provost's website to see what the University had offered. He then thanked those present and ceded the podium. 

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim President Coltrane for his remarks and for taking questions. He stated that he wanted to clarify that the Senate was not involved in Collective Bargaining (in accordance with labor law and other strictures that govern Collective Bargaining). He stated that the Senate would hear from the Chairman of the Board of Trustees next.

3.2       Remarks by Chuck Lillis, Chair of the UO Board of Trustees with questions

Senate President Kyr thanked Chuck Lillis for making a special trip to the University from his home out of state specifically to address the Senate and the members of the campus community regarding University priorities. Senate President Kyr asked that those in attendance listen intensely to what Dr. Lillis was going to communicate to the Senate. He stated that the Senate was in the process of forming a constructive and meaningful relationship with the Board of Trustees, and that Dr. Lillis' commitment to communicating with the Senate was very important to the evolution of that relationship. He stated that the presentation would take half an hour and that there would be time for questions afterward. He added that Dr. Lillis would be making proposals about what the Senate could do to help the University in partnership with the Board. He stated that the Senate Executive Committee would look at the proposals and provide the Senate with definite ideas on how to further its relationship with the Board and serve the highest interests of the University. With that, Senate President Kyr welcomed Chuck Lillis to speak.

Chair of the UO Board of Trustees, Chuck Lillis stated that he appreciated the opportunity to speak with the Senate, and added that he had been serving as the Chair of the Board of Trustees for about a year. He stated that he wanted to encourage the Senate to work with the Administration and the Board in a collegial, positive way on the serious problems that the University faced.

Before speaking on these issues, Dr. Lillis took a moment to assure the Senate that he was committed to shared governance. He elaborated on this by stating that he was an absolute supporter of shared governance when was done well, and not such a big supporter when it was dysfunctional. He stated that he believed shared governance was dysfunctional when it was based on confrontation, but that it could be very powerful when it was based on a shared commitment to shared problems and issues.  He appealed to the Senate to approach the complicated problems that the University faced in a collegial, shared, respectful, and professional manner. He added that he believed that the University of Oregon was a good university—but not a great one—and that he believed it had the potential to be great. He asserted that the present moment was a seminal one for the University, and that it could decide now whether it would be good, or great. He stated that solving some of the problems he was about to outline would enable the University to move from good to great.

Dr. Lillis reminded those in attendance that the University was looking for a new President. He stated that the Search Committee had met with four different consultants who assist in searches, and that every one of those firms said—unprompted—that the University of Oregon had a bad national reputation as a place where the faculty and the administration do not get along. He stated that this reputation could harm the search for a president, and added that he was personally embarrassed by it. He stated that this was a problem that needed to be fixed, and that the members of the University community had a responsibility to recognize that their behaviors had consequences. He stated that the University could not have an adversarial image and be a great university at the same time.

Dr. Lillis stated that the first major problem the University faced was that it was financially weak. He stated that the University’s operating budget was a little under one billion dollars a year, and that about 50 million of that came from the state. He stated that resident undergraduate students pay for about 83 percent of the cost of their education, and that the rest was subsidized with non-resident tuition, gifts, and overhead on research grants. He stated that the single most telling statistic in this regard was that the University spent about 30 thousand dollars a year per student to deliver its educational mission, while schools like UCLA, Michigan, and Washington spent at least twice that number. He stated that in terms of the amount spent on each student, the University ranked last amongst the public AAU universities. He stated that moving the University of Oregon out of last place would require an increase in the operating budget of about three hundred million dollars per year. He stated that if the University was going to fill that gap, it would have to rely heavily on private money.

He stated that the second problem the University faced was that the tenure-track faculty population was undersized by perhaps 130 to 150 positions. He stated that the University taught roughly twice as many undergraduate student credit hours with non-tenure-track faculty as its AAU peers, and that this was a result of the financial state of the University. He added that over the last ten years, the University had seen a 20 to 25 percent growth in enrollment while having a zero net increase in tenure-track faculty positions. He stated that hiring 130 to 150 faculty would require roughly one billion endowed dollars.

He stated that the third problem facing the University was that its student quality—while increasingly good—was not as good as its AAU peers. He stated his belief that out of the top three or four hundred high school graduates in the state, more graduates went to other local institutions than came to UO. He explained that one of the problems in this regard was that the University had a very low discount rate. He stated that the University's discount rate was 9.2%, and that a competitive number was probably 16 or 17%.

He stated that the fourth problem facing the University was a very low level of knowledge on the part of Oregonians regarding what the University is about, and what it does. He observed that the public had a difficult time explaining what doing research means, and how it benefits them. As an example of the general lack of understanding, he stated that a recent survey had shown that three percent of Oregonians believe that the University has a medical school. He stated that the University was figuring out how to tell the world that it is a great university, and that they were spending money to do so—as all universities do. He added that it was not surprising that state divestment had occurred, given the general lack of public understanding.

Dr. Lillis stated that the fifth problem facing the University was that the process of approving new or changed academic programs was ridiculously long. He estimated that for every one person proposing a change (e.g., adding a degree, changing a major, creating a new discipline, creating a certificate program, etc.) there were about one hundred people who felt the responsibility—or need for authority—to review. He stated that this was a bad ratio if the University expected to move forward in a timely manner. He added that he thought the University was in its current state because of distrust, and that the most common reason for distrust was incompetence. He stated that there had been a series of decisions that—in retrospect—were not correct, which prompted the State Board of Higher Education, the University, the Governor, the Legislature, and everyone else involved to mitigate that distrust by adding more checks and reviews. He stated that this was tragic, and that it would not be possible for UO to be a great university if each person continued to hold that is his or her role to question every other decision.

He added that the need to check and review was further exacerbated by a lack of a sense of urgency. He stated that this was particularly costly now, because the University had a unique opportunity to reshape itself, and that doing so required the University to move swiftly and intelligently. He stated that the University had to find a way to instill a sense of urgency in itself.

Dr. Lillis stated that the sixth problem was that the University’s endowment was currently about 700 million dollars, and that it needed to be about two billion dollars in order to be competitive. He stated that if the University could get the endowment to two billion, it would be in roughly the top ten or fifteen public universities in the country. He added that it would allow the University to be competitive in the sense of having a strong balance sheet, risk capital to invest, and the flexibility to hire unique faculty members. As an example, he stated that the University of Puget Sound has 2,600 students and a 350 million dollar endowment compared to UO, which has 26,000 students and only a 700 million dollar endowment. He conceded that University of Puget Sound was a private school (they typically have larger endowments), but asserted that UO was also a private school in a financial sense. He reiterated that if the University could get the endowment to two billion dollars, it would have a real chance to do some unique things for the quality of the academic activities. He added that the main reason he agreed to be the Chair of the Board of Trustees was because he had a passion for the University to improve its academic quality.

He stated that the seventh problem was that the University had experienced a disastrous churn at the Presidential level. He stated that this was problematic because it was expensive in terms of continuity of strategy, raising funds, and in terms of the University's relationship with external organizations. He stated that an indicator of the sense of urgency the Board felt was that it was going ahead with the two billion dollar Capital Campaign without a permanent President. He added that there were not a lot of universities that would have made that decision, and explained that the Board had done so because it thought it was urgent that the University get moving, and because it was happy with the current leadership team that existed at the University.

He stated that the eighth problem was that the University needed a new major science facility. He explained that if the University was successful in hiring 50 new tenure-track science professors, there would not be enough laboratory space, classroom space, or office space to accommodate them. He added that such a facility might cost three or four hundred million dollars, and that it would have to be funded one hundred percent by gift money.

He stated that the ninth problem the University faced was that its IT backbone infrastructure desperately needed to be upgraded for research, instruction, and administration. He stated that many sciences were moving into paradigms in which "big data analysis" was required, and that the current IT infrastructure was inadequate for these pursuits. He stated that he did not know how much it was going to cost to upgrade the IT infrastructure, and that there was a need to get a plan in place so the Board could find the help necessary to realize it.

He stated that there were many other things the Board worried about, including sexual violence, student and faculty conduct, where to invest money in the foundation, and the role of athletics. He acknowledged that the Senate had put in a lot of time and work on all kinds of important problems, but also asked the Senators (referring to nine problems he outlined): “Are you doing anything that helps [the University] address these mega tough problems?” He conceded that some of the problems were things that the Senate could not do anything about, except to stay out of the way while the Board tried to solve them. He noted, however, that there were things that the Senate could take on, and he encouraged the members of the Senate to challenge him, the leadership of the Senate, the Administration, the Deans, and also to ask themselves: "I'm going to spend a zillion hours. What should I be spending them on?" Without being specific, he stated that some of the things that time was being spent on were “not the right answer.” He reiterated the importance of working together in a civilized, respectful, collegial, and professional manner, and remaining mindful that there are consequences for the University's behaviors.

Lillis closed his remarks by stating that he had two degrees from the University of Washington, and that he was thrilled each year when they were ranked as one of the top 50 universities in the world. He stated that he wanted to feel that good about the University of Oregon, and that he did not like seeing UO ranked 92nd, 104th, or 86th. He stated that the UO was better than that, and asked those present to attack the problems the University faced and help it become great. With that, he welcomed questions.

An unidentified speaker, recalling Dr. Lillis’ comment that four search companies had described the relationship between the University Administration and the faculty as contentious, asked him if they had communicated what they were basing that perception on.

Chuck Lillis stated that they were not explicit about it, and added that he had heard similar perceptions previously. He stated that it was the wrong image for the University to have.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) thanked Dr. Lillis for coming and speaking to the Senate, and for sharing the problems that he believed the University faced. Professor Tublitz added that he thought many of the faculty had a similar list of perceived problems. He stated that the most important thing at a university was the quality of the faculty, and that the faculty are the brain trust of a university. He added that the faculty are also the standard-bearers, and the holders of academic integrity. He asked Dr. Lillis if he would consider reaching out to the faculty in a way that indicates a “deep, shared tradition” rather than a “management versus labor situation.” He asserted that this would allow the brain trust of the University to help in achieving the goals of the Board and of the University community. He added that he personally believed that if the Board did not reach out in this way, the University was doomed to failure.

Chuck Lillis stated that he loved the question, and that he was personally trying very hard to do exactly what Professor Tublitz had requested. He added that he had been meeting with groups of faculty to have an unstructured exchange of ideas. He stated that he had learned a great deal from these meetings, and added that Interim President Coltrane, Acting Provost Frances Bronet, and others were anxious to have these interchanges, as well. He agreed that there was an enormous amount of brainpower in the faculty that could help address the issues and the opportunities that the University faced. He added that he was available to meet with any individual or group.

Professor John Bonine (Law) suggested to Dr. Lillis that he consult with Senate President Kyr and faculty bodies to get some recommendations regarding people who might meet with him. He explained that this was important in the context of shared governance, and in changing what may be perceived as confrontational activities.  He stressed that these recommendations needed to come from the shared governance bodies.  Professor Bonine stated that he was very impressed by the current Presidential Administration's willingness to come to the Senate meetings, and also by Board members who had come to speak to the Senate. He suggested that each Board member could rotate through visiting the Senate on a weekly basis or every other week. He stated that this would help the Senate get to know the Board members and help Board members understand that the Senate is not as dysfunctional as they might have been lead to believe.

Chuck Lillis thanked Professor Bonine, and stated that the groups of faculty he had met with had been coordinated by a faculty member who—at one point—had been a member of the Senate. He added that the individuals he had met with were a very wide mix of senior and junior faculty. He stated that he would discuss with the Board some sort of routine visit on the part of the Board members, adding that he thought that a lot of Trustees would like to visit. He cautioned the Senate that not many of the Trustees had the depth of background in academia that he did, and that many were still in a learning phase. Nevertheless, he stated that the Board had enormous passion, was willing to work, and would be good for the University.

An unidentified speaker stated that he agreed that the University was not a public institution, and asked if there was any way to address this problem. He added that he did not think there were any public institutions have left in the United States. He also stated that he thought it would be great to hire more science tenured faculty, but voiced concern that this would focus on growth as opposed to quality.

Chuck Lillis stated that the University's current enrollment level left it short about 130 to 150 tenure-track faculty. He added that he was not in charge of how large the enrollment should be, but stated that it was based on a very delicately-balanced financial model. He stated that he thought that the University needed a healthier graduate student enrollment, as well.

In response to an inaudible comment from the speaker, Dr. Lillis stated that many institutions were in exactly the same financial position as UO. He stated that percentage-wise, the University of Colorado received a little more each year than did UO. He stated that Washington and Arizona were also very similar to UO in this regard.

In response to a second inaudible comment, Dr. Lillis stated that tuition was not the root of all the problems, but also that it used to be the case that a student could make enough money over the summer to pay for the next year of college. He stated that this raised the fundamental question: "Is higher education unreasonably expensive?" He stated that he did not know the answer, but added that he was not sure that the financial model currently in use among universities like UO would work in the future.

An undergraduate student identifying himself as Casey stated that he was having issues reconciling who he was supposed to look to regarding the GTF situation. He reminded Dr. Lillis that he had said the University needed higher enrollment for graduate students, but also noted that the Administration had been sending out backhanded emails earlier in the week regarding the GTF negotiations. He stated that there was a lot of information being passed around and that there was no clear source for it. He asked Dr. Lillis how he would suggest undergrads go about handling this situation, adding that it was not a healthy educational environment, and that he did not feel that he was getting the best education possible. He stated that this problem was not financial, and asserted that it was rooted in the dissonance between the Administration and the graduate students. He asked when the University would stop looking at "good by comparison" and start looking at "adequate" for the student body.

Chuck Lillis apologized and stated that he did not know the answer. He explained that the Board was not involved in any of the negotiations, and that the responsibility had been allocated entirely to the Administration of the University.

An unidentified speaker commented that Jim Collins had written a book called "From Good to Great," which talked about how settling for "good enough" could be the greatest enemy of "great." He stated that the University was looking to UCLA and its other peers, and comparing itself against what they were doing, and the money that they were spending. He asserted that this constituted settling for "good enough" amongst UO's peers. He also stated that, in regards to the GTF bargaining, the University was settling for "good enough," or the minimum to be amongst the good and the great. He acknowledged that there was a place for balance and context, but asked when the University was going to start looking at being cutting edge, and finding its own path as a university. He asked when the University was going to make a decision to be a University that other universities would look to, instead of playing catch-up.

Chuck Lillis stated that he would give what was perhaps a biased answer, adding that he did not want to talk about the GTF in particular. He stated that he did not think that UO should to compare itself directly to other Universities to determine how to become more academically excellent. He stated that he did not think UO should compare itself with UCLA, Michigan, Stanford, etc., because he did not think UO would ever have the money to be competitive in as many academic areas as those universities. He stated that the challenge was for the University to pick the areas of excellence in which the University could afford to be internationally competitive. With that, Dr. Lillis also stated that he thought UO had to be a comprehensive research university. He stated that the athletics program was a great model of the areas of excellence idea on campus.

Associate Professor Jason Brown (Creative Writing) stated that he never saw the level of communication between the various levels of governance at University of Arizona (his previous employer) that he was seeing in Chuck Lillis' willingness to speak to the faculty Senate. He stated that at the University of Arizona, he witnessed a total lack of communication between the various levels of governance, and very little understanding—on the part of the faculty—of the challenges faced by the leadership of the University. He added that this was understandable considering their focus on the classroom. He stated that he loved the idea of small groups meeting with Board members, and of Board members coming to speak with the Senate, but asked if there might be more comprehensive ways of increasing communication flow between the various levels of governance so that there could be an increased level of understanding. He stressed the importance of increasing the understanding between not just the Trustees and the faculty, but also with the students.

Chuck Lillis stated that he thought this was a great challenge to all of the leaders in the room. He added that one of the problems was that it is very hard for an individual faculty member to understand the quagmire of regulation, finance, history, and protocol that any university operates in; and that it is also pretty hard for administrators or executives, if they have not been a faculty member, to understand the life of a faculty member.

An undergraduate student, who introduced himself as Sean, stated that he was from California. He noted that there had been a lot of talk about the UC system in comparison to UO, and a lot of talk about increasing Oregon's international prominence and bringing in better students. He stated that a lot of people tend to forget that this could result in UO turning its back on Oregonians, adding that he believed this was what happened in the UC schools. He stated that he did not even apply to any UC schools because he strongly believed that they had turned their backs on Californians. He asked Dr. Lillis how he was going to make sure that UO—which he pointed out was originally a land grant university meant for Oregonians who would pay taxes to it—would not turn its back on Oregonians.

Chuck Lillis stated that it was a great question and asked Sean for his year and major.

Sean stated that he was a third year Political Science major.

Chuck Lillis stated that the two billion dollar capital campaign that Mike Andreasen, Scott Coltrane, Frances Bronet, and others were conducting had one of the three major thrusts directed toward student access. He explained that this was code for “financial aid,” and that perhaps 300 million of the two billion was aimed at resident Oregon students. He stated that this would be 200 million more than the University currently had dedicated to Oregon students. He added that one of the Trustees, Rudy Chapa, had informed the Board about a program at the University of Texas, Austin, which created an integrated management effort for everything that impacts the success of an undergraduate—financial aid, available coursework, emotional counseling, housing etc.—with the goal of increasing student success. He stated that Rudy brought a similar idea to the Board, and that the Board members were using it as an idea to further enhance the opportunity for Oregon residents. He also noted that the University of California system was arguably the best in the world, and that he was amazed that they were thinking about breaking themselves up.

Hearing no other questions, Chuck Lillis closed by thanking the Senate for having him.

Senate President Kyr thanked Dr. Lillis and expressed the Senate's appreciation of his commitment to the University. He reiterated that the Senate would be partnering with him, and discussing the most effective ways to move the University forward.

 

4.  NEW BUSINESS

 4.1       Announcement by Andrew Bonamici, Associate Dean for Media and Instructional Services, UO Libraries

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would now move on to new business.  He welcomed  Associate Dean for Media and Instructional Services, Andrew Bonamici, to give an announcement.

Associate Dean Andrew Bonamici (Media and Instructional Services) stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Learning Management System Task Force. He stated that the Senate had heard reports from this task force repeatedly through the last academic year, and that he would be bringing the Senate up-to-date on the process of reviewing and selecting a new learning management system before September 30th, 2015 (when the current Blackboard license is due to expire). He stated that following an extensive review that included nearly 100 faculty and GTFs, dozens of staff, and nearly 2,000 students, the Task Force was very pleased to be able to move forward with the Task Force's number one recommendation: Canvas by Instructure. He stated that he would go over some of the findings from the LMS review and the pilot phase of the review process.

He stated that the pilot testing indicated that Canvas was going to save faculty, GTF, and student time, as well as enhance student engagement in ways that may lead to improved learning outcomes. He stated that the faculty, GTFs, and students who piloted the Canvas system rated it very positively for its friendly and easy to learn interface, gradebook features, email communications and notifications, overall navigation, and speed grader functionality. He added that: 80% of the faculty and GTFs who tested Canvas recommended that the University switch platforms; 80% of the faculty and GTFs who tested Canvas rated it as better than previous systems they had used; 89% of faculty and GTFs were satisfied, or extremely satisfied, with Canvas; 75% of faculty and GTFs who tested Canvas agreed that Canvas made their teaching more efficient; 52% of the students who tested Canvas agreed that Canvas helped them become more engaged with course content; and 44% of the students agreed that it saved them time, and that it helped them learn course content more effectively.

Addressing the transition to Canvas, he stated that the Task Force anticipated that it would be available for live courses beginning Spring Term, 2015. He stated that Blackboard and Canvas would be fully supported throughout the transition period, and that the Task Force would be releasing the Canvas blog for implementation and transition details as they become available. He recognized that the transition to Canvas represented a very significant change in a critical system for students, GTFs, faculty, and staff, and stated that the LMS team in the UO Libraries was ramping up support to and help with the transition. He added that there were GTF positions—funded by the fiscal year 2015 strategic budget request process— to assist with the transition, and also that the Task Force was in the process of redesigning some permanent staff positions concentrating on course development and course design that would make the most effective use of the features of the Canvas platform. He stated that these support programs were being developed in active collaboration with partners in the Teaching Effectiveness Program, the Schools and Colleges, Information Services, Academic Extension, and many more throughout the campus. He invited those present to seek further information about what the transition might look like, as well as how to find help and support.

With that, Andrew Bonamici thanked those present for taking part in the decision to move to Canvas. He extended a special thanks to the LMS Task Force, and to all of the faculty, GTF, staff, and students whose work and feedback made the decision possible. Lastly, he thanked Helen Chu, Director of Academic Technology. He stated that she had done a marvelous job as Project Manager for the transition, and in leading the LMS team.

Senate President Kyr thanked Andrew Bonamici for the announcement.

4.2       Motion (Legislation): Opposition to Efforts by Academic Affairs to Dilute and Degrade Academic Standards in the Event of a Graduate Teaching Fellows Strike; Monique Balbuena (Senator, Clark Honors College); Jane Cramer (Senator, Political Science); John Davidson (Senator, Political Science); Diane Dugaw (Senator, English); Deborah Olson (Senator, Education); Gina Psaki (Senator, Romance Languages); Gordon Sayre (Senator, English)

Senate President Kyr stated that the next item on the agenda was a motion: Opposition to Efforts by Academic Affairs to Dilute and Degrade Academic Standards in the Event of a Graduate Teaching Fellows Strike. He stated that the sponsors of this motion were Monique Balbuena, Senator (Clark Honors College); Jane Cramer, Senator (Political Science); John Davidson, Senator (Political Science); Dianne Dugaw, Senator (English); Deborah Olson, Senator (Special Education); Regina Psaki, Senator (Romance Languages); and Gordon Sayre, Senator (English). He then called on Senator Sayre to move the motion. He did so, and Senator Merskin offered a second.  After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr invited Senator Sayre to provide some background.

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) stated that several sponsors would be addressing different aspects of this motion separately and ceded the floor to Senator Regina Psaki.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) began by stating that this motion had not been brought forward to pick a fight. She conceded that the language of the motion suggested otherwise, but assured those present that all of the sponsors were very concerned about the academic integrity of their courses, their teaching, and how this interfaced with the Graduate Teaching Fellows. She stated that some pedagogically inadequate solutions had been suggested for palliating the effects of a GTFF strike: canceling class hours in dead week; modifying exams for some, or all, courses; shifting oral exams from one-on-one to small groups; shifting essay exams to short answer exams; changing the page length for final essays; giving multiple choice exams for ease of grading; letting students choose to be graded based on work done so far in the class (with a note that this strategy could be applied department-wide, or on a course-by-course basis); hiring upper-level undergraduates, OAs, or non-GTF graduate students; and adding department heads, or alternative faculty, as instructors of record on grading. She stated that she had nothing against multiple choice or short answer exams where they were chosen on pedagogical grounds as the best way to evaluate student mastery of the material. However, she asserted that where they were deliberately not chosen, they represented a dilution of academic quality, and a lowering of academic standards imposed. She added that in her own courses, it would be educational malpractice to use this kind of shortcut to evaluate what she taught. She explained that it was impossible to evaluate how well students had learned to write an essay by having them write short answers, or how well they had learned to articulate complex ideas by giving a multiple choice exam. She stated that if she were to choose to run her courses this way under normal circumstances, she would not get away with it. She also added that many assignments are carefully constructed not only to measure mastery, but to strengthen it, and stated that many instructors deliberately give assignments that students can learn from while doing them. She stated that it was the faculty's prerogative to choose how to assess and teach, and urged the Senate to vote in favor of the motion.

Senator Jane Cramer (Political Science) added that the proposed methods of dealing with the GTF strike had been leaked from a confidential memo. She stated that she had since learned that the confidential memo had possibly been requested. She questioned why the memo would be confidential when it was meant to be a suggested to the faculty. She added that many of the items that had been suggested were things that faculty had to fight against constantly within their departments.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion and debate. He recognized Doug Blandy.

Senior Vice Provost Doug Blandy (Academic Affairs) stated that he did not dispute anything that had been said, but added that he thought it was important to provide some context.  He stated that the confidentiality associated with the memo was due to it being a preliminary work that had led to a second directive that had been released. He stated that it was also important to acknowledge that many significant hours were spent, by an academic continuity team, talking with Deans, Associate Deans, and Unit Heads to do an inventory of possibilities that could be adopted by the departments. He stated that nothing in the memo was prescriptive, explaining that it was up to individual units, their Heads, and their faculty, to decide how to move forward in the event of a strike by the graduate teaching assistants. He added that Academic Affairs believed it was vitally important that the University not betray the students in the event of a graduate teaching assistant strike, and that the University provide as seamless an experience as possible in the best academic way possible.

Senate President Kyr recognized Barbara Altmann.

Barbara Altmann (Academic Affairs) stated that Academic Affairs knew that anything it sent out by email was going to be widely available, and that the "confidential" marking was a vestige of an older document that should have been removed. She stated that the memo was intended to engender more ideas and more consultation, and that Academic Affairs wanted to have the collaboration and help of the faculty in determining how to best handle the appropriate evaluation of work—in every kind of class, in every area—across the campus. She stated that the major concern was simply to ensure a "seamless transition" through to the end of term. She added that Academic Affairs was very concerned about undergraduate students losing financial aid, or being unable to register for sequential courses if they did not have final grades in some of their Fall Term work. She added that Academic Affairs would very much like to tap into the pedagogical expertise of the faculty in order to figure out what unusual measures could best be used in these unusual circumstances.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Michael Price.

Senator Michael Price (Mathematics) stated, anecdotally, that a number of departments and faculty members were resistant to the notion of doing additional work and taking overtime in response to a GTF strike. He asked if the sponsors of the bill could speak to maintaining continuity if the other members of the unclassified staff were not going to step up to take on additional responsibilities.

Senator Sayre stated that there were different situations that could be dealt with in different ways. He explained that in situations where faculty members were teaching large classes—for which GTFs were graders or section leaders—if GTFs were not available to grade final exams, many faculty might elect to put aside their qualms about crossing picket lines and take on many hours of work to grade those exams themselves. He stated that some would, and some would not. He noted that he was very concerned, however, about the hundreds of classes that are taught independently by GTFs, who are teaching material that faculty members are not familiar with, and who are writing exams that faculty members are not able to grade. He stated that he did not think it was responsible, or appropriate, to ask people who have no familiarity with the course material to suddenly jump in and write and grade exams, tests, and papers.

Senate President Kyr recognized another sponsor, Senator Psaki.

Senator Psaki agreed with Senator Sayre, with the caveat that in many cases, undergraduates are being taught by graduate students who know them, have followed them, have been tracking their work, and have been working with them one-on-one to improve it. She stated that there was no way for a seamless educational delivery in the absence of the GTFs. She added that, as much as she would like to palliate impact on the undergraduate students, GTFs are students, too. This, she explained, revealed the "not betraying our students" argument as a simplistic phrase being applied in a situation which was, in truth, not simple.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Michael Dreiling.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he believed everybody—even good people—made regrettable decisions, and that sometimes those decisions resulted in consequences that affect institutional or human values in a way that need to be acknowledged. He added that he thought this was a moment where this was the case. He explained that a decision was made to develop procedures—affecting undergraduate curriculum in hundreds of courses—that bypassed the Constitutionally-mandated role of the Senate, and the Undergraduate Council. He stated that this did not mean that the people who made the decision were bad people, but instead that the decision crossed a line. He asserted that this was what the motion was about. He added that it had to be acknowledged that there was a role for the Undergraduate Council and for the Senate. He stated that concerned faculty were asking questions like: "Well, who's going to grade these student papers? You mean I'm going to have to pass these on to somebody who's unqualified—who's never been in my course—to grade these? I can't just submit an ‘X’ and wait until the University and the GTFF resolve this issue, and then a grade be submitted once that is resolved?" He stated that the answer the faculty was getting was "no," and that the faculty were concerned about the compromise of the integrity of academic standards, course standards, and the standards of the profession, by procedures that called on unqualified graders to grade course material that they had no contact with. He reiterated that he believed a line was clearly crossed, and that the Senate and the Undergraduate Council were to be consulted when dramatic changes to course processes occur.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Nathan Tublitz.

Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) stated that so far, there had been talk about process, procedures, and lines that had been crossed. He shared his belief that there were also moral and ethical issues underlying the issue. He explained that the GTFs are colleagues, and that without them, the University could not run. He stated that the GTFs were not asking for “the moon, and the sun, and the stars,” but simply for a livable wage and a small assistance in the event that they became ill. He asserted that the University is a moral and ethical institution—not a corporate entity—and that it has a responsibility to treat everyone fairly and with respect. He then asked Interim President Coltrane what he was going to do to end the strike threat by the end of the meeting. He reiterated that the University could not run without the GTFs, and stated that the University needed to stop dealing with all of the silly bureaucracy and solve the problem.

Senate President Kyr recognized Interim President Coltrane.

Interim President Scott Coltrane stated that he realized that Professor Tublitz thought this was an easy problem to fix. He continued that the Administration had been in bargaining for almost a year, and that the offer on the table was more generous than the University's competitors. He stated that the Administration had moved in negotiations, and encouraged those present to engage in getting to the truth regarding what was on the table. He reiterated that the University had made a very generous offer, and that that they had moved significantly. He added that there had been no movement on the GTFF side, and that this was responsible for bringing negotiations to a halt.

Senate President Kyr asked where everybody could go to get more information.

Interim President Coltrane directed people to the Provost's website.

Senate President Kyr recognized Carla McNelly.

Carla McNelly introduced herself as the President of the SEIU Local 085, and stated that she would like to say more about getting to the truth. She stated that some of the information in the memo was inaccurate. She explained that classified staff who work part-time accrue paid leave, and added that the Administration was falsely claiming that this did not happen for other constituents on the campus, and that it would therefore cause ill-will. She added that the classified staff would like to join the grad students in receiving paid leave.

Senate President Kyr recognized Lisa Freinkel.

Associate Professor Lisa Freinkel (Comparative Literature and English) stated that she wanted to acknowledge how heartbreaking this situation was. She stated that she was the Graduate Director in Comparative Literature for nine years, and that she was now the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies.  She urged those present to think clearly about how to meet the needs of the undergraduates and provide support for the graduate students. She stated that this would have to occur in conversations that happen among colleagues, recognizing the full implications. She added that the implications for undergraduates were very heavy, particularly for the most vulnerable students—who were facing issues with financial aid—and the students in gated majors, who would not know until after they received final grades whether they could be in that major or not. She stated that there were huge implications for all of the students, and for the community. She stated that working together was not simply about collective bargaining, but rather about “heart opened, face-to-face, context by context, moment by moment, making very difficult choices, and weighing all of the implications.” She urged those present to find a way to tone down the rhetoric, and to find a way to reach out to each other while thinking about how decisions would affect all of the 24,500 students on campus, and all the staff and faculty. She stated that the University was stumbling, and implored people to try to stumble together.

Professor Karen Creighton (P.E. and Recreation) introduced herself as a member of the P.E. and Recreation department. She noted that she had been an adjunct, and that they had been receiving the equivalent of paid leave for years. She stated that the new union contract guaranteed that adjuncts and non-tenure track faculty would have the equivalent of paid leave. She added that, as a P.E. teacher, she had the opportunity to get to know students and to talk with them. She explained that students had started asking her about the possible GTF strike, and noted that they were very upset about it. She stated that several of her students offered to pay the GTFs directly, rather than pay the University. She went on to state that she had gone to most of the bargaining sessions for United Academics (which, she explained, had its moments that were tense) and also to the GTF bargaining that happened over the summer. She stated that she, along with a colleague who attended the meeting with her, were appalled at how the University lawyer spoke to the GTF bargaining team. She stated that it was insulting, and unbelievable. As a result, she stated that she had a very hard time accepting what she heard coming from Administrative memos regarding the GTF bargaining.

Kurt Willcox (College of Education) introduced himself as a researcher at the College of Education, and the non-faculty staff member on the Board of Trustees. He prefaced his statement by noting that he was only speaking for himself, and that he was not speaking for the Board. He stated that he wished more Board members would come to Senate meetings, because there was a misperception on the part of many Board members about the University Senate, how it operates, and its level of function or dysfunction. He stated that he wanted to second what Carla McNelly had said about the material that the University had sent out about the GTFF negotiations. He stated that the basic thrust of it was: "We're being very generous here, and really you should just take it and not complain." He stated that he thought it was important to acknowledge that the University had made some movement in negotiations, but asserted that it was also important that the Administration be truthful when describing what it had done. He stated that on the surface, there was some truth to what the Administration claimed, but that the two key points regarding why the proposal should be accepted were not quite ingenuous. He stated that the claim that the majority of employees at the University do not earn paid benefits under half time was true, but pointed out that there were 1,500 to 1,600 classified employees who do qualify to earn part-time benefits under half time—the point being that what the GTFs were asking for was not new ground, and was not inequity for all other employees on campus. He stated that the Administration also claimed that the GTFs were asking for something that nobody else has on campus—paid leave in an illness, accident, or parental leave circumstance. He acknowledged that, on the surface, this was true; but, he asserted, other groups on campus—classified faculty—earn sick leave, vacation leave, and have the ability to apply some of the paid leave they earn in these situations. He explained that Graduate Teaching Fellows do not earn sick leave, or vacation leave. He stated that the GTFs had asked for a minimal proposal—to have some sort of paid leave in these extraordinary circumstances of a major illness, accident, or parental leave. He reiterated that it was very important to be direct and completely truthful about these proposals. He added that he thought it would be a disaster if there was a GTF strike. He stated that there was no up-side. He added that a GTFF strike over this issue of medical hardship leave was going to send the wrong message to all of the people the University wanted to recruit, or get money from. He stated that he thought a GTF strike would clearly damage the Administration, and leave wounds that would exist for a long time. He urged the Senate to pass the motion, and also urged the Administration to find a way to come back to the bargaining table—not just talk about its generosity, but to find a way to settle this issue.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Matthew Dennis.

Professor Matthew Dennis (History and Environmental Studies) stated that he wanted to focus more on the motion at hand and how to make a transition, assuming that the strike went forward. He stated that most of the problems that had been identified were administrative rather than pedagogical. He explained that whether financial aid could or could not be granted, whether people could or could not declare majors, or whether they could enroll in classes that were sequential, were administrative problems. He stated that the logical thing to do was to have the administrative part of the University be as creative as possible to try to make this transition work, without changing how classes are taught or students are evaluated.

Senate President Kyr recognized Beatriz Gutierrez, ASUO President.

Beatriz Gutierrez (ASUO President) stated that this motion was very important to assure that students receive a quality education, adding that the contingency plan outlined in the memo was not enough to guarantee the quality of the education that students were paying for. She stated that, as representative of the students, the graduate students were peers, and that it was very important to support the graduate students in getting the kind of quality pay they deserve.

Senate President Kyr recognized Kenneth Doxsee.

Kenneth Doxsee (Academic Affairs) stated that he was Professor of Chemistry, and that he wanted to express a little confusion about the discussion. He stated that he appreciated the comments that had been made, but added that he had observed a disconnect between the "whereas" clauses of the motion and the proposals outlined in the memo.  He elaborated that the memo had not demanded or prescribed any changes—it had merely suggested that faculty members consider approaches for their own final examinations. He stated that he did not see this as an objectionable suggestion given the state of affairs.

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor John Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that the Senate was not voting on the "whereas" clauses, but only the resolved clauses.

Senate President Kyr agreed that Section 2, the "be it therefore moved" clauses, were the only ones being voted on. He called for a vote to close debate, which carried, and Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion itself. The motion carried, and Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would return to its agenda on December 3rd.

 

9.  ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyrcalled the November 19, 2014 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 5, 2014

Present: Paul Dassonville, Miriam Deutsch, Reza Rejaie, Randy Sullivan, Jane Cramer, John Davidson, William Harbaugh, Diane Dugaw, Deborah Healey, Colin Koopman, Regina Psaki, Ron Lovinger, Laura Leete, Richard Margerum, Charles Lachman, Marylin Nippold, Debra Merskin, Mary Ann Hyatt, Victoria Mitchell, Robin Clement, Jennifer Ellis, Robert Kyr, Monique Balbuena, David Espinoza, Lisa Raleigh, Debra Thurman, Samantha Cohen, Quin Haaga, Andrew Lubash, John Ahlen, Theodora Ko Thompson, Mike Strain

Absent: Jennifer Freyd, Weiyong He,  Michael Price, Michael Dreiling, Gordon Sayre, Jerry Rosiek, Edward Teague, Alexandre Dossin, Abel Cerros, Kate Closno, Jimmy Murray

Excused: Jun Li, Ken Prehoda, Bruce McGough, Jason Brown, Geraldine Poizat-Newcomb, Donna Shaw, Deborah Olson

 

1.   CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music) called the November 5, 2014 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 Lawrence Hall. He welcomed those in attendance and stated that the agenda would be full of extremely important items—including the continuation of the report by the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support. He noted that the Senate would also be returning to six motions related to revisions of the Student Conduct Code.

 

2.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Senate President Kyr stated that the first item on the agenda would be the approval of minutes. He requested comments and questions regarding the minutes for the October 8th meeting. None were put forward, and the minutes were approved.

 

3.  STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

  3.1       Remarks by Interim President Scott Coltrane with questions

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would hear the State of the University Address delivered by Interim President Scott Coltrane.  He noted that Interim President Coltrane would also be speaking about strategic planning on behalf of Acting Provost Frances Bronet, who was not able to attend the meeting. With that, he invited Interim President Coltrane to deliver his remarks.

Interim President Scott Coltrane thanked Senate President Kyr and explained that Acting Provost Frances Bronet was attending a national meeting on campus climate at the University of Michigan with Vice Presidents Yvette Alex-Assensoh and Robin Holmes. He stated that he would be providing an update on the strategic planning process in her absence. He relayed that the planning was in the process of being launched, and noted that it would support the University's mission and competitive excellence goals. He continued that Acting Provost Bronet had suggested creating four task groups to focus on how to support the specific goals of the University. He elaborated that these goals were: to improve student access and support; to support research, discovery, and graduate education excellence; to attract and retain outstanding, diverse faculty and staff; and to enhance the campus infrastructure and technology. He relayed that Acting Provost Bronet had put out a call for nominations, and noted that she appreciated receiving the names of people who might serve on those task force groups. He explained that Acting Provost Bronet would announce the groups as soon as all of the membership lists were finalized. He added that this would be happening in the next couple of weeks, and that the task forces would play an integral role in rewriting the strategic plan for implementing and achieving the goals of competitive excellence.

Interim President Coltrane informed the Senate that the remainder of his address would be largely devoted to issues relating to the Senate Task Force Report. He noted that the major topic of the Task Force’s report was enhancing campus safety by improving the way that the University addressed all forms of sexual misconduct and violence. He stated that he was deeply concerned about the cultural trends that he observed among young people—and society at large—which promoted the sexual objectification of young women, and condoned sexual exploitation by men. He stated that as a sociologist who specialized in family and gender, he had studied patterns of gender asymmetry, sexual privilege, and gender-based power differentials, and indicated that he clearly understood that there was a widespread, cultural problem that manifested itself on college campuses.  He indicated that the University had to find new ways of addressing this issue. He emphasized that the University needed to seize the opportunity to deal with these issues directly, and show others how to confront it head on.

He stated that the University of Oregon was committed to creating a safe and respectful campus free from all forms of sexual misconduct and sexual violence. He asserted that in order to meet this commitment, all members of the campus community would need to work together to improve the campus climate, to prevent sexual misconduct and violence, to encourage reporting, to support survivors, and to address the many complicated issues that exacerbate the problem—including alcohol and drug abuse, and gender and bias issues. He stated that several years ago, the University of Oregon had begun working to address sexual violence on campus in a renewed way with the creation of new prevention efforts, reporting policies, and strategic investments, along with the Groves Report, which was commissioned to review Student Life's prevention messaging. He stated that the issue had received renewed attention last spring, when the White House Task Force issued the Not Alone Report and the Department of Education began investigating colleges across the country for their handling of sexual assault issues. He noted that around the same time, the University of Oregon was dealing its own high-profile cases, and that the spotlight had divided the campus. He added that it left many members of the community feeling unsafe, unfairly targeted, confused about the law and the University’s responsibility under that law, and deeply saddened at both the national and local problems that had devastated so many young people. He stated that this had generated a call to action for the University to do better, and to make a real improvement in the safety and culture of the campus.

Interim President Coltrane stressed that the plan going forward would need to be comprehensive, sustained, and long-term. He added that it must dedicate focused attention, research, and resources to addressing sexual misconduct and violence, and that it would need to be informed by the work and perspectives of a broad group of campus and community constituents, as well as national best and promising practices. He explained that the University of Oregon would benefit from several complimentary and parallel efforts currently underway, and that it would need to consider all of the information and recommendations from these efforts in order to create a truly comprehensive plan. He stated that these efforts included: the University Senate's Task Force recommendations; the President's Review Panel and recommendations (which, he noted, were slated to be received in early December); the University-wide gap analysis of prevention efforts coordinated by Student Life; the White House Task Force Report and other national efforts; the U.S. Department of Education's guidance on Title IX and final rule changes to the Clery Act; and the Groves Report commissioned by Student Life in 2013.

He noted that the Task Force recommendations would inform this comprehensive plan and the community-wide effort to improve campus safety. He took a moment to thank the Task Force for all of the hard work they had devoted to developing the report, and stated that he was very pleased to see that many of the recommendations were already underway on campus. He stated that it was very clear that coordination and prevention efforts needed to establish confidential reporting, and added that the University was already exploring options for how to implement this. He noted that some of the suggestions called for a different organizational structure that he had not envisioned. He expressed his appreciation for the recommendations, as well as the Senate's sense of urgency; he added that he felt this urgency also, but that he thought the University needed to let the various reports come forward, and that this would happen all at the end of the current term.

He pointed out that some of the timelines that were included in the Task Force's report deadlines did not fit with the planning efforts that were underway. He reasoned that some of them would have to be adjusted in order to ensure that the University could have a coordinated, community-wide, and comprehensive effort. He stated that his plan was to share the recommendations of the Report (assuming the Senate adopted them) with the President's Review Panel, Student Life Division, and all of the units working collectively on these issues. He stated that by early December, when he would receive the President's Review Panel recommendations, he also expected to receive the gap study from Student Life, as well as additional local and national research data that was being compiled.  He stated that the University would take all of these reports and recommendations and make them available to the entire campus community. He speculated that these materials would be on the President's Website, and encouraged those present to anticipate further information in the future (probably during finals week).

Interim President Coltrane continued by noting that he was concerned about the need to engage more students, faculty, and staff in the discussion of specific proposals. He shared his belief that in order for the University to create a truly comprehensive plan to address sexual misconduct and violence, a set of larger fora would need to be held during January and February to provide opportunities for continued discussions.

He stated that it was clear from the large amount of strong opinions shared at the Task Force public forum that the University needed to engage the entire campus community before it moved ahead. He added that the University would hold meetings and discussions so that it could explore how the various proposals fit together, with the aim of identifying areas of overlap and possible consensus initiatives. He stated that his leadership team would advise him in order to determine how the University could best focus its energy and resources to make the greatest impact on the campus climate, and to fundamentally improve student safety. He stated that this would depend on building productive coalitions, and not on pitting different parts of the campus against one another. He added that the University needed to work together as a campus community to integrate these efforts and build relationships, and that this would only be possible if people did not play into stereotypes, marginalize particular groups of students or specific departments, or create barriers to prevention efforts and community-building. He emphasized that this was the University community's collective challenge and joint responsibility, and that everyone needed to work together to face this challenge and end sexual misconduct and violence. He stated that the University leadership had a deep gratitude for everyone who had invested time and energy into the shared goal of making the University of Oregon a safe and respectful place to learn. He added that he was grateful to the Senate Task Force for its work, and that he valued the perspective and expertise that it brought to the process.  He stated that the University leadership was ready to review the recommendations approved by the Senate as it worked on a comprehensive plan to address sexual misconduct and violence on campus. Closing his remarks, Interim President Coltrane thanked those present and invited questions.

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling & Testing Center) noted that Interim President Coltrane had spoken of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the sexual violence issue. He asked if Coltrane had given any thought to who should be leading this.

Interim President Coltrane asked Senator Espinoza what “leading” meant in this context.

Senator Espinoza stated that he meant leading in the sense that the leader would be responsible for making sure things happened.

Interim President Coltrane indicated that the Division of Student life was the unit with primary responsibility for the Student Conduct Code and its enforcement, Student Life, and FSL. He stated that the Task Force report showed (and that the Presidential Panel would show) that the problem of sexual violence touches all parts of campus. He added that he believed the University community could not go forward without having everyone involved. He stated that there was no single solution, but asserted that the Division of Student Life had to be central. He requested further questions.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he had a question about the new College and Careers building. He noted that he had been with the University for 20 years, and joked that he expected to die in PLC during the next earthquake. He stated that he was a little disturbed to see that the new College and Careers building—rather than being earmarked for classrooms and faculty offices—seemed to have a substantial part of it dedicated to new administrative offices for CAS. He stated that he was wondering how it was that new administrative offices had become a priority.

Interim President Coltrane stated that Senator Harbaugh's question was a good one. He shared that as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, he had been lobbying for buildings for the College of Arts and Sciences for quite some time. He noted that this building project was different from previous ones in that it actually had funding; he elaborated that the University had received a ten million dollar gift, and that other gifts were coming in. He added that the University still needed to raise an additional seven million dollars, which would require the state to approve bonding authority. He stated that it would be the new home for the offices of the College of Arts and Sciences, which are currently located in Friendly Hall. He stated that these offices were badly needed for the literature and language programs housed by Friendly Hall. He added that he was sorry to say that the Economics Department was not going to go into the building, but shared that there were plans for an additional building that would (potentially) be located across the street. He noted that, in addition to having a full floor of classrooms, the new CAS building would also house the Career Center and other academic unit coordinating efforts.

An unidentified speakercommented that the new CAS building would provide 30% of the classroom space needed on campus.

Interim President Coltrane agreed that it would add more classrooms, and stated that he did not think the University could build new buildings without putting classrooms in them. He added that the University needed more high-tech classrooms, in particular.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages)expressed her eagerness to talk about the Task Force recommendations, but added that she also wanted to lobby for making some of the offices back into classrooms in Friendly Hall.

Professor John Bonine (Law) asked President Coltrane if he could clarify what aforementioned national and local research he expected to be available by early December.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he expected to receive the President's Review Panel and the gap analysis from the Division of Student Life. He stated that the national reports were ongoing, and that there was an AAU effort with consultants and experts compiling campus climate data.

Professor Bonine asked Interim President Coltrane if he was able to submit a request with the AAU to make their planned surveys public so that they would be available to campus researchers to analyze. He stated that his comments were contingent on the validity of his assumption that the survey would be proprietary.

Interim President Coltranestated that he did not think it was proprietary, and that he believed the intent was to develop an instrument that would be validly and reliably used by various AAU schools, and subsequently distributed—and widely adopted—among all schools.

Professor Bonine stated that when he used the term "proprietary," he was trying to use a polite word for "secret." He stated that his understanding was that the instrument would not be widely available. He asked Interim President Coltrane if he would be willing to request that it not be secret, adding that good research requires open analysis.

Interim President Coltrane stated that according to the President of the AAU, Hunter Rawlings, the intent was to have the instrument be widely available, and for everyone to use it. 

Professor Bonineclarified that he meant to ask if the instrument would be available during its development—not simply after it had been selected.

Interim President Coltrane stated that it was his understanding that the development was already underway. He encouraged Professor Bonine to visit the Rutgers or the AAU websites to access it, and stated that he thought that they wanted as much input as possible.

Professor Bonine stated that he was under the impression that there was additional national and local research—other than the gap analysis, the Task Force, and the President’s Review Panel—that would be available by December. He stated that he now gathered that this was not what Interim President Coltrane intended to say.

Interim President Coltrane agreed that this was not what he meant.

Professor Bonine moved on to note that there were members of the Interim President's Administration who had criticized certain researchers on campus for having personal bias. He stated that he would like to know whether the Interim President would offer his opinion on whether it was appropriate to criticize faculty members for having bias in their research without some substantive basis for doing so.

Interim President Coltrane noted, as a sociologist who had worked on survey data, that the question of bias was ever-present. He stated that discussions that were aimed toward making a better survey looked to eliminate bias, but pointed out that it was never possible to totally eliminate bias—be it through sampling, through question wording, or through ordering. He stated that he did not think that members of the University should criticize each other, but added that discussions about bias were needed in order to do good survey work.

Professor Bonine agreed, but stated that his point was that the specific phrasing used by the Administration indicated that certain research would not be supported because the researcher had personal bias. He stated that this was his understanding of what was said.

Interim President Coltrane stated that he thought that Professor Bonine was incorrect in his understanding, but that he took his comment.

Professor Bonine asked Interim President Coltrane to comment on the propriety of the Administration’s actions, provided that his understanding of what transpired was correct. 

Interim President Coltrane stated that he did not think that the University should engage in any personal invective, or degradation people's research and motives.

Professor Bonine thanked Interim President Coltrane for his response.

Professor Carol Stabile (Journalism & Communication, Women’s & Gender Studies) stated that she wanted to follow up on Senator Espinoza's question about leadership. She noted that one of the things the Task Force was mindful of was that its charge did not involve just sexual assault—but sexual violence at large. She added that Student Life certainly played an important role, but that the University also had faculty and staff who were survivors. In light of this, she asked if there was some kind of supra-agency that might be able to coordinate the various aspects of a portfolio regarding sexual violence at large.

Interim President Coltrane stated that this was one of the things that the University would take under advisement. He added that he thought that having people charged to look at sexual violence at large was a good piece of advice, but that he was not sure exactly how it would be done yet. 

Professor Stabile thanked Interim President Coltrane for his response.

Interim President Coltrane, seeing no further questions, thanked those present and stated that he looked forward to the discussion.

 

4.   NEW BUSINESS

4.1       Presentation of the Report of the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support (Final); Senate Task Force (Carol Stabile and Randy Sullivan, Co-Chairs)

Senate President Kyr thanked Interim President Coltrane for his remarks and stated that the next item on the agenda would be the presentation of the report of the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support.  He added that in the two weeks leading up to the meeting, there had been a robust series of opportunities for conversation and feedback. He stated that the Senate would thus hear the recommendations—which been slightly revised—from Task Force Co-Chair, Carol Stabile. He took a moment to invite the members of the Task Force to stand and receive the gratitude of the Senate for their hard work on the report.

Senate President Kyr stated that because the Senate was receiving the report and literally presenting it to the President at the current meeting for action, that it did not need to actually vote on it. He stated that the Senate's first action point would therefore be on November 19th, when it would consider legislation for the creation of a standing committee. He added that the reason the Senate was not doing this at the current meeting was because the Senate needed to hear the upcoming presentation before legislation could be formulated. With that, he welcomed Professor Carol Stabile to present the Task Force’s revised recommendations.

Professor Carol Stabile (Journalism & Communication, Women’s & Gender Studies) stated that she would cover each of the revisions so that the Senate could see what had been changed, adding that afterwards, there would be a period of discussion.  She asked that comments be limited to two minutes in order to provide as many opportunities for contribution as possible.

She prefaced her presentation by sharing her belief that the work that had been started in the Task Force and the Senate would continue to unfold over the coming years.  She shared that, upon beginning her work with the Task Force, she realized that the process of creating the recommendations was transformative. She stated that it was common for people to forget that the process itself of talking through these issues and building connections with people was able to change the culture on campus. She asserted that no one knows how to change a culture in an easy, straightforward way, but that she was excited that the University had taken the first step toward doing so. She stated that she believed the University could figure out the path forward because it had so many people who were committed to the cause. 

Professor Stabile noted that the Task Force had received a lot of excellent feedback—both online, and in person. She added that some of the feedback had been questions and comments about language, and that the Task Force had tried to incorporate most of these into the revisions in order to clear up some of the confusion. She noted that Interim President Coltrane was correct in stating that some of the timelines were off, and that they would require adjustments. 

She stated that the first revision was to change the name of the standing committee (proposed in Recommendation 1.2) to "The Standing Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence” throughout the report. 

With regard to the centralized office proposed in Recommendation 1.1, Professor Stabile stated that the Task Force had adopted a language of consolidation: “A centralized office could consolidate as needed existing resources, including, but not limited to…”. She added that the Task Force wanted to stress the processual elements of this recommendation by adding additional resources that exist at the University. She noted, however, that the Task Force also wanted to make it known that the recommendation would be the subject of further discussion, research, and thought over the next three months, and that it wanted this process to be as inclusive as possible. 

Referring to the deadline at the end of Recommendation 1.1, she stated that the initial recommendation—to have an Interim VP appointed February 15th, 2015—had been replaced with the following: ”the Standing Committee will establish a working group to conduct research and create a proposal for the establishment of this office (report due March 1, 2015).” She stated that the Task Force wanted to have an opportunity to look at other organizational structures, and to examine what peer and stretch institutions were doing. She added that the Task Force wanted to have time to consider what kind of framework would optimize the organization of existing resources given the makeup, size, and culture of the campus. 

She stated that Recommendation 1.3 (“Engage with and Fund the UO Campus Climate Survey”) had been revised to include new language: "The Task Force encourages more research rather than less." She explained that the Task Force did not want people to think that they were not endorsing as much research as possible. Continuing with the revision, she read: "UO should consider using the climate survey currently being developed by the White House, but we must not use that as an excuse to delay our own campus climate surveys. We have significant resources on this campus." She explained that the Task Force wanted to make sure that people knew that it was not saying that there should be only one climate survey.  She further read: "The initial findings of the 'UO Sexual Violence and Institutional Behavior Campaign Survey,' moreover, are consistent with twenty years of research on campus sexual violence, as well as MIT's recent well-publicized campus climate survey. Indeed, MIT President praised the survey: 'I am confident that, with this shared understanding and armed with this new data, the MIT community will find a path to significant positive change.' The Task Force urges UO leaders to similarly support the campus climate survey...”.  Professor Stabile pointed out that a footnote had also been changed regarding the AAU survey. She elaborated that this change stated that if the data and the instrument of a survey were proprietary, then the Task Force would urge the University not to sign on to it.

Professor Stabile stated that the final addition to Recommendation 1.3 read: "The Task Force would like to clarify that Dr. Freyd has volunteered her time and labor for work on the 'UO Sexual Violence and Institutionalized Behavior Campaign Survey.' She has not asked for compensation from the university for the time she has spent on that survey or will devote to coming surveys." She explained that the Task Force had noticed in the feedback that there was a lot of confusion on this issue, and that people thought that a member of the Task Force was benefitting from the recommendations. She stated that Dr. Freyd had not been compensated for the labor that she had devoted to the project, and that she would not be compensated for her labor in the future.

Professor Stabile stated that Recommendation 1.4 had been reworded, because people were unsure of what the word "empower" meant in this context. She explained that the language was modified to read: "1.4: Ask the President and the Board to instruct the Athletics Department's senior leadership to cooperate with, and fully participate in, the Senate Intercollegiate Athletics Committee’s efforts to address sexual violence issues as they pertain to athletics."

She stated that Recommendation 1.5, regarding Fraternity and Sorority Life, had been modified to read: "The Task Force was impressed with feedback provided by members of the FSL community at our public meeting. As one member put it, 'We are aggressively committed to fighting sexual assault.' There is well-documented potential for FSL and its members to become leaders in the effort to combat sexual violence. We make the following recommendations in the interest of forging partnerships with FSL in order to create protective spaces and to help design and implement FSL-specific prevention efforts. However, research shows that FSL—both locally and nationally—has serious problems with sexual violence."

She added that Recommendation 1.5 had been further revised to read: "The Task Force heard from fraternity/sorority members at the Open Forum on November 3 that they are 'aggressively committed to changing the culture at UO.' They vowed to bring in programs, have approved a FSL Sexual Assault Task Force with at least one member from each fraternity and sorority chapter, and plan to have workshops in each chapter each term taught by experts, among other plans. One speaker stressed that members of fraternities and sororities 'understand the gravity of the situation' and another summarized that 'The FSL community is passionate about changing the UO culture.' In the end, the Task Force was impressed when one spokesperson concluded, 'We hope that by unifying with the University Senate and the Administration we can drive the change to become a leader.' That is also the desire of the Task Force as it makes the following recommendations concerning FSL."

Professor Stabile stated that the next revision occurred in Recommendation 1.5.2 ("Assign Research and Analysis of FSL to the Senate Standing Committee's FSL Working Group"). She explained that the Task Force had encountered a great deal of difficulty finding data about FSL, and that this recommendation had come out of that concern. She stated that now, “the Task Force also recommends the use of qualitative approaches to studying FSL culture on our campus.  If we are to effectively create interventions, educational programs, and ultimately change the cultures that facilitate sexual violence, we need to develop research-based understandings of what FSL is, what it does (both positively and negatively), and what it might yet become on our campus."

Continuing, Professor Stabile noted that Recommendation 1.5.3 had been changed such that there would be two FSL representatives to the Senate Standing Committee's FSL Working Group.

She stated that the Task Force had changed the "mandatory course" language in Recommendation 2.1 to read: "the Task Force will be working on proposals for courses and not necessarily a single mandatory course, although that option will be explored and discussed." She noted that the Task Force had also added: "Recognizing that the process of discussing these courses with stakeholders will be critical to the content and structure of the courses themselves, the working group on mandatory courses will begin holding open meetings to discuss these issues in January 2015." She stated that she thought the mandatory course was something that people were the most passionate about from the beginning, but that it was also one of the issues that was going to be the most controversial. She stated that the Task Force thought that generating more conversation about what the course might look like would be beneficial.

Professor Stabile noted that in Recommendation 2.2.1—which calls for additional staff for the Sexual Wellness Advocacy Team (SWAT)—the following language was added: “To be effective, the SWAT program must be expanded to include multiple sessions targeted to specific audiences including, but not limited to: American English Institute students, ASUO student programs, band, club sports, forensics, fraternity and sorority members, international students, student athletes, et al."

She stated that Recommendation 2.2.2, "Expand Empowerment-Based Women's Self-Defense Training," had also been revised to include additional language: "The Task Force emphasizes that empowerment-based self-defense classes explicitly attribute assault to perpetrators and not to victims.  In contrast with other forms of risk reduction advice (e.g. avoiding public spaces, avoiding alcohol, traveling with a buddy, etc.) which constrain women's actions, women's self-defense training can empower women's range of actions." She added that Professor Jocelyn Hollander had copies of an excellent FAQ on women's self-defense, which was available to anyone who might be interested.

Still referring to Recommendation 2.2.2, Professor Stabile stated that the Task Force was also reminded to add LGBTQ students to workshops that would be targeted to specific groups. The recommendation had been changed to read: "Specifically, we recommend that funds be devoted to make the existing women's self-defense class in Physical Education available to more students and to offer regular, brief workshops to specific student groups (e.g., LGBTQ students, new students, students studying abroad, or international students)."

She stated that under Recommendation 2.3, “Title IX Education and Training,” the need for mandatory trainings would far exceed the University's current capacity. She stated that the Task Force wanted to emphasize that one of the reasons it was calling for staff increases was that the type of training programs it recommended would be massive undertakings. She added that they would require a lot of time spent training people and preparing materials, and the Task Force wanted to add language to make it clear why it was requesting additional staff positions.

Professor Stabile noted that Recommendation 2.3.2 had been changed such that the effective Title IX training required for UO employees would include training specifically designed for graduate teaching fellows.

She stated that Recommendation 2.4 had undergone a language addition, because people were upset that it called for "a pamphlet." She stated that the section had been changed to clarify that the materials would be available on the website, and that people could print them as a downloadable PDF. She added that further language was inserted to propose a menu item on sexual violence on the "About UO" main menu, and to suggest that it include the PDF and other resources.

Professor Stabile continued that Recommendation 2.5—which calls on the University to coordinate programming and publicity aimed at sexual violence prevention—had been modified, as well. She stated that the Task Force wanted to emphasize that it felt like this would be a temporary measure until there was a centralized office, so it added language to that effect. She added that the Task Force also clarified that the responsibility for programming and publicity would be given to the Director of Sexual Violence Prevention and Education.

She stated that Recommendation 3.4, “Provide the Ombuds Office with Confidentiality,” had been changed to provide a definition of an Ombudsperson, because many students did not understand what an Ombuds Office does.

She explained that for Recommendation 3.5 (“Reconvene the Presidential Task Force on Alcohol and Other Drug Use”), the Task Force wanted to make sure that it was avoiding language throughout that was victim-blaming. She elaborated that the Task Force had changed the recommendation to emphasize that perpetrators use alcohol and other drugs as tools to facilitate sexual assault, and that perpetrators often do not drink (or do not drink very much). She encouraged anyone who had not yet read the Task Force’s report to do so, adding that it was a very important report, and that it made her think very differently about the campus. She continued that the Task Force had also noticed that there were a lot of recommendations in the report that had not yet been implemented, and that it wanted to make sure that it pointed the administration in the right direction. With that, Professor Stabile called for questions and indicated that she might call on her Task Force colleagues to answer questions that were outside of her area.

An unidentified speaker mentioned that it was difficult to get quantitative data on FSL sanctions, and asked Professor Stabile if she could elaborate on why that might be. The speaker added that it was his understanding that any FSL sanctions would go through the administration.

Professor Stabile stated that it was her understanding that this office had been through a number of transitions, and noted that the Task Force was told that data did not exist on things like social probation and suspension.  She added that she found the lack of data puzzling, because the social media site, GreekRank, made it apparent which fraternities had been on social probation. She stated that the Task Force also had questions about sanctions such as: “Who oversees the sanctions?” and, “What do you have to do get taken off of social probation?” She stated that these were that kinds of questions the Task Force could not find answers for.

The unidentified speaker asked if it was wrong to think that FSL sanctions needed to be done in coordination with the University Administration.

Professor Stabile asked Sandy Weintraub, Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards, to comment.

Sandy Weintraub (Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards) confirmed that sanctions were done in coordination with the administration. He added that FSL was under new direction (having recently moved to the Dean of Students Office) and that this had improved the coordination between the staff that help to administrate Fraternity and Sorority Life and the Dean of Students Office, where Student Conduct is located.  He stated that since August, there had been a lot of steps taken to help coordinate that effort in order to make it more consistent, but that there were still some deficiencies. He added that the University was currently implementing a system in which there was a clear coordination between Student Life and Dean of Students Office Administration, and the sanctions that are done both nationally and within FSL staff.

Professor Stabile stated that she felt that there still needed to be more deliberation on the question of sanctions, who oversees them, and how publicized they are. She added that information about sanctions seemed to be public safety information that students should have.

A second unidentified speaker, referring to recommendation 2.5, asked if the Director of Sexual Violence Prevention and Education was a position that currently exists.

Professor Stabile confirmed that the position currently exists.

Rita Radostitz (Planning, Public Policy and Management) stated that she had a question about the dollar figures. She stated that quite a few of the recommendations indicated that they had dollar figures, but did not list them.  She asked when, and how, the Task Force would be evaluating what all of the recommendations were going to cost. She also asked what the University would be putting aside in order to designate resources for the recommendations.

Professor Stabilestated that there were lots of things the University could put aside in the interest of making women safe. She added that the Task Force was aware of not putting a price tag on the big item: centralizing resources. She explained that part of this was because the Task Force still needed to think about what that office might look like. She added that the revised deadline for a price tag on centralizing resources was March 1st. She stated that by that time, the working group assigned to that task would have reviewed what other campuses are doing, and generated some ideas. She stated that there would also have to be many conversations with a range of different people about the Task Force's expectations and what it could actually do. She commented that her experiences with donors at the University of Pittsburgh had given her some insight in regards to the current capital campaign at the UO. She relayed that a donor to the Women’s and Gender Studies program at the University of Pittsburgh had been motivated by her experience as a victim of sexual assault when she was an undergraduate. She added that the donor had said that Women's Studies saved her life. Professor Stabile stated that she thought that the University was missing an opportunity if it did not think about the fact that so many of its alumni were survivors of sexual violence, and that they had a stake in making the campus safe for women. She stated that she thought that the University needed to be thinking about people who might be interested in funding efforts to reduce—and ultimately end—sexual violence.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that—focusing only on rape and attempted rape—400 students per year at the University were victims. He added that President Coltrane had said that one was too many. He posed the rhetorical question of how much it would cost to bring the number to zero. He stated that if the University intended to spend at least ten thousand dollars on prevention for each victim of sexual assault, that it would require four million dollars. He stated the one hundred thousand dollars per victim would require forty million dollars total. He questioned thinking that even a million dollars was spending too much money for 400 women per year. He added that it seemed that the University should be spending a few million per year, but that it should calculate it by the number of women it was trying to prevent ever being assaulted.

Senator Regina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she wanted to second the point.  She asserted that not only were there possible resources that hadn’t been investigated, but also that the University had been neglecting to pay the cost of doing business by: not centralizing its efforts; by not prioritizing, foregrounding, and shining a halogen lamp on the issue; and by not having “the hard conversations,” which—despite their potential to be embarrassing, stigmatizing, or hurtful—are necessary, nonetheless. She stated that by drawing a merciful veil over it, the University had not gotten to a very bad place. She continued that this had the galvanizing effect of generating all the work done by the Task Force. She asserted that the University was only a university because of students and faculty, and that if it was not spending the money required to keep its students safe, then it had abdicated its moral obligation. She stated that it was not an issue of "How much is too much?" or, "What will make Scott's eyes bulge out?" but, "What will really have an effect in shifting the culture considerably?” She stated that zero was not the target, because humans were imperfect, but added that the University should be a place where people are aware and ashamed of being violent, rather than aware and ashamed of having someone work violence on them.

Andrew Lubash (Student Senator) stated that he had a question about recommendation 1.5.1, the suspension on the expansion of FSL. He stated that he knew it was one of the more controversial recommendations, and asked if the Task Force had had any conversations with the Division of Student Life and the houses that were planning on coming to the University that did not yet have charters. He stated that he could think of two sororities and two fraternities that were already planning on coming, and asked whether or not they would be subjected to this suspension.

Professor Stabile stated that the issue had been discussed, and that it was something that would require further exploration. She stated that it was uncertain whether the suspension would mean preventing the expansion of the chapters that were already underway, or if it would be about a percentage cap. She added that there needed to be more conversations with FSL. She stated that the more the University could talk candidly about the problems that FSL has, the closer it could get to figuring out what kinds of FSL-specific prevention programs might be needed before expansion should occur.

Professor Stabile took a moment to follow up on Senator Psaki's comment. She stated that the University had been presented with a very unique opportunity, because the Task Force brought together a lot of people who typically did not work together. She stated that it prompted discussion among individuals involved with prevention about their needs for assessment, and that it got researchers thinking about projects that they might be able to do with people in Student Life. She added that it was very exciting and interesting, because no one really knows with any certainty what will work.  She stated that a review of the prevention literature, and even bystander interventions, got results that were very mixed. She emphasized that the University had a chance to innovate, and to approach the issue very deliberately as scholars, practitioners, and first responders.

Whitney Logue stated that she had been a peer educator with the Sexual Wellness Advocacy Team for four years.  She acknowledged the Task Force’s commitment to prevention of sexual violence, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct, but stated that she wished to know how recommendations like self-defense would affect prevention directly.  She noted that peer education and consent education deal directly with preventing perpetrative behavior. She also asked how self-defense would affect accountability on campus.

Professor Stabile asked Professor Jocelyn Hollander to comment.

Professor Hollander (Sociology) started off by stating that there was a lot of confusion about the self-defense recommendation. She stated that there was a belief that preventing sexual violence meant focusing only on perpetrators. She acknowledged that the Task Force believed that it was crucially important to focus on perpetrators and say, "Perpetrators should stop their behavior." However, she stated that as a sociologist, she knew that this change was not going to happen overnight, and that it would never be perfect. She added that there would always be perpetrators—even if the University did the best kind of perpetrator prevention it could. She stated that the Task Force was recommending that, in addition to the other perpetrator-focused prevention strategies, the University also provide more self-defense training for women on campus. She stated that self-defense training—which she acknowledged was the subject of her research—had actually been shown to be effective in preventing and interrupting sexual violence. She stated that this was in contrast to other prevention strategies, for which the results were quite mixed. She emphasized that this was not an "either,or" issue, but a "both, and." She stated that it was her hope that the self-defense training was a short-term measure, and that eventually, the topic of her research would go away. She added that until that time comes, self-defense training would be something that could actually help people on the campus immediately, and did not require having to wait for the entire culture to change.

Professor Stabile added that people tend to forget that women's self-defense training also has the transformative potential to change women's relationships with spaces, their own body, and the world around them. She reiterated that this was not an "either, or" issue, and that self-defense was just one helpful tool in the menu of tools that the Task Force was putting together. She added that it was something that was also already underway on campus, and that the Task Force thought it was wise to strengthen the programs on campus that are known to have efficacy.

An unidentified speaker stated that he was also a member of the Sexual Wellness Advocacy Team, and that while he was not against the self-defense trainings, he thought it was more important to be teaching about consent, since a portion of the Conduct Code about sexual assault involved explicit consent. He stated that this was something that the Sexual Wellness Advocacy taught that self-defense training did not.

Professor Stabile stated that she was not sure that the last comment was correct, but that it was not an "either, or" issue. She stated that the Task Force was arguing that both of those programs needed to be better-supported and have better resources, because there was no magic bullet. She reiterated that the solution was not going to be SWAT alone, or women's self-defense alone, or any one thing. She stated that the Task Force thought that the more opportunities students had to encounter messaging and various forms of training, the better off they were going to be. She stated that for some people, women's self-defense was going to be something that was really helpful, and that for other people, it was going to be SWAT. She reiterated again that it was not an "either,or" issue, but rather a question of, "How do we strengthen both at once?"

The unidentified speaker agreed with Carol Stabile, but stated that he was hoping that there would be a way that SWAT could have a bigger presence on campus, since there was also a big emphasis on inclusivity.

Professor Stabile suggested that she could help facilitate a conversation with the Standing Committee and talk about ways in which the University might be able to expand SWAT. She added that there had already been conversations about ways that the Task Force could better assess SWAT and other programs on campus that were in the mix, too.

Ayasha Benninghoven introduced herself and noted that she was also in SWAT. She stated that her question was also about women's self-defense. She added that she had taken a self-defense class and found it very useful, but that she worried that—given the University of Oregon’s focus on inclusivity—calling something “women's self-defense” did not take into account that there are also male-identified survivors, as well as survivors of all different sexual orientations and genders. She reiterated that she thought women's self-defense was important, but that she believed that this importance extended to other people, as well.

Professor Stabile stated that she knew how problematic the additive approach could be in having a list of people to whom the self-defense courses were specifically targeted. She asked Professor Hollander if she had anything she wanted to add.

Professor Hollander stated that in the P.E. Department, where she was currently helping co-teach a self-defense class, there were a number of self-defense classes that were available—many of which, she understood, were largely populated by male students. She stated that the women's self-defense class was the only one that was targeted towards women. She stated that the teacher of the class, Ryan Kelly, and she had talked a lot about developing specific classes for male survivors and men who were interested in self-defense.  She stated that this was something that was on the horizon but had not been implemented yet, and was thus left out of the Report.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he wanted to say something about the cost of the proposals, which he agreed was substantial. He stated that the cost of not doing something was also very large. He stated that part of this cost was the economic damage to the victims—which was extremely large—and part was just the financial cost, to the University, of not doing anything. He added that he was reminded of statements he had received from the Public Records Office regarding UO's legal billings. He stated that in the last month, the University had spent about 70 thousand dollars on lawyers from the Harrang Long Gary Rudnick Law Firm, and that he assumed that this was partly to deal with the aftermath of the basketball rape allegations. He stated that the incident was going to cost the University millions of dollars to deal with, and asserted that anything the University could do to reduce the potential for that happening again was a very good investment. He stated that he thought that it was important to not see the proposals just as expenses.

Naomi Wright introduced herself as an undergraduate student. She pointed out that the 400-victim figure from the Campus Climate Survey was large, but that it was potentially larger if one considered the students that were not able to respond to the survey because they no longer attended the University as a result of their experience. She stated that perhaps in an insensitive way, this could be interpreted as dollars that were not going to the University, and as a cost of the violence that was going on.

Warren Light (Director of the Wesley Center)stated that as far as costs were concerned, another point that had not been discussed was the fact that there was a disproportionate investment in male students. He stated that, per capita—including the Athletics Department—there was a tremendous investment in male students that was not equal to the investment in female students. He added that he thought that people needed to start looking at the issue in a perspective that accounted for this discrepancy.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that as he listened to the previous comments about cost, it occurred to him that there seemed to be an underlying feeling that it would be taking money away from education, which is the University's mission. He asserted that it was the job of the University to educate the whole student—including the moral growth of students. He stated that the students were watching their teachers to learn their values, and asked what would be taught by not investing in these issues.

Rita Radostitz (Planning, Public Policy, and Management) stated that she wanted to clarify that she was not, in any way, intending to say, "No, we shouldn't spend this money." She added that she was asking about money in order to get a sense of how costly the most expensive recommendation (i.e., to create an office to centralize resources) would be. She stated that this recommendation was not designed specifically as a service to students, and that it was designed to create administrators. She acknowledged the importance of the recommendation, and stated that she was just curious about it. She reiterated that she was not criticizing it. 

Professor Stabile stated that she wanted to intervene, and asserted that Radostitz's comment did criticize the recommendation by suggesting that its purpose was to create additional administration rather than to serve students. She added that there were some comments in the feedback that used the term "bloat." She dismissed this, indicating that the scope of the problem demanded that the management of the centralized office be someone’s full-time job. She added that this would also be something that had the potential to create institutional research and generate scholarship, and that added that, sadly, there was going to be more and more grant money to study this problem in years to come. She stated that she wished that it was not true, but asserted that there was a sexual assault industry that was growing up around this issue that would—in a crass, materialist sense—benefit the University in many ways that were not just administrative. She added that, as someone who had done a lot of administrative work, she was very angry about the critical language; she noted that there was a great deal of work that goes on at an institution that faculty is unable to do. She stated that the scope of that problem was such that, unless it was someone's job specific job, it was not going to get done. She stated that she was tired of seeing issues having to do with women shunted off the agenda under the assumption that another woman would pick it up as part of her already full portfolio. She urged that this was not the way to proceed. She stated that the University was facing a huge problem, and that it needed to be serious and devote the resources necessary to deal with it.

Naomi Wright observed that many of the recommendations had to do with beginning things, or beefing things up, and asked if the University could do some sort of before-and-after testing to measure the efficacy of the programs, and to analyze whether they should continue to be funded in the future. She added that this might be difficult to do.

Professor Stabile stated that the issue had come up to have an assessment plan before the University undertook expansions or new efforts. She stated that she thought it was an exciting prospect for research to be done on the problems that the University was confronting, as it would better equip the University to create effective prevention efforts. She added that having all of the stakeholders at the table was amazing, and stated that she thought there were going to be really interesting research projects and questions that would come up over the next few months.

Professor Bonine stated that he had looked at some of the news releases for MIT, Harvard, and other institutions, and that these places were committing a lot more money to hiring staff than UO could even imagine. He stated that other institutions were really investing in this issue, and that it seemed to him that for UO to invest in this issue would be to play catch-up. He asserted that UO was certainly not investing to become a leader, and added that he thought UO should be a leader.

Professor Stabile thanked those present and turned the podium over to Senate President Kyr.

Senate President Kyr thanked Carol Stabile for the time and effort she had devoted as Co-Chair of the Task Force. He also thanked its other Co-Chair, Randy Sullivan, and the rest of the Task Force.

4.3       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 5; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Senate President Kyr stated that next on the agenda was the motion: Proposed Revision to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct. He stated that the Senate would begin with Part 3 of the motion, and noted that the sponsor of the motion was Professor John Bonine.

Professor John Bonine (Law) stated that he wanted to start with Part 5 and then move to Parts 6, 7, 8, 3, and 9. He explained that he believed that Part 3 could lead to longer discussion, and that many of the other parts would be easier to deal with. He asked if the Senate could move Part 5 of the motion, and address Part 3 later in the meeting.

Senate President Kyr approved of beginning with Part 5, and added that he wanted everyone to know that if they did not get through all six of the motions, they would certainly address them toward the beginning of the agenda at the next meeting. He stated that these were very important motions, and that they deserved the full attention of the Senate.

Professor Bonine asked that reading the "whereas" clause be skipped, because it was identical for every motion.

Senate President Kyr stated that he believed it was possible to do this since the Senate was not actually voting on the "whereas" clause, but on the motion itself. He reminded Professor Bonine that he would need to secure a second to do so.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan( Chemistry) offered a second.

Professor Bonine stated that the current Student Conduct Code refers to the "health, safety and well-being of the community," and that it was unclear if "the community" in this instance applied only to people in the University community, or if it included people beyond it. He stated that the suggested change was simply to use "anyone" instead of “the community.” He stated that the motion also proposed to add the words "including sexual assault" so that it would read: "Academic dishonesty, and violations affecting the health, safety and well-being of anyone, including sexual assault, are deemed the most severe." He stated that this language had already been vetted extensively with Sandy Weintraub of Student Life, and that this was reflected in the green text: "Sandy Weintraub agrees with this change and says that it reflects current practice." He added that these changes would simply update the Code to reflect what is already done.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) suggested that "anyone" be placed at the end, and then that "including sexual assault" be placed after "violations."

Senate President Kyrasked Senator Ellis if she wished to make a motion to amend.

Professor Bonine stated that he was fine with the change.

Senator Ellis made a motion to amend the wording so that "including sexual assault" followed "violations" (i.e., “Academic dishonesty and violations, including sexual assault, affecting the health, safety and well-being of anyone, are deemed the most severe...")

Senate President Kyr opened the floor for discussion. Hearing none, he called a voice vote. The motion to amend carried unanimously.  Moving back to discussion of the motion, Senate President Kyr recognized Senator John Davidson.

Senator John Davidson (Political Science) asked if "anyone" would mean, for instance, that a person accused of resisting arrest while attending a protest in New York City would come under the coverage of this provision.

There was an inaudible response from Professor Bonine, to which Senator Davidson replied that the hypothetical person had presumably hurt the officer in this case. He asked if it was true that the Code would not be limited to the University community.

Professor Bonine stated that it was not the act of resisting arrest, but rather the act of hurting of someone, that was important.  He stated that the Code would include students hurting people—both sexually, and violently—anywhere in the world. He added that he believed that if an act of violence happened because of a student, then it would be appropriate to get involved in the Student Conduct Process regardless of where it occurred. He stated that the Code would simply say that students are responsible for behavior that affects the health, safety, and well-being of other people—and that this would not be limited to the University community. He added that having restrictions (e.g., “only if you assault somebody on the campus") made no sense to him. He stated that “community" itself was a broad but undefined term, and that it made sense to make it more clear.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senate Vice-President Sullivan.

Senate Vice President Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the Senate was re-hashing old issues, noting that it had already passed a policy that expanded jurisdiction. He stated that all this motion was saying was that Student Life reserves the option to move to these sanctions. He reiterated that the jurisdiction was already there, and asked that the Senate not argue about jurisdiction.

Senate President Kyr called for further comments and questions. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote. The motion carried with one vote opposed.

4.4       Motion (Legislation): Proposed Revisions to Student Conduct Code Dealing with Sexual Misconduct, Part 6; John Bonine, Professor (Law) and Caroline Forell, Professor (Law)

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate would move on to Part 6 of the motion, and asked Professor Bonine if he would like to move it.

Professor Bonine moved the motion.

Senate President Kyr requested a second. The motion was seconded by an unidentified senator, and Senate President Kyr invited Professor Bonine to provide background.

Professor Bonine stated that this motion also dealt with something that was already in practice but had not yet been written into the Code, and that he and Professor Forell had decided that this should be done. He stated that the purpose of the motion was to provide an element of equality by affording victims of assault the same accommodations and support in the Student Conduct Process that were provided to the accused. He stated that this was also recommended in the Dear Colleague Letter of May 2011. He proposed that the Code be amended to include the language: "Complainants—particularly in cases involving sexual misconduct—should often be accorded certain accommodations, as provided below." He stated that these accommodations were standard things that the person accused already had.  Specifically, "a student accusing another student […] can expect the following procedural accommodations: "(a) To be allowed reasonable time to prepare for any participation in the conference; (b) To be accorded the opportunity to offer a relevant response to any assertions made; (c) To propose relevant witnesses and submit suggested questions to the Director; (d) To be assured of confidentiality, in accordance with the terms of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Oregon law; (e) To request that any person conducting a disciplinary conference be disqualified on the ground of personal bias; (f) To be protected against retaliation for filing a complaint; (g) To have an advisor of their choice present at the conference provided that the advisor's schedule does not unreasonably delay the proceeding. The Director shall determine what constitutes an 'unreasonable' delay; (h) Upon request in the case of sexual misconduct, to be present in a separate room instead of in the same room as the accused student."

Professor Bonine stated that these provisions—except for the ones that are specific to the accused—are simply the same rights that already exist for a person who is accused. He added that Sandy Weintraub agreed that when cases involved hearings, these rights were already practiced. Professor Bonine pointed out that these rights would now involve non-hearings, as well.

Senate President Kyr opened the floor to discussion and comments. He recognized Senator Ellis.

Senator Ellis stated that she was puzzled by the word "often" in the first sentence. She stated that she did not know why it was there.

Professor Bonine stated that he believed it was there in order to make it clear that accommodations were not mandatory in all instances.

Senate President Kyr asked if Professor Bonine had said "offer" was the word in question.

Professor Bonine clarified that the word in question was "often," as it appeared in: "Complainants should often be accorded certain accommodations." He stated that it was intended to mean that people would not always get every accommodation, because they would not be appropriate in some instances.

Sandy Weintraub (Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards) agreed with Professor Bonine. He stated, as background, that the whole section was a reaction to the fact that all of these rights were enumerated for the accused. He reiterated that these were basically the exact same rights given to the accused—almost verbatim. He added that he thought the word "often" allowed for the appropriateness in each particular case to be considered. He added that Student Conduct cases can be peculiar, and that they often needed different things. He stated again that the idea behind the section was equity—to make sure that the complainant and the accused have the exact same rights in the process when it is appropriate.

Professor Bonine stated that this was the only place "often" was used, and that he was happy to remove it. He suggested that it be replaced by: "should be accorded certain accommodations, such as..." He asked if he could to move to have the wording changed.

Senate President Kyr stated that he could.

Professor Bonine moved to remove the word "often."

Senate President Kyr requested a second, which was received. He opened the motion for discussion. None followed, and he called a vote. The motion carried unanimously, and Senate President Kyr returned the discussion to the main motion.

An unidentified speaker expressed curiosity regarding the term "advisor."  He asked if there were any limitations regarding it, and if an advisor could actually speak on behalf of the respondent.

Sandy Weintraub stated that, in the interest of time, he did not want to linger on this topic. He stated that an advisor could be any person of the accused or complainant's choosing. He added that there had been a shift to using administrative conferences rather than offering a choice between an administrative conference and a panel hearing. He stated that there were less enumerated, codified rights about what an administrative conference was. He stated that in a panel hearing, which often had the appearance of a trial, it was more important to have very specific roles for an advisor so that he or she would not take over the entire proceeding. He explained that an administrative conference was literally a meeting in an office—usually between two to four people—that was a lot easier to regulate. He added that it was also a lot easier to have a discussion in which an advisor was allowed to speak. He stated that it was up to the discretion of the administrator to decide when an advisor was being disruptive to the process, as well. He acknowledged that it was rather vague, but stated that the code regarding administrative conferences was something that needed to be further developed before the Board of Trustees looked at it again.

There was an inaudible question, to which Sandy Weintraub responded that either side was welcome to have an advisor of their choosing.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Espinoza.

Senator David Espinoza (Counseling & Testing Center) stated that, in section 6g, "advisor" was spelled two different ways.  He moved for consistent spelling in 6g.

Senate President Kyr stated that he thought this could be a friendly amendment. No one objected, and Senator Espinoza's amendment was accepted. Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Koopman.

Senator Colin Koopman (Humanities) stated that he thought "shall," rather than "should," would be more clear in the bottom sentence of the top paragraph (i.e., “Complainants shall be accorded certain accommodations…). He explained that he thought a student reading the Code might think that they should get accommodations, and that this did not mean that they would, in fact, get them. He added that if this was the intention, it would make the clause between the commas unnecessary. He also asked if all complainants would get these accommodations, adding that while he liked the idea of explicitly stating that it was for complainants in cases of sexual misconduct, it seemed that there was no administrative reason to include this. He posited that it would only create confusion.

Professor Bonine stated that the intention was—in all of the modifications—to specifically address sexual misconduct. He added that he was happy to go with "shall" versus "should."

Senate President Kyr stated that someone would need to make the amendment. Senator Koopman moved to replace "shall" with "should." The motion was seconded, and the amendment was put up for discussion. Senate President Kyr recognized University Ombudsperson, Bruce MacAllister.

Bruce MacAllister (University Ombudsperson) stated that he was concerned about changing the world "should" to "shall," because “shall” was traditionally interpreted as mandatory language. He stated that the intent of using "should" was to afford complainants whatever accommodations they deemed were appropriate (working within the discretion with the Student Conduct Code Administrators).  He stated that using "shall" would result in mandatory accommodations whether the complainant felt that it was appropriate to their circumstance or not. He added that he just wanted people to be aware that this was how “shall” would be interpreted.

Senate President Kyr requested a response from the maker of the motion.

Professor Bonine stated that he didn’t think it was a problem, because all of the accommodations were already discretionary, except for one.  He pointed out, for example, that to be “allowed reasonable time” did not mean that the time would be granted if it was not reasonable. He added that he believed the word "shall” should be used in place of "should.”

Senate President Kyr requested further discussion.

Tim Hicks (Director of UO Conflict & Dispute Resolution Graduate Program) asked if there was any concern that this would not parallel the rights accorded to the accused.

Senator Koopman responded that rules currently read that "students accused can expect the following procedural protections." He stated that he thought that this was closer to the intended meaning of "shall" than "should."

Sheryl Eyster (Associate Dean of Students) stated, with regards to the advisor, that it was her understanding that ASUO legal services gave free service and legal advice to any kind of accused student. She noted that same right for services was not given to a complainant. She stated that she thought this was a huge gap regarding equity in the process.

Professor Bonine clarified that Sheryl Eyster's comment would be the subject of Motion 9.

Senate President Kyr recognized Rita Radostitz.

Rita Radostitz (Planning, Public Policy and Management) asked if the "reasonable amount of time" intersected with Title IX's requirement that matters be handled within a certain time period. She asked if "reasonable" was defined anywhere.

Professor Bonine stated that "reasonable," in this case, did not apply to time, but to accommodations. He stated that the word itself was not defined, but that reasonable meant “what a reasonable person would assume.” He added that there was another motion coming up on the question of how long Student Conduct could take before it actually began the process. He asked that remaining speakers consider whether each point of debate was worth the time, given that there were other motions to get through, and asked those present to consider whether the Senate might want to move to a vote.

Senate President Kyr recognized Senator Hyatt.

Senator Mary Ann Hyatt (Law) stated that it did not make sense to her to retain the clause: "particularly in cases involving sexual misconduct." She explained that the language "complainants shall be accorded certain accommodations," was not limited to a particular group. She moved to remove the clause so that the language would read: "Complainants shall be accorded certain accommodations..."

Senate President Kyr requested further comments and questions.

Professor Bonine observed that Senator Hyatt's change had not drawn any opposition.

Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote. Senator Koopman's amendment carried unanimously, and the Senate moved back to the main motion. Seeing no further comments or questions, he called a voice vote on the main motion, which also carried unanimously.

 

8.              OTHER BUSINESS

8.1       Distinguished Service Award: Executive Session

Senate President Kyr, noting the time, indicated that the Executive Session was scheduled to begin. He stated that the discussion on the Student Conduct Code could be extended if it was the will of the Senate.

Professor Bonine stated that he thought extending the time might be a mistake, because there was an important faculty union meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m.

Senate President Kyr offered his assurance that the Senate was committed to continuing with Professor Bonine's motions on November 19th at the start of the meeting.

Professor Bonine noted that the Senate had covered two of the motions, and that there were five to go. 

Senate President Kyr stated that by his count, there were just four motions that remained to be addressed. He asked that the Senate thank John Bonine and Caroline Forell for all of their work on the motions. He stated that the Senate would be going into an Executive Session, which meant that all those who were not Senators have to leave the room. He invited the non-Senators to come to the next meeting for further discussion, and thanked them for their participation.

 

9.   ADJOURNMENT

Senate President Kyrcalled the November 5, 2014 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Syndicate content