Minutes

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for February 9, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 9 February 2011

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

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

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

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

1. CALL TO ORDER

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

1.1 Approval of the Minutes.

Minutes of the 12 January 2011 regular meeting of the senate

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

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere

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

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

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

Seeing no further questions regarding the New Partnership, President Lariviere moved on to his next topic of discussion which was the DPS (Department of Public Safety) Police issue. This topic was previously discussed at the January Senate meeting and was a proposal from the Oregon University System that will affect the University of Oregon if passed. President Lariviere believes there are two main issues, the first being a transition from DPS’s current non-sworn public safety agency to a fully sworn state-certified police department. The second issue deals with the armament of those police officers. President Lariviere stated that he had a conservative outlook on arming police officers and would have to engage in a robust discussion amongst students, faculty, and staff before taking a firm position on the matter. After speaking with several members of student affairs, resident advisors, and other housing staff, the president believed there are solid arguments in favor of transitioning DPS to a fully sworn state-certified police department. DPS often acts as an intermediary between the EPD (Eugene Police Department) and this current relationship lengthens response time to criminal acts committed on campus.

President Lariviere opened the floor for questions, and seeing none, he informed the Senate of an upcoming reception in the Jaqua Academic Center on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:00PM. The purpose of the reception was to inform and prepare sophomore and junior students to apply for scholarships programs including the Marshall, Rhodes, and Goldwater scholarships. The president stated that the University of Oregon is underrepresented in these scholastic opportunities and believes there are many qualified applicants who are not being recognized for these awards. He stated that intense preparation is the key to obtaining a successful result with these awards and encouraged Senators to bring their students to the reception.

Finally, President Lariviere concluded his remarks by briefly sharing a story of having the opportunity to meet, talk, and share a meal with several colleagues after having three appointments cancel. He asked for a final round of questions, and seeing none, exited the Senate meeting.

After President Lariviere’s departure, Senate President Tublitz called for a move to the legislative portion of the agenda. He reminded the Senate that all important legislative business will be conducted at the beginning of the Senate meeting after President Lariviere’s address.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-07 to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy. Sponsor: Ad hoc Facilities Use Committee (Linda Ettinger, Education; John Bonine, Law; Kassia Dellabough, AAA; Marie Vitulli, Math)

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that this motion came before the Senate during the spring of 2010 and had undergone extensive revision in the following fall and winter terms. He then invited the members of the committee, Linda Ettinger (Education), Senator K. Dellabough (AAA), Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics), to discuss their revised policy. Senate President Tublitz briefly mentioned that Senator J. Bonine (Law) was traveling and thus unable to attend the meeting.

Linda Ettinger (Education) began by giving a brief summary of everyone who was involved in preparing the revised policy, including Senator Vitulli (Mathematics), F. Stahl (Emeritus, Biology), and Senator Bonine (Law). Ms. Ettinger stated that the policy was designed for a very large campus that incorporated a wide set of comprehensive and collaborative constituency interests. As such, the underlying principles of this policy addressed the respect for freedom of speech, acknowledgement of facilities on campus as a limited and controlled set of resources, and the need to support access to facilities consistently for everyone.

For their final round of revisions, the committee was asked to revise two issues. The first being the recognition of faculty groups in parallel to student groups, which was not included in the text of the previous policy, and the second being to revisit the definition of university entity. According to Ms. Ettinger (Education), the missing faculty groups have been added to the document, and the definition of university entity has been amended to include recognized faculty and student groups and included a new group category entitled self defined groups of three or more of the statutory faculty.

At this point in the presentation, Senator Dellabough (AAA) took the floor and thanked Ms. Ettinger for her hard work and commitment to their team and the Policy. Senator Dellabough brought up two issues she felt did not belong in the current document and asked the Senate to revisit and clarify these two items. The first issue was concerning the definition of recognized student and faculty groups. She did not believe that those definitions belonged in the document, but felt that it was an important initiative that should be revisited at a later time. The second issue was including a fair appeal process to the legislation. As with the previous issue, she felt the appeal process was an important issue that could use clarification and development, but it did not belong as a part of the current Policy.

Senator Vitulli (Mathematics) discussed two topics that were highly debated during the most recent revision of the Policy and asked for a discussion from the Senate body on those topics. She expressed her uncertainty on whether the committee should have included an amendment that allowed for a single member of the statutory faculty assembly in the definition of university entity thereby giving a single member of the statutory faculty the right to reserve, not just local, but any university facility. (This amendment was in an earlier draft of the Policy). The second topic was whether or not there should be mention of an OAR that would reflect this Policy, whether there should be a pointer to said OAR and an explanation that the OAR will reflect the Policy that is being developed by the committee.

Before fielding questions from the Senate body, Senate President Tublitz read aloud a speech from Senator Bonine (Law). Below is the Senator’s speech in its entirety.

John Bonine, Senator

Sent 09 Feb 2011

"Fellow Senators, as I am on sabbatical and out of town, I cannot participate in person in today's discussion on adopting a new Facilities Use Policy for the University. During my sabbatical, however, I have participated via e-mail in the formulation of the policy, as I did in person on our committee for the previous several months. I urge that the Senate vote to adopt this revised policy.

My request for an affirmative vote is based on these considerations:

First, the revised policy has been carefully written to advance freedom of speech and discussion and academic freedom at the University. I agreed last spring to serve on this committee precisely to advance those goals. We need to ensure that no one controlling the use of campus facilities can restrict such use because of the ideas that would be expressed. Until this new Policy is adopted, we do not have that guarantee. We have currently in place an insufficient policy.

The Policy protects free expression by being a policy for scheduling, not "use," and does not allow refusal on the basis of content of intended speech.

For most rooms on campus (those known as "locally scheduled facilities"), the Policy allows an individual faculty member to book as an individual as long as the room isn't being used at the scheduled time for a class, research, or the like. Some rooms on campus, which are likely to be in high demand, will be reservable by any recognized group including also any self-defined group of 3 faculty members. If you can't find two colleagues, you can still reserve a local facility by yourself.

Some may be concerned with this requirement of needing a small "group" before an individual faculty member can book a room in, for example, the EMU. But given the huge number of "locally scheduled facilities" on the campus, this is almost no restriction at all. I questioned the number "3" myself, but it was inserted to provide some priority system for allocating a limited resource, and I accept that.

I have also been concerned that the University Administration should not use a separate method -- the Oregon Administrative Rules process – to adopt another policy at variance with this Policy Statement. In fact, at the beginning of December an OAR was proposed that would, among other things, have done a number of unacceptable things, including designating a small area of campus as a "free speech area," with the obvious implication that other areas are not such areas. You may not have noticed, because it was put out during exam period. I wrote a 9-page legal analysis of that objectionable proposal and, among other things, objected that it was not being put through our Senate process.

That mistake was recognized, the OAR proposal was withdrawn, and we are back with policy on scheduling of facilities being adopted only through our Senate process. That is good. I believe the University Administration is both acting in good faith and correcting process mistakes like that. My support for adopting our Facilities Use Policy is contingent on the presumption that an OAR will not be adopted that varies from our Policy statement. If that assurance is not given, I would withdraw my support.

Finally, I urge your support because of the importance of co-governance, in which thisSenate is an important partner in policy formation with the University Administration. That shared governance can only work if we are willing to act as a legislative body, not a scientific body. Science and academia can debate something forever and, indeed, that is how truth emerges. A legislative body needs to act--and sometimes acting means not seeking perfection. Compromise is the order of the day in all successful legislative bodies. In fact, you can look at the U.S. Senate in the past four years and see that when one political party demands that policy not be set unless it is perfectly in line with that party's views, and uses the filibuster to frustrate reasonable compromise, the result is paralysis.

If our University Senate seeks only perfection in policy, its consequent inaction will yield all initiative and authority to an institution that is capable of more decisive action—the University Administration. Our present University Administration and our Senate President have crafted a process that allows us to maintain a substantial role. If we cannot uphold our part of that process, we can only blame ourselves for the result.

I urge adoption without change and, if any questions remain, that they be addressed after adoption through a revision process."

John

After reading Senator Bonine’s speech, Senate President Tublitz opened the floor for questions and discussion.

Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (ASUO Student Senator) offered up a statement and said that the ASUO had a group recognition process for student groups, but the process was fairly detailed. It was his opinion that future student groups would appreciate a shorter recognition process, and informed the Senate that the current waiting period to be recognized as a student group was six months.

Senator D. Walton (UO Libraries) expressed his concern regarding the appeal process and asked would the process cover new fledgling student groups that are not recognized by student government but that are interested in organizing and holding events. Senator Dellabough answered that the appeals process could cover those groups if Senator Walton joined that committee and took lead on said committee.

Senate President Tublitz asked for further comments from the Policy presenters and seeing none he thanked the presenters for their hard work and asked for a vote from the Senate body. Senate President Tublitz displayed the Motion on the projector for the Senate to view, but before the vote could be taken, Senator Dellabough thanked Senator Vitulli and Frank Stahl for speaking up at a prior Senate meeting and for joining the committee.

Before the vote was taken, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate that they were voting on the motion to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy and that if passed, the Senate would recommend that the Policy be adopted by the University President on behalf of the University. He also reminded the Senators that this voting process was agreed upon by the University Administration for important issues regarding policy, and that policy revision does not occur on the Senate floor, only a vote for, against or abstain. Senate President Tublitz then called for a voice vote and the Policy was passed unanimously.

3.2 Motion US10/11-09 to establish a Senate Leadership Award for UO Officers of Administration. Sponsors: OA Council Co-chair (speaking on their behalf, David Landurm, OA Council Chair and Tracy Bars, OA Senator, AAA).

Senate President Tublitz introduced this motion by reminding Senators that the Senate agreed to consider an OA Senate Leadership Award and spoke briefly about a similar award that was passed last month regarding Classified Staff. At this point, he introduced the authors of the Motion, Senator T. Bars (OA) and D. Landrum (OA Co-Council Chair).

Mr. Landrum gave a brief summary on how the Motion came into existence. He stated that Senate President Tublitz went before the council last year with a proposal for a new award during the time that the award for Classified Staff was being discussed. Mr. Landrum went on to say that over the past year, the OA has worked very hard with colleagues from the Senate in collaboration with HR (Human Resources) making sure there was no overlap between the University Senate OA Award and the current award being presented by HR. As a result of the impending establishment of the OA Senate Leadership Award, the HR Award was being reexamined in the hopes of strengthening the HR Award. Mr. Landrum stated that the proposal before the Senate was that members of the selection committee for the OA Senate Leadership Award be comprised of sitting Senate members. The Officers of Administration of the Senate and the OA Council will subsequently review the nominations and come before the Senate body with a proposal. Additionally, if during the course of the year, the OA Council receives several outstanding nominations, it is the intent of the Council to recognize those additional nominees during various OA functions held throughout the year.

After concluding his remarks, Senate President Tublitz suggested to Mr. Landrum that the nominees who were not selected for the award be placed in the running for the award in future years as is done for other awards on campus. Senate President Tublitz then displayed the Motion on the projector of the Senate body to view and called for discussion. Seeing no discussion, he thanked Mr. Landrum, Senator Bars, and the OA Council and moved for a vote on the Motion. After briefly reiterating that according to the motion the UO Senate body moved to create an annual UO Officers of Administration Leadership Award following the criteria contained within the Motion document, a voice vote was taken and the Motion was approved unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz then informed the Senate that the first award for both Classified Staff and UO Officers of Administration will be presented at the May Senate meeting, and Senators will be receiving, either from Classified Staff or the OA Council, a notice asking for nominations.

After concluding all new business, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin the Open Discussion segment of the Senate meeting, and reminded the Senators that during this portion of the meeting, no votes will be taken.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Enrollment Overview; Roger Thompson, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management

Senate President Tublitz welcomed Roger Thompson, Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, to the Senate floor to discuss the process of Enrollment Management and what it means to the University both before and after students enter the University of Oregon.

After concluding his presentation, Mr. Thompson asked if there were any questions from the Senate body. Senator M. Nippold (Education) asked Mr. Thompson how he collected data while visiting various high schools around Oregon. Mr. Thompson responded by stating that most of his time was spent meeting with principals, guidance counselors, career counselors, and occasionally parents and support staff. He stated that he spent around an hour at each high school giving a quick overview of what was going on at the University of Oregon, and the rest of his time was spent listening. Mr. Thompson said that he was not out to empirically prove anything but wanted to provide an opportunity for people to give feedback and take away impressions and challenges offered by the University of Oregon. He then turned to Senator Nippold and asked if he had answered her question and then went on to say that he was not spending most of his time with high school students. Senator Nippold responded by stating that Mr. Thompson might find some very interesting information if he surveyed the students directly and offered various survey criteria to Mr. Thompson should he choose to pursue that avenue. In response to her statement, Mr. Thompson commented that he was trying to appeal to a wider pool of interested parties, and that a similar survey was distributed at orientation for incoming students and another survey developed by Larry Singell (College of Arts and Sciences) was distributed to students who chose not to attend the University of Oregon.

Senator R. Rejaie (CAS-Natural Sciences) asked Mr. Thompson what steps he was taking to achieve his goals, and if his work was relevant for graduate and international students. Mr. Thompson responded by saying that his number one priority in achieving his undergraduate enrollment goals was to better align our financial goals with our enrollment goals. According to Mr. Thompson, many scholarship and financial aid awards are made too late in the enrollment cycle to impact a decision and as a result; the University is confirming decisions instead of impacting decisions. He also stated that currently there was a perception that people do not care about students at the University of Oregon and that perception should be done away with. Finally, Mr. Thompson recommended increasing outreach activity particularly in Oregon high schools. He then encouraged Senators to visit his department’s website for more information on his strategic plan. Mr. Thompson answered the second part of Senator Rejaie’s question by stating that everyone in America is running to China for international students. He also believed there are untapped opportunities in India. With respect to graduate students, Mr. Thompson thought it was important to know where our graduate students come from. According to his data, one in five graduate students at the UO received their undergraduate degree from the University of Oregon. A large majority of graduate students come from west of the Rocky Mountains, and in order to increase enrollment from these areas, the University needs to have a greater presence in the UC, CSU, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Arizona systems.

After briefly mentioning his website again, Mr. Thompson fielded a question from Senator T. Bard (OA) in which she asked what percentage of the projected student enrollment figure were graduate students. Mr. Thompson stated that most of the growth was designed to be at the graduate level, and that it was important to address the needs of each academic program to determine their interest in expanding at the graduate or undergraduate level or both.

Mr. Thompson concluded his discussion by offering to go over any additional information and questions the Senators may have had and thanked them for their time.

Senate President Tublitz moved to begin the reports segment of the agenda and began by briefly describing the creation of the AC (Academic Council). He stated that the AC was a group that was formed as a result of the Constitution that was passed during the previous academic year. The group is comprised of chairs from all the major academic committees on campus including the undergraduate, graduate, FAC, Scholastic Review, and Academic Requirements committees, among others. According to Senate President Tublitz, the AC’s main responsibility was to observe and consider the impact of various issues that affected academics on campus from their particular vantage point. Senate President Tublitz asked the AC to write a report on the New Partnership to complement the report that was issued by the SBC (Senate Budget Committee) which focused primarily on finances. He then invited Senator I. McNeely (History), Chair of the AC, to present an overview of their report on the New Partnership to the Senate body.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Academic Council report on New Partnership; Ian McNeely, AC Chair.

Senator McNeely began by stating that the AC tried not to duplicate the work of the Senate Budget Committee, and that several developments occurred during the past three months that the Council tried to incorporate into their report. The first of these developments was Senate Bill 559, and the second was placing comparative attention to the way in which governance and accountability work in other universities in the United States in order to provide context thereby not having to evaluate the document on its own terms. Senator McNeely and the AC endorsed the idea that the Senate endorses the New Partnership. He remarked that the Senate was a crucial voice in the discussion but was not a decisive voice and that in the end; the legislature will have the final say.

According to Senator McNeely, the first section of the Partnership concerned the financial aspects of the plan. The AC revisited the analysis that had already been prepared by the SBC and found that if the endowment had been in place, the University would have benefitted in the long run. They also found that the State of Oregon was unable to fund the University at a sustainable level. He remarked that sustainability and stability are the two most important items for long term growth at any university.

In the AC’s report regarding governance, they looked at the new rule of the University of Oregon Board, which gives the Board a great deal of power, and asked if there will be a system of checks and balances. Senator McNeely and his committee looked at other university boards to compare board membership in order to determine what percentage of student and faculty members serve on those boards. He stated that it was uncommon for a faculty member to serve on a university board, either private or public, but that according to the New Partnership, the UO will have one faculty member serve on the Board. The AC found that it was common to have one student serve on the board of public universities, which is also a feature of the New Partnership governance.

Senator McNeely spoke briefly regarding the Oregon State University plan which was one of governance reform The OSU plan emphasized greater independence from the entire system in the state of Oregon and would give Oregon State independence from micromanagement by the state legislature and prevent the legislature from taking back funds that were already appropriated to the university. The AC believes it is a positive step forward and should be passed. The problem of financial instability was not addressed.

The AC raised the most questions on the third section of the Partnership which covered the topic of accountability, and according to Senator McNeely, was not very specific. In exchange for the flexibility and independence that the state would grant the university, the UO would be held to measureable performance benchmarks. The State Board of Higher Education would be responsible for setting those benchmarks and holding the university to them. How these benchmarks are determined and carried out was not indicated in the document. The AC Report offered two ways in which these benchmarks could be established and carried out. The first was to look at academic benchmarks already in place and ask the state to hold the University to those already established benchmarks. A second approach offered was to ask the state to hold the University accountable for keeping tuition affordable, diversity prominent, and to avoid discussion regarding academics (curriculum, degree programs, etc…) because that issue ultimately was the responsibility of the faculty.

Before Senator McNeely took questions from the Senate body, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators of a notice of motion that will come before the Senate in March to endorse the New Partnership Proposal.

The first question was from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She asked how the University could be held accountable if satisfying benchmarks were not tied to independent financial resources (bonds, investments, etc…) and the control was in the local board of directors rather than OUS. She then asked what the meaning of the benchmarks was. Senator McNeely responded by saying the legislation was weak and then said if the state board finds that the University does not meet the benchmarks they have the authority to recommend penalties to the legislature. What was unclear to Senator McNeely was how the legislature would carry out those penalties. He thought that if there were severe financial penalties written into the law, there would be great incentive to meet benchmarks. Benchmark enforcement would come through a financial mechanism and not a governance mechanism. At this point, Senate President Tublitz offered an answer to Senator Vitulli’s question and stated that the proposed UO governing board will be appointed by the Governor, and within that structure there existed the ability for our legislative and executive branches of the state to exert some measure of control, but the extent of control was undetermined. Senator McNeely commented that seven of the fourteen voting members would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State of Oregon Senate.

The next question came from Senator R Rejaie (CAS-Natural Sciences). He asked Senator McNeely to elaborate on the issues and concerns that might exist in the absence of checks and balances. Senator McNeely responded by saying that the UO Board would theoretically have the ability to open or close entire colleges, revise personnel policies for faculty, etc…He went on to explain that this immense power within a university board was a common occurrence at large universities, both public and private, around the country, and referenced the Association of Governing Boards website for more information.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz encouraged the Senate body to send him any additional questions that might arise, and he would forward them along to President Lariviere who would then answer them in writing to be posted to the Senate website.

Before the next report on purchasing was presented, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that it was important for the Senate to understand how the process of purchasing and contracting works and what changes have occurred to improve the purchasing system.

5.2 Update on Purchasing and Contract Services; Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration, Laura Hubbard, Associate Vice President for Budget and Finance

Ms. Hubbard began her presentation by informing the Senate body that all of the information discussed today could be found on her office website. She then asked why the University has a purchasing function. According to Ms. Hubbard, purchasing and contract services are working to serve the mission of the University and the academic enterprise and to support the faculty in their academic pursuits. She then discussed different types of departmental business purchases/transactions that transpire across campus.

According to Ms. Hubbard, it was important for her department to reinvigorate business services by better aligning them with the faculty and their academic pursuits. In looking at their business process, it was important to spend more time focusing on the entire purchasing process as a whole across the University. Several goals surfaced out of their investigation which Ms. Hubbard did not discuss, but referred the Senate to her department’s website for more information.

The next topic of discussion was contracting services, and Ms. Hubbard stated that this was the most controversial topic campus wide. Her department had collected three years of data on contracting services. According to her department’s data, contracting had increased dramatically on campus due to greater student enrollment and an increase in research from faculty and graduate students. It was important to identify the time of year in which contracting services increased and decreased to assist in staffing and to coordinate year end activities. Her department established benchmarks that outlined processing efficiency in order to understand the rate at which contracts are processed.

Ms. Hubbard then briefly discussed her department’s campus outreach and development initiative to create a dialogue for understanding working relationships between departments. She then defined strategic purchasing which was an effort to find more affordable prices for items purchased by the University and participating in outreach with the local vendor community. She mentioned the reverse vendor fair as an example of vendor outreach, which had been around for the past two years, and had been very well received by the local vendor community. Her department partnered with the education advisory board, a best practices consulting firm that works with higher education focusing in the procurement area of research institutions, in an effort to collaborate with peer research institutions to improve purchasing operations.

Finally, Ms. Hubbard stated that a key goal of her department was to update its policies and procedures in an effort to provide a better understanding of their operations.

At this point, Ms. Hubbard asked for questions from the Senate body. Senate President Tublitz stated that there was a general perception across campus that when working with the purchasing department it was harder to do things rather than easier despite all improvements. He wanted to know why this perception existed and what could be done to change that perception and to change the reality.

Ms. Hubbard responded by saying that the perception existed because of three criteria. The first was due to changes in processes that take an adjustment period for everyone involved, and according to Ms. Hubbard, there had been many areas of the University that were being reorganized and changed over. She did not list any other criteria. Seeing no further questions, Ms. Hubbard informed the Senate to contact her at any time if anyone had any more questions.

Senate President Tublitz moved to the announcements of motions segment of the agenda.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motions

6.1.1 Notice of Motion US10/11-10: Endorsement of New Partnership proposal, Senate Executive Committee (March meeting)

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that at the March Senate meeting the Notice of Motion of the Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal will be decided. He stressed the importance of this decision and again asked the Senators to send him their questions for distribution to President Lariviere’s administration.

6.1.2 Notice of Motion US10/11-11a,b,c: Adoption of proposals on grade culture (i.e. grade inflation), Undergraduate Council (April meeting)

After mentioning the New Partnership proposal, Senate President Tublitz remarked on the adoption of three proposals from the undergraduate council, chaired by Senator I. McNeely (History), that are up for decision in April. According to Senate President Tublitz, Senator McNeely or a representative of his committee will attend the March Senate meeting to discuss these proposals. The proposals involve implementing a set of processes at the University to deal with grade inflation and to possibly change the way grading is viewed at the University of Oregon. The three proposals, as well as several documents and reports, can be accessed through the University Senate homepage. A vote will be taken on these proposals during the April Senate meeting.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, the February 9, 2011 Senate meeting was adjourned at 4:50PM by Senate President Tublitz.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 12, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate 12 January 2011

Present: T Bars, C Bocchicchio, J Brubaker, K Dellabough, J Ellis, H Gangadharbatla, D Healey, G Hochstatter, M Hyatt, H Khalsa, D Kennett, R Kyr, A Laskaya, H Lin, C McNelly, L Middlebrook, S Midkiff, T Minner-Engle, M Nippold, J Piger, M Price, N Proudfoot, S Runberg, Z Stark-Macmillan, L Sugiyama, T Thompson, N Tublitz, M Vitulli, V Vologodski, G Waddell, D Walton, M Williams

Excused: J Bonine, Y Tan, L Van Dreel

Absent: A Berenshtein, C Bybee, E Chan, A Emami, I Fielding, R Good, M Henney, C Ives, P Keyes, P Lambert, B Powell, R Rejai, P Southwell, P Walker, P Warnek

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for January 12, 2011 to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Harrington Room, Jacqua Academic Learning Center.
A Motion was made to approve the Minutes of the 1 December 2010 regular meeting of the senate and the minutes were unanimously approved.

Senate President Tublitz introduced Chris Bocchicchio as a new student member of the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz reported he sent several letters regarding the campus Post Office closure, as discussed at the December 1st meeting. He received responses from both Representative Peter DeFazio and Senator Jeff Merkley. Senate President Tublitz forwarded those responses to the Postal Regulation Commission and they opened a file on this matter. He has also received several calls and emails from the Postal Service themselves stating they are in the process of reviewing our concerns.

Senate President Tublitz also reported that Denise Yunker, Human Resource Director for OUS, is asking for a nomination for someone to serve on their PERS Investment Committee.
He said there is only 1 faculty member from the OUS serving on that committee. If anyone is interested in nominating, contact Senate President Tublitz.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, asked if the opening was due to a former faculty resignation.

Senate President Tublitz reported this is a new committee serving the OUS.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Senate Motion US10/11-04, the Riverfront Research Park resolution, passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting.

Senate President Tublitz introduced President Lariviere who took the floor.

President Lariviere mentioned just returning from the BCS Bowl experience and said the representation of the university at the event was remarkable and something to be proud of. The thoughtfulness of the staff that put events together to keep the focus on the entire university was edifying. Roger Thompson, the new Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, put together a gathering prior to the BCS Pep Rally that hosted 342 prospective students who met with UO Deans. Most of these students did not come to Glendale, AZ for the game and some of the students traveled from as far away as CA to attend. It was a remarkable event. We learned from the Rose Bowl how to do things better and the staff did an extraordinary job. The Pep Rally was an astonishing event and the largest event Phoenix has ever seen, outside the stadium. 35,000 people attended and the game itself was the most watched event ESPN has ever handled. Our university was in some 20 million homes for four hours. That is a remarkable set of events. Your colleagues did a superb job. The City of Eugene is hosting a “Celebrating Champions” parade on January 22, 2011. The parade will celebrate champions across the breadth of the university and the community at large.

President Lariviere said the New Partnership continues to progress. The bills were submitted into this Legislative Session, both the Senate Bill 559 and the Joint Resolution 20 (a recommendation to refer amendment to a vote in the next election cycle). Media attention included a local Phoenix AZ newspaper who wanted to discuss the topic during the UO visit to Glendale. They have asked for all backup documentation as Arizona is going through similar circumstances and they are interested in reporting on our solution.

President Lariviere reminded the Senate of the upcoming Town Hall meeting on January 26th for an open campus wide discussion on the New Partnership.

The President informed the Senate that the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity Director’s search is underway. The request for applications has gone out and the Search Committee is chaired by Scott Coltrane, with Vice-Chair Robin Holmes.

President Lariviere’s final topic was the Riverfront Research Park, stating there has been no change since the last discussion. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been addressed very thoroughly by both the City and the UO. The President stated that yesterday at 4:00pm he received twelve questions with the expectation they be answered at today’s Senate meeting. The President conveyed that is not the type of communication relationship he wants to have with the Senate. He stated we should engage in conversations surrounding issues with the university and he hopes we can engage in the conversations in a manner that will move us forward.

Senate President Tublitz mentioned discussion surrounding the Research Park is due to the President’s veto of the Senate Motion US10/11-04 passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting and the Governance Constitution request he explain his veto.

President Lariviere stated he already provided explanation in the letter he presented to the Senate and nothing has changed. The Senate floor can ask questions, the President is a big fan of open transparency, but it will not change the outcome of the decision.

Senate Vice President Robert Kyr took the floor and said the list of twelve questions was just handed to him as he walked in the door. Who is asking these questions?

President Lariviere said he received them in an email from Senate President Tublitz yesterday afternoon at 4:00pm.

Senate Vice President Kyr asked if anyone on the floor knew who sent out the questions.

Senate President Tublitz explained that a graduate student, Paul Cziko, sent them to him on behalf of a number of people at the UO because they didn’t have an opportunity at the last Senate meeting to ask their questions.

Senate Vice President Kyr asked for refinement of how we handle these types of requests. When paperwork is handed out at a public meeting, the document owner should be identified in the document, and the recipient should be given adequate time to respond. He reiterated the President has previously made it clear we want open transparency at this university.

George Evans, Economics, told the Senate he had seen a draft of the questions recently and liked them. The land is clearly a significant public resource. This is the reason IGA set up procedures 20 years ago for public input before development. If the University intends to step away from Section 16, they should state so. Can the UO produce a signed document that the three parties agreed to absolve IGA? How can the UO justify short circuiting the plan to have public input?

President Lariviere responded that it is his understanding from others at the University and the City that the IGA has not been in effect for some time; it was abandoned under the terms of the agreement. You may disagree and are free to do so, but he is convinced that the IGA was terminated. There has been a process followed and agreed upon by the stakeholders. From a legal standpoint the IGA does not exist. Anytime you are convinced that you are absolutely right, there is some breakdown in communication. The hammering away that the IGA is still in effect is evidence of that. You may take objection to the process and the outcome but it doesn’t change the outcome at this point.

George Evans asked if the president didn’t believe there should be a public discussion.
President Lariviere responded that he didn’t know that there wasn’t one.

George Evans stated the spirit of the IGA should be implemented and is convinced it ended because nothing was going on.

President Lariviere let the Senate know he had a class to teach and needed to shortly leave the Senate floor.

Paul Cziko, Graduate Student, apologized that the questions arrived late and defended his action due to time he needed to spend in academics and research. He stated the Administration says the process has been followed. The IGA was set up between the City and University as a financial organization to foster development of the Research Park. The State Board of Higher Education set stipulations for periodic reviews. He can find only one review and the current development is at odds with the plan. Why isn’t the University following the State Board process?Mr. Cziko stated that he is not sure the State Board knows there is no longer an IGA.

President Lariviere said that was a question Mr. Cziko would have to take to the State Board as he didn’t know if Mr. Cziko’s assertion was the case or not. If the State Board has processes that we aren’t following, that is something Paul should take to the State Board. Asserting something didn’t happen doesn’t mean it should have happened or did not happen. A certain number of people don’t like the process the University has followed. The President said he understands that, but simply asserting something should have happened and saying it didn’t, isn’t adequate at this point. The President stated he has a fiduciary responsibility, bound by legal requirements, and nothing he’s heard has infringed on that responsibility. If something we should follow is discovered, we will follow it as our fiduciary responsibility. The President said he would like to see an investment of all this energy directed toward defining a process moving forward that is based on trust.

Paul Cziko suggested a process moving forward is compromised by not following the current processes put into place.

President Lariviere responded that the biggest challenge is getting people to recognize that we are where we are. The question is how are we going to go forward? Let’s invest our time and energy in moving forward.

Senate President Tublitz stated the University Constitution requires that, if the University President vetoes a motion, they must come to the Senate and explain why. He said the President has done that by letter and now by coming to the Senate. He believes the President told the Senate he would answer questions surrounding that decision and it was his hope the President will answer these questions at some point in time.

President Lariviere replied that he thought the questions had been answered. What we are doing here is engaging in an investment in everyone’s time that is not going to be productive.
Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for coming and the President left the Senate floor to teach his class.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-07: Motion to adopt a revised Facilities Use Policy

Senate President Tublitz introduced the members of the Ad Hoc Committee who were asked to revise the facility use policy.

Kassia Dellabough took the floor and said she helped on the committee because she had concerns with the first version of the policy in terms of clarifying those who were actually able to schedule and what the process was to schedule space at the UO. She was afraid students would be left out. The purpose was to clarify the organization of the documentation with the intent to retain freedom of speech and separate the policy from the procedure. Another important aspect was to make certain the fees would be transparent & public.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, commended Kassia Dellabough, John Bonine, and Linda Ettinger for their detailed work and for allowing Russ to interact and work with them. He believes the document meets the needs everyone had with the prior document.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, moved to bring the motion to the floor for discussion and it was seconded.

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate that changes are not permitted to a Motion while it is on the floor. The Motion is to adopt the policy, not to change it. It must be voted down if the Senate does not like the Motion as it is written.

Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, said she had read the document and had some questions regarding the University entity mentioned at the end of the document. It doesn’t recognize faculty groups. Can any faculty group request use? Who recognizes the student and faculty groups?

Kassia Dellabough responded that there was a formal procedure to recognize student groups. It was the committee’s assumption that faculty groups would be working through their departmental support to schedule.

Linda Ettinger, Education, stated that the document spells this out; if you are part of a group, as a faculty member, you have a right to go to your department scheduler and schedule a meeting.
Marie Vitulli asked what the procedure is if a group is not a recognized departmental group? Where would legitimate faculty groups, such as AAUP, Concerned Faculty and Faculty Union groups, turn?

Kassia Dellabough said as a faculty member you would have a right to schedule as part of your professional development.

Marie Vitulli stated she would be more comfortable if they added “faculty groups” rather than just “departmental groups” to the document.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, took the floor and said he would be interested in knowing how Galileo would have been able to schedule the ballroom under this current policy. He urges the Senate to send this back to the committee to clarify.

Senate President Tublitz called for a vote on the policy as written.

Senate Vice President Kyr wanted to make sure everyone heard the various comments from the floor before voting.

Marie Vitulli was asked to restate her concerns so everyone could hear. She summarized her statements by saying she doesn’t think she should have to ask her department head for permission to schedule a facility. As it is currently written, student groups don’t have to ask so why should faculty?

Kassia Dellabough asked if the committee changed the wording to read “recognized faculty groups”, would that address the concerns from the floor.

Marie Vitulli thought that would work.

Chris Bocchicchio, Student Senate member, noted that the current draft of the policy does not allow student groups to be recognized other than those recognized by ASUO.

Frank Stahl believes the University policy should be set up to foster independent thinking. His main concern is that this policy squelches independent thinking and meeting.

Glen Waddell, Economics, asked if the intent of Professor Stahl’s statement was to allow that one person would constitute a “group”.

Frank Stahl said it should as far as he was concerned.

Senate President Tublitz asked for a vote on the motion.

Russ Tomlin made a technical observation that the committee made significant improvements. If the Senate turns this down, the previous policy would be in force. He urges the Senate to pass the Motion and then use the process to revise.

Marie Vitulli stated perhaps our hand shouldn’t have been forced to vote so there was time to make revisions from the floor.

Senate President Tublitz cautioned the Senate about amending from the floor and asked for a vote.

The Motion was defeated with a show of hands: 20 No, 8 Yes, and no abstentions.

Senate President Tublitz asked the committee to revise the document on the basis of comments heard here and bring it back to the Senate.

3.2 Motion US10/11-08: Motion to establish a Senate Leadership Award for UO Classified Staff.

Senate President Tublitz stated the Senate had informally agreed to create an award for classified staff that would be awarded by the Senate. He introduced the members of the classified staff committee that developed the criteria for the award.

Carla McNelly, Executive Support Specialist, thanked Senate President Tublitz and the Senate for including classified staff in their initiatives. The Committee worked on identifying what was important to recognize for such an award.

Theodora Ko Thompson, Admissions Evaluator, took the floor and mentioned two of the three main criteria the committee considered worthy of an award: Personal and professional development and a respectful work environment.

Jane Brubaker, Campus Operations, said she personally has served on the campus wide diversity committee and sees a need to include diversity as the third criteria. The award would recognize classified staff who demonstrate leadership that embraces and respects the differences in each of us.

Senate President Tublitz thanked the committee for putting this motion together and asked for a vote on the motion.

Marie Vitulli asked who actually chooses the recipient of the annual award.

Senate President Tublitz said it is detailed in UO Classified Staff Leadership Award Proposal under the Award Committee heading; all current Classified Staff senators along with all previous classified staff senators would be asked to participate in the selection process.

Senate President Tublitz asked for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz told the Senate that an Officers of Administration Award Motion will be presented at the next Senate meeting.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Proposal to upgrade Department of Public Safety to a police force.

Doug Tripp, Executive Director and Chief of Public Safety, and Carolyn McDermed, Assistant Chief, took the floor and thanked the Senate for the invitation to discuss the campus policing initiative. It is the appropriate time to talk. The current authority is Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 352.385 enacted in 1987 and allowing “probable cause arrest”. It was revised in 1995 to include an increase in the number of officers and a “stop and frisk” provision. Also Eugene City Ordinance (EOC) 4.035 enacted in 2005 allowing for the issuance of citations for certain violations occurring in the presence of officers; revised in 2009 to allow for the issuance of citations for certain misdemeanor crimes and violations occurring in the presence of officers; revised in 2010 allowing for the issuance of citations for certain misdemeanor crimes and violations based in probable cause.

In 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 658 was passed into law allowing OHSU to create a police department and hiring state certified police officers. It is the only police force on a campus in Oregon, but it created a unique classification -- it prohibits caring fire arms and the officers can’t participate in PERS.

Three primary bills have been introduced to the State Legislature this session:

SB116: OUS agency bill allowing firearms

SB406: Senate Judiciary bill

SB559: Part of University’s New Partnership bill

They are essentially the same legislation; all are considered enabling, with the primary difference relating to SB116. It includes participation in the State “police and fire” PERS program, allows an officer to strike, and enables the Board of Higher Education’s ability to determine use of firearms.
Chief Tripp said he is expecting wide spread dialogue with the UO and outside community. Since 1997 UO has worked to increase authority. The rationale for the transition is, as follows: the University is a city within a city, about the size of Grants Pass. 98% of similar sized public universities in the US, with student populations of 20,000 or greater, maintain their own campus police agencies. 32 of 33 AAU member public universities and 8 of 10 PAC12 members have their own police departments.

Over the past 3 years the UO Department of Public Safety (DPS) has professionalized dramatically on campus and in June 2010 we dropped the contract with the Eugene Police Department, adopting a new community oriented policing policy to build trust on campus. This provided great flexibility on campus by not having to bring in outside resources to help with issues.

The benefits of having a true police department are training, resources, community caretaking, efficiencies, enhanced response time, grants, information/intelligence, ownership of investigations, parity, recruit/retain qualified staff, and support the academic mission. The key issues for the community are accountability and oversight, community engagement, costs, and a proposed 5-7 year transition plan. The Statutes currently in front of the Legislature do not say we must have a police department, but rather it is advancing the ability to be able to have one if the University and the State Board decide to move in that direction.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Chief Tripp and opened the floor up for questions.

Nick Proudfoot, Mathematics, asked whether it would be good to have armed officers, is it appropriate and if so, can Chief Tripp provide an example of a recent incident that would have been different if they had been armed.

Chief Tripp said, yes, he believes arming officers is important to express authority and respond to life threatening acts. Several times the Eugene police have had to draw a weapon on campus. The first thing a person looks for on an officer is their weapons belt and they respond to authority based on what they see. The firearms issue is a big decision for the community. There was criminal mischief at Johnson Hall last year and two of those involved had weapons, with one of them positioned behind the officer. Less than 1 block from DPS someone was killed by a firearm. The risks are out there for current officers and without a firearm it is a greater risk. If we make the decision to have police we would like them to be armed.

Senate President Tublitz asked for clarification regarding the Bill presented to the Legislature. Is it asking for officers to be armed or would we have to go back and ask at a later date?

Chief Tripp said the current Bill empowers the State Board of Higher Ed to give UO approval to have our own police department if we want one. The Judiciary Bill is saying if we create police departments on universities, they will be the same as all other police departments.

Senate President Tublitz asked if we would be going to OUS immediately to ask for arms.

Chief Tripp said before they ask for arms, the UO community would need to agree to the proposed 5-7 year process toward having the police department armed.

Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, acknowledged positive reform in the last few years but students are concerned about the current movement. A 2007 estimate of the cost was $4 million a year. 4-year universities that do have police departments have 1 officer on duty for every 2,000 students. At that level we would end up with 46 officers and we currently have 18. She asked Chief Tripp to speak to the fiscal aspect of this bill. What would it do to the current DPS budget?

Chief Tripp said the $4 million was different legislation that was mandatory to have that many officers. Since 2007 and moving forward, the UO has restructured to minimize the cost by creating a scalable proposal and if it’s too expensive it won’t be approved. We aren’t creating new positions, we are enhancing current personnel. Staffing levels are regionally specific. Oregon is below the national standard and the City of Eugene is one of the lowest in the nation. Our target is 26 police officers and 9 security officers.

Amelie Rousseau mentioned other schools have other programs, such as laptop registration and after dark escorts. Aren’t there other options to promote safety so you have 25,000 watchful eyes, enhancing safety instead of relying on authority?

Chief Tripp said he brought his experience from Wisconsin with him to UO and has hired Captain Ed Rinne who has worked to develop prevention programs on campus. It is not exclusive, but an essential part of the entire policing approach. However, someone has to be able to respond to and resolve situations that will happen on campus. The critical risk management issue is to mitigate risks by having a normalized policing model in place.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, asked if our campus police authority would stop at the edge of campus.

Chief Tripp said currently it would. As a state sanctioned police department we would have statewide authority but our job would be to handle campus issues and let Eugene police handle the city. We are looking at protecting the campus community, not to police the city of Eugene.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Chief Tripp for having the conversation with the Senate as these were significant changes to carefully consider.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Frances Dyke, VP for Finance and Administration, postponed the update on the Purchasing and Contract Services until the next Senate meeting.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

There were no announcements or further communications from the floor.

7. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:59pm.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 01, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 1 December 2010

Present: A. Berenshtein, H. Lin, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, V. Vologodski, D. Kennett, L.Sugiyama, G. Waddell, D. Healey, H. Kaur Khalsa, M. Williams, P. Keyes, Y. Tan, R. Good, M. Nippold, C. Bybee, D. Walton, S. Midkiff, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Kyr, L. Van Dreel, T. Bars, T. Minner-Engle, S. Runberg, G. Hochstatter, B. Powell, Z. Stark-Macmillan, J. Brubaker, C. McNelly, T. Ko Thompson, N. Tublitz, I. McNeely

Excused: M. Vitulli, P. Lambert, L. Middlebrook, H. Gangadharbatla

Absent: R. Rejai, J. Piger, P. Southwell, P. Walker, A. Laskaya, P. Warnek, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, C. Ives, J. Bonine, M. Ann Hyatt, M. Henney, I. Fielding, L. Hinman

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President, Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for December 1, 2010 to order at 3:03pm. He welcomed all attendees and those joining the meeting
via the live streaming on the web.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes of the 10 November 2010 regular meeting of the senate were unanimously approved
with no comments, amendments, or changes to the minutes.

http://senate.uoregon.edu/sites/senate.uoregon.edu/files/Minutes20101110...

A new member of the Senate was introduced: Academic Council Chair, Ian McNeely, History.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean, including a response to Senate Motion US10/11-04, regarding the Riverfront Research Park resolution passed at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting.


Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate that the President is recovering from recent surgery
and could not make it today and the Provost was also unavailable. In their absence, Senate
President Tublitz announced that President Lariviere has followed the UO Constitutional
requirement to respond to a Senate Resolution when the President plans not to follow the advice
of the resolution. President Lariviere has submitted a written response plus several supporting
documents. These can be found on the Senate website on the Motion page under US10/11-04.
The President and his staff will respond to any comments submitted by members of the
University community.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, asked how to submit questions to the President’s response.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, replied that questions may be submitted to either the Senate
President or President Lariviere.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, suggested that the questions be submitted to Senate President
Tublitz and be posted for review.

Dave Hubin, Sr. Assistant to the President, approved of the suggestion from Robert Kyr
regarding the posting of responses.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, will accept all responses and will post them. This should not
be limited to the Senate and the Senate was asked to invite their constituents to send their
questions.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-02: Research Misconduct Policy – Lynette Schenkel.

Lynette Schenkel, AVP Response Conduct Research/Director of ORCR, introduced the motion
to adopt the Research of Misconduct Policy. She said that it had been worked on by a faculty
committee, with UO Senate representation. The issue that prevented its passage at the previous
Senate meeting on November 10th had to do with the absence of a signature line to reflect the
Senate adoption of this policy. That signature line has been included in the current version of the
policy which can be viewed at http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/motion-adopt-research-misconduct-policy

Motion US10/11-02 The University Senate adopts the updated Allegations of Research
Misconduct Policy and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on
behalf of the University.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reviewed the general process by which policies such as this
one will be developed. The initial draft of a policy will be written by an administrator or
committee and reviewed by a faculty review committee. It will then go out for comment to the
general University community, after which it will be revised and then sent to the Senate for
additional comments. The final version of the motion will come before the Senate for an up or
down vote without amendments.

A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.

3.2 Motion US10/11-03: Retired and Emeritus Faculty Policy, Frank Stahl

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology and Chair of the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Policy
Committee, took the floor to introduce Motion US10/11-03. He thanked the committee and Russ
Tomlin for their help. He said that the University had a long history of rights and privileges for
retired and emeriti faculty. The Committee he chaired recognized that the status of emeritus
faculty was significant. Rather than being given at the discretion of the Provost, it should be
given for scholarly intellectual accomplishments while the person was on the faculty. Emeritus
status would only be given to faculty who had been in rank at the highest level for at least 5
years. Professor Stahl went on to say that emeritus status was reasonable for senior faculty
considering that a person at the highest rank for at least 5 years would have already been
assessed several times, including when they joined the faculty, at promotion and tenure to
Associate Professor, and again when they were promoted to full professor. In each instance the
assessment included outside opinions. These considerations would also hold for the other
academic tracks. Anyone that has passed all of these reviews is presumably a person dedicated to
a life of scholarship, and therefore should be granted emeritus status with the hope that the
person would continue to participate in the intellectual, academic, and governance activities at
the University of Oregon.

Another issue raised by Professor Stahl was the perquisites that retired and emeritus faculty
would receive. In keeping with the idea of emeritus status, emeritus and retired faculty should be
encouraged to participate in campus scholarly and governance activities of the campus so far as
they are allowed to do so by their departments/units. Considering the infirmity of some of these
elderly people, the right to a free parking pass should be continued. Furthermore, following the
philosophy that a healthy mind requires a healthy body, emeriti and retired faculty will continue
to receive free use of the student health faculty. Professor Stahl emphasized the word
“continued” because the policy established in 1991 by the faculty assembly gave these rights to
the faculty. They have been somewhat eroded in the recent past. This revised policy reestablishes
those rights.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, said that the motion was now open for conversation. The
policy has 3 pages and was presented to the board for review.

Motion US10/11-03: The University Senate adopts the revised Retired and Emeritus Faculty
Policy 02.10.10 and recommends that this policy be adopted by the University President on
behalf of the University. The policy has been posted at http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/motion-adopt-revised-retired-and-emeri...

Motion is presented by the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Committee Jim Mooney, George Rowe,
Louis Osternig, Frank Stahl, (Chair) Ernie Pressman, and Russ Tomlin.

Peter Keyes, Architecture, asked for clarification of the statement in the Voting Rights section,
Part 2 of the policy. He proposed to change the wording to “A department may choose to extend
voting rights to emeriti during those terms when emeriti are not on the University payroll”. This
proposed amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment by Frank Stahl, the sponsor of the
motion.

Melanie Williams, Romance Language, raised the question about whether this policy included
retired persons in other, non-tenure-related academic tracks.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, said that academic tracks that qualify for Emeritus
status are: regular tenure related faculty, tenured senior instructors, and all career non-tenuretrack
faculty (NTTF) with at least 5 yrs of service at the highest rank.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice Provost Academic Affairs, spoke in support of the motion. He said
that practice has been ad hoc and not congruent with NTTF policy. Vice Provost Tomlin had
asked for a principled basis on which to make these decisions and this was the reason for
establishing the Retired and Emeriti Faculty Committee. The committee’s work addresses
unanswered questions from the NTTF policy; it allows for emeriti status for NTTF. Everyone
who has advanced to the highest rank available to them and who has served at the rank for five
years will automatically qualify for emeritus status.

Ali Emami, Finance, questioned whether Emeriti would be able to vote at the department level.
Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, stated it is clear that they will have the right to vote
during those periods when they are on the University payroll. It will be left to the discretion of
the department to decide whether these individuals have the right to vote when they are not on
the University payroll.

Russ Tomlin, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, said that at present most tenure related
faculty enter the retirement system, which is called the tenure reduction program. When they do
so, they have a contract that allows them to offer services for a maximum period of five years for
a reduced teaching load. In any quarter in which the faculty member holds an instructional
appointment of 0.50 FTE or greater, they retain the same standing they had as a tenured faculty
member. In the same manner, when NTTF choose to retire, they may be re-employed. Engaging
emeriti in departmental votes is up to the departments.

Peter Keyes, Architecture, raised the concern that extending voting rights to emeriti could bring
with it a large voting bloc which might influence departmental decisions.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied that departments could put in place any policy
regarding the emeritus faculty voting rights they choose as long as it concurred with the
stipulations in the proposed policy, if the policy is ultimately adopted.

Russ Tomlin, Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, clarified the question raised by Professor
Keyes and said that the proposed policy permits departments to make the decision whether or not
to give voting rights to emeriti faculty .

Ali Emami, Finance, asked why emeriti faculty should continue to have influence on
departmental issues.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, responded that the policy only speaks to when emeriti
are “on the payroll” which allows only limited departmental input unless the department has
granted it to them.

Ali Emami, Finance, stated that being on the payroll does not necessarily mean emeriti are
sufficiently engaged.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied that in his experience most faculty disappear
after they retire, however some do not and this policy officially encourages them to have their
voices heard. He said that emeriti have institutional memory and sufficient freedom from the
administration to allow for positions of chutzpah. Some will enjoy keeping the University of
Oregon on track. He stated the University Constitution does not allow emeriti the right to vote,
only to voice an opinion on the floor.

Ali Emami, Finance, called for “consultation” rather than voting.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reminded the Senate that the wording of the resolution cannot
be changed so that it must be voted up or down as written. He asked Professor Stahl if he would
be acceptable to a friendly amendment from Professor Emami.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, replied in the negative, saying he was unwilling to
accept the friendly amendment at this time.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed with
4 abstentions.

3.3 Motion US10/11-05 Ensuring Accuracy of the UO Policy Library, Frank Stahl

Motion US10/11-05 was brought to the floor by Professor Frank Stahl, Emeritus Biology,
and seconded by Senator Carla McNelly.

Professor Stahl began his remarks with some background. He said the statutory faculty has been
charged by the University Charter and UO Constitution with the responsibility of governing the
University. The University of Oregon Senate was established by the statutory faculty to exercise
the governance responsibilities of the faculty. The effective execution of University policies is
dependent on their accessibility, accuracy, and integrity. The on-line Policy Library, which was
established through the Provost office, is a very useful instrument. This Policy Library is only
useful if its pages accurately reflect Senate legislation that established each policy, including all
changes and updates. Each version of the policy page is a new public document making it
important that it be accessible to the public. This request was put in by the University Archivist,
who is responsible for archiving all university documents. The proposed legislation protects the
integrity of faculty governance, and the quality and usefulness of university records.

Motion US10/11-05: In the UO Policy Library, pages that relate to the academic mission of the
University shall reproduce verbatim the policies as passed by the UO Senate and shall provide
links to the Motions that established the policies. Relevant Administrative Rules should appear
on the page with the policy and be clearly distinguished from the policy itself. When any change
is made on a policy page, the change shall be dated and the old copy shall be retained and linked
from that page. This motion is posted on the Senate website at:
http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/ensuring-usefulness-uo-policy-library

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote and Motion US10/11-05 passed
unanimously.

3.4 Fall Curriculum report, Paul Engelking, chair of Committee on Courses

Paul Engelking, Chemistry and Chair of Committee on Courses,
came to the podium and announced a few minor corrections to the preliminary Fall Curriculum
report issued previously. All changes, except those noted, will be effective at the beginning of
Fall Term 2011. Changes in Chinese 440, 441, 442 Advanced Language Strategies will be
effective spring 2011. CAS 101 entitled “Reacting to the Past” will be effective Fall Term 2010
and was an emergency approval as of summer 2010. SPAN 308 will be effective Spring Term
2011.

Other changes included in the Fall Curriculum report: Women and Gender Studies, with
endorsement from the CAS curriculum committee and the CAS Dean, has proposed revised
requirements for both Women and Gender Studies and Queer Studies minors. The following
restrictions for the WGS minor “Courses applied to any major may not count for the WGS
minor” are to be removed. The following has been proposed to be added for both the WGS and
QS minors effective Winter Term 2011: “No more than 8 credits may count for both the minor
and the subject’s major”.

Latin American Studies, with endorsement from the CAS Deans, have proposed slight revisions
to the LAS minor. The changes include increasing upper division course requirement from 16 to
20 credits and decreasing comparative, global, and ethnic courses from 8 to 4 credits.

The University of Oregon has been authorized by the State Board of Higher Education’s
Academic Strategies Committee to establish an instructional program leading to a B.A./B.S.
degree in General Social Science, effective Winter Term 2011.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, asked if it is appropriate for the Academic Council to
weigh in on this.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, replied that the Chair of the Committee on Courses is a
member of the Academic Council and any potentially contentious issue can easily be brought to
the Academic Council via this route.

The motion to accept the Fall Curriculum report with the above changes was brought to the floor
for a voice vote and it passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz expressed his gratitude to Professor Engelking for his 15 years of
excellent service on this committee.

3.5 Motion US10/11-06: Letter to elected US officials about the pending closure of the UO Post Office

Motion US10/11-06 is regarding the letter to elected US officials about the pending closure
of the UO Post Office. Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, came to the podium to discuss the
possibility of the Senate sending a letter to various public officials decrying the recently
announced position of the US Postal Service to close the University Post Office. She raised the
concern that the decision, which was made in the summer of 2010, was not publicized and there
was no apparent effort made by the US Postal Service to determine the usage of the campus post
office. She said that any letter sent by the Senate should also be sent to the Federal Postal
Regulatory Commission. She further stated that the mission of the USPS as a public service is in
line with our mission of a public university and if the University’s post office branch closes on
December 31st we will end up with a private mail carrier which will be more expensive for
students. She closed by stating that with 22,000 students and 5,000 faculty and staff the
University is effectively a small city and deserves its own post office.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked the Senate to allow non-senators to speak on this issue
and the Senate approved.

Kaitlyn Lange, student and EMU Board Chair, said that this is a significant issue to her and to
the EMU. She stated that the Post Office did not give the EMU notice until two weeks ago and
that the EMU found out about this decision only indirectly through students who have
mailboxes. She also reported that there has been sexual harassment and racial discrimination
problems at the Post Office. She further stated that the Post Office space is apparently being
taken over by a private company who will provide postal services. She said that the EMU,
working with Student Affairs Vice Provost Robin Holmes, has contracted with an individual in
the community for $2,000 to handle this area and a report will be out at the end of this week to
get these services up and running in January 2011. She ended by saying if the post office leaves
it will not be coming back and to please consider these issues before voting.

Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President, said that the ASUO had talked with the local postal service
about retaining the local branch. She also said that both the local postal union and local SEIU
officials felt that the campus post office could be retained.

Motion: The Senate requests the Senate President to send a letter to our two US Senators (Jeff
Merkley and Ron Wyden) and to our US Congressman (Peter DeFazio) asking their assistance in
preventing the closure of our local University Post Office.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, called for a voice vote on Motion US10/11-06 and it carried
with 1 vote opposed and 1 abstained.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION: Conversation about the UO foundation with Paul Weinhold, UO
Foundation President/CEO, and Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, began this section of the Senate meeting by stating that the
New Partnership proposal is being discussed widely, and now is the time to have a conversation
about the role of the UO Foundation in the New Partnership proposal. This is also a good
opportunity to learn more about the UO Foundation in general. He introduced UO Foundation
President/CEO Paul Weinhold and Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer for the Foundation.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, reported that the Foundation is by IRS Statute a
separate 501(c)(3) corporation. The Foundation dates back to a 1994 opinion from then Attorney
General Dave Frohnmayer. The Foundation does not raise money; it only receives money raised
by the University and distributes the proceeds back to the University.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, pointed out that managing an endowment
involves managing 2,000-3,000 separate equity accounts set up by donors. Each donor gives a
gift for a specific cause. The Foundation has a legal obligation to see that those dollars go
directly to that cause, so looking at the endowment as a whole, it is approximately 98-99% donor
restricted. He went on to say that the foundation has no input on where the university will spend
those funds. He said that historically at public institutions the state provides the financing for the
university’s operations budget and that is augmented by private contributions that target special
activities. The reverse is usually the case for private institutions because a private institution does
not receive state support.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked for an explanation of the role of the Foundation in the
New Partnership, if it is approved.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, noted that implementation of the New
Partnership would mean that the Foundation would have more money to manage. The
relationship between the Foundation and the University would not change. The Foundation
would only receive and invest the funds without any input into the expenditure of the funds
disbursed to the University.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, said the Foundation’s role is only to
manage the money raised by the University. He reiterated that the primary mission of the
Foundation is to serve the University of Oregon.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, said if the New Partnership was implemented,
the Foundation will remain the same and the trustees will not change. He noted that the New
Partnership would have a new governing board separate from the UO Foundation Board.

Harinder Khalsa, Romance Languages, asked about the criteria for accepting and distributing
money.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, replied by stating that the Foundation
accepts a broad array of assets including cash, cash appreciated securities, stocks, bonds, and real
estate.

Senate President Tublitz asked, on behalf of other Community members, about the issue of how
the Foundation would deal with a down market year.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, reminded the Senate that the Foundation
is a pool of thousands of separate gifts that fund a diverse range of University activities. There
are some activities which are 100% dependant on the distributions of the Foundation. He noted
the relationship the Foundation has with the University is becoming increasingly more important
because more dollars are involved. The Foundation currently distributes 4% each year to the
University, based on a formula that reduces market volatility. The Foundation currently receives
a 1% management fee to fund its operating costs. He said that the 4% distribution figure is based
on studies showing that Foundations that pay out more than 5% per year run the risk of ruin in
the long term. The Foundation uses a higher education price index which is normally 1.5%
higher than the Consumer Price Index, thus the Foundation must earn 9% to cover the 4% payout
to the University, the 1% management fee, and 4% for inflation. He said that to earn that amount
there must be some risk exposure and therefore there is some volatility in annual returns.
However, the Foundation’s investment formula buffers against much of the risk. This strategy
will not change if the New Partnership Model is implemented, even if the amount paid to the
University rises to 10% of the general University budget.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked if the bottom line was that the investment strategy will
not change if the New Partnership is implemented.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, replied that that is correct and that the
Foundation will have to take less risk to provide the positive returns.

Dean Walton, Librarian, asked about the 1% management fee.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that the details of the Foundation’s
operating budget, including the 1% fee, were part of the Foundation’s annual report. The 1% fee
would almost certainly be reduced if the New Partnership was implemented.

Zachary Stark-Macmillan, Senate Student, raised the question of the choice of environmental and
social investing by the Foundation.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that this requires a delicate balancing act and
often leads to disagreements so the Foundation has chosen not to get involved in social or
environmental investing.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, asked for a clarification of the percentage of Foundation
holdings that go to agencies and organizations other than the UO.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that by law less than half of disbursements can go
to non-UO organizations.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, added that a very small amount, less than 1% goes elsewhere.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, asked if the “University Endowment” refers only to the
amount managed by the Foundation for the University.

Jay Namyet, Chief Investment Officer, replied that the current endowment is $435 million in the
Foundation and $25 million managed independently by the State.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, said that the Foundation had great success in 2008 and asked
to what are those successes attributed.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that it was due to the UO Foundation
Chief Investment Officer Jay Namyet.

Jay Namyet, UO Foundation Chief Investment Officer, reported that the Foundation has very
informed trustees who make it easy for the Foundation’s investment managers to view
themselves as risk managers. The goal of the Foundation is to avoid big losses and to let the
good decisions take care of themselves through diversified portfolios. He said that the
Foundation is always trying to buy undervalued assets as opposed to chasing the latest hot idea.

Robert Kyr, Senate Vice President, congratulated the Foundation on a job well done.

Harinder Khalsa, Romance Languages, asked what the Foundation does if the incentive of the
gift is something other than supporting the University.

Paul Weinhold, UO Foundation President/CEO, replied that these issues are decided by the
University Administration, not the Foundation.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, closed the open discussion period by stating that this was the
first time the Senate and indeed the University has had such an open discussion with Foundation
representatives. He thanked both guests for their time and for the excellent discussion and
invited both to the New Partnership Open House on Jan 26th.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Update on Smoke Free Campus resolution US08/09-06, Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, came to the podium to present a brief update on the
status of the Smoke Free Campus initiative US08/09-06 passed by the Senate at the 08 April
2009 meeting. She started her remarks by stating that on November 17th the University of
Oregon announced the decision for the campus to go tobacco and smoke-free starting in the fall
of 2012. She said that UO is the first school in the PAC-10 to do so and the Health Center will be
putting together an implementation committee.

Stephanie Midkiff, Law Reference Librarian, asked if this meant that the campus would truly be
“tobacco free”.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that the campus would be both smoke and tobacco
free.

Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus Biology, asked if future faculty recruits will be advised that they
will not be allowed to smoke on campus.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied in the affirmative and that the implementation
committee will be in charge of communicating this point to faculty.

Carla McNelly, Executive Support Specialist, asked if traditional and ceremonial uses for
tobacco by Native Americans and other groups will be exempted from these regulations and
ASUO President Rousseau answered in the affirmative.

Ali Emami, Finance, asked if this regulation was restricted to campus or did it include tailgating
at Autzen Stadium.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that there have been discussions about extending this
policy to Autzen Stadium and other areas, but no firm decisions have been made.

Grace Hochstatter, Journalism, asked if the student committee responded to the smoke-free
campus initiative regarding safety.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, responded that the student committee has talked about this
issue and will be communicating this to all new students and faculty.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, asked about the potential impact of a smoke-free campus on student
enrollment.

Amelia Rousseau, ASUO President, replied that the data from other smoke-free institutions show
that enrollment has not been negatively affected.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, closed the discussion on this topic by thanking the Senate for
their excellent questions and reminding the Senate that these issues will be addressed by the
soon-to-be established committee on this topic.

5.2 Update on Parking, Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration 

Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration, provided
a parking update from the beginning of this academic year:

1. The Office of Parking and Transportation, which reports to Department of Public Safety
(DPS) Chief Doug Tripp, has launched a blog on the DPS website to provide timely
information to the campus community.
http://uoparking.blogspot.com/

2. Doug Tripp has convened a group to review the existing parking fee structure and
recommend changes for FY 2012. Full membership includes Lisa Wimberly
(Unclassified Personnel Services), Kathie Stanley (Student Affairs), Alex McCafferty
(ASUO), Stephanie Bosnyk (LCB), David McCandless (Housing), Glen Waddell
(Economics), and Tracy Bars (Architecture and Allied Arts). Assigned staff is Stuart
Laing (Budget and Resource Planning), Herb Horner (Public Safety), and Teresa
Crawford (Public Safety). Recommendations for all fees, fines and penalties are due by
December 31, 2010 and are taken from the public comment and hearing process during
winter term.

3. The Department of Public Safety launched a search for a Director of Parking and
Transportation Services. It is anticipated this search will conclude during Winter Term.

4. Both temporary and permanent parking spaces were opened during Fall Term. These
include 150 temporary spaces in the Peace Health garage with 50 set aside for overnight
parking for students, 196 spaces at the ODOT/Walnut Station lot, and 54 spaces in
Villard Alley. At the same time 320 spaces came off line with the construction of the
East Campus Residence Hall.

5. During January, 150 spaces will come on line at the North site across Franklin Blvd and
375 spaces in the underground parking structure at the new arena. Overall the parking
inventory will have increased 383 spaces since 2007. These additional spaces will serve
faculty, staff, students, and visitors.

Paul Simons, Parliamentarian, reminded the Senate about the history of this issue. In 1962, the
faculty, staff, and students had free parking. Later the University of Oregon faculty allowed the
University of Oregon to charge $35.00 per year to park for the expressed purpose of purchasing
the land by the river, now known as the Riverfront Research Park. The parking permit was not
meant for any other purpose except for the purchase of that property. He also stated that when he
was Senate President in 1994, Senator Wayne Westling (Law) had stated to the Senate that the
staff was really being hit hard by parking fee increases. Senator Westling went on to say that any
fee increase must be looked upon as a pay-cut, the staffs have not had any pay increases recently
as they have been hit by Measure 8, and this increase will be another hit. Senator Westling also
said that some of the Law School people have said the failure to build the parking structure
following the last increase in the parking fee amounted to fraud; taking money with no return on
what was promised. He said that OPEU signed-off on the increase with the understanding that a
parking structure would be built and did not get what was promised.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, said the University was collecting money for parking and he
asked Frances Dyke where it goes and if this information is posted anywhere.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the money goes primarily
to staff and to bonded indebtedness for University Parking structures. She said that the reports
asked for by Senate Vice President Kyr are on the Office of Resource Management website.

Robert Kyr, Vice President Senate, followed up by asking VP Dyke how the University
community can respond to the incredible increases in parking fees.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the Senate is a good
vehicle to bring questions to. She volunteered that the next rulemaking proposed fees are due
December 31st.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, reminded the Senate that University regulations state that
parking has to pay for itself. However, there has been an increasing backlash about the
underground parking structure under the arena because its original purpose was for the arena and
there is little to no access to it for the general University community.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that the garage will be selfsustaining and not supported by other parking fees.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, then asked if the parking garage is paying for itself, what the
justification for the dramatic increase is.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, responded that the University has
constructed a lot of parking recently. There is parking under the new Hedco (Education) building
and other new parking lots.

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, stated that there is a committee established by VP Dyke to
review current parking fees and establish parking fees for next year. This committee has several
faculty members. However, the work of this committee will not review the recent increases
which have been over 150% in the past 3 years.

Huaxin Lin, Math, inquired about the cost of one day permits. He said they used to be $2.00 and
now they cost $10.00.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that most of parking costs
relate to infrastructure and related expenses. The other areas of cost are salaries and benefits for
employees; all part of the cost.

Jennifer Ellis, Finance, said that she understood the concept that parking fees are increased when
new spaces are generated. She asked if parking fees would be reduced if spaces are reduced as
was the case this past year.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, replied that when a space goes away
they are required to replace the space.

Brian Powell, Student Senate, asked if any money from state funds go to parking for athletes.

Frances Dyke, Vice President Finance and Administration, stated there are NCAA rules that
govern when athletes can use parking spaces.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE FLOOR

Nathan Tublitz, Senate President, thanked the Law School and its Dean, Margie Paris, for
allowing the Senate to use their facilities this term. He also thanked the video crew for doing
such an excellent job. He announced that Doug Tripp, Public Safety Executive Director and
Chief, will be coming to the January 12, 2011 Senate meeting to talk about the proposal to
change the level of policing at the University of Oregon and the implications of that proposal.
He wished the Senate members a very happy holiday season.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 pm.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 10, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 10 November 2010

Present: , J Bonine, A Berenshtein, J Brubaker, C Bybee, , J Ellis, A Emami, H Gangadharbatla, R Good, M Henney, L Hinman, G Hochstatter, P Keyes, H Kaur Khalsa, D Kennett, P Lambert, A Laskaya, H Lin, L Middlebrook, S Midkiff, C McNelly, T Minner-Engle, M Nippold, B Powell, S Runberg, Z Stark-Macmillan, T Ko Thompson, N Tublitz, M Vitulli, V Vologodski, P Walker, D Walton, M Williams

Excused: K Dellabough, D Healey, R Kyr, M Price, N Proudfoot, L Sugiyama, Y Tan, L Van Dreel, G Waddell

Absent: T Bars, E Chan, I Fielding, M Hyatt, C Ives, J. Piger, R Rejai, P Southwell, P Warnek

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for November 10, 2010 to order at 3:00 pm.

1.1 Approval of Minutes

Minutes of the 13 October 2010 Meeting of the Senate were approved with the request to add the following names to the list of those present: P Lambert, N Proudfoot, and J Ellis. Senate President Nathan Tublitz reminded those in attendance to sign in for an accurate record of attendance.

Senate President Tublitz introduced a Motion to change the order of the meeting agenda in order to accommodate President Lariviere’s schedule. Nick Proudfoot, Math, moved for approval and the motion was unanimously approved by the Senate.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

President Lariviere took the floor and gave a brief update on the state of the University. He stated that the University enrollment is the largest in history. Enrollment data released by OUS shows a total enrollment of 23,389 students; up by almost 1,000 from last year. The freshman class is exactly the size targeted, the second largest freshman class ever, and the most diverse. There is a surprising increase in transfer students with a significant number coming from California schools.

The University had a record year in research dollars at nearly $135M, up from just over $100M last year. Some stimulus money was included in that figure, so it may go down a bit in the upcoming years. The impact of the State elections on the University remains unclear, however the Governor, during and after his campaign, continues to be focused on education. As we are meeting, the Governor is announcing his transition plan. We are in uncharted territory with Oregon’s nearly 50/50 split between parties in the Senate. We have worked hard to educate all candidates on the new partnership but the hard work begins with the legislative session. The long and short of it is we are in a very good position as an institution. We are a great University; a spectacular University and it is our job to get that news out to the rest of the world. Newsweek had an article on the partnership this week.

http://education.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/oregon-tries-to-keep-down-colle...

The Wall Street Journal invited the President to meet with their editorial board on October 28 and they asked the President to write an Op-Ed. There are no guarantees they will print it but it is extraordinary they asked.

John Bonine, Law, asked about the possibility of substantial compensation cuts. Is the University in such a good position that we will be insulated from the cuts?

President Lariviere said he knows of no proposal to make any compensation cuts. No one has communicated that we should ‘get ready’. One dubious advantage of having 7% of the budget supported by the state is that even a substantial cut will still only be a small portion. We have to do everything we can to prevent a drop in compensation so we can keep the quality of the people who work here. The President said he is committed to that and that commitment will not change. Nothing has changed in the last year. The President turned the floor back over to Senate President Tublitz.

Senate President Tublitz acknowledged two new senators, Marilyn Nippold from the College of Education and Jane Brubaker, Classified Staff and they were welcomed by the Senate.

Senate President Tublitz introduced the first item moved up on the agenda from New Business – 3.5 Senate Budget Committee Report analysis on the New Partnership Proposal

Senator Peter Keyes, Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, informed the Senate that the committee’s full preliminary report is on the Senate website and he will present merely a summary to allow for discussion. He stated there are five parts to the committee report: Summary, Financial Analysis, Governance Analysis, Accountability Analysis, and Conclusions.

There are three major points to the New Partnership proposal: 1) The financial strategy to capitalize the cash flow with a 30 year bond and matching private contributions; 2) Increased freedom of operation due to a University Board of Directors overseeing our University; and, 3) New accountability measures to ensure meeting state goals.

Figure 13 from the New Partnership Proposal was put on the screen in order to illustrate the riskiness of the new endowment model relative to fixed (or declining) State support. Senator Keyes also presented a 10-year endowment distribution simulation which provides some understanding of the potential downside risk of the new endowment model.

The Senate Budget Committee identified the following financial benefits and concerns to the New Partnership proposal:

Benefits (no one expects increased support from the State going forward):

More effective planning
More effective tuition management
Small downside risk relative to potential upside gains
Coordination of public and private sector support
Concerns:
Extended periods of weak market performance
Displaced private contributions

The committee’s governance analysis produced the following discussions and thoughts:

1) The primary change in governance is that the University would overseen
by a new University of Oregon Board, rather than the current State Board of Higher Education.
2) Academic freedom concerns were raised regarding the potential influence of important
donors on the Board and through the Foundation.
3) An important result of this proposal for university governance would be the freeing of many University operations from State administrative rules and regulations.
4) There would be operational autonomy; greater control over our own activities that will have other benefits. The University would no longer be an agency of State government.
5) The legislative intent of the proposal is for University personnel policies to remain the same.

The Senate Budget Committee identified several issues which ought to be addressed in the accountability standards:

1) Growth vs. selectivity
2) Accessibility and affordability for Oregon students
3) Transparency and accountability
4) Instructional expenditures and educational quality
5) Accountability and faculty governance

The Senate Budget Committee strongly endorses the New Partnership proposal. They believe business as usual is no longer a viable option. There are risks but certainly there are very large risks with continuing to do business as usual. Trust is going to be required in that everyone will need to have the best interest of students and the University. Their recommendation is for the Senate and faculty as a whole to stay involved and closely watch the details. If this is the case, the Committee believes the initiative will place the University on firm ground necessary for its future advancement.
Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator Keyes for his presentation and said the report is well written so the Senate members should take time to read it. He also reminded Senators that the partnership is not written in stone so all comments and proposed changes will be taken into consideration by the administration.

Professor John Chalmers, Business, and a member of the Senate Budget Committee, stepped forward to assist Senator Keyes in answering questions from the floor.

Senator Ali Emami, Business, thanked the Committee for the excellent work on the budget report. He asked if, in a market downturn, the Partnership includes any policies to keep us floating. Also, do University employees remain as State employees?

Professor Chalmers responded that the 10 year simulation chart in the report characterizes what we might expect with fluctuations and if things don’t go well. There is no guarantee that the past will be repeated but with the endowment model the risk does remain fairly consistent. The
endowment will work in any given circumstance and the Senate Budget Committee is much more comfortable with the endowment model where the University has some control over the risk factors and doesn’t have to wait for State funding decisions.

Senator Keyes said technically we would still be state employees working for a public University but with freedom of operations, e.g. furlough days currently demanded by the governor. It is his expectation the proposal will spell out the degree of our freedom and autonomy.

Senator Bonine, Law, said in his review of the new Partnership Proposal in August 2010 there is a section about exemptions from State rules and regulations and he is bothered by some of the wording. It states the UO would be exempt from business regulations applicable to State agencies … “such as the administrative procedures act”. He is surprised the public governance stature is referred to as “business” and suggested this section of the Proposal needs to be looked at carefully.

Senator Bonine pointed out that “administrative procedures” should not be subsumed under business. The core of the Oregon Administration Act is public governance. We need to pay attention to that. The last sentence of that section states “similar to OHSU statutes” and Senator Bonine requests either clarification or engagement with the law firm, suggesting that the Senate should be tracking the legislation carefully and request change, if necessary.

Senator Keyes said they were the Senate Budget Committee not the Senate Legal Committee and thinks the appropriate body to address Senator Bonine’s concerns is the Senate, working with a consulting legal firm to track the legislation.

Senate President Tublitz explained that Senate rules require Senate approval for University community members (employees and students) to take the floor. Senate President Tublitz put forth such a Motion and it passed by a 2/3 majority vote.

Amy Kohl, a UO transfer student and an Oregonian, said she came to the University from a private school, where she lost her scholarship, so transferred here because it is affordable. She is now concerned that we are moving toward privatizing. She asked how can we trust you with our money that goes toward tuition and retain the values of a state school.

Senator Keyes said there is no privatizing going on here at all. There has been a lot of discussion in the past years about privatizing the University but that’s not this proposal. We would still be a State University and the majority of the UO Board would be appointed by the governor. Some endowment money would be private but with conditions that they not have constraints on the university. There are risks with this plan but we are trying to stabilize tuition increases. Senator Keyes felt the University will be more accountable with a Board directly responsible for the University of Oregon. He was more nervous that we currently live under deal cutting in Salem every two years. He envisioned more accountability and it will be clear where we are getting funding. It will be us controlling our own tuition dollars; the State can’t take tuition interest money to build more prisons, for example. We would have local control vs. State control.

Professor Chalmers added that the current picture is very stark and if we look at the picture 20 years ago, the state gave $63M to the University of Oregon. Today, it is far less than that. The support from the State is nominal in real dollars. We serve a great set of students and the
President is passionate that this is a public university. This is an attempt to save a public University – not privatize.

Senate President Tublitz mentioned again that this proposal is in draft form which is continuously being revised. The original plan had a Board that did not include voting students or faculty. After discussions such as this, the administration agreed to have 1 voting student and 1 voting faculty member on the Board. This change indicates this is a collaborative effort that is continually in flux. It is not just in flux internally but also externally. Once the final draft comes out there is going to be discussion in the legislature.

Senator Marie Vitulli, Math, stated she had way too many concerns to list during this meeting, but does have one financial question. As written, she does not find many checks and balances to hold down tuition. It appears the Board would have free reign. We might say we want to keep the number of out-of-state students down, but there is no guarantee that we would keep the in-state student numbers up. It pretty much gives free reign to the University of Oregon to do as they wish. She said she was worried about the financial risk of asking the state to pay interest on the bond for 30 years.

Professor Chalmers responded by stating that the bond payment structure includes interest and principle and would be paid at the end of those 30 years. The fundamental trust would have to be placed on the Board and the structuring of the Board for the checks and balances.

Senator Vitulli, Math, said she was not satisfied with that and would like to see checks and balances added to the document.

Professor Chalmers said this issue can be discussed but right now the Board would serve in that oversight role.

Luke Gregg, student, asked about the voting on the Board of Directors. Are the 1 student and 1 faculty vote going to be a weighted based on opposition; a singular vote amongst a sea of votes?

Senator Keyes responded that their vote would not be weighted but would be 1 out of 15 votes of members of the Board. It’s not proportional but right now the State Board of Directors is made up of people appointed exclusively by the Governor with only 1 faculty member from one OUS University. The State Board and President can veto in the current structure. We are not really a democracy running this institution but a wholly owned subsidiary of the state of Oregon so with this change we would have more control.

Senate President Tublitz instructed that there was only time for one more question.

Senator Dean Walton, Libraries, asked if this policy puts us into a more precarious position if all money disappears from a fraud situation.

Professor Chalmers said the funds would be put in a safe place with clear fiduciary responsibilities; no one person would have access. He could not imagine anything would happen unless, of course, a Bernie Madoff type financial manager was hired by the Foundation.

Senator Walton, Libraries, asked if our position was more precarious under the new partnership than under the current structure.

Professor Chalmers replied that the probably of something like that happening is vanishingly small.

Senate President Tublitz added the concerns would be well founded if we were going to start with a whole new investment agency but this money is going to the University Foundation which has been in operation for many years. So the same people will be managing the money we put in there and the Foundation has done very well historically.

President Lariviere asked if he could make one last clarification saying that what Senate President Tublitz said is what we hope and what is likely. The University has had very preliminary discussions with the State Treasurer about how it would work if we did this and the scenario that Senate President Tublitz described is likely. If the Foundation managed this, they would do so for this portion of the endowment under the management of the State Treasurer. With that management reporting to the State Treasurer, there would be two levels of scrutiny; of assurance. We’d have our own level of scrutiny at the Foundation and scrutiny at the State Treasurer level.

Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator Keyes and Professor Chalmers for their presentation, for the discussion, and recommended everyone read the budget report posted on the web. analysis

3.2 Resolution requesting the University to comply with the existing Intergovernmental Agreement on the Riverfront Research Park, Resolution US10/11-04

Senate President Tublitz read the Motion and introduced Paul Cziko, Graduate Student, Connecting Eugene member, and a co-sponsor of the Resolution.

Mr. Cziko provided a PowerPoint presentation and is before the Senate to discuss UO practices with regard to the Riverfront Research Park. Students and faculty have had concerns for a long time. Mr. Cziko thanked those in attendance wearing blue in support. A student senate resolution passed last month concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement from 1986, created to assure success of Riverfront Research Park, establish a city ordinance to create Riverfront Research Park Commission to provide oversight, but several conditions are unfulfilled.

1) Riverfront Research Park Commission was established to serve as an independent advisory to the City and the University of Oregon who maintain policy control.
2) City code ordinance 2.222 charges Riverfront Research Park Commission to provide a forum for public discussion, hold hearings, study, and serve as the investigative body. The Commission met for the first 10 years, but has not met for the last 10 years. The University President was to select 4 members to serve on the Commission.
3) The Intergovernmental Agreement Exhibit C stated there was to be a review of progress near the completion of each increment of the project. This review shall be held at the request of the developer(s), the City, or the University.
4) The Intergovernmental Agreement requires the City and University to work together and jointly select the developer(s). This is a binding agreement but the University isn’t fulfilling its obligation and has unilaterally selected the developer.

Mr. Cziko said this Resolution is asking the University to follow law and abide by its binding contracts, asking “Do we hold our public institutions to the highest standards; follow the law and abide by its contracts all the time or only when it is convenient to do so?”

The Senate floor was opened for discussion.

Senator Zachary Stark-Macmillan, representative from the Student Senate, noted that the student resolution asks for student and faculty involvement before proceeding with development. For the record, students are in favor of this resolution.

Esteban Vollenweider, transfer student, thanked the Senate for their time and asked Mr. Cziko if any additional members of the University community have given their support of the motion.

Mr. Cziko indicated there is no formal support by other bodies of the University for this Motion but for other resolutions leading up to this, there was support by the entire AAA faculty, many faculty within the Biology department, and the entire GTFF.

Professor George Evans, Economics, stated his support of the resolution saying it is a bad idea to proceed with the development. He regularly walks that area and is struck by how wonderful the tract along the river is and believes it will be degraded by the proposed development. He understands that it looks attractive to develop office buildings for the research park; it is spacious and relatively inexpensive land but we shouldn’t view it that way. It is special, valuable, and irreplaceable. A great university would not proceed in this way without a vision for existing land.

Professor Evans provided examples of how Berkeley set aside Strawberry Canyon for hiking trails, botanical gardens, and Lawrence Hall of Science open to the public. Stanford saved Dish Hill; after contention and discussion they set it aside for public hiking trails, and the University of Cambridge set aside land along the Thames River for their now famous public use trails and meadows that are considered a sensible use of their land. He ended by saying our land is special and requires long term vision. It’s not impossible to find another place for this research center. Professor Evans recommends approval of this resolution.

Senate President Tublitz let the Senate know that President Lariviere needed to leave the meeting and, because the President is focused on this discussion, Senate President Tublitz will let President Lariviere know what other comments were presented on this matter. He also mentioned there were only 15 more minutes available for this discussion so other comments needed to be brief.

Professor Robert Young, PPPM, said he supports the resolution. He understands the administration’s desire to put our institution on sound economic footing by increasing funding
through developments like Riverfront Research Park. It is difficult to make ends meet being significantly underpaid and with small children; just being able to walk along the riverfront is an impetus for me to remain at the University, a form of compensation. He agrees with the President’s desire for this to be a great University. All great Universities preserve public spaces.

Mr. Cristo Brehm, graduate student in Architecture, took the floor and suggested we need to make a distinction between two central questions:

1) What’s the best way to develop that river park area? A park or an office complex?
2) What about the process that leads to this decision. Has the process we’ve seen so far been acceptable and transparent? By a 3-1 margin this body asked the administration to hold off on the plan to develop north of the tracks until there is a public process. The appropriate public process hasn’t yet taken place. The current process has holes in it. He is asking everyone to consider these distinctions.

Mr. Nathan Howard, a UO student on the Environmental Issues Committee, asked for an inclusive and smart development plan process. He believes we can talk about whether this decision is right or wrong, whether it is more valuable to leave as is or develop, but it comes down to who is going to be the most upset; how to upset the least amount of constituents. We should honor the contract and make the least amount of people unhappy. The President needs to follow the existing law and rules and not send the message the President only follows a contract when it’s convenient. It is absurd we have to debate whether or not someone is going to follow the rules. Is this University going to follow the rules or not? If we proceed to development, against the rules in the contract, think about the precedent and loss of goodwill with the community.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated his position on the development itself is his normal environmental position which is that we should not build on the site. But, the legal issue is a court decision rendered by the US Supreme Court, under Thurgood Marshall, regarding Citizens to Preserve Overton Park in Memphis TN. The case involved roads and highways going through public parks in Tennessee. Senator Bonine read from that decision that “the very existence of the statutes indicates that the protection of parkland is to be given paramount importance”. This is the essence of what others have stated here in the Senate. Senator Bonine said he came to this Senate meeting impartial to this resolution but spent the first part of the meeting reading it and he now has a few questions:

1. Has the general counsel office, in response to this resolution, notified the President of this existing agreement? If so, when?
2. Has the office of general counsel written any memoranda in response to this resolution? If so, share that analysis with the Senate.
3. Finally, where is the voice of the administration on this resolution? With so many in the University community voicing concern, John would expect to see some response from the President.

Professor Bonine stated if his concerns can’t be answered before the end of this Senate meeting, he has no option but to support the resolution.

Senate President Tublitz responded that two weeks ago he sent a letter to Legal Counsel asking many of these questions on behalf of the Senate. That letter was not answered by general
counsel; instead it was answered by the President. His response was that it is premature to ask these questions.

Senator Vitulli, Math, commented that if the document already exists, it does not appear premature to ask about it.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if Senate President Tublitz would post his letter on the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz said he had asked for permission to post the letter, but has not received permission.

Mr. David Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, corrected the record stating there was a response from the President and he would find out why Senate President Tublitz did not receive it.

[N.B., Mr. Hubin reported later in the same meeting that Senate President Tublitz’s email address had been typed incorrectly in the original response and Ms. Staci Knabe, Executive Assistant to the President, had re-sent the email.]

Mr. Steve McAllister, a Biology graduate student, stated that GTFF voted unanimously to ask the President to engage the University and city community more directly in this issue, particularly in light of this document. The key contention is the lack of transparency and engagement with the community that is the issue, especially with binding agreements stating that should occur. This is an opportunity for the President and his administration to show the community the University values its place in the community and welcomes public engagement in all types of University development.

Mr. Richard Miller, a UO undergraduate, said he is in favor of the resolution and of following the rules of the agreement. If Abe Lincoln could take time out of the Civil War to protect a few green spaces, the University President should do likewise.

Senator Keyes, AAA, commended those who dug up the original agreement, making it visible to the Senate. He said that regardless of how one feels about development on the riverfront, processes were put into place to guard decision making processes. Particularly with the New Partnership Proposal on the table, he said we should stop ad hoc skipping of past agreements. With proper reviews already in place, he is in favor of the resolution.

Mr. Howard, UO undergraduate, thanked everyone for their support and said the next step is review of today’s transcript by President Lariviere. The students recognize the President has a lot going on but in ten years we don’t want to look back at these 67 acres and consider our actions a mistake. He urges the administration not to develop the land until we have followed the process or expect a tainted relationship between the University and the community.

Mr. Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, assured Senate members that the President will read the transcript of the meeting or view the meeting video. Senator Bonine, Law, raised the point that the Senate should have benefit of legal opinion from General Counsel before it takes a stand that is based on contention that the University is not acting in accordance with the law.

Senate President Tublitz read the email he sent to Mr. Randy Gellar, General Counsel to the University.

Senator Bonine, Law, suggested the Senate move to a vote and recommended Senate President Tublitz enter into a conversation with the administration and general counsel on what is the appropriate way to enter into these types of discussions on behalf of the Senate. Senator Bonine does not want the Senate to end up in a situation of confrontation with administration but rather a means of back and forth discussion. He asked the Senate President to redouble his efforts to try to set up a process by which we can have these discussions with the President and his office.
Senate President Tublitz closed the discussion and read Resolution US10/11-04 prior to asking for a vote with a show of hands from the Senate floor. The Resolution passed unanimously.

Senate President Tublitz said the Resolution will now explain the vote to the University President and ask the President to return to the Senate with an explanation if the University President decides the resolution is not in the best interest of the University (University Constitution article 7.4).

Senate President Tublitz acknowledged the two hours allocated for this Senate meeting were nearly over so several agenda items would be postponed until the next meeting, with the exception of one more piece of business.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion to adopt Research Misconduct Policy, Motion US10/11-02

Ms. Lynette Schenkel, Assoc Vice President for the Responsible Conduct of Research, refreshed the Senate memory on the 1990 policy with the 1996 update. Every funding agency is required by Federal governance to develop these regulations. There was an administration and faculty working group appointed last winter to provide us with our current interim policy. We are asking the Senate to adopt this Research Misconduct Policy recommended by the University President on behalf of the University.

Senate President Tublitz opened the floor for discussion prior to the vote.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated the university has an established process regarding conflict of interest and that policy was signed by the Senate and President. He sees a list, on this Motion, of all who were consulted but nothing that says it was approved by the Senate. John proposed we follow the procedure and not vote until we have the Senate signature on the Motion.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel responded that utilizing the policy format of the University is constrained by that format process. She can only speak to the policy itself.

Professor Bonine suggested if the policy process was done by some civil servant and if we are not part of it and if there is not a line on the document that indicates approval by the Senate, the Senate should table the motion and not approve it. If the document can be changed and brought back to us, with a place for the Senate to be indicated on the document, then that is what should
be done. If the Senate is not on the document, then it shouldn’t be approving it. Professor Bonine moved to table the motion.

That motion was seconded.

Senate President Tublitz asked for discussion on this new motion.

Senator Stark-Macmillan said he is confused about what is missing from this process.

Senator Bonine said in a system of shared university governance, the Senate, in adopting many of its resolutions, normally puts its name on all documents. This document doesn’t have the Senate name on it so until it does, we shouldn’t vote on the motion. Senator Bonine expressed wanting to re-establish the shared role in governance of motions that come before the Senate and if so, the Senate name should be in the policy. He again moved to table the vote until we have the Senate signature on the document.

Mr. Paul Simons, Senate Parliamentarian, rose and stated this is not a debatable motion.

Professor Sandy Morgen, Vice Provost of Graduate Studies, asked if it would be possible to take a vote on the motion that goes into effect, contingent on the form being changed.

Professor Bonine, Law, followed up by asking Assistant Vice President Schenkel if the University has a current research policy.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel responded that we currently have the interim policy in effect. It is listed as a revised interim policy.

Professor Bonine, Law, confirmed we need to vote to table until the form comes back to the Senate in December.

Motion to table was passed by the Senate.

Mr. Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President, responded to the intent behind Professor Bonine’s comment. We have, in recent years, had a new practice of consultation with the Senate when the administration is developing a new or revised policy. The current practice differs from that of the past. Policies had, for decades, been issued by the President and approved by the President’s cabinet, executives, or staff without Senate approval or consultation. We have now, quite successfully, developed a process that engages the Senate prior to creating adopting policy.

Assistant Vice President Schenkel pointed out that there exists a blank space on the official policy document for the endorsement of the Senate to be filled in after an affirmative vote on the motion.

Professor Bonine, Law, reported there is currently no signature line that says ‘Senate’ on the online form and suggested that Assistant Vice President Schenkel needed to bring an amended policy that includes a Senate signature line back to the Senate at the next Senate meeting.

Senate President Tublitz said other items on today’s agenda would roll over to the next Senate meeting (see list below) except US Post office issue 3.4. He mentioned that the university has 60 days, from November 1st, to respond to the pending closure of the University post office. He informally asked the Senate to show if they were in favor of working with the student senate on a draft of a letter to the Congressional delegation. By show of hands, it was determined there was consensus so Senate President Tublitz will bring the letter back to the Senate in December.

There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting was adjourned at 5:06pm

The following agenda items were postponed until the December 2010 Senate meeting:

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.3 Discussion of updated Retired and Emeritus Faculty Policy, Frank Stahl & Russ Tomlin

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 New Partnership Proposal President Lariviere & John Chalmers, Senate Budget Committee

5. REPORTS

5.1 Update on Smoke Free Campus Resolution US08/09-06, Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President

5.2 Update on Parking, Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for October 13, 2010

Minutes of the UO Senate 13 October 2010

Present: T. Bars, A. Berenshtein, J. Bonine, C. Bybee, K. Dellabough, J. Ellis, A. Emani, I. Fielding, D. Healey, M. Henney, L. Hinman, G. Hochstatter, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, H Kaur Khalsa, R. Kyr, M. Larson, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, J. Piger, B. Powell, M. Price, R. Rajai, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-Macmillan, L. Sugiyama, Y. Tan, T. Ko Thompson, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodski, P. Walker, D Walton

Excused: L. Sugiyama, T. Minner-Engle

Absent: E. Chan, H. Gangadharbatia, R. Good, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, N. Proudfoot, P. Southwell, G. Waddell, P. Warnek, M. Williams

1. CALL TO ORDER

University Senate President Tublitz called the meeting of the University Senate for October 13, 2010 to order at 3:05pm. Senate President Tublitz welcomed all attendees and those joining the meeting via the live streaming on the web. He gave a quick overview of Senate rules during meetings, asked that everyone sign in, and that they state their name before speaking. He also said that Roberts’ Rules of Order will be followed at all Senate meetings.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes

Minutes of the 26 May 2010 regular meeting of the senate were unanimously approved with no
comments, amendments, or changes to the minutes. Minutes of the 26 May 2010 Meeting

1.2 Motion US10/11-­‐01: to change order of Senate agenda for 2010-2011 academic year,sponsored by the Senate Executive Committee.

Senate Bylaws state the order of agenda business. Approval of this motion alters the agenda, allowing adequate consideration of new business by moving it nearer the front of the agenda. Senate President Tublitz read aloud Motion US10/11-10 and opened the floor for discussion.

Senator John Bonine, Professor of Law, questioned whether there is a process to amend the Bylaws.

Senate President Tublitz responded that last year’s governance committee which wrote the new
Constitution called for a review of internal Bylaws by the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate Executive Committee will bring a complete set of the proposed revisions before the Senate sometime this academic year, probably in the late winter or spring. The floor unanimously voted in favor of adopting Motion US10/11-01 with no abstentions.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean with specific discussion of New Partnership proposal

New Partnership proposal discussion: New Partnership proposal Senate President Tublitz
introduced UO President Richard Lariviere and thanked him for attending the Senate Meeting.
President Lariviere stated he would like to spend the allotted time on discussion of the New
Partnership but first wanted to give the Senate a sense of where we are as a university. We have a
big freshman class and are feeling the enrollment pressure, but we are vibrant and prepared. This
freshman class is the most diverse admitted to the UO. The class has very good academic credentials. The students are shoe horned into dorms but we were able to house everyone. 39.1%
of freshman are from out of state and 44% overall. The majority of our students this academic year are Oregon students. We have an enormous number of applicants from California, double what we had two years ago. There is much enthusiasm for the University of Oregon- it is a hot ticket.

The University President moved to the New Partnership proposal stating the first draft was presented in May. It was posted on the website with an invitation for comments and observations. Many comments have been useful and resulted in modifications. This proposal is written on paper, not stone, and thus will be modified as needed. In terms of the political process, the proposal has been submitted by Senator Chris Edward to be drafted as a Bill. It will then be introduced for debate by the Legislature in this coming session.

Issues surround this proposal include a) some people view our proposal to be in conflict with the
OUS proposal. President Lariviere does not see a conflict. Both proposals call for a change in
governance. Currently the Legislature endows universities with the ability to have local boards. In a sense our proposal answers all the questions that come up around the OUS proposal; b) the State Treasurer has announced that Oregon doesn’t have any debt capacity and has placed a moratorium for 2 years on new debt. After the two year period the debt capacity will be increased to approximately $1.7 billion. This should have no effect on us and may be an advantage. Assume our proposal passes this legislative session – the legislature will refer the proposal to the public as an amendment to the Oregon Constitution for a vote by the public. If approved in 2012, then the 2013 Legislature will issue the bonds in 2014, so debt capacity will be back to where it was – thus having no effect on our proposal. We have the Senate Budget Committee doing a careful review of this proposal.

President Lariviere reminded the Senate that the proposal is about preserving the public mission
at the University of Oregon. In-state tuition this year is more than $8,000 a year, a culmination of
38 years of steady increase at an average astonishing rate of 7.5% a year. The real problem, aside
from the percentage, is that the increase has not been linear. Some years it’s been 12%, 20%, 15%, followed by great remorse and an only 2% increase the next year. The consequence of that, as the Senate knows, is that a middle class family who budgets to the dollar gets clobbered with these spikes. If we can make our increases predictable, we can put ourselves in a position to predict what the cost will be for a four-year education.

The President stated he is confident we can better predict these costs if we get out of the current
situation of not knowing until February of the academic year how much the university will get from the State. Even though the State funds only 8%, it is our second highest contribution. Let’s make it predictable. The notion of expanding by managing the state contribution by endowment is important because last year we got $63M from the state, this year less than $50M, twenty years ago it was $63M so we are getting less than we did 20 years ago. The rate of erosion has resulted in backing ourselves into a model that approximates private institutions. President Lariviere said if someone has a better idea, we’ll set fire to this proposal and put forth a new one. He opened the floor up for questions and discussion, offering to address any degree of detail and welcoming input.

Student Senator Brian Powell asked why the Proposal structured the university’s Board of Directors to allow for only one student member in the position as Ex-Officio. He asked why the decision was made to have the student a non-voting member. The President said the student position isn’t the only ex-officio member; the President and the faculty member would also be non-voting members. Essentially the reason is a large 15 person Board of Directors. To preserve the public nature of the board, a majority must be appointed by the Governor or it ceases to be a public board; 12 voters plus three is as big a board as you want, otherwise meeting and actions can’t happen in a timely manner. Seven are confirmed by the Governor, one from the State Board of Higher Education, one from the Foundation, and we were advised by the OHSU Board to have three positions that the board themselves choose. Boards from time-to-time need expertise from some particular area. OHSU has never been able to have anyone with a medical background serve on their Board of Directors; all have been political appointments. It is the judgment of OHSU, based on their experience, to keep the public character but reserve the right to get someone the BOD deems necessary.

Student Senator Brian Powell responded that doesn’t answer his question. If the student is appointed Ex-Officio, their ideas will be written off.

The President said it is important to have both faculty and students on the Board, especially when there are a large number of people on the Board of Directors. In general, those governed don’t have a vote. President Lariviere asked for the students’ view and Brian responded if the student voice doesn’t have anything other than what is spoken, then it can be overridden by appointees.

President Lariviere mentioned that was true of anyone on a Board of Directors; all can be overruled, that’s the nature of publically appointed boards. One vote one way or the other isn’t going to make a bad board. It does have implications for how board members are chosen but those details aren’t ironed out yet.

Senator Bonine, Law, stated his observations and asked questions, as follows:

1) To what degree is the proposal changeable if there is interest to change?

2) To a degree, the proposal considers faculty and student members as ‘working for’ the governing board. That suggests changing from the OUS model must be a criticism of the current model. If that criticism does not exist, then there would be no justification for not carrying that model over to the new proposal.

3) Leaving three members to be appointed by the board may not be the most reliable way of assuring expertise. Many boards make explicit the qualifications of board members.

4) Cited the Charter in suggesting a faculty member not be merely employed but rather has the tradition of being part of shared governance.

President Lariviere affirmed all of Senator Bonine’s points as valid. The President stated that no
structural design will obviate potential mismanagement. Whatever the constitution of the board is, he sees it functioning first of all as a sounding board for the President on the topic of how to engage the University with the public. He does not see it as interfering with the day-to-day
governance and operation. It is the President’s concern that this board be able to provide counsel
about how to do the things this University needs that the current structure makes impossible.
Senator Bonine asked to what degree is the proposal changeable if the president or whoever else
could be persuaded it could be changed and President Lariviere stated, “There are going to be
changes”.

Senator Bonine mentioned that the model the president had just described is not the current voting model. He postulated that the reason for changing it must be a criticism of the current model. If that criticism does not exist there would be no reason to change and he would like to address that. This might not be the time to do all this but 1) would there be a process to discuss this issue? 2) He also pointed out that allowing 3 members to be appointed by the Board itself might not be the most reliable, as the current proposal doesn’t give guidance on how to appoint these board members. He cited the Oregon State Board of Forestry as an example. 3) He also stated that the faculty member should be a voting member. The UO Charter mandates that the faculty is the governing body of the University, a role that could be viewed as in conflict with the proposed governing Board. Students are not afforded the same right in the UO Charter. He raised the question of whether the New Partnership proposal is undercutting the historic tradition of faculty governance.

President Lariviere responded by saying that no governance structure guarantees good advice, good counsel, etc. All of Senator Bonine’s points are worthy of further discussion. The New Partnership Proposal is only a beginning point of discussion and he asked everyone to provide feedback. Whatever the constitution of the board is, the President sees it as a sounding board for the President about how to engage the public around issues of concern to the UO. The President
doesn’t understand it at all as being an interference with the daily governance. We can think of history where boards have gone rogue but structurally this cannot be avoided. This board needs to be able to provide counsel for the needs of our university. The current structure doesn’t allow that. Currently, twelve valiant individuals serve on the State Board of Higher Ed. Only a handful understand the daily working of the universities and only understand issues surrounding 1 of the 7 institutions, all of which are unique. An example is the faculty salary issue at UO, which is a different situation than that at any of the other schools. For the current board, it is almost impossible for them to focus on UO issues alone. The State Board has a new policy to address understanding the issues at individual institutions. It is asking three board members to spend only 1 ½ days at one of the campuses every 2 years. The President stated that that is not the kind of advocacy that we need from the Board.

Senator Bonine concurred with much of what the president said, stating the Board at UO has
tremendous advantages, but the proposed New Partnership Plan doesn’t address who will be on
the Board. He believes UO Foundation members are self perpetuating and large donors and it is an unusual step to include the UO Foundation in policies affecting UO and asked whether this was appropriate. He asked President Lariviere to further look into this issue. He also asked the President if there is a way to prevent the Board from interfering in tenure issues, pointing out that a board making final determinations in tenure is problematic in other states. Senator Bonine asked if the Plan offered a lockbox system requiring that certain issues, such as tenure, not be given to the board.

The President said these are excellent and important points to address. He told the Senate he brought white papers to distribute to Senators. He also said that the Proposal is posted online,
and asked everyone to please read it, stating, “It is not my proposal but an attempt for us to salvage this place from a very ominous tendency”. He thanked Senate President Tublitz for the
opportunity for this discussion.

Senate President Tublitz reiterated that it wasn’t President Lariviere’s proposal but “our” proposal. President Tublitz said that this is the most important issue that has come up in the last 25 years at the University. He said he was encouraged with the open conversation surrounding this topic and said the Senate Executive committee had approved the following process:

1. Today’s discussion with President Lariviere;

2. An independent financial review by the Senate Budget Committee of the New Partnership Proposal to be completed prior to the next senate meeting on November 10, 2010;

3. A presentation by the Senate Budget Committee on the results of their review will take place at the November 10, 2010 Senate meeting;

4. An open town hall meeting November 17, 4:00pm in the EMU Ballroom, for faculty, staff, and students. There will be in-depth discussion with a panel consisting of President Lariviere, Provost James Bean, Professor John Chalmers (Business and Senate Budget Committee member), Jay Naymet (UO Foundation) and Jeff Condit (an attorney involved in drafting the proposal); and,

5. If there is support and a consensus, a motion in support of the New Partnership will be presented at the December 1, 2010 Senate meeting.

Provost Jim Bean reported that things are going OK, if we keep working we will get paid, and no one at the university has been laid off as a result of this recession.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Senate VP nomination(s) and election, Senate Nominating Committee

The Senate Nominating committee put forth the name of Professor Robert Kyr, Music Composition and Theory, as the nominee for Senate Vice President and who will also serve as
President-Elect for next year. Senate President Tublitz stated it was an honor to put forward the
name of Professor Kyr.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if nominations could be made from the floor before Professor Kyr was presented. Senate President Tublitz said, due to legislation passed last year, nominations from the floor were no longer allowed but emails had gone out beforehand asking for nominations. He then introduced Professor Kyr.

Professor Kyr reviewed his background and said he was thrilled to have opportunity to serve the UO in this capacity. He came to the UO in 1990 to a much different picture and mentioned how far the University has progressed in the last decade. This change has been remarkable and with the new Partnership we stand to become a model for education in America that is desperately needed. He implored the Senate and university community members to read the partnership proposal and participate in the process. He said that the University Senate is unique because it is composed not only of faculty but also has students, officers of administration and classified staff as Senators. He thanked the Senate for the opportunity to serve.

The Senate elected Professor Kyr by acclamation.

3.2 Research Misconduct Policy update, Lynette Schenkel

Senate President Tublitz introduced Lynette Schenkel, Director of the University’s Office for the Responsible Conduct of Research (ORCR), who spoke on the proposed update on the University’s Allegations of Research Misconduct (ARM) Policy ORCR Director Schenkel told the Senate that our ARM policy was first passed in 1990 and last updated in 1996. Since that time, three regulatory bodies have upgraded the regulations and our policy needed to be revised to match the new federal regulations. Vice President for Research Rich Linton appointed a faculty working group last winter to revise our ARM policies. The membership of this group was Ina Asim (History), Dietrich Belitz (Physics), Tom Dishion (Psychology), Geri Richmond (Chemistry), Sandy Morgen (Grad School), Rob Horner (Special Education), and Bart Johnson (Landscape Architecture). ORCR Director Schenkel pointed out the ARM website and blog and asked that the Senate please use it and provide feedback. The website includes the work products of the working group and regulatory documents that prompted this action. The proposed updated policy was reviewed and endorsed by the University’s Research Advisory Council in May 2010 and it was brought to the Faculty Advisory Council for discussion in June 2010. On behalf of the joint working group, ORCR Director Schenkel presented an official Notice of Motion that asks Senate to adopt the proposed policy and recommends that the policy be adopted by President Lariviere. This motion will be discussed at the next Senate meeting on Nov 10th. The University community is encouraged to provide comments about the revised ARM policy on the ORCR blog.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked for clarification that the policy the Senate is adopting is the September 16 draft, posted on the website. ORCR Director Schenkel responded in the affirmative.

Senator Bonine also asked if the FAQs on the ARM website are legally binding and if so, perhaps a line item could be added. Lynette responded that the FAQs are merely an appendix to the policy, not for adoption.

Senate President Tublitz encouraged the Senate to review the proposed revised ARM policy and
associated documents prior to the next senate meeting.

3.3 Senate Awards for OAs and Classified staff

Senate President Tublitz introduced the new Senate website and thanked Marilyn Skalberg for working all summer to create the new website. He pointed out the Senate currently presents two sets of annual awards, the Wayne Westling Faculty Service Award and the Distinguished Service
Awards both of which are posted on the Senate website. He raised the possibility that the Senate
consider issuing two additional annual service awards to Officers of Administration and to Classified Staff using a process by which the recipients of these awards would be chosen by their peers. He acknowledged that the Administration issues annual awards to members of both groups however the process for selecting the recipient is very different than that proposed here. He asked the Senate if they thought it was a good idea for the Senate to initiate awards of outstanding service to OA and Classified Staff, given out by their own OA’s and Classified Staff members.

Tracy Bars, AAA, pointed out the Westling Award can go to staff, not only faculty, so the Senate may need to change the wording of the initiative. She said she was just pointing out the criteria, not objecting to a new award.

Senate President Tublitz said that can certainly be clarified. There were no objections from the floor so Senate President Tublitz said they would move forward and hope to issue an award yet this year.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 Athletics Overview, Rob Mullens and Jamie Moffitt

Senate President Tublitz introduced Athletic Director Rob Mullens and Jamie Moffitt, Executive Senior Associate Athletic Director for Finance and Administration.

Rob Mullens said it has been fast-paced seven or eight weeks since he has arrived in Eugene. He has been working to get up to speed on the history and pride of the fan base in the rapid growth rate of athletics at the university. The positive football program is exciting but he is also learning the varied way that athletics is joining with academics on campus and he wants to ensure that continues. Much of his attention has been focused on the finances of the Athletic Department and its growth. He has worked closely with Jamie Moffitt regarding how we got to where we are and our plan for the next 4-6 years which provides a reasonable time frame to build a visible, sustainable model.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Jamie Moffitt was introduced. She provided her university background and presented the Athletic Department’s 2010-2011 Operating Budget which was distributed to the Senate members. Senior Associate AD Moffitt summarized the athletic department’s 2010-11 revenue by sport regarding dollars earned from ticket sales as well as guarantees, including reimbursements from traveling team’s ticket sales. Other sources of Athletic Department income included media revenues, concessions, etc., much of which came from football. She emphasized that between 60-70% of the total revenue is football related in some way and that revenue is used to fund the remaining intercollegiate sports. A sizable amount of funds come from gifts and donations from donors and fans. The amount this year is larger than usual due to the approximately $11M Legacy Fund money being used to pay the annual debt repayments for the new arena.

Senator Dean Walton, Libraries, asked how variable the gifts and donations are from year-toyear and Senior Associate AD Moffitt replied the variability is not as great as assumed because a large part of the gift revenue comes from the Duck Athletic Fund which is linked to ticket sales. These funds are transferred over from the Foundation.

Upon joining the Athletic Department earlier this year, Senior Associate AD Moffitt said President Lariviere asked her and former interim Athletic Director Lorraine Davis to conduct an operational assessment of the department. Assessment focused on three key areas:

1. Practices & procedures related to contracts and contracting in the department. There has been a full internal audit of all 186 permanent staff files to ensure all contracts had proper approval, the files contained a job description, and that staff were receiving performance reviews. All required documents were accounted for but there is an opportunity to improve the performance review process.

2. Budgeting practices, processes, and decision-making. A new process to fully vet all Athletic Department proposals from financial, legal, HR, and fiscal perspectives prior the Athletic Director receiving the proposal. The internal Athletic Department budget process has been converted to a zero-dollar budget approach, enabling more informed decisions in allocating funds. This approach requires each budget request to provide complete fiscal details and have a full justification.

3. Overall picture & projections. The past 3-4 months have been spent understanding the current fiscal situation of the Athletic Department compared to prior years before the arena was built. Part of this review has been to understand the changing role of the Legacy fund in underwriting the fiscal solvency of the Athletic Department. The Athletic Department is now in a fundamentally different position than several years ago when the Legacy fund model was devised. The landscape of the Athletic Department has been altered based on recent investments in athletic programs and facilities. The original arena budget called for a $5-$6M contribution from arena-generated revenues and the rest from the Legacy Fund but subsequent changes in the fiscal situation of the arena meant the Athletic Department is not in a position to contribute to those debt payments. The consequence of the changing financial landscape is that the 30-year balance of the Legacy Fund will be lower than originally projected. The goal is to get back on track over the next 4-6 years. Only an initial assessment has been completed at this time, with the final projections to be completed over the next several months.

Senator Reza Rejaie, Computer and Information Science, asked what happened that led the arena
projections to end up being unrealistic.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt responded that the original arena model was based on
projected revenue/expenses that have since shifted; such as the addition of baseball, stunts &
gymnastics, the addition of the cost associated with maintaining the Jacqua facilities, and the addition of coaching staff associated with new programs. She stated that it was now necessary to
rebuild the financial structure of the athletic department to match the current strength of our
competitive nature.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a scandalous mess and 10 where Ms. Moffitt wants to see the world, what was the condition when she came on board. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said she is focused forward. It is what it is. She is not focusing on blame but how we productively move forward. Investments that were made produced amazing results in term of competition and student experience but we now have to put financial plans in place that will responsibly support us.

Senator and Vice President Robert Kyr, Music, asked at what point, as we continue to drain the Legacy Fund and arena revenues do not meet projections, might the financial model become so
imbalanced that the academic side will be affected.

Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt stated that the Athletic Department has been given an
unequivocal mandate from President Lariviere to be financially self-sustaining. The Athletic Department must pay our way. The current plan is that the Athletic Department will be generating much more revenue within a 4-6 year time frame. The Athletic Department will not ask the University for general fund dollars.

Vice President and Senator Kyr asked if there is a danger that the current circumstances will overwhelm any new plan to improve the financial picture of the Athletic Department. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said the Athletic Department has contained expenses, made reductions where possible, put controls in place, and is only investing in areas with revenue growth potential. Athletic Department personnel continue to review all revenue streams and put together conservative financial projections. She also talked about increasing the student experience.

Senator Walton, Library, asked if “increased student experience” referred to all students or only
student-athletes. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt said she was referring to the support being given to student-athletes.

Senator Deborah Healey, Linguistics, said she lives in the West University area and asked how much of the athletic revenue comes from alcohol sales. Athletic Director Mullens replied that it was a fraction of the total concession revenue.

Student Senator Zachary Stark-Macmillan said he found it amazing, when reviewing the athletic
budget, that only $112,000 is set aside annually for academic support. Sr. Associate Athletic Director Ms. Moffitt explained that this amount was only for the Life Skills Tutoring program, which is entirely funded by the Athletic Department. Academic tutoring is funded entirely by the Provost office and is not supported by the Athletic Department.

Senate President Tublitz gave a quick background that around eight years ago the Senate created a committee to review athletic support and the decision was made to move student athlete academic support to the Provost Office.

Senator Tracy Barr, AAA, questioned Athletic Director Mullens about his strategy to bridge the discord between the university and athletics.

Athletic Director Mullens said that his department has visited with a variety of campus committees, including the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) and the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) as well as presenting at the Senate Leadership Caucus in September. He mentioned that there is substantial campus collaboration between academics and athletics of which people are not aware. Former interim athletic director Davis is compiling a list and Athletic Director Mullens said people will be surprised to see how much is already happening. He said that the Athletic Department will continue to find ways to enhance and increase that collaboration. He has also asked Professor Dennis Howard, Business, for ways to help students. Senate President Tublitz thanked Rob and Jamie for their presentation, noting that this is the first time the University community has ever had this type of open athletic discussion and it is because of the commitment by Athletic Director Mullens and Sr. Associate Athletic Director Moffitt to open and honest discourse.

Associate Professor Dev Sinha, Mathematics and Chair of Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC), informed the Senate that the IAC consists of 13 faculty members who regularly meet and talk with members of the Athletic Department. There will soon be an IAC blog and IAC chair Sinha recommended that Senate members routinely visit the committee website and participate on the blog.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Roger Thompson, Enrollment Management (postponed to a future meeting)

5.2 Frances Dyke, Vice President for Finance and Administration reporting on the status of Senate Motion US08/09 Concerning Transparency of University Financial Transactions

Frances Dyke, Vice-President for Finance and Administration, gave the following status report of Senate Motion US08/09-08 Concerning Transparency of University Financial Transactions – passed a year and a half ago.

• The administration launched a DuckWeb tool during fall term last year. This site, available to all faculty and staff, provides summary financial information. This is Transparency Basic.

• President Nathan Tublitz convened a group to work with the administration and recommend enhancements to the financial information available in support of compliance with the senate motion.

• The group included Carla McNally (OMAS), Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Nathan Tublitz (Biology) and Roberta Mann (Law). Kelly Wolf, Comptroller and Director of Business Affairs, is administrator in charge and Holly Thaxton (BAO) is support staff assigned to this project.

• This group broadly consulted with various professionals on campus and explored data availability, web site enhancements, public records issues, OARs governing privacy of faculty records, and other relevant topics.

• The financial system contains an enormous amount of personal information. This personal information is extremely difficult or sometimes impossible to mask. Thus any fiscal transparency system must protect the rights of individual community members protected by the OARs governing faculty records and by FERPA.

• State Department of Justice and OUS attorneys are being consulted about which types of information can be disclosed under the faculty records statute. These are important questions related to privacy concerns and academic freedom.

• A product with more detail has been developed and is currently being tested. This tool will be within Banner, and will soon be ready to review after a few technical problems are resolved. This version of the fiscal transparency tool will be available to members of the Senate Budget Committee who will be required to undergo appropriate training and who will sign standard BANNER access Request Forms which include statements regarding Data Confidentiality and Acceptable Use. Senate Budget Committee members have a need to know this information as their role is to provide confidential advice to the administration regarding financial decisions. This is Transparency Premium.

• Whichever tool is accessible to individuals it is important to keep in mind that context and interpretation are important in understanding financial information and consultation with appropriate professionals is encouraged when using this data.

Senator Bonine, Law, asked if we used OUS attorneys and if so, from what institutions. He also
requested any legal memoranda be posted on the website. Vice President Dyke said attorneys were from Portland State University, Oregon State University and the Chancellors office, and to her knowledge there are no legal memoranda.

Senate President Tublitz took the floor and said motion 08/09-08 passed in May, 2009 and has hit numerous legal and technical stumbling blocks. This past summer University attorneys sent a letter to the Oregon Department of Justice asking what can and cannot be accessed through the Fiscal Transparency tool however they have not yet responded.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice(s) of Motion

Senate President Tublitz introduced Professor Frank Stahl, Biology, who made a Notice of Motion to the Senate Executive Committee about 10 days ago regarding an update of the University policy on the Rights & Privilege of Retired and Emeriti Faculty.

Professor Stahl reported that the Committee on Rights & Privileges of Retired Faculty completed a revision of policy documents and will bring it to the Senate for discussion on November 10th and a vote to adopt on Dec 1st.

Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate of the two motions coming up at the next Senate
Meeting. The Allegations of Research Misconduct motion US10/11-02 that Lynette Schenkel discussed earlier and Professor Stahl’s motion (US10/11-03). Senator Bonine, Law, stated that any motion made today or 23 days prior to the next meeting will be reviewed by the Senate Rules Committee. He recommended all notices of motion be posted immediately on the Senate website and an RSS feed be established to let Senate members know when something new goes to the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz explained that motions are posted immediately and that the Senate will work on establishing RSS feeds.

Paul Simonds, Anthropology Emeritus and Senate Parliamentarian, explained his services to the
Senate even though he no longer has an office on campus. His contact information is listed on the Senate website.

Senate President Tublitz explained the Senate is currently searching for a half-time Executive
Coordinator with full benefits. This position will be posted internally in the next few days. He asked Senators to alert their constituencies to this open position and to have any interested parties contact him for more information.

Everyone was invited to join the Senate and Administration Reception in the Law School Morse lounge immediately following this meeting for the awarding of the 2010 Senate Distinguished Service Awards.

7. ADJOURNMENT

There was a Motion to adjourn and the meeting adjourned at 4:57pm.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for January 16, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 January, 2013

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for January 16, 2013 to order at 3:02PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He mentioned that the signup sheet was being circulated and asked all Senators to please sign in as they were taking their seats.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the November 7 & December 5, 2012 Senate Meetings

Senate President Kyr postponed the approval of the minutes. He felt that Senators had not had sufficient time to review the minutes and wanted to give them ample time to do so.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr delivered a message from President Gottfredson, who could not attend the Senate meeting. The message is displayed below in its entirety.

“Dear Senate President Kyr,

As you know, I am unable to attend the January meeting of the Senate. I therefore write in accordance of provisions of the UO Constitution to provide my commentary on three resolutions passed at the December meeting of the University Senate.

First, Senate action on US12/13-10, a resolution that expresses support for the prioritization of classroom space in future construction projects at the University of Oregon. I accept the recommendation within the resolution that classroom space be a priority in planning. The Straub and Earl Halls classroom expansion project, which is the universities highest priority capital project for the 2013 Legislative Session and the second highest priority for the State Board of Higher Education will add significant classroom space. As you know, more and more learning occurs outside traditional classrooms. Other high priority projects include the science commons and research library expansion and remodel, the Chapman Hall renovation, the seismic upgrade and deferred maintenance project, the Huestis Hall second floor renovation, and the Global Studies Building. I have attached the proposals presented to the State Board of Higher Education regarding these five projects. They reflect the university’s strategic priorities. (Senate President Kyr stated that he would send the President’s letter to all Senators)

Second, Senate action on US12/13-09 a resolution that expresses support for the prioritization of increased study space for the growing student population. I accept this recommendation and look forward to working with the appropriate persons toward accomplishing the stated goals.

Third, Senate action on US12/13-08, support for maintaining 4J neighborhood schools. I appreciate that individual faculty members are engaged in the larger community, and that they are speaking out on matters that affect the community, however the university will not take an official position on this issue. The Senate resolution is an expression of the opinion of that body and of those individual Senators who voted for it.

All the best,

President Michael Gottfredson”

Senate President Kyr thanked President Gottfredson for his report. He was very grateful for a President who responded immediately to motions passed by the Senate. He also thanked those who brought resolutions before the Senate. Senate President Kyr stated that the President was very busy with the upcoming Legislative Session and would not be able to attend the March Senate meeting as well. He then invited Provost James C. Bean to present his remarks to the Senate.

2.1 Remarks by Provost James C. Bean

Provost Bean remarked that the Academic Plan generated three primary goals. The first goal was to maintain and improve the quality of the university’s metrics relative to staying in the AAU (American Association of Universities). Those issues had come more into focus and President Gottfredson was very committed to significantly improving those metrics. Both the Provost and the President believed that research was a primary goal of a research one university and for the UO to adequately compete at a high level, significant progress in research of all types must be made in regards to their metrics. Over the next several months, discussions were beginning regarding significant organizational changes that he hoped would increase the university’s ability to compete. There had been issues within the research community over the past several months. The Provost charged a research advisory panel chaired by Edward Kameenui (Associate Dean of Research and Outreach) and Gerry Richmond (Chemistry). He stated that the panel had done a fabulous job and submitted a report which examined the organizational changes ongoing at the institution and how that complicated communication. New policies were being developed to clarify the relationships between Deans and the Vice President for Research and Innovation in an attempt to streamline and focus the UO’s ability to expand the research enterprise.

A second issue mentioned by Provost Bean was the continuation of CLLAS (the Center of Latino and Latin American Studies). He stated that there had never been any discussion about not continuing the center. The center’s original three year funding support ended this year, which came at a time when the university was undergoing a great deal of reorganization of several centers and institutes. Meetings had taken place regarding the support of CLLAS, and he was confident that things would be sorted out and the great work that CLLAS had done would not only be recognized, but would be expanded in the near future. The Provost commented that the enrollment of Latino students at the UO over the past several years had increased dramatically and CLLAS deserved a portion of the credit.

Finally, the Provost discussed head count increases at the university. One of the data pieces that he presented at the December Senate meeting was correct but wrong. He explained this statement and said that statistically the number presented was correct, but upon further review, he realized statistical anomalies in accounting had masked an issue that he had been investigating since the December meeting, which he was concerned about. The area of concern was the growth of OAs (Officers of Administration) on campus. His previous figure was just over 1% growth, but did not take into consideration that fifty three librarians had been transferred from OAs to NTTF (Non-Tenure Track Faculty). The Provost reran the numbers taking this into consideration and what was uncovered was a significant increase in OAs, which was a great deal more than he had been aware of. His office spent time trying to figure out why this had happened and part of the reason was due to a one year comparison. He decided to look at the last five years and the compounded percentage growth in various areas. During this period, UO students had grown at a compounded rate of approximately 4.2%. Faculty had increased by 3.9% per year, which was divided into 2.9% for tenure track faculty and 4.7% annual growth for non-tenure track faculty. Schools and colleges had additional resources to hire faculty, but it was much more labor intensive to higher tenure track faculty. The Provost mentioned that several schools and colleges had major plans to hire additional tenure track faculty in the future. Librarians had grown at 2.2% per year. Classified Staff had grown at 2.5% per year. Graduate assistants had grown at 4.5% per year. Student work studies had grown at 6.1% per year. He then mentioned that overall, OAs had grown at 4.8% per year, which was slightly higher than student growth. In central offices OAs had grown at 4.3%, which was virtually identical to student growth and in the schools and colleges OAs had grown at 7.2% per year. Significant growth had been taking place where tuition dollars had been flowing. In one respect, he felt good about these new hires because they were taking place close to where the mission of the university lay, but he was also concerned that the growth rate was so much higher than that of students and he wanted to see more attention placed on new faculty hires.

Over the last twenty-four hours, Provost Bean asked Unclassified Personnel Services to provide him with information regarding what had transpired regarding OA growth during the past year. He reported that the high rate of OA hiring had continued with forty-eight new position being created already during the 2012-2013 year. He considered this number to be quite high, and his office was going to be looking at ways to control this rising percentage. One positive point mentioned by the Provost was that the UO’s staffing levels had been returning to what they were before the recession and student increases. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.  

2.2 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) asked for a point of clarification. She wanted to know if the forty-eight OA positions mentioned by Provost Bean were newly created positions or replacements. Provost Bean replied that those were new positions.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) thanked the Provost for assembling the numbers and asked if it could be posted to the Senate website, to which Provost Bean replied that he would be sending the information out in an email to the campus community and would be posting all data soon.

An unidentified speaker asked if some of the OA positions could be reclassifications, to which Provost Bean replied that was a possibility and that some of the new positions had been reclassified, but he was unsure of how many.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr thanked Provost Bean for his remarks.

2.3 Remarks by Senate President Kyr

2.3.1 Election of Senate President-Elect

Senate President Kyr reminded the Senate that there were still no candidates for the Senate Vice Presidency. He implored the Senate to help him to identify potential candidates for this extremely important position. His term was ending in May and candidates needed to be identified. Once identified, a conversation would take place entailing all responsibilities of the position. Senate President Kyr also mentioned that the Ten Year Review of all university standing committees was taking place and workloads were being reexamined across the university in terms of service. This review would help to redefine the Senate President’s job as well. He again asked Senators to help him to identify candidates for a possible election at the February Senate meeting. He then mentioned that the Senate Vice President would serve on the Committee on Committees, which was carrying out the Ten Year Review.

2.3.2 Search for Senate Executive Coordinator

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that due to the Ten Year Review, the remainder of the work for the 2012-2013 year in the position of Senate Executive Coordinator would be done by Christopher Prosser (former Senate Executive Coordinator), who was now a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin. Senate President Kyr stated that Mr. Prosser would be working closely with the Senate and that he knew the system very well. Joining him would be Harlan Mechling (student) who was a member of the Senate Executive Committee from 2011-2013 and the ASUO Director of Academic Affairs. Harlan would be working with the Senate through his work-study appointment. The newly elected Senate Vice President would then be tasked with finding one person to perform the duties of the Senate Executive Coordinator. He hoped that that person would begin on June 1, as the election for the next Senate Vice President would take place during May, 2013. He believed that this arrangement would work extremely well. He then invited Yvette Alex-Assensoh to the Senate floor to present her remarks.

3. OPEN DISCUSSION

3.1 Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Vice President for Equity and Inclusion

Ms. Alex-Assensoh thanked President Kyr and the Senate for allowing her to address them. She informed the Senate that not only was she the Vice President for Equity and Inclusion, but she was also a faculty member in Political Science and had had a career as a professor of Political Science at Indiana University for eighteen years before coming to Eugene. In that capacity, she understood the tremendous work done by Senators, not only in terms of teaching and research, but by also taking on additional service responsibilities. She then stated that the Office of Equity and Inclusion, which was originally the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity, was comprised of five different units: the Central Unit in Johnson Hall, the Multicultural Unit in the EMU (Erb Memorial Union), the Longhouse, CODAC (Center on Diversity and Community), and the Center for Multicultural Academic Excellence, which used to be OMAS. The work done in those offices served all aspects of campus in the community, and one important task that her office was trying to accomplish was to make sure that all five units communicated effectively. Her philosophy was based on four principles. The first was that the work of inclusion must be inclusive. Historically, similar offices had dealt with issues regarding race and ethnicity, which were extremely important issues and would remain a part of her portfolio. In addition to race and ethnicity, there were issues of class, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc… According to Ms. Alex-Assensoh, an office of Equity and Inclusion must be attentive to these aspects of identity. Her second principle involved working rigorously and engaging in best practices. Her third principle involved iterative work. Initially, policies and programs may be problematic, but it was important to keep trying. Her fourth principle was that equity and inclusion was everyone’s job. This was one of the real changes that she hoped would be coming out of her office. She wanted to make sure that her office was empowering every member of the campus community to become involved in equity and inclusion.

Ms. Alex-Assensoh stated that restructuring was not an easy task, and asked for questions from the Senate body.

3.2 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) was concerned with issues of transparency regarding the recent changes that were made in Ms. Alex-Assensoh’s office. She stated that she was aware, but not well educated about the constrains that Ms. Alex-Assensoh may have had to deal with in terms of making decisions regarding personnel that did not allow any kind of participation or communication. She then asked Ms. Alex-Assensoh to address the ways in which she would include the community in implementing her vision so that when members of the campus community were not side swiped when discussing issues of equity and inclusion.

Ms. Alex-Assensoh replied that Senator Dellabough was absolutely right that certain aspects of decision making and leadership were not as transparent as they should be. One of those areas dealt with personnel. She had asked her students if they would want employee changes to be made public, to which they replied no. According to Ms. Alex-Assensoh, those personnel were three of six or seven in her office and did not all involve persons of color. She then stated that there would be plenty of opportunities for faculty, students, and staff to engage with her. Since her arrival in early August, she had been on a listening tour through various faculty meetings. She also commented that there were other opportunities for faculty, students, and staff to serve on advisement boards and she encouraged all to participate in these endeavors.

The next question came from Senator John Bonine (Law). He stated that there was no question that personnel matters were not an issue for the Senate to discuss. Structure was an appropriate issue and he believed that Ms. Alex-Assensoh was making structural changes. He wanted to know if there were ways in which she planned to consult various constituencies on campus regarding her re-structuring plan.

Ms. Alex-Assensoh replied that she had been using and was going to continue to use a system of advisory boards that contained cross-campus representation. She stated that it was important to recognize, with respect to the work of her office, that there were certain necessary goals no matter what, and two of those goals were equity and inclusion. She recently visited several student groups to discuss her plans. She was also inviting people to sign up for service and her website offered a solicitation service. Ms. Alex-Assensoh asked if there were any other comments or questions that she might not have thought of in respect to Senator Bonine’s question.

Senate President Kyr asked for further questions or comments from the Senate body.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that there was concern for widespread consultation in areas that many were deeply invested, and she believed that this concern was not going to be answered by advisory boards, which by their nature were a small number of people. One of the great misfortunes of the university was that everyone was so busy and understaffed that people often hear about decisions after the fact. She recommended that Ms. Alex-Assensoh continually develop methods for larger groups to weigh in on issues coming out of her office. Ms. Alex-Assensoh thanked Senator Psaki for her recommendation. Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr thanked Ms. Alex-Assensoh for her presentation.

Before moving on to the New Business portion of the meeting, Senate President Kyr briefly discussed the proper protocol for presenting motions. He read through a document prepared by Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus), which is listed below:

PROTOCOL REGARDING MOTIONS

1. When a NOTICE OF MOTION is made, the motion is the property of the makers and no debate of the motion in the senate is proper.

2. The motion becomes the PROPERTY OF THE SENATE when it is moved and seconded and presented to the senate by the president (can be done by putting it on the screen)

2A. At this time the motion is up for debate and the maker of the motion is given the floor to make her or his case first. Then the president of the senate recognizes others to debate the issues.

2A1. When a senator has the floor, he or she may move to amend the MAIN MOTION. If there is a second, the debate is on the AMENDMENT to the main motion. Similarly an amendment to the amendment may be moved, seconded and debated but never a third level of amendments. (It gets too messy and the amendments already moved must be settled. Then a new round of amendments may begin, if necessary)

2A2. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: The so-called friendly amendment must be unanimously agreed to by the whole senate. This is because once the main motion has been moved, seconded and presented to the senate, it is the property of the senate and can no longer be changed by the mover of the motion. If ANY senator disagrees with the proposed friendly amendment, it must be voted on by the whole body after there has been a chance to discuss its merits. If you have a good idea for an amendment to the main motion, move to amend as in section 2A1 above. It is often quicker and less confusing. Friendly amendments are typically useful only when minor changes are proposed (slight changes in wording that do not substantially change the main motion) and unanimous agreement is likely.

3. When the president of the senate decides either the debate has wound down or time has run out, she or he calls for the vote. It is not necessary (and often confusing) to move the previous question [move to end debate and vote] before voting on amendments or the main motion. Each level of amendment is voted on before voting on the MAIN MOTION as amended (if the amendments pass).

 

3A. If a senator has the floor (recognized by the president) he or she may move the previous question (to end discussion and vote) if she or he feels the debate has gone on too long. It must be seconded and is not subject to debate.

After reading the document, Senate President thanked Parliamentarian Simonds for preparing the document and for clarifying motion protocol.

Senator John Bonine (Law) commented that a Senator might suggest to the Senate President to call for a vote, which was different than moving for a vote on a motion. This could be accomplished by a Senator calling the motion to question, which would not require a second.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked if the motions protocol could be posted on the internet, to which Senate President Kyr stated that the document would be posted to the Senate website.

4. NEW BUSINESS

4.1 Decision regarding Policy for Review: Data Access; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate Executive Committee had viewed the policy and deemed it unnecessary for Senate review, as it did not pertain to academic matters. He invited Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) to the Senate floor to present his motion.

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

Professor Tublitz moved his motion to the Senate floor, which was seconded. Professor Tublitz read his motion out loud to the Senate body, whose language can be found at the link above. He then stated that the Senate passed a motion (US12/13-04) in November stating that all executive administrators should undergo reviews on a regular basis. His motion was a follow up to that motion, which stated that the first of those reviews should be the Provost. He then discussed two reasons for this. The first reason was a symbolic one in that the Provost was the chief academic officers at the university, and as such, he believed it was important to begin the reviews at the top. The second reason was one of substance. According to Professor Tublitz, Provost Bean, throughout his tenure at the university had never undergone a performance review, and he thought it was important that everyone on campus undergo reviews from time to time.

Professor Tublitz stated that there was precedence for this kind of review for senior administrators, but Russ Tomlin (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) had undergone a similar review, and he thought the entire university benefited from that review. He then reiterated that the reviews should begin with the Provost, and asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first comment came from Senator Robert Elliot (American English Institute). He wanted to know if there was a reason why no review had been given for the Provost, to which Professor Tublitz replied that it was asked for by two previous UO Presidents, but for whatever reason, the reviews had not taken place.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) wanted to know the logic of an ad homonym motion, to which Professor Tublitz replied that the motion passed by the Senate in November was a global motion for all administrators, his motion was more specific.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) asked for a point of clarification and stated that the President had responded positively to motion US12/13-04, which was previously adopted by the Senate, and wanted to know if there had been a request from the Senate to have the President articulate what his plan was for sequencing reviews. He thought the President might have a different take on who should be the first to be reviewed, and wanted to know if that discussion had taken place.

Senate President Kyr remarked that the executive review committee had been formed, which was a part of Motion US12/13-04, and they would be meeting in the following weeks. The President had prepared a statement for the committee, which suggested a starting place relating to reviews for executive administrators.

Senator Martinez then asked if that information made Professor Tublitz’s motion timely or untimely. He was not sure if the committee, working together with the President, should decide who should be reviewed first or should the motion presented by Professor Tublitz decide. Senate President Kyr replied that the President was strongly supportive of executive administrative reviews, but he had not seen a list of names of who would be reviewed and when.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) commented that the Senate had already passed a motion that specifically stated that all senior administrators would be reviewed. He then remarked that Professor Tublitz’s motion was a subset of the previously passed motion and seemed redundant to him.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that he had had difficulty obtaining reviews that had been completed and was not able to obtain a copy of the review process implemented by Russ Tomlin (former Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs). He then commented that it was going to be a difficult process for determining a comprehensive process of reviewing many people. He believed that Senator Tublitz’s motion was completely appropriate given the importance of the Provost’s position and the fact that faculty had not been able to weigh in on his performance.

Senator John Bonine (Law) commented that according to the Protocols of the Motion document displayed earlier from Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) the maker of the motion should not stand up in front of the room as if s/he was running the meeting. He suggested that Professor Tublitz should take his seat in the spirit of liberating the discussion. He then commented that Motion US12/13-04 stated that the President would create an ad hoc committee to develop a flexible policy for regular review, etc… Senator Bonine then asked if a committee had been appointed, had that committee met, and were they working on a policy that included catch up reviews.

Senate President Kyr replied that the committee had been appointed, but was smaller than he had hoped. The members of the committee were Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics), the maker of the motion, Margie Paris (Law), Julie Newton (Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs), Douglas Blandy (Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs), and Senate President Kyr. The first meeting was taking place during the coming week in which the topics of catch up review, and other topics contained within the motion including the document prepared by the President were to be discussed.

Senator Bonine then asked if Senate President Kyr could estimate when catch up reviews were beginning. Senate President Kyr believed that the motion had a certain degree of urgency and as such the committee was going to move forward with the review process.

Provost James C. Bean (Senior Vice President and Provost) stated that both he and President Gottfredson were very committed to reviews of senior academic administrators. According to the Provost, all reports to his office were up to date. He then commented that it had not been the tradition at the university that Presidents had reviewed Provosts, and President Gottfredson was changing that sentiment. The President would review the Provost according to policy established by the Executive Review Committee.

Senate President Kyr asked Senators to offer their comments to the Executive Review Committee if they had them, as all comments were welcome.

Senator John Bonine (Law) commented that in reading the November 2012-2013 minutes, there was mention of both personnel and performance reviews. According to Senator Bonine, personnel reviews were personal and confidential, but the Senate was discussing performance reviews, which presumably was something different. He then asked if there was a distinction between performance and personnel reviews, and if performance reviews had never been undertaken, was everyone subject to a performance review.

Senate President Kyr replied that these questions would be addressed by the committee, and mentioned that Motion US12/13-04 included the language “performance reviews,” not “personnel reviews.”

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) commented that when he was a child, his mother frequently asked him to clean his room, to which he agreed, but did not do it. One week later, she again asked him to clean his room. He stated that he was strongly in favor of the “policy” of cleaning his room, but he never cleaned his room until he was forced to do so. He then stated that he was unsure about the timing on Professor Tublitz’s motion, but he believed it was important to remind the administration that at some point, the Senate would grab administrators by the collar and say “now.” He then commented that this would be done in a collegial manner.

Senator Amy Jones (Student Senator) spoke in favor of Professor Tublitz’s motion. She believed that now was the time to put the review process into motion, especially if future administrators were to be held accountable. She again spoke in favor of the motion.

Professor Tublitz (Biology) stated that President Gottfredson, through Provost Bean and Senate President Kyr, had said that he was in favor of a review of administrators. He then reiterated Provost Bean’s statement that the President was going to initiate a review of the Provost. In light of this information, Professor Tublitz stated that his motion was both timely and appropriate and asked Senators to consider voting “yes” on his motion.

Senator Bonine moved to table Professor Tublitz’s motion until the February meeting when the Senate would act on the motion. He stated that the Executive Review Committee was supposed to come up with a policy for reviewing senior administrators by the next meeting, and if it failed to do so, then the motion seem more relevant. If the committee came up with a policy, then the Senate would have a decision to make. Senator Bonine asked Parliamentarian Simonds if this was possible, to which he replied that Senator Bonine could move to table the motion until the next meeting, but it required a second. Senator Bonine’s motion was seconded.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the tabling of Professor Tublitz’s motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion to table passed with three “nay” votes.

Senate President Kyr stated that the committee would have a substantial report for the Senate at the next meeting, but he could not guarantee that an entire policy would be completed by February. He then thanked Professor Tublitz for presenting his motion, and called Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) to the Senate floor to present his motion.

4.3 Motion (Resolution): Data and Documents for the IAC and Clarifying FERPA; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics)

Senator Harbaugh moved his motion to the Senate, which was seconded. He then stated that faculty members on the IAC (Intercollegiate Athletics Committee) and the chair of the IAC had been trying to obtain data from the Registrar and the Vice President for Student Affairs that would allow them to view the academic performance of student athletes and compare that data to the academic performance of non-athlete students. In August, the committee was able to obtain partial transcript data on student athletes only, but it did not allow the committee to make comparisons with regular students. In October, after much back and forth, the IAC asked the registrar for data on all UO students on a wide variety of criteria, while excluding student names and ID numbers. He believed that these requests were standard, and stated that in the past, faculty had been able to obtain such information without difficulty. He had been told that FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) prevented faculty members from viewing student records, which he found shocking because faculty created student records by giving grades. Senator Harbaugh then commented that other Senate committees had been granted access to these data sets. He then read the motion to the Senate body, which can be viewed at the link above.

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

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff) wanted to know if there was any documentation from the Office of the Registrar that the IAC’s request violated FERPA regulations. He also wanted to know if the information would become public record once it was requested.

In response to Senator Ahlen’s first question, Senator Harbaugh replied that the IAC had been told by the Office of the Registrar that the general counsel had interpreted FERPA regulations to read that the committee would not be allowed to view the student information. A statement was also issued from the Vice President of Student Affairs that according to her interpretation of the IAC charge, the committee did not need the student information that they had requested. In response to Senator Ahlen’s second question, Senator Harbaugh replied that the student records were already public records, but they were exempt from disclosure and would continue to be exempt.

Senate President Kyr asked if the IAC had a written opinion from the Office of the General Counsel, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he had not seen any written response from that office.

Senator Charles Martinez (Education) asked if the core issue was regarding the definition of “educational interest” as stated in the US Department of Education’s interpretation of the FERPA Act, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he had received emails stating that people did not believe that the IAC should be allowed access to the data requested. No one had specifically mentioned the phrase “educational interest.” Senator Martinez wondered if the motion should be about establishing educational interest instead of its current aim, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he did not think the Senate should have to reaffirm the IAC’s charge. He was merely trying to implement the charge by collecting the data.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) commented that it would be nice if a level playing field was established by including a member of the administration who could state why pushback was taking place on this issue. It was difficult for him to make an informed judgment on the issue when only being presented with one side. Senator Harbaugh replied that he had asked both Randy Geller (General Counsel) and Robin Holmes (Vice President for Student Affairs) to attend the Senate meeting to explain their emails, but they both had declined his invitation. Senator Mitchell recommended that the Senate should work closer with the administration to improve the flow of information exchange.

Senate President Kyr offered a point of clarification to Senator Mitchell’s comment regarding the Senate working better. Senate President Kyr stated that it was the IAC who was asking for the information, not the Senate.

Senator John Bonine (Law) stated that it was his understanding after reading Senator Harbaugh’s motion that it was not asking for personally identifiable data and therefore, the question of educational interest was not an issue, however if the holder of the information considered it to be personally identifiable, then the question of educational interest became an issue to be resolved. He then commented that to the degree that the motion said that it was not asking for personally identifiable information, that point would not be associated with the question of educational interest. It should be aggregated in such a way that no personally identifiable information could be acted out.

Senator Bonine then commented that he agreed completely with Senator Mitchell’s sentiment that administrators should attend Senate meetings to provide their side of the story. He then asked the Provost, who was a representative of the administration and a member of the faculty, to instruct these administrators to attend the Senate meetings and respond or to send a written reply to these notices of motions so that the Senate could hear both sides of the story.

Provost James Bean commented that these issues dealt with problems of communication and stated that Senate President Kyr met with administrators before Senate meetings and they needed to do a better job of running through the agenda items and trying to schedule the appropriate people to attend the meetings. He was not aware of any resistance from administrators to attend Senate meetings aside from scheduling conflicts. The Provost then commented that the UO Constitution offered a solution to the motion. If the motion was passed, it went to the President who would either accept and implement it or reject it and offer a reason why as he did today. The Provost suspected that the President would ask Randy Geller (General Counsel) for his interpretation of the FERPA Act as part of the process.

Senator Will Steiner (Student Senator) stated he took issue with the language of Senator Harbaugh’s motion and asked if the survey mentioned in the motion compared athletes with regular students, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that the survey compared the choices and performance of athletes with regular students. By including regular students, they would be able to include controls for SATs scores and other items. Senator Steiner offered a friendly amendment to change the language of the motion from “regular students” to “non-student athletes,” and mentioned that the ASUO ran into a great deal of trouble when they had previously used the term “regular students.” Senator Harbaugh accepted his friendly amendment, and moved that the friendly amendment be accepted by the Senate. Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken and the amendment passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further points of discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. He then invited Senator Kassia Dellabough (PODS) to the Senate floor to present the next motion.

4.4 Motion (Legislation): UO Representation on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS); UO Senate Executive Committee, Kassia Dellabough (PODS), SEC member

Senator Kassia Dellabough (PODS) moved the motion to the Senate and called for a second. Her motion was seconded and she then stated that the motion insured three university Senators on the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). She then read the contents of the motion to the Senate, which can be found at the link above.

After Senator Dellabough presented the motion, Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) wanted to know the status of this motion given the probability of an independent governing board being established at the university, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the OUS system was shifting. The IFS was defined in relationship to the OUS system. He then stated that the idea of the motion was to insure UO representation on the IFS given any scenario. He believed that the most fruitful representation would be the Senate President, Senate Vice President, and a tenure track Senator.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked what TTF meant, to which Senate President Kyr replied that it meant Tenure Track Faculty.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) wanted to know if there was any specific reason why the third IFS Senator needed to be a tenure track faculty member. Senate President Kyr replied that historically, that had been the case. Senator Emami then commented that there had been an NTTF (Non-Tenure Track Faculty) IFS Senator several years ago. He then asked that the motion be amended to include all members of the Statutory Faculty Assembly for the third IFS Senate seat from UO.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. He then invited Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) to the Senate floor to present his two motions.

4.5 Motion (Legislation Resubmitted): Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Stahl read his motion to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. After reading his motion, he asked for a second. His motion was seconded and he then commented that it was important that Senators be free of teaching duties during Senate meetings. Senate President Kyr called for discussion on the motion.

Provost James C. Bean (Senior Vice President and Provost) asked if Professor Stahl intended that no classes were to be offered between the hours from 3-5pm on Wednesdays. He then commented that he was concerned with classroom utilization. Professor Stahl replied that this was not his intent. His motion asked that Senators not be assigned to teach classes during Senate meetings. Classes would still be given, but Senators would not be assigned to teach during those times.

Senator John Bonine (Law) believed that what Professor Stahl was saying was that once a month, a Senator was completely free to reschedule his or her class. Professor Stahl replied that if the work could be rescheduled between the student and the teacher satisfactorily, that would be perfectly alright with him.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) stated that such an agreement could be established between a teacher and student without Professor Stahl’s motion, and he moved that the motion be tabled indefinitely, to which Professor Stahl replied that he wanted teachers to have the full backing of the Senate so that teachers in all departments would understand that they have that right to attend Senate meetings under legislation. He was interested in protecting teachers/Senators.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) commented that Professor Stahl’s motion was still unclear and offered a scenario that he hoped Professor Stahl could clarify. Senator Lin stated that if his department assigned him teaching duties from 3 – 5pm on Wednesdays, was he responsible for rearranging his schedule, or should he not have been assigned to teach during that day and time.

Professor Stahl asked if anyone else in the Senate thought the wording of his motion was obscure. An unidentified person questioned Professor Stahl, who replied that if a Senator was assigned a class, the chairperson who assigned the class would understand that because that person was a Senator, he or she would be free to not attend that class whenever the Senate was in session. Knowing this, the chairperson would presumably have assigned teaching duties at a time that did not conflict with the Senate meeting.

The unidentified person offered an amendment to the language of the motion to include the phrase “by the administration of the Senator’s union” after the word “rescheduled” under the MOVED portion of the motion.

After making his amendment, Senate President Kyr replied that he did not understand the amendment, at which point Professor Stahl asked if there were teachers who had experience and could inform him as to whether the amendment changed the operation of the motion as written.

Senator John Bonine (Law) suggested leaving the sentence as written, and adding a sentence that stated “All of those who schedule faculty members to teach shall cooperate to promulgate this policy.” He then commented that a Senator was not responsible for others complying with faculty legislation. If the motion was accepted by the President, it was essentially a command to be followed by others at the university, and the Senate was making that explicit that this policy shall be implemented by all persons making such assignments. He then asked Professor Stahl if the sentence, “This policy shall be implemented by all persons making such assignments,” could be added to the motion, to which Professor Stahl replied that he was constitutionally opposed to things that were already clearly explicit, but he would not object if Senator Bonine made such a motion, it was seconded, and approved by the Senate, but he would not accept it because he felt it was totally unnecessary.

Senator Amy Jones (Student Senator) stated that it was very important for every Senator to attend Senate meetings, but she took issue with the fact that classes would be canceled for students who paid a great deal of money to attend the university. While some students would appreciate having classes canceled, she hoped that professors would attend every class. She asked that classes not be held during Senate meetings, or if it must be so, that a replacement professor or guest lecturer be found.

Senate President Kyr commented that the period of discussion was coming to a close and no one had moved their amendments. He strongly urged Senators to take action on this motion.

Ken Doxsee (Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) echoed Senator Amy Jones concern and stated that he was very supportive in finding ways for Senators to attend meetings. Regarding scheduling, he stated that the scheduler was ultimately responsible for matching classes with room assignments; he was concerned with the scheduler’s role in trying to reschedule or avoid scheduling Senators into class periods given the incredible number of restraints that were already on the shoulders of the scheduler. He was also concerned with the rescheduling of courses. He was not sure how that would feature into the collective bargaining agreement, but it was worth considering whether or not that would be allowable.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) commented that if a member of the faculty was elected to serve on the Senate, then the Senate came first. Senator John Bonine commented that to him, the motion was clear, and if rescheduling needed to take place, it would be handled by the faculty as was the current practice. He then commented that the Senate should not be concerned with the university scheduler and that classes should be held when the Senate meets. Senator Bonine stated that he was ready to vote on the motion.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with 5 nay votes.

4.6 Motion (Legislation Resubmitted): Modification of Fiscal Impact Statement; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Frank Stahl (Emeritus Biology) read his motion to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. He believed that there were people who had not brought very important motions to the Senate because they did not know how to calculate a meaningful cost estimate of their motion. If the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) found that a fiscal impact statement was important, then the SEC would help the sponsor of the motion in calculating a fiscal impact statement.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with 1 nay vote and 2 abstentions.

Senator John Bonine (Law) commented that some Senators do not vote when asked to vote.

5. REPORTS

Senate President Kyr invited Harlan Mechling (ASUO University Affairs Director) to the Senate floor to deliver the ASUO Report on behalf of ASUO President Laura Hinman.

5.1 ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President

Mr. Mechling apologized to the Senate regarding a miscommunication that had taken place between he and Ms. Hinman. He did not have her notes and was not able to deliver the ASUO Report. The report would be delivered at the Senate meeting in February.

Senate President Kyr thanked Mr. Mechling and invited Senator Gordon Sayre (English) to the Senate floor to deliver the UA Senate Liaison Committee Report.

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

Senator Gordon Sayre (English) stated that he was proud to represent United Academics at the Senate meeting. The Union had begun collective bargaining during the fall term and the meetings were continuing into the winter term. The bargaining meetings took place every other week on Tuesday and Thursday mornings from 8am – 12pm. He recognized Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) as a member of the bargaining team.

Senator Sayre commented that the bargaining was proceeding slowly and a great deal of work was left to accomplish before the end of the year. The committee had presented thirty proposals, all of which could be found at the UAUO website under the bargaining tab. He encouraged members of the faculty to read through their proposals, and to pass along their comments to the members of the bargaining team. Tentative agreements had been reached on two of the thirty proposals, which were regarding consultation and separability. According to Senator Sayre, the administrative team had submitted five counterproposals, and many of the thirty proposals were based on the universities current policies and practices. Their intent was to preserve what was already in place and to make it enforceable by placing it into the collective bargaining agreement.

Senator Sayre regretted to report that the administrative team had resisted placing some of those policies into the collective bargaining agreement so they would not be enforceable through a grievance process. One controversial item was the question of job security, renewal, and timely notice for NTTF (Non-Tenure Track Faculty). The bargaining team was arguing for enhanced working conditions and collegial decision making. One of their proposals dealt with shared governance and the power/status of the University Senate.

The members of UAUO (United Academics University of Oregon) encouraged greater faculty participation in the bargaining process and asked that everyone wear a pin-on button on the days when bargaining was taking place, which was on Tuesday, January 22 and Thursday, January 24. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Seeing no questions or comments, Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Sayre and all members of the bargaining team for their hard work during this challenging time of bargaining.

5.3 Updates on Motions; Robert Kyr, Senate President

5.3.1 Motion on Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators

5.3.2 Motion on Review of Executive Administrators

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the Executive Review Committee had been formed and was meeting next week to discuss various items for their Senate report at the February meeting. He then invited Harlan Mechling (ASUO University Affairs Director) to the Senate floor to update the Senate on his two motions.

5.3.3 Motion on Study Space Prioritization

5.3.4 Motion on Classroom Space Prioritization

Mr. Mechling informed that Senate that the Study Space Taskforce had their first meeting on January 15 and he would be delivering a full report to the Senate at the February meeting. At the meeting, the taskforce discussed overall impressions regarding the EMU Extended Hours Project. They also established criteria regarding locations for suitable study space. One possible location was Carson Hall and another was the Student Recreation Center. Another topic of discussion was the establishment of a security route for officers of the UOPD (University of Oregon Police Department). He then reiterated that a more substantive report would be forthcoming.

5.3.5 Report from IAC (Student Athlete Academic Status re: OAR on Random Drug Testing)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that Associate Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance), the chair of the IAC, asked for an extension on delivering his report, which was granted by Senate President Kyr. Both Professor McWhorter and Mr. Mechling would deliver their reports to at the February Senate meeting.

5.4 Ten-Year Review of University Standing Committees; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate the preliminary focal group meetings had taken place, and next week the committee would hold their first full meeting. He was very optimistic that within the course of the year, the committee would return to the Senate with a substantive proposal on the reform of university service, which would include acknowledgement and incentive for service.

5.5 Report from UO Police Department at February Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the report from the UO Police Department was postponed until the February Senate meeting at the request of the President Gottfredson.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr called for announcements and communications from the floor.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) commented that Professor Bob Doppelt (PPPM) had asked him to place his motion regarding a UO golf course on the February Senate meeting agenda, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the motion would be on the agenda.

Senator Harbaugh then commented that he was concerned that the Senate would not have sufficient information to have an intelligent discussion regarding Professor Doppelt’s motion. He asked if the administration would cooperate with the Senate in order to have a representative attend the Senate meeting who knew details about and could speak on the motion. Senate President Kyr agreed with Senator Harbaugh’s concern and commented that the maker of the motion should request their needs in order to accurately present their motion. A request should be made to Senate President Kyr and he would do his best to realize that request.

Senator Harbaugh requested to have a member of the administration to discuss the motion and data on the project at the next Senate meeting, to which Senate President Kyr replied that he should submit his request in writing, and he would label them as business of the Senate.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) commented that he would be placing two items on the agenda regarding two policies passed by the Senate almost two years ago. The policies were the Facilities Use Policy and the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy. He stated that these two policies had been rewritten by an administrator after being passed by the Senate, to which Senate President Kyr commented that Professor Stahl was misinformed. Those two policies were being considered and were scheduled to come before the Senate at some point during the year. Professor Stahl replied that he would like to discuss the form in which those two policies were to return to the Senate at a later time, to which Senate President Kyr agreed.

Senate President Kyr thanked Senators for their participation and hard work.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the January 16, 2013 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:09PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for December 05, 2012

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 05 December, 2012

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for December 5, 2012 to order at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the October 10, 2012 Senate Meeting

Before approving the minutes, Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if there were any corrections or comments. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote to approve the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that President Gottfredson had to leave the Senate meeting after his state of the university report. He then invited the President to the Senate floor.

2.1 Remarks by University President Michael Gottfredson

President Gottfredson updated the Senate on several action items that had recently been passed by the Senate, which required his participation. Both he and Senate President Kyr had been recruiting committee members for the review of senior academic administrators, and they were very close to finalizing the membership. The committee would be appointed very soon and both he and Senate President Kyr would then meet with the committee to develop the committee charge. President Gottfredson stated that he and the Provost strongly supported faculty involvement in the review of academic administrators. He then stated that faculty involvement was necessary, and as soon as the committee was formed, they would be informed of the current review policy and would have the opportunity to make suggestions to augment faculty participation in these reviews.

According to President Gottfredson, the administration had begun bargaining with the faculty union. The President stated that it was going very well and that both sides had the same objectives, which was to provide for competitive compensation and a supportive working environment for faculty. He then mentioned that the sessions were open for people to attend, and felt confident that the meetings would continue to progress well.

President Gottfredson recognized several outstanding faculty achievements beginning with Professor Bruce Bowerman (Biology). Professor Bowerman was elected by his peers to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The President stated that this was a tremendous accomplishment, and then mentioned Professor Geri Richmond (Chemistry), who was appointed to the National Science Board by President Barack Obama.

The President stated that Governor Kitzhaber had announced his proposed budget for the coming biennium. The budget signaled financial and organizational matters pertaining to the university and the fulfillment of its mission to be one of the premiere research institutions in the nation. According to President Gottfredson, the Governor’s approach to budgeting depended in part on the legislature adopting significant PERS guideline reforms, which would provide savings necessary to pay for other state services that were allocated for in the budget. These budget items were referred to as the “kids and education first budget,” and President Gottfredson was very excited to hear the Governor discuss his priorities regarding these budgetary items. He then stated that the budget also proposed organizational changes to the landscape of higher education. One change was the formation of a new department of post secondary education. That department would centralize policy for the seventeen community colleges in the state, seven public universities, and OHSU. The Governor suggested reducing the Chancellor’s budget by roughly 8.4 percent and redirecting some of those funds to the department of post secondary education. He then stated that the budget proposed by the Governor did not include a specific list of capital construction projects unlike in previous years. Project funding would be determined by a process that involved the Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB). The OEIB would review recommendations put forth by universities, which would be prioritized on the basis of each projects consistency with the 40-40-20 initiative. The university had strong interest in that prioritization with several renovations scheduled to begin in the months ahead. Several other capital projects were mentioned by the President including the renovation of the EMU and Student REC Center, as well as updates to student housing.

One notable item in the proposed budget was a twenty percent increase to the Oregon Opportunity Grant Program. This increase could open the program up to additional students and could increase benefits to student who were already in the program. President Gottfredson stated that the Governor’s budget was an effort to stabilize funding sources for key priorities that the Governor had identified, which was very welcome news. There was quite a lot of work to be done and a great deal of process needed to take place in the legislature.

President Gottfredson informed the Senate that his administration had been very active regarding the issue of independent governing boards. He was extremely optimistic about the prospect of the institution acquiring an independent governing board, and this would be discussed and acted upon during the upcoming legislative session. The President stressed that the board would be a public board for a public university. It would enable and enhance the universities ability to meets its public interest goals. He then reiterated that the board that was being proposed was consistent with the universities public mission and goals. The proposed legislation that created the independent governing boards would be quite detailed and complex, but would illuminate a clearer path towards financial stability. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.2 Questions and Comments with Response

Senate President Kyr personally thanked President Gottfredson on behalf of the Senate for his many accomplishments in his brief time at the university. President Gottfredson thanked him for his words and stated that he would try to continue to earn those types of remarks. Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr invited Provost James C. Bean to the Senate floor to present his remarks.

2.3 Remarks by Provost James C. Bean

Provost James C. Bean remarked that he had recently sent out an email that indicated progress that had been made relating to the diversity of the entering freshman class. He received a number of questions regarding other data relating to the demography of those students. One of the questions had to do with students from lower economic capabilities. Provost Bean then displayed a chart that highlighted resident and non-resident students who were Pell Grant eligible. He then discussed the percentages of students of color attending the UO over the last five year. Diversity had increased steadily each year. The student body had increase 0.6 percent from last year to this year. Progress was made regarding the student/faculty ratios. Tenure track faculty had increased by 2.5 percent with a net gain of seventeen tenure track faculty. Adjunct faculty had increased by 1 percent and career non-tenure track faculty had increased by 1.4 percent. Officers of Administration had increased by 1.8 percent and classified staff had increased by 2.6 percent. According to Provost Bean, most of that growth was in the schools and colleges who had been expanding staff in order to meet the demand of a larger student body. He then stated that there had been very little growth in the central administration. The Provost commented that the university added three hundred thirty seven classroom seats when the Global Scholars Hall opened in September. Allen Hall was soon to be reopened and the renovation added three hundred and two additional classroom seats. If the university was able to secure funding, the renovation of Straub Hall would add an additional one thousand classroom seats and would include an auditorium the size of Columbia 150. This update to Straub Hall would then allow for the renovation of Columbia 150.

2.4 Questions and Comments with Response

After concluding his update, Provost Bean asked Senators to send him an email if they had any further questions as he was feeling under the weather.

3. NEW BUSINESS

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

Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) informed the Senate of corrections to the Preliminary Fall Curriculum Report. After presenting the corrections, he asked for additional corrections from the Senate body. Seeing none, he moved that the Preliminary Fall Curriculum Report be approved by the Senate as corrected. His request was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a voice vote to approve the Report. A voice vote was taken, and the Report was approved unanimously. Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Engelking and the members of the Committee on Courses for their hard work in preparing the Curriculum Report every term. He then asked Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) to present his motion.

3.2 Motion (Legislation): Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; Sponsor: Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Stahl moved that his motion be considered by the Senate. The motion was seconded and Professor Stahl stated that in order for the Senate to be effective, it was important that there be a high degree of attendance. It had come to his attention some time ago that some faculty members of the Senate had been assigned courses on Wednesday afternoons and were not able to serve as Senators on a regular basis. His motion established legislation which prevented that from happening. Senate members would not be assigned or accept other university duties on Wednesday afternoons. Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Roger Adkins (Officer of Administration) asked if Senators would be excused from university duties on all Wednesday afternoons or only during the Wednesdays when the Senate met, to which Professor Stahl replied that they would be excused from duties on all Wednesdays. He then commented that when the Senate got up to speed, there would be occasional Wednesday afternoons where additional work was required, and remarked that it was not uncommon for the Senate to switch Wednesday meeting times. He also stated that he hoped the Senate would be meeting more than once a month in order to effectively share governance. Professor Stahl stated that this legislation would become effective in the Spring Term of the year. Senator Adkins stated that for those Senators who were Officers of Administration and Classified Staff, having two hours of every week designated for the Senate might be disagreeable to their supervisors. Professor Stahl asked if that issue could be worked out between OA and Classified Staff Senators and their supervisors, and asked if anyone had a suggestion as to how to deal with this situation. He then asked if Officers of Administration Senators would go and drink coffee for two hours when there was no Senate meeting. He answered his question with a “no” and stated that if his proposed scheduling change did not work out in practice, it could be changed in the near future.

Senate President Kyr asked for a point of clarification and commented that when there was a Senate meeting all faculty members would not have regularly scheduled classes, to which Professor Stahl replied that he was correct.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) stated that his department had faculty meetings on Wednesday afternoons and wondered if Professor Stahl was implying that these meetings would have to be canceled, to which Professor Stahl replied that if it was necessary for him to rewrite the motion, he would, but what was important was that the Senate meeting be the top priority. He then commented that if the Senator had to skip their departmental meeting to attend the Senate meeting, their department would understand. According to Professor Stahl, the Senate meeting took priority. Senator Lin was still unclear about the wording of the motion, and Professor Stahl withdrew his motion in order to more clearly define the language. Senate President Kyr asked if there were any further questions from the Senate body that Professor Stahl should consider.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that what Professor Stahl was trying to do was a no brainer. Senators should not be scheduled to teach or meet any other departmental responsibilities during the hours of the Senate meeting. She stated that the phrasing should be tinkered with, but the idea should be uncontroversial. After Senator Psaki concluded her comments, Professor Stahl withdrew his motion.

3.3 Motion (Legislation/Amendment): Modification of Fiscal Impact Statement; Sponsor: Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Senate President Kyr stated that Professor Stahl’s second motion was a modification to the Senate Bylaws and required a two-thirds vote in order to pass. Professor Stahl stated that his modification to the Fiscal Impact Statement included adding the words “when calculable.” He then read the modified wording to the Senate body, which is listed below:

“Each motion shall be accompanied by a fiscal impact statement. This statement shall explicitly note when calculable any cost savings, new or created costs, or that the motion is cost neutral.”

He then called for a second from the Senate body. His motion was seconded and he then commented that there had been a number of very important motions that could have been brought before the Senate with the exception that the fiscal impact of these motions was not calculable. His intention was to loosen the wording of the fiscal impact statement in order for the Senate to be more effective. Senate President then called for a period of discussion on the motion. Professor Stahl stated that he thought it was best that the fiscal impact statement not be completely eliminated, because the Senate should be encouraged to be fiscally responsible.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) commented that he was not sure which proposals had come before the Senate that fit into this category, but he endorsed the spirit of the motion. He then asked a question regarding the procedures to amend the Senate Bylaws. He was unsure as to what was involved and, then asked if there was a way to approach the cost estimates with an appropriate level of precision. Senator Dreiling thought that the words “when calculable” were too ambiguous. Professor Stahl replied that almost all motions that implied any sort of university activity echoed on into the future in ways that were simply not calculable. According to Professor Stahl, the costs of unintended consequences were rarely calculable.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) stated that Professor Stahl’s wording was too ambiguous. He thought it would be more effective if the fiscal impact statement remained as is, or have it removed. Professor Stahl replied that he had hoped to remove the entire phrase, but one member of the Senate Executive Committee objected to this idea, because that person felt that the Senate would appear fiscally irresponsible. Senate President Kyr commented that that person was not on the Senate Executive Committee, to which Professor Stahl agreed and stated that someone had communicated to him that motions should include a fiscal impact statement.

Professor Bruce Blonigen (Economics) suggested a change to Professor Stahl’s wording by using the phrase “any estimated cost savings.” He thought that as long as someone made an effort to estimate the cost, which would be sufficient, to which Professor Stahl provided an example of a hypothetical motion involving university travel and cost estimates regarding carbon dioxide emissions, which would be impossible to calculate the costs.

Senate President Kyr asked Professor Blonigen to repeat his alternative wording of the motion. Professor Blonigen replied that he recommended changing the wording to any estimated cost savings, because economists could on some level derive a cost savings estimate, which could open the door for further discussion. Professor Stahl wanted to know if the Economics department would provide an estimate for all motions coming before the Senate. If so, he would be happy to write that language into his motion.

Senate President Kyr offered up an alternative wording to the motion. He wanted to include the words “when calculable,” but have the authors list estimated costs. He then asked if someone could determine wording to include both Professor Stahl’s language and estimated costs.

Senator Dreiling stated that it was a matter of appropriate precision in an estimate, which to him was something that the Senate could decide and deliberate on. This would allow the Senate to account for variables that might need to be a part of the discussion. Professor Stahl then asked if the President of the University would allocate funds to pay an on-call economist, working on a part-time basis, to provide meaningful cost estimates for Senate motions.

Senate President Kyr closed discussion on the motion and asked Professor Stahl to continue working on the wording of his motion, to which he replied that he might do that, but did not feel that he could come to an agreement with members of the Senate. Professor Stahl then called for a vote on the motion as it stood on the grounds that his intent was clear. A voice vote was taken and the results were unclear. Senate President Kyr asked those who voted "nay" to raise their hands. After tallying the number of nay votes, he announced that a two thirds vote had not been achieved, and the motion did not pass. Senate President Kyr invited Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) to the Senate floor to present his motion.

3.4 Motion (Resolution): Support for Maintaining 4J Neighborhood Schools; Sponsor: Mark Gillem, Associate Professor (AAA)

Before presenting his resolution, Senator Gillem stated that he believed that having great neighborhood schools was essential to the Eugene community, and this idea served as the basis for his resolution. He then commented that the importance of neighborhood schools from the point of view of an architect and planner was essential. Neighborhood schools were part of a community where relationships were formed. They were also part of a sustainable environment where children could walk and ride their bicycles to school. Significant investments had been made, and he believed that the university was an excellent model of how buildings could be repurposed and renovated before beginning new construction. According to Senator Gillem, 4J was running out of money, and one way to address their problems was to build new schools by using bond and maintenance money. 4J hired a consultant firm who examined all thirty-five school buildings and determined that many of those buildings were in disrepair. That recommendation became the basis for a facilities master plan, which called for the demolition of six elementary schools and the construction of a new middle and high school. He stated that many communities had been engaged in this master plan, because when a school was changed, so was a neighborhood. He was interested in how 4J could operate effectively with their limited resources.

Senator Gillem stated that the consolidation plan had a budget of one hundred eighty-nine million dollars, and the cost of renovating existing schools cost eighty-six million dollars, a cost savings of over one hundred million dollars. His urban design lab had been researching this topic and they found that consolidation plans rarely saved money. The consolidation plan called for Edison and Camus Ridge to be converted into one school, but he believed that consolidating these two schools would not save money. According to his research, old schools could be modernized. This was confirmed by the consulting firm. Renovating Roosevelt would cost twenty-nine million dollars versus reconstruction, which would cost thirty-two million dollars. Renovating Camus Ridge would cost five million dollars versus reconstruction, which would cost over twelve million dollars. Edison had a similar cost savings to Camus Ridge. He believed that renovating these schools was a better idea than building new schools and would save a great deal of money. Senator Gillem then commented that by and large, small schools were better schools. Students and teachers generally performed at a higher level at smaller schools. Student participation was higher at smaller schools and so was parent participation.

He then remarked that the consolidation report was release at the beginning of the summer and the school board began holding listening sessions and were beginning to realize that consolidation might not be the best alternative. He believed that the school board could use some help in the form of a resolution from the Senate. The resolution did not force anyone to do anything; it merely stated that the Senate valued the older buildings and the neighborhoods they were in. Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) stated that he did not believe the Senate should be weighing in on this issue. He also did not believe that anyone had sufficient expertise on the matter, and while he thought it was a good idea, commented that it was an inappropriate agenda item. Senate President Kyr reminded Senator Mitchell that resolutions such as Senator Gillem’s were appropriate agenda items. Senator Gillem stated that he believed this issue was important to both faculty and staff because it mattered in regards to retention and recruitment. Salaries might not be able to be matched nationwide, but neighborhoods could be matched, and for this reason, he believed the Senate should participate. Senate President Kyr asked for further questions or comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was passed. There was one “nay” vote.

3.5 Motion (Legislation): Study Space Prioritization; Sponsor: Harlan Mechling; ASUO Academic Affairs Director

Harlan Mechling (ASUO Academic Affairs Director) introduced himself to the Senate body and thanked Senate President Kyr for his guidance in developing his two motions. He also thanked Laura Hinman (ASUO President) and Will Campodonico (student) for their assistance. Mr. Mechling stated that at the beginning of the summer, he sat down with Ms. Hinman and Nick McCain (ASUO Vice President) to discuss his responsibilities as Academic Affairs Director for the coming year. One of these responsibilities was to find alternative spaces for students to study on campus. According to Mr. Mechling, the Knight Library had reached its capacity and other options needed to be found. He began discussions with the director of the Lillis Business Complex, the facilities manager for Willamette Hall, and ended up working with several employees of the EMU (Erb Memorial Union) to develop a plan which would offer students a quiet and healthy area for extended study time. The EMU Extended Hours Project was the result of his efforts. This project gave all students access to the EMU and extended the hours of operation until 3AM. Night managers kept count of students that participated in the Extended Hours Project, and reported results of over one hundred students per night.

Mr. Mechling then read the resolution to the Senate body, which can be found on the Senate website under the Motions: Legislation, Policy Adoptions, & Resolutions page. Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Amy Nuetzman (Teaching and Learning Center) wanted to know why the project was extended to 3AM and if there were any peaks and valleys of use time during the project. Mr. Mechling replied that he did not have the exact numbers, but he was in attendance each night and noticed that the busiest time was during the beginning of dead week. As the weekend approached, there were fewer students, probably around seventy or eighty per night. The following Sunday and Monday nights numbers increased and then receded as the week progressed. In response to her first question, Mr. Mechling replied that the ASUO had originally wanted to keep the EMU open twenty-four hours a day for both dead and finals weeks, but it was deemed ineffective from a cost standpoint and 3AM was agreed upon. Upon further review, Mr. Mechling believed that keeping the EMU open until 2AM was the most cost effective option.

Senator Mandy Chong (Classified Staff) stated that she supported the project and had several comments regarding safety issues. She recommended that at least one EMU administrator and one university police officer should be on the committee that Mr. Mechling’s resolution created. Senator Chong believed that the January timeline was too soon, especially for a full investigation for all options on campus and recommended pushing the deadline back. She also believed that the mid-term exam schedule should be revisited, as the schedule was quite different from finals. Mr. Mechling stated that determining mid-term times would be the most difficult, but he would be comparing and contrasting two different studies, one taken from the Knight Library student traffic numbers and the other from EMU student traffic to help determine peak hours and days in determining the mid-term schedule.

Mr. Mechling stated that he liked the idea of having an EMU administrator on the taskforce and he had been in communication with UOPD (Police Department) throughout the entire process. The UOPD had designed areas for student parking and were more than willing to provide walk-throughs of the EMU to ensure student safety. He was willing to update the motion to reflect her request regarding the addition of members to the taskforce. Senate President Kyr asked Mr. Mechling if he was interested in changing the January 16 deadline, to which he replied that he would like to keep that date because even if enough information was not found, he would still like to report back to the Senate on January 16 with his findings.

Laura Hinman (ASUO President) thanked Mr. Mechling for his hard work on the EMU Extended Hours Project. She then commented that her administration wanted to have this project implemented by the beginning of spring term. Mr. Mechling stated that if the motion was passed and the taskforce was created, he would meet with the taskforce and determine if they would be willing to report back to the Senate on January 16. He then stated that he would be willing to report on that date. Senate President Kyr informed Mr. Mechling that it would be possible to ask for an extension if necessary.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) stated that he was unsure if it was appropriate for the Senate to encourage students to work after hours. He did not believe it was beneficial for students to study into the early hours of the morning, and he was not sure if it was appropriate for the Senate to be discussing this issue. Senate President Kyr replied that this issue was very relevant to the Senate’s work in a profound way. He stated that students were coming before the Senate asking for additional study space, to which Senator Lin replied that he did not have a problem with the request for additional study space, but he was very concerned with the late hours of operation. Senate President Kyr asked if a student could address Senator Lin’s concerns. Mr. Mechling stated that he agreed with Senator Lin’s sentiment that students should not have to study late into the morning. He stated that it was not a healthy practice and probably contributed to lower test scores, but that was the reality of the life of an undergraduate student. He then commented that this project was a necessity for all students, which was proven by student turnout.

Ms. Hinman commented that this practice was already taking place with the Knight Library being open twenty-four hours a day during dead and exam weeks, and students needed additional safe places to study on campus, which was what this project was supplying.

Senator Taylor Allison (Student Senator) echoed what Ms. Hinman and Mr. Mechling had been saying regarding the project. She commented that while it may not be healthy for students to study until 3AM, it was the reality of their situation, and she believed that the majority of students on campus would agree with her position.

Barbara Altman (Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) stated that she was deeply sympathetic toward Mr. Mechling’s motion. As an undergraduate, she did most of her studying between the hours of 10PM and 3AM. The issue at hand was not to ensure a healthy lifestyle for students, but was an issue of study habits, biorhythms, and preferred working time. She commented that there were many students at the university and limited study space and each student’s schedule differed greatly. She believed that the university had an obligation to provide safe places for students to study for as long as they wished. She also remarked that it was not the universities job to set students schedules for them and again stated that she supported the motion.

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) stated that the university had the space and as such, it should be used by students to get their work done. He jokingly offered an additional alternative, which was for professors to decrease the amount of work required by students.

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

3.6 Motion (Legislation): Classroom Space Prioritization; Sponsor: Harlan Mechling; ASUO Academic Affairs Director

Mr. Mechling read his second motion to the Senate body, which can also be found on the Senate website under the Motions: Legislation, Policy Adoptions, & Resolutions page. Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Laura Hinman (ASUO President) offered a point of clarification regarding the facts listed in the motion. The data was obtained from the Office of the Registrar.

Senator Roger Adkins (Officer of Administration Senator) offered up a comment on behalf of Senator David Landrum (Officer of Administration Senator). Senator Landrum hoped that Mr. Mechling would consider a wording change in item 2.1 from “to prioritize classroom space” to the wording “to give top priority to classroom space.” Mr. Mechling agreed with this friendly amendment.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. Senate President Kyr stated that he was very proud of the student body for addressing these concerns and leading the Senate as a university on these two crucial issues.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

There was no open discussion period during the Senate meeting, and as such, Senate President Kyr invited Laura Hinman to the Senate floor to present her ASUO Report.

5. REPORT

5.1 ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President

Laura Hinman (ASUO President) thanked the Senate for passing the two motions presented by Mr. Mechling, and stated that it meant a great deal to her. She informed the Senate that the EMU student vote passed, and over four thousand students voted, which was a record for a special election. Over one hundred students attended the Unruly Gathering Public Forum during the City Counsel Meeting. City counsel members were very receptive to changes asked for by students, and conversations were continuing regarding this issue. According to Ms. Hinman, the ASUO was gearing up for the Legislative Session and her administration was trying to identify issues that mattered most to students. She was also working on a Capacity Report and stated that she was incredibly proud of the increased diversity on campus, but services offered (funding, work study, etc…) for the increase in students had not followed suite. Her administration was working to make sure that every student had equal opportunities when it came to these services.

The sexual violence prevention taskforce was completing its work in February, but would continue to determine ways in which sexual violence could be prevented on campus. After delivering her report, Ms. Hinman asked for questions or comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, she thanked the Senate for their time.

5.2 UA Senate Liaison Committee; David Luebke, Chair

Professor David Luebke (History) stated that there was not much to report regarding the collective bargaining process. He then commented that on November 20 a meeting took place that covered ground rules for the bargaining session. One of the ground rules established was that a full days meeting would take place every other week. Another ground rule involved scheduling rooms well enough in advance so that meetings could be publicized in advance. Professor Luebke informed the Senate that the first meeting would be held on December 13 from 9AM – 1PM in the Knight Library room 102, to be followed by a second meeting on the following day from 1 – 5PM. He commented that the meetings were public and everyone was welcome to attend. Over the coming weeks, the bargaining team would be working out the sequence in which it would be making proposals to the administration. Those proposals would be posted to the United Academics website as they were presented. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology) asked what type of non-economic proposals would be presented to the administration, to which Professor Luebke replied they would be discussing issues regarding academic freedom and shared governance, among others. Professor Stahl then asked if these issues were going to be written into faculty contracts, to which Professor Luebke replied yes. Professor Stahl then replied that if those issues were written into union contracts, they would gain the power of law, which would make it impossible for the Senate to act as a governing body, because contract law was more powerful than any state board regulation regarding shared governance. He believed that the union had taken shared governance away from the Senate by taking these issues under their wing. Professor Stahl commented that he would beg the union to deal only with benefits and wages.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) stated that he could not imagine why he would not want to strengthen every element of the Constitution, Bylaws, and principles of academic freedom that pertained to shared governance. He then asked the question why he would not want that enforceable through stronger law. He believed that the union would enhance faculty governance because they would gain defensibility within the law instead of being bound by OARs (Oregon Administrative Rule). Professor Stahl replied that if the union was fully representative of the faculty, and the bargainers were voted in by the faculty as were the members of the Senate, then why did the UO need a Senate. On the other hand since the union was not fully representative of the faculty, and he believed that they were usurping a faculty responsibility by putting forth their own ideas of what constituted appropriate freedom of speech and academic freedom in a way that made it impossible for the Senate to do its work in shared governance. He stated that once the union put its ideas into contract, shared governance was out of business because the contract became legally binding. Professor Stahl then commented that if the union took any motion that had been passed fully by the Senate and state that any motion passed by the Senate would have contractual force by law and henceforth never changeable by the Senate, at this point, Senate President Kyr broke in and stated that to his understanding, and after considerable discussion with many involved at various levels, Professor Stahl’s comments were quite different from what had been presented at other universities. He encouraged continued dialogue on this issue during the Open Discussion portion of a future Senate meeting. He then asked Senators to contact him if they shared Professor Stahl’s concerns. Seeing no further questions, he thanked Professor Luebke for his informative report and collegial manner.

5.3 Coalition of PAC-12 Faculties Meeting; Louise Bishop UO Representative (Designee) & Co-Chair, Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)

Professor Louise Bishop (Clark Honors College) stated that there were three topics discussed on the Coalition of Pac-12 Faculties meeting agenda. The topics were budget, governance, and relevance. Regarding the budget topic, Professor Bishop stated that virtually every university had the same management model that existed at the UO, where the Deans rather than the central administration received tuition funds. She also commented that almost every representative mentioned the black hole at the Deans level where budget decisions and policy were not shared within schools. State appropriations for instruction were also discussed. At Utah appropriations were at 51% and at Colorado they were just under 5%. On the issue of governance, the structure of Senates varied by campus as did their influence on decision making. According to Professor Bishop, Utah had the strongest faculty Senate. There was a brief discussion regarding service, which was renamed at some universities as engagement and at others as leadership. She then commented that the Coalition of PAC-12 Faculties was interested in having a presence on the internet to provide data for each universities system of faculty governance. Currently, data was being compiled regarding Senate structures and decision making processes at each member university. One of the schools in the PAC-12 will host the site rather than the PAC-12 football site, although that was discussed. Other interesting topics discussed included online courses and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Course). She then asked for questions from the Senate body. Seeing none, Senate President Kyr thanked her for her report and mentioned that the next meeting was in April and he would be representing the university.

5.4 Classroom Expansion – Straub Hall; Carol Daly, Chair; Campus Planning Committee

Carol Daly (University Development) informed the Senate that the Straub Hall expansion project began with a deferred maintenance request. The entire building and all of its operating systems needed a great deal of updating, and as such the building was scheduled to be taken offline. Knowing these details, the Academic Infrastructure Committee met and recommended expanding classroom space. Their proposal was given to the UO Space Advisory Group who viewed the proposal and commented that the project should move forward. The proposal was then placed on the capital construction list and forwarded to OUS. The Finance and Administration subcommittee looked at the project and it was regarded as a number two priority project within that group and will be sent to the State Legislature to seek bonding.

Ms. Daly stated that a feasibility study was contracted by the division of campus planning who hired several architects who determined that around one thousand additional classroom seats could be added to Straub Hall. After the study was conducted, a user group was developed consisting of fourteen individuals from the faculty, registrar, housing, one student representative, the director of academic technology, herself, and the Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs who was the project sponsor. According to Ms. Daly, the user group met four times and worked with the architects to develop the details of how the expansion would be implemented. A five hundred seat classroom was scheduled to be added to the Hall as well as several smaller classrooms of varying sizes. Last week, the architects met with the Campus Planning Committee for a check in on the project. After the first of the year, the Office of Campus Planning will offer others in the university community a chance to provide feedback on the expansion project. After concluding her report, Ms. Daly asked for questions or comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, Senate President Kyr thanked her for very informative report.

5.5 Update on Two Motions: “Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators” & “Review of Executive Administrators” Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the committee was in the process of being formed and would be meeting in January to discuss the above motions and report back their findings to the Senate.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr read through the notices of motions for the January Senate meeting.

6.1 Notice of Motion: Data and Documents for the IAC and Clarifying FERPA; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics)

6.2 Notice of Motion: Faculty Approval for Special Admissions of Student-Athletes; Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics)

6.3 Notice of Motion: Senate Support for the Continuation of the Center for Latino/a and Latin American Studies (CLLAS); Pedro Garcia Carro, University Senator and Assistant Professor (Romance Languages)

6.4 Notice of Motion: Opposition to Building a UO-Affiliated Golf Course; Bob Doppelt, Adjunct Associate Professor (PPPM)

6.5 Notice of Motion: Senate Review of Course Evaluation Process; Steven Pologe, University Senator and Professor (School of Music)

6.6 Notice of Motion: UO Elections and UO Senators for the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS); UO Senate Executive Committee

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the December 5, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 4:53PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for November 07, 2012

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 07 November 2012

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for November 7, 2012 to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He reminded Senators to mark their names on the sign-in sheet.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the May 9 & 23, 2012 Meetings

Senate President Kyr asked if there were any corrections to the May 9 and 23 Senate meeting minutes. Hearing none, he called for the approval of the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the May 9 and 23 minutes were approved unanimously. He then welcomed President Gottfredson to the Senate meeting and invited him to deliver his stated of the university address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by University President Michael Gottfredson

President Gottfredson commented that in the interest of time, he would be giving an abridged version of his address, as the Senate agenda was quite large. His full remarks were available upon request. He first mentioned several illustrative happenings that were taking place at the university. This year, the UO welcomed the most academically diverse group of incoming freshman in its history. He believed this was worth mentioning because it signified that admission to the UO was in high demand at the undergraduate level. That demand was generated by the quality of the faculty and staff at the university. The UO raised over one hundred million dollars over the past year, which was a significant philanthropic benchmark achieved by the administration. He stated that this was another symbol of the quality of work that was taking place at the university. This number also included grants and contracts received from the faculty and the vast majority of these projects were won competitively by peer review adjudication.

President Gottfredson mentioned that there had been several major facility augmentations to the campus including the Lewis Integrated Science Facility, the Allen Hall renovations, and the Global Scholars Hall. He then stated that the breadth and depth of the achievements of the faculty was stunning and remarkable. The university added five Fullbright Scholars to its list, seven professors were elected as fellows to the American Mathematics Society, and the School of Architecture recently received the number one ranking in the nation for sustainable design education. According to President Gottfredson, all of these great accomplishments contributed greatly to the quality of education offered at the university. He then mentioned a number of concerns that his administration was considering, and asked the Senate for their suggestions regarding these items.

President Gottfredson mentioned that it was very likely that the university would not receive a significant increase in funding from the state, but the UO would receive significant cost increases particularly coming from the benefit side of the universities operating budget. He stated that these increases would present difficulties for the university that would have to be worked through. The capital development budget had several very important projects taking place at the university including a renovation to Straub Hall, which would expand classroom space, the Science Library Project, which would also increase classroom space, and the Clark Honor’s Hall renovation. President Gottfredson stated that he would try to maintain the universities position on these projects during the upcoming Legislative Session.

The President was very optimistic regarding governance legislation that would soon be before the Senate in the coming months. In his opinion, the report that was generated by the special committee regarding the installation of internal governance boards for the UO and PSU (Portland State University) was a very strong report and he felt very optimistic about the state legislature approving the committee’s report. He stated that his administration was very highly focused on realizing that initiative. There were some areas of concern regarding the report, and his administration would be working together with legislators to address those concerns during the upcoming legislative session. The President then stated that it was likely that the UO would be granted an institutional governing board at the upcoming legislative session.

President Gottfredson stated that student enrollment was nearly twenty-five thousand strong. He mentioned that during the 1960s, the population of Eugene was about double that number. Both the city and university had grown significantly since that time, but growth in the areas of faculty, staff, and facilities had not increased to compensate for the growing number of students. He stated that his administration was going to work on this as a first order of business item. Faculty, staff, and classroom/office space ratios had deteriorated and according to President Gottfredson, the UO’s capital projects in the legislative state budget would provide a welcome solution to some of those concerns, but they would not be full solutions.

There was an additional concern with the Federal Budget, specifically in regards to the issue of sequestration. According to President Gottfredson, if sequestration were to take place, which he was hopeful that it would not, it would create very significant difficulties for the university particularly regarding federally funded grants and contracts. He was very pleased to say that the UO had been involved in enhancing philanthropic efforts towards the next capital campaign, which was proceeding on pace, and would be bold, ambitious, and deserved.

President Gottfredson mentioned a final area of concern regarding administrative evaluations. He stated that everyone in Johnson Hall believed strongly in administrative evaluations. The ELT (Executive Leadership Team) had been discussing this issue and they believed in annual evaluations for all administrators. All administrators would be evaluated by their immediate supervisors on a routine basis. He stated that currently they occurred in some areas, but would occur in all areas going forward. President Gottfredson stated that he and the Provost believed in routine periodic general evaluations for academic administrators, which would include faculty and peer input. These evaluations would include a self and supervisor assessment and he reiterated that they would include faculty and peer input. He stated that he was comfortable with these reviews taking place in the fifth year of employment, and he would make sure that all academic administrators went through a personnel review during their fifth year of employment. He then reminded the Senate that in order for all personnel reviews to be correctly administered, they must be confidential. He then asked for questions and comments from the Senate body.

2.2 Questions and Comments with Response

The first questions came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). Professor Stahl stated that the Senate had before it a number of motions that may or may not pass, and the Senate might wonder if the existing motions would be dealt with under the existing Constitution, which had not yet been ratified by President Gottfredson, or was the Senate throwing motions to the wind that did not matter. President Gottfredson replied that it would never be his view that the Senate would pass motions to be thrown into the wind. The President stated that he took all Senate motions very seriously and his administration was currently having discussions regarding the Constitution, to which Professor Stahl asked if it was uncertain whether the Senate motions would be taken seriously. President Gottfredson replied that the motions would be taken very seriously. Senate President Kyr called for further questions or comments. Seeing none, President Gottfredson thanked the Senate for their time. Senate President Kyr invited Provost James Bean to the Senate floor to present his remarks.

2.3 Remarks by Provost James C. Bean

Provost James C. Bean updated the Senate on the Academic Plan. Discussions had begun during the summer of 2011 and 2012. A survey was originally proposed, but after discussions with members of the faculty, a different plan was suggested that involved the blog that was created around the plan. Provost Bean stated that they were going to be looking at all possible metrics that had developed over the last four years and that data would be collected and distributed in a series of discussion pieces. These pieces would include the statement that was in the academic plan, a data review over what had evolved over the past four years, and blog discussion points. He then stated that the entire university community was invited to engage in a discussion regarding the data provided. According to Provost Bean, at the end of the discussion period, which last would last approximately six to eight weeks, a committee of faculty members would be assembled to review the input and make recommendations for revisions to the Academic Plan. He then stated that he would bring the revisions back to the Senate at the appropriate time. The blog would be sent out shortly after the first of the New Year. Provost Bean commented that his engagement with members of the faculty had been incredibly constructive, and he believed that this process would yield better information than sending out a campus-wide survey. At this point, he asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.4 Questions and Comments with Response

Seeing none, Senate President Kyr thanked Provost Bean for his update and moved on to the New Business portion of the meeting.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 OAR on Random Drug Testing; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr reminded the Senate that at the October meeting, the Senate Executive Committee was asked to review the above policy with certain criteria set forward based on the discussion. He then presented a report to the Senate Executive Committee that Senate President Kyr wrote regarding the Drug Testing Policy, which is listed below in its entirety:

“I am writing to let you know about how I would like to proceed on the OAR on Random Drug Testing based on our discussion in our SEC meeting and other subsequent discussions. Number 1 – The Senate will not vote on the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing, because the actual changes in the policy are in the administrative portion of it.” (He commented here that the committee returned to the red-line copy of the policy that showed every correction/revision.) “The actual aspects of it that were related to scholarships were not revised, but had been enforced since 1989, thus the actual revisions to the policy do not fall within the Senate’s responsibility to focus on academic matters as commonly understood in higher education. Number 2 – The process of reviewing the revisions to the OAR on Random Drug Testing has revealed some important issues related to scholarships. I am asking the IAC (Intercollegiate Athletics Committee) to consider the following questions that relate to academic matters and that were revealed by the SEC’s review of the OAR on Random Drug Testing. First Question – Are there policies in force that are related to the revoking of scholarships awarded to student athletes? If so, what are they? Second Question – If there are such policies, are scholarships revoked because of athletic performance or a breaking of rules relating to athletics, or because of academic performance, or for other reasons? Third Question – If the scholarship of a student athlete is revoked, does a process for an appeal exist, and what is it? The consideration of these important questions is clearly within the charge of the IAC and therefore I am referring it to that committee. Thus, I am asking the IAC to prepare a report on these matters and to present it at the January Senate meeting. I will also meet with the IAC at its upcoming meeting to discuss the items above.”

Senate President Kyr asked members of the Senate to write to him with their questions regarding these matters and stated that he would email everyone a copy of the letter for their records. He then asked for questions or comments from the Senate body and again encouraged them to write to him with their questions or concerns. He then acknowledged Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance), the chair of the IAC, who was in attendance at the meeting. Senate President Kyr thanked him for the wonderful job he was doing in his position as chair. Seeing no questions, he moved on to the next point on the agenda.

3.2 Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Policy; Beth Stormshak, Associate Vice President for Research

Senate President Kyr invited Beth Stormshak (Associate Vice President for Research) to present her policy to the Senate body. Ms. Stormshak stated that this policy was a revision of an existing policy that needed to be updated due to a change in federal regulations concerning managing conflicts of interest. The goal of the policy was to help promote objectivity in research, and it applied to all researchers on campus who had or would be receiving sponsored research. According to Ms. Stormshak, the federal regulations changed over the year and needed to be implemented by the university by August 24, 2012. Currently, there was an interim policy in place. The regulations changed in a number of different ways. Travel expenses must be reported if they exceed five thousand dollars. Ms. Stormshak commented that the policy had been reviewed and approved by the Science Council during the spring term. It was also reviewed by a special committee that was developed to provide input to the Senate. She stated that the majority of those committee members had approved the policy. She then asked for questions from the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr stated that the Senate was sent a copy of the policy and it was briefly discussed at the October Senate meeting and again called for questions and comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to vote on the policy.

Before a motion to vote could be called, Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) stated that he believed the policy was a very straight forward one and he had no objection to its content, however he was concerned with one aspect of the policies preamble. Specifically, he was concerned with the implication in the preamble that it was the universities policy to encourage investigators to seek grants from industry. He believed that the implication that such encouragement was UO policy was both gratuitous and contentious. According to Professor Stahl, it was gratuitous because it did not have a direct bearing on the policy itself, and it was contentious because it was not a matter of settled policy as to whether such grants were in the best interest of the university. Professor Stahl stated that the UO would do well to heed the warning of the late Harold Evans, a highly regarded scientist at Oregon State University. Evans, who was OSU’s only member of the National Academy of Sciences, expressed regret that OSU had fallen behind the UO with regard to the quality of its research. He identified, as a cause, the widespread dependence of OSU faculty on industry sponsored grants as a primary cause for this humiliating Civil War defeat. He noted two problems: 1 – Such grant applications tended to lack rigorous peer review. 2 – There was a tendency for grantees to suppress results that might reduce their chances of getting their grant renewed. Professor Stahl then commented that since Ms. Stormshak’s proposal was coming to the Senate for a vote, and since it was in the Senate’s interest to spend as little time as possible on what should be a formality, he suggested that the policy’s preamble be altered by replacing the second and third sentences with the following single sentence: Research connections with private sponsors may create financial conflicts of interest in research that must be addressed to maintain public confidence. He then stated that his proposed change in no way restricted the rights of researchers to seek funding wherever they wished. He then moved that the Senate accept Ms. Stormshak’s motion pending his amendment.

Senate President Kyr asked for a motion to accept the policy. A motion was called and seconded. He then acknowledged Professor Stahl’s amendment and asked for a second. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion.

Professor Stahl reread the two sentences that were to be removed and his sentence that was to replace the two sentences in the preamble of the policy.

Ms. Stormshak stated that she would like to address the concerns raised by Professor Stahl. She commented that the second sentence of the preamble was intended to encourage outreach with private industry. Her department did not want the policy to discourage those connections. According to Ms. Stormshak, some of the primary activities managed by the policy were issues related to innovation. She used an example of a faculty member creating a new product and then partnering with industry to market that product. She reiterated that the policy was designed to manage those types of conflicts of interest in research and she wanted to make sure that as faculty read the policy, they understood that interacting with private industry was not being discouraged.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that members of the faculty were not easily discouraged when it came to finding sources of funding. He believed that faculty would be able to find money when necessary and spoke in favor of Professor Stahl’s amendment.

An unidentified speaker stated that many members of the faculty had relationships with industry outside of the university, be it consulting or through other private activities. He commented that the policy addressed those activities, and as such, the sentence was meant to be broad in order to provide the faculty with protection for their research and possible outside activity with industry. He then read Oregon State’s similar policy:

Oregon State University promotes and encourages new and varied collaboration with entities outside of the university. The university recognizes that as a result of such external relationships conflicts of interest may occur when an individual is in a position to make a decision on his or her research, etc…

He then read Portland State University’s similar policy:

Portland State recognizes that relationships with external entities can be useful in many ways. PSU encourages those relationships as they enhance personal competency and benefit the community and institution, etc…

He then stated that they were trying to protect the conflicts that may come about as faculty, staff, and students interact with industry. He mentioned that the friendly amendment was not friendly because it did not capture the broad nature of what he believed the sentence was supposed to encapsulate.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that neither of the phrases in question used the term private and this was an area that could be easily fixed, to which Senate President Kyr asked that an alternative wording be suggested.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) suggested deleting the words “private industry” and replacing them with the words “outside entities.” Senate President Kyr asked for the final version of Professor Stahl’s amendment to be read aloud with the suggested amendment of Senator Dreiling. Below is the final version:

The University of Oregon encourages outreach to and connection with outside entities, at the same time, such activities may create potential financial conflicts of interest in research, which must be addressed to maintain public confidence in research.

Professor Stahl agreed with the addition to his amendment and Senate President Kyr closed the period of discussion on the motion. He then called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously. Senate President Kyr then invited Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) to the Senate floor to present his two motions to the Senate body.   

3.3 Motion: Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators; Bill Harbaugh, Senator (Economics)

Senator Harbaugh stated that his two motions were meant to encourage faculty participation in the hiring and firing of administrators. According to Senator Harbaugh, the Senate had dealt with these issues several times in the past, most recently during 1996 by Senators Jeff Ostler and Chaney Ryan (both Philosophy). They asked the Senate President to request clarification from the administration of the policy procedures and past practices used for administrative review of deans and department heads and to indicate their current status review. This motion was passed unanimously in the Senate and at the following meeting (January 1997), Vice Provost Lorraine Davis reported back to the Senate, but her report did not include any information regarding dates of the most recent reviews of deans and department heads. He then stated that the dean who had initiated the motion shortly thereafter left the university and the matter was dropped by the Senate. Senator Harbaugh stated that currently, there were several administrators who had been appointed through interim processes without formal faculty input and who, as far as he could ascertain, had served for many years without performance reviews.

Senator Harbaugh stated that one year ago, he asked Provost Bean for the dates of evaluations or performance reviews of the administration, but he was not given that information. He asked again during the past summer, but was again denied the information. Three weeks ago, he made a public records request for the information and had not received it. Senator Harbaugh then mentioned that Senate President Kyr had asked for the dates of the evaluations and he had not received the information either.

Senator Harbaugh referenced President Gottfredson’s philosophy regarding performance reviews, which he reiterated to the Senate body. President Gottfredson believed that faculty should be involved with the review and selection of administrators, particularly those with academic responsibilities. Senator Harbaugh stated that neither of his motions were meant to be contentious, rather he hoped that the Senate would cooperate with the university administration to develop procedures for consistent faculty input into hiring administrators and administering their performance reviews. He then commented that he was not trying to establish guidelines for these processes, but his motions requested that Senate President Kyr appoint a committee and that President Gottfredson appoint several administrators to participate in that committee and to draft procedures that would then be ratified by the Senate and become official university policies. He advocated this approach due to the long history of the lack of faculty input into performance reviews and administrative hiring. After presenting his motions to the Senate, he moved that they be adopted. Senate President Kyr called for a second and the motion was seconded.

ASUO President Laura Hinman commented that students had traditionally been involved in the hiring of executive administrators and she hoped that Senator Harbaugh would be open to including students on the proposed committee, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that the language of the proposed policy included the constituents of the Senate, which included students.

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

3.4 Motion: Review of Executive Administrators; (Harbaugh)

Senator Harbaugh briefly explained the content of his second motion to the Senate body. He stated that it was similar to his first motion, except that this one focused on performance reviews of executive administrators. The background and motivations were similar, and the wording stated that regular 360 degree performance reviews shall be performed on executive administrators, and the same appointed committee from the first motion would carry out these reviews. Senator Harbaugh’s policy proposed a three year cycle between reviews, but earlier in the meeting, President Gottfredson had proposed a five year cycle. The policy also included a provision for “prompt catch-up reviews for administrators who had not had major reviews within the past three years.” He believed that this provision was particularly important due to the fact that several high level administrators had not been reviewed for the past sixteen years.

After presenting his motion, Senator Harbaugh moved that it be adopted by the Senate. The motion was seconded by Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) and Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion on the motion.

President Gottfredson began the discussion by mentioning a point of clarification. He stated that these reviews would be personnel reviews and then stated that personnel reviews needed to be confidential. According to the President, reporting the outcome of a personnel review would negate the confidentiality of that review. Senator Harbaugh asked President Gottfredson to propose a specific change to the wording of his motion, to which the President replied that what would be reported was that the reviews had been accomplished, but the content of those reviews would not be divulged. Senator Harbaugh asked the President if a summary of the reviews, including the people who were involved in the review and the questions that were asked, might be presented to the Senate, to which President Gottfredson stated that in his experience that was not typically done. He believed that the confidentiality aspect of a personnel review made the review more meaningful. Senator Harbaugh commented that there might be a better way to accomplish his goal, to which President Gottfredson replied that reporting an appointment continuation seemed appropriate. Senator Harbaugh then asked if, for the time being, the wording of the motion could remain as it was, and once the committee was established, it would be up to them to devise suitable language, to which President Gottfredson agreed.

Provost Bean updated the Senate on the current personnel review process. He stated that for most of the sixteen years described by Senator Harbaugh, there were no personnel reviews. According to Provost Bean, a change occurred in 2007 when he was dean of the business school. He insisted on a review, as was in his appointment letter, and former Provost Linda Brady developed a process that had been in use ever since. The process was comprised of the following steps. 1 – A committee was assembled (usually comprised of three people), whose members were a function of the position that was being reviewed. He was unsure if the committee members had faculty representation or not, but was open to discuss this option. 2 – The committee developed focus interviews (in the case of reviewing a dean) with the academic advisory committee, external advisory committee, and other deans. This entire community filled out a survey including faculty and staff. The survey included many questions related to the dean’s performance. 3 – A public presentation took place, usually during the April or May months and those who attended the presentation could respond to the review via a website. According to Provost Bean, the presentation described what had been accomplished under the dean during the last five years and presented a proposal for the next five years. That report was submitted to Provost Bean and handled as a personnel matter. He then stated that in lieu of this discussion, he performed an audit of all deans, vice-provosts, and vice-presidents that reported to his office and only one person was found who had not received a personnel review in the last five years. Provost Bean met with that individual and they agreed to be added to this year’s review process. He then stated that by the end of the year, all personnel reviews operating on a five year cycle would be up to date, and commented that it was not accurate that these reviews were not being performed. Typically, three personnel reviews were performed each year, and on his sabbatical year (2011 – 2012) personnel reviews were not performed due to the hectic year that had transpired.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) asked Provost Bean why the Senate had to wait for that particular meeting for him to divulge that information and then he spoke in favor of Senator Harbaugh’s two policies as he believed it would be beneficial to have a clear set of guidelines written down.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked for a point of clarification regarding the term 360 degrees review, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that it was a term used by management professors to describe a review in which the person under review, their supervisors, and those who serve under the person being reviewed had the opportunity to express their opinions. Senator Lin replied that he would prefer if a different word was used to describe the review process as the current language did not make sense to him, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that the committee, once established, should devised the proper terminology. Senator Lin agreed with this suggestion.

Provost Bean replied to Senator Sullivan’s question and stated that he had given this presentation to the Senate President and would be happy to present it again at any time, but he would not divulge the content of personnel reviews as those reviews were confidential.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) spoke in favor of Senator Harbaugh’s motion. He commented that his support rested on the idea that the Senate was authorizing the formation of a committee, and that committee would hammer out the details of how to proceed with a review process. He then stated that this process was moving the university forward.

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) called the motion to question and a voice vote was taken to vote on the motion. It was approved unanimously and Senate President Kyr then called for a voice vote to approve the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was approved unanimously. Senate President Kyr called Professor Frank Stahl to the Senate floor to present his motion.

3.5 Motion: Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Professor Stahl stated that he was going to present his motion, but in view of the uncertain situation in which such a motion would move that was lacking a Constitution, he decided to not make the motion, but rather incorporate it as a provision to the Constitution when it was revised. As such, he withdrew his motion, and Senate President Kyr called Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) to the Senate floor to present his motion.

3.6 Motion (Resolution): Inequity in ORP Contribution Rates; Christopher Sinclair, Assistant Professor (Mathematics)

Senator Sinclair stated that the issue regarding inequity in ORP contribution rates was brought to his attention by Professor Marcin Bownik (Mathematics). He stated that a committee was formed by the Oregon Senate to evaluate the optional retirement plan for employees of OUS (Oregon University System). The report generated by the committee failed to mention the inequity in rates between employees in tier one and two and employees in tier three. According to Senator Sinclair, employees in tier three had received ten percent less money than employees in tiers one and two. His resolution requested of the committee to include the inequity in their report that was being presented to the state legislature, and to devise a solution to the inequitable rate of tier three employees. He then moved that the Senate adopt his resolution, which was seconded. Senate President Kyr then called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion, he called for a motion to vote, which was seconded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was passed unanimously. He then thanked Senator Sinclair and continued on to the open discussion portion of the meeting.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

4.1 UO Police Department Transition Update; Carolyn McDermed, Interim Chief

Kelly McIver (Communications Director, Police Department) introduced himself to the Senate body, and stated that he was also a proud graduate of the UO’s School of Journalism, class of 1990. He was at the Senate meeting to deliver a brief update on his department and had several questions for Senators regarding police officers carrying firearms on campus. In January, he would be returning to the Senate to present a broader presentation on this issue. According to Mr. McIver, one year ago, the state legislature approved the creation of campus police departments at Oregon institutions of higher education. This approval brought Oregon institutions in line with all other AAU (American Association of Universities) institutions and nearly every institution in the country with greater than fifteen thousand students, all of which were armed. Currently, the UO police department was not allowed to carry firearms as was stated in a provision of the legislation that created the police department. He then stated that a broad campus discussion was taking place regarding this issue, and sometime during the spring term, the UO leadership would decide whether or not to recommend officers carrying firearms to the state board.

Since that initial decision to create a police department, a number of things had transpired in his department including gained access to police records and systems, officer training at the police academy, and taking care of housekeeping duties regarding various policies and best practice situations modeled on police departments around the country. Those policies were now in the final stages of review with university leadership. Several committees had been formed including a complaint resolution committee that had worked on developing a new complaint resolution process for the better part of a year. An advisory group had also been developed for police implementation that included faculty, officers of administration, and classified staff, which had been meeting monthly for the better part a year and offered advice when necessary. Training methods had been revised and a police captain, Pete Deshpande had been hired. Captain Deshpande was a twenty year veteran of the Eugene Police Department who held two degrees from the University of Oregon, and whose father was a professor emeritus in the Physics Department.

Mr. McIver introduced Carolyn McDermed (Interim Police Chief) who spent seventeen years as a supervisor for the Eugene Police Department and another eight years with the San Diego Police Department. Interim Chief McDermed was also the co-author of three books on situations and stories of local Eugene homeless peoples and families. Mr. McIver concluded his update by introducing Senator David Landrum (OA Senator, Director of Administrative Services, Police Department). He then commented that his department was interested in employing police officers in the near future, who would be held to very rigorous standards. There would be many opportunities for the campus community to participate in that process.

Over the last few months, his department had been meeting with university employees and students both individually and in small groups discussing various interests, concerns, needs, and gathering feedback on general campus police issues and on the issue regarding arming police officers. He had begun to amass a list of questions and wished to obtain further questions from the Senate body that his department would address at the Senate meeting in January.

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body if anyone had questions for Mr. McIver and his entourage. The first questions came from Senator William Steiner (Student Senator). He asked if there was a body of research indicating that armed campus police impacted campus safety in a positive way, to which Mr. McIver replied that he would not be answering any questions at the meeting, but would return at the January Senate meeting with answers to all questions asked. He also mentioned that he would be more than happy to answer any and all questions at any time outside of the Senate meeting.

The next question came from Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics). He asked Mr. McIver to consider the issue of diversity when it came to hiring police officers and thought it was important that his department be mindful of the wide variety of cultures present at the university.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) stated that when the conversion to a sworn police department came forward, the Vice President for Finance and Administration stated that the conversion would save the university fifty thousand dollars and he wanted to know if the conversion was still expected to save the university money and if so, could he explain how that process would be implemented with the hiring of new line officers. He then prefaced his next question by stating that he knew it could not be answered and stated that former Police Chief Douglas Tripp left the university under very mysterious circumstances, and commented that it really harmed the trust in the public safety/police department when no explanation was offered for high-level personnel changes. He then commented that this was the third Police Chief that was dismissed without any explanation to the university.

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff) stated that it sounded like several people had already undergone police training and if so, was there a position description that had been published for police officers. He also wanted to know if the discussion regarding whether or not to arm police officers would inform whether or not police officers would utilize the powers of arrest.

Senator Peng Lu (Mathematics) wanted to know why police officers needed firearms on campus. He then commented that over the past ten years he had not heard a gun shot on campus and wanted to know why it was necessary to arm police officers.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) asked if there was a record of incidents that ended terribly due to the Department of Public Safety not being armed

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) stated that Mr. McIver’s department budget should be transparent and weapons qualification and designing magazine lockers was an ongoing event that cost a significant amount of money. He was curious as to what the initial operating expense and subsequent annual operating expenses would cost the university. He also wanted to know what the cost benefit ratio would be to the university, to which Mr. McIver asked if he could identify any specifics regarding how the cost benefit would be assessed or displayed. Senator Gillem replied that he would like to see details on the costs and would leave the benefits to Mr. McIver’s department, as according to Senator Gillem, they were the experts.

The next comment came from Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages). He stated that for several hundred years, the British Police had been unarmed and their policing success rate was much higher than that of the New York Police Department, which was heavily armed. He wanted to know how arming UO police officers would impact the local university culture and also how it would affect local community relationships between students and faculty. Senator Garcia-Caro was also concerned about an armed officer’s impulse to act especially regarding possible instances of racial profiling.

Senator Mandy Chong (Classified Staff) wanted to know more information regarding training methods as it related to the various languages and cultural barriers on campus, as this had been a problem in the past. She also commented that the university had an increasing number of students from many different nations around the world and wanted to know what type of training the newly hired officers would be given in these areas.

Senator Ali Emami (Finance) wanted to know how the newly established police department differentiated its services from services currently provided by the Department of Public Safety.

Senator Jennifer Ellis (Finance) asked if there was any evidence that having an armed police force on campus forced tragedy rather than prevented it, and then asked who Senators should contact if they had further questions, to which Senate President Kyr replied that Senators should email both himself and Mr. McIver.

Senator Bill Harbaugh asked who would be making the decisions regarding these questions that were being asked. He also asked what the Senate’s roll would be in the decision making process. He then asked would it be advisory, would there be a vote, and what would happen.

Senate President Kyr called for further questions from both the Senate body and Mr. McIver’s entourage. Seeing none, he thanked the group for presenting at the meeting. Before leaving, Mr. McIver reiterated that he was more than happy to meet with anyone at any time to discuss these issues. 

4.2 Assessment; Ken Doxsee, Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

Ken Doxsee (Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs) updated the Senate on his work regarding university assessment. He asked the question why should the university assess, to which he answered that there were sound academic and social reasons for assessment including accreditation and providing financial aide to students. He then stated that assessment, if done properly, could do great things for the university. A consortium was being developed by several AAU institutions which would facilitate a full range of data exchanges. The SERU (Student Experience at the Research University) Survey was distributed, with a one third response rate that included a wealth of data on a wide variety of student behavioral metrics. He presented a series of slides to the Senate body on the results of this survey and remarked that if Senators were interested in reviewing the data in more detail, he encouraged them to contact his office. He also encouraged Senators to ask questions regarding the information found in the survey as it might shed some light on how things might be done differently at the UO. Associate Vice Provost Doxsee also mentioned that he would be willing to work with any department that wanted to apply the survey assessment to their students.

Senate President Kyr thanked Associate Vice Provost Doxsee for his presentation and called for questions from the Senate body. The first question came from Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA). She commented that she had been involved in various assessments throughout multiple careers, but was concerned that although the assessments provided excellent information, there was always the crunch of time, money, service, etc… She wanted to know how to implement program changes in light of assessment information and a busy schedule. Associate Vice Provost Doxsee replied that he was trying to take as much burden off of departments as possible regarding the acquisition and visualization of data, and leave the digestion and implementation of data to the departments. He then commented that most professors usually adapted their teaching each time a course was taught, but if a global issue was identified, he would work with departments to develop strategies for solving these issues moving forward. Seeing no further comments, Senate President Kyr thanked AVP Doxsee for his time and invited Laura Hinman (ASUO President) to the Senate floor to present the ASUO report.

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President

Senate President Kyr asked Ms. Hinman to please introduce the newly appointed Student Senators to the Senate body, to which she replied that this was an item on her report. The Student Senators were: Taylor Allison, Brian Vanderpool, Amy Jones, and William Steiner. She then commented that a fifth Student Senator would soon be appointed. She informed the Senate that her administration had recently participated in a watch party at the EMU (Erb Memorial Union). During the party many students registered to vote and several voted in the recent Presidential Election. She referenced President Gottfredson’s earlier comment that there were twenty-five thousand students at the UO and Senator Steiner was presenting a motion to help create student study space to accommodate for the increased student enrollment. Ms. Hinman stated that President Gottfredson co-sponsored an initiative to keep the EMU open during dead-week and finals week, and a referendum to renovate the EMU would be taking place during the following week of classes. She asked Senators to please allow students to make announcements in their classes regarding this issue. Finally, she mentioned that her administration was working with the Social Host Ordinance of the Unruly Gathering Policy that was put forward by the City of Eugene. Ms. Hinman stated that the mayor of Eugene had visited the Student Senate to discuss this issue, and her administration was involved in educating students regarding possible outcomes if the policy was passed. She was not in favor of the fine system (up to one thousand dollars) that was currently in the language of the proposed policy. After presenting her report, Ms. Hinman thanked the Senate for their time, and Senate President Kyr thanked her for her efforts.

5.2 UA Senate Liaison Committee; David Luebke, Chair

Professor David Luebke (History) briefly updated the Senate on the status of establishing an initial bargaining agreement. He reassured everyone that things were progressing positively and in a timely manner. Professor Luebke stated that over the summer, a dozen or more working groups comprised of forty members of the faculty worked towards developing a series of proposals on the initial bargaining agreement. Their goal was to have as much of that work assembled by the beginning of the fall term. They did not quite make their fall term deadline, but he reassured the Senate that they were now ready to proceed. Over the course of August, September, and October, there was a series of exchanges with members of the administration about laying ground rules for negotiations. A few weeks ago, there was an informal gathering with representatives of United Academics, which he could not attend. He then stated that on October 17, his constituency sent a demand to bargain, and according to Professor Luebke, a meeting will take place on November 20 to work out ground rules for negotiation. As they move forward, United Academics will post proposals on their website, which will run concurrently with a membership drive which had begun in October. Professor Luebke stated that membership targets were on point and United Academics hoped to begin electing officers and drafting by-laws by the end of the fall term. Senate President Kyr asked for any questions or comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, he thanked Professor Luebke for his presentation and for the cordial and collegial demeanor that existed between the Senate and United Academics.

5.3 Election of Senate Vice President in December; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr stated that he very much encouraged nominations for the position of Senate Vice President. If anyone was interested in running or nominating another (after first obtaining the nominee’s consent), he was the person to contact.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senator Will Steiner (Student Senator) presented a notice of motion, which encouraged the construction of additional study space and classrooms given the increase in student enrollment. Senate President Kyr asked him to please be in touch regarding the details of his motion.

6.1 Notice of Motion: Performance Review of James C. Bean; Nathan Tublitz, Professor (Biology)

Senate President Kyr read the notice of motion for Professor Nathan Tublitz’s (Biology) motion and informed the Senate that Professor Tublitz would present his motion at the January Senate meeting.

6.2 Notice of Motion: Support for Maintaining 4J Neighborhood Schools; Mark Gillem, Associate Professor (AAA)

Senate President Kyr read the notice of motion for Senator Mark Gillem’s (AAA) motion, which would be considered at the December Senate meeting.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) offered a notice of motion. His motion urged President Gottfredson to initiate a process that would lead expeditiously to a functional UO Constitution.

Before adjourning the meeting, Senate President Kyr mentioned that the Senate meeting was a record breaking meeting. He thanked the Senate for their hard work and stated that at today’s meeting the Senate passed a revised policy, three motions, reconciliation was reached on the OAR for Random Drug Testing, and four notices of motion were announced for the December meeting. He again thanked everyone for their hard work and dedication.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the November 7, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:16PM.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for October 10, 2012

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 10 October 2012

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

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the meeting of the University Senate for October 10, 2012 to order at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library. He informed Senators that a sign-up sheet was being distributed and instructed them to please sign in for the attendance record.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the May 9 & 23 Meetings

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the Minutes for the May 9 and 23 meetings had not yet been completed. Chris Prosser, the former Senate Executive Coordinator, had recently left the university over the summer, and the Senate was currently conducting a search for his replacement. According to Senate President Kyr, the minutes would be approved at the November 07 meeting. He then welcomed the new University President Michael Gottfredson to deliver his first State of the University Address to the Senate body.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by University President Michael Gottfredson

University President Michael Gottfredson thanked Senate President Kyr and remarked that he was very happy to be at the University of Oregon and at the Senate meeting. He also commented that he was very much looking forward to working with the Senate during the academic year. President Gottfredson stated that he had been at the University since August and in that short period of time the weather had been perfect. According to the President, the university had recruited a distinct group of students, and so far the football team had not lost a game. He then stated that it was a privilege to be the President of the UO and that the university was one of the nation’s premiere public research universities and he was delighted to have the opportunity to serve the institution along with its excellent faculty, staff, and students.

President Gottfredson remarked that he had toured the state of Oregon and stated that he was very encouraged to find an enormously supportive and enthusiastic community of alumni, friends, and admirers of the university around the state, nation, and world. He then commented that both he and the Senate had a great deal of work to accomplish and offered his own views on matters relating to governance. His comments pertained to administrative reorganization and institutional governing boards. President Gottfredson stated that his ideas on governance stemmed from the university itself, specifically related to the kind of university that the UO was. He then repeated that the UO was one of the premiere public research universities in the country, and to him, this statement provided the basis for the universities governance model. According to President Gottfredson, being a research university meant valuing certain things as faculty, staff, and students. These values included discovery and creativity, the admiration of and rewarding for accomplishment through scholarship, research, and creative activities. Peer review was the standard for acceptance of these accomplishments. Nearly above all else, as a research university, the UO valued freedom of inquiry and expression, and academic freedom and freedom of speech. He could not imagine a research university that did not have these ideals at its core. He then stated that the UO valued community that had a very high level of respect for ideas, collegiality, and civility in its interactions. The President remarked that such a community enhanced and supported the pursuit of ideas, creativity, and provided the environment for academic freedom and freedom of expression. He also mentioned that the university valued the transmission of knowledge, because teaching and learning were essential values that were imbedded in the idea of the university.

President Gottfredson reminded Senators that the UO was a public university, which opened the door to other essential core values. As a public university, the UO valued access to education for Oregonians. He believed that the test for access was preparation not financial status or stature, which was embedded in the DNA of the university. According to President Gottfredson, the university also valued quality, and he stated that access without quality was akin to a hollow promise. He commented that the University valued quality in everything they did, especially in regards to the faculty, which he believed was essential to underwrite the public interest. Another value that stemmed from the public nature of the university was integrity, which encapsulated open, honest, forthcoming, and transparent activities referring to governance and administration. He then stated that all of these values underwrote the critical nature of what the university represented, which was a kind of institution like no other and that had a very noble purpose which was to enhance the quality of life for citizens of the state, nation, and world.

According to President Gottfredson, all of these values instructed the university in the ways it should be governed. In order to protect the aforementioned values, the governance model must be one of shared governance. He found that effective shared governance required active and meaningful collaboration, active faculty participation, and a faculty authority regarding academic matters. He remarked that these points were a part of the universities history and peer reference. Proper shared governance expected competency and placed responsibility for the nature and care of the central mission of the university with the faculty, all which included programs of study, academic degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, the qualifications of students (admissions and academic scholarships), and qualifications of faculty (hiring and promotion). In President Gottfredson’s mind, these were the responsibilities in a shared governance model for the faculty that were derived from the idea of the university and were shared with the principles of community.

He also believed that it was the faculty’s responsibility to defend the core values of freedom of inquiry and expression. At the same time, the principles of shared governance informed the responsibilities and competencies that were expected of an administration, which were to manage the university to the public interest. He believed that this concept was implicit in the ideals associated with a public university. Administrators must be capable stewards consistent with the notions of community and to the requirements of the governing board and other authorities. According to President Gottfredson, those were the responsibilities of an administration operating within a shared governance model. In his view, the only way that administrative governance models worked was when important policies and practices were informed by consultation and advice from the faculty, staff, and students. He then commented that such consultation could only be meaningful if it took place in a spirit of transparency, knowledge, and in a timely manner. He then stated that an essential advisory role existed for the Senate on administrative matters and that role was essential in executing the mission of the university. President Gottfredson also mentioned several other areas where the Senate’s advice would be welcome, which included budget and finance, capitol planning, athletics, and participation in the selection and evaluation of academic administrators.

According to the President, those were the general divisions of response that he believed were implicit in the ideas of the university. He then mentioned that there were two issues being discussed at the Senate meeting, which he believed helped illustrate the kind of shared responsibility that existed between the Senate and administration. The first topic was in regards to the Policy on Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech. President Gottfredson commented that he had read the policy and did not believe that it was ready for Senate action, but believed that the concept/idea/principle and its defense was a faculty matter. The second agenda item that he mentioned was the discussion of a new Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) regarding drug testing. The President believed that the Senate’s insights on this topic was of great value and should be considered in a timely manner, but that in the end, it was an administrative decision. He believed that administrative decisions were always best informed by broad engagement and commentary, and was pleased that former Interim President Bob Berdahl had postponed the OAR until the present time.

President Gottfredson commented that together with Senate President Kyr, he had been reading through the University of Oregon Constitution. He stated that the document appeared to express shared governance ideals consistent with the manner in which he had just described and was solidly grounded in law and with the systems of internal management directives. He then stated that he looked forward to conversing with the Senate on issues regarding the Constitution as the year progressed. He also realized that with public institutions, the ultimate responsibility of many decisions rested with the president and that he or she reported to a governing board from which all authority was ultimately derived, but on matters regarding the academic core, he stated that decisions should be derived from the faculty.

The President then mentioned several recent developments he thought were worth commenting on. The first was regarding administrative reorganization. Both President Gottfredson and Provost Bean had recently created a new reporting structure/organizational chart for the central administration which had several features in which several officers would report directly to the President. Those officers were the General Council, the Athletic Director, the Vice President for Development, and the Vice President for Finance and Administration. All other senior officers would report directly to the Provost. He also mentioned that this information could be found on the President’s website (http://president.uoregon.edu/) and he welcomed any and all comments regarding the new structure.  The President stated that this box-like structure had several purposes, one of which was to establish a division of labor, and it also established the Provost as the chief operating officer of the university.

The second development mentioned by the President was regarding institutional boards. He stated that he had recently addressed this matter to the campus and had posted a letter sent to the chairs of the special legislative committee who worked over the summer and early fall to produce a report, a set of recommendations, and a draft bill which would authorize an institutional board both for the University of Oregon and for Portland State University. The President was very encouraged by the work of the special committee and felt that the committee had made great progress that was consistent with the ideals of the public interest and the interests of the university. President Gottfredson stated that there were a few issues that needed some attention, but in general, he was very optimistic about the process. He commented that the issue of institutional governing boards was a response to a nation-wide withdrawal of state support to public institutions, which had resulted in many states, including Oregon, to seek out a governance model with more flexibility in financial strategies and a sensitivity of governance. President Gottfredson stated that he had no intention of changing the mission of the university. The university was not going to change their focus on access, or quality, but what they were doing, with the help of many friends of the university, was changing its financial strategies. President Gottfredson commented that he was very optimistic with the potential restructuring involving institutional governing boards, and repeated that any change would be consistent with the mission of the university.

The President concluded his remarks by stating that he came to work in a research university for the same reasons that many other Senators had, which was due to the fact that he had become very engaged in his discipline through research, scholarship, and teaching. His own values were most consistent with and were best expressed at public universities that had a commitment to research and being associated with the top tier of institutions nationwide. He then commented that he was delighted and privileged to be at the UO working with the Senate and sustaining and enhancing what he believed was a very noble enterprise. The President commented that the university only stood for very good things. These things were in the mission of the university and were what a public university was for. According to President Gottfredson, when Abraham Lincoln took time out during the Civil War to sign the Morale Act, he stated that what was very important for the country was individual, social, and economic mobility and collective social and economic mobility and the very best way to underwrite that was through access to higher education and access that did not depend on status or stature. The President very much believed in these ideals and commented that the university was doing and would continue to do a good job at this.

2.2 Questions and Comments with Response

Senate President Kyr thanked President Gottfredson for his comments and asked if there were any questions or comments from the Senate body. The first comment came from Senator John Bonine (Law). Senator Bonine thanked President Gottfredson for his comments and stated that he believed that everyone was excited at his arrival to the university. Senator Bonine had written down a few of the President’s remarks and repeated them back to President Gottfredson. He believed that the Senate was in accord with the President’s view that the authority of the faculty and therefore the Senate, to whom it has delegated authority, was for academic matters, and that the Senate and faculty also had an important role of consultation regarding other matters that did not fall within the purview of academics. Senator Bonine also stated that, as was mentioned in many documents composed by Senators, including the Constitution, the President had the final word. He again reiterated his enthusiasm and stated that there would be disagreements ahead from both the Senate and administration on whether something was an academic matter or not. He also commented that the Constitution was not written to define the indefinable, but to establish a process of collaboration in which eventually an answer could be derived. According to Senator Bonine, scholarship and policy making were faculty matters and in the past, with the use of Oregon Administrative Regulations, there had been several disagreements regarding these issues. If a policy involved an academic matter, it should proceed through the processes outlined in the Constitution. This was his view on the matter and he believed it was consistent with what President Gottfredson had stated. Senator Bonine also commented that there were three sources of authority in the university under the State Charter that did not stem from the State Board of Higher Education. This was only one of the three sources. The other two were the faculty and the President. Senator Bonine believed that President Gottfredson was in accord with this idea and merely wanted to highlight this concept.

Seeing no further questions, Senate President Kyr thanked President Gottfredson for his remarks.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Remarks by Senate President Kyr

Senate President Kyr remarked that the Senate had come a long way in the last ten months, and in a way everyone had relived the entire history of the university in his or her own way. He then commented that President Gottfredson had given the university a great gift by articulating how the Senate and administration could work together in a respectful manner. He recognized that the Senate’s primary importance was to focus on academic matters and to fulfill the universities academic mission through shared governance. Senate President Kyr then laid out many initiatives that the Senate would be undertaking during the upcoming academic year.

The first item was the tenth year review of all university standing committees, whose purpose was to improve the consistency of university service and to clear up confusion regarding committees. According to Senate President Kyr, the Committee on Committees would perform the tenth year review, which would tackle such items as committee membership, charges, and how service was acknowledged. Senate President Kyr would be leading the review, but the Senate Vice-President would be presiding over the end of the year committee assignments. He then mentioned that it had been proposed that several new committees might emerge as a result of the tenth year review process such as a committee on undergraduate education, graduate education, and a committee on admissions and standards. The Senate would have the opportunity to participate directly in this process via a campus-wide survey and a campus forum hosted by the Senate, which he hoped that all Senators would attend, as their input was extremely valuable.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that he would be creating two new Senate Ad Hoc Committees. The first was the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Excellence, which would focus on strategies for improving the universities standing in the AAU (American Association of Universities) and would review the universities academic needs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in order to achieve and sustain the highest levels of excellence. The members of the Ad Hoc Committee would develop the committee’s charge. The second committee was the Ad Hoc Committee on Instructional Technology. According to Senate President Kyr, many distinguished universities such as Harvard University and Stanford University had taken the lead by offering online education. This committee would discuss strategies to implement similar online educational opportunities at the UO. He then mentioned that the committee members would also develop this committee’s charge. Senate President Kyr stated that he was very excited about these committees and the work they would be undertaking.

Senate President Kyr then mentioned that the Senate would host President and Provost’s Forums in the winter and spring terms. These forums would give everyone an opportunity to interact publicly with both the President and the Provost. He then mentioned that the Senate would soon be receiving a survey from the Provost’s Office, which would give everyone an opportunity to voice his or her own priorities of the university. He encouraged all Senators to respond as soon as possible to the survey.

Senate President Kyr then took a moment to clarify the relationship that existed between the Senate and the Union. He stated that the Senate did not have a seat at the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) table. The Senate was focused on academic matters, the administration was focused on management, and the union was going to be negotiating with management in regards to compensation, working conditions, and other matters related to the CBA. Senate President Kyr had been asked what the relationship would be with the Senate and the Union, to which he replied the relationship would not be contentious as the Senate was a legislative body and had an excellent relationship with the two of its five constituencies that had union representation; Classified Staff and Students. He informed the Senate that the UA (United Academics) Senate Liaison Committee had recently been formed. According to Senate President Kyr, the chair of that committee was Professor David Luebke (History), and the committee was created to foster communication between the Senate and the Union. The Senate’s primary purpose regarding the Union was to provide communication.

After discussing the Union, Senate President Kyr discussed five upcoming policies that were of critical importance to the university. The first two policies were the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech Policy, and the Facilities Scheduling Policy. These policies had come before the Senate in the recent past. According to Senate President Kyr, both of these two policies were posted on the Senate website, and he asked that all Senators become well acquainted with each policy as they would both be coming to the Senate floor for discussion and a vote. The next policy was the Legal Representation Policy. This policy was also posted to the Senate website, but had not come before the Senate, and he asked all Senators to again become well acquainted with this policy. The next two policies, the Fee for Service Policy, proposed by Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) and the Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Policy were currently being developed and would be posted to the Senate website once they were complete. He again encouraged Senators to review these policies in order to engage in meaningful discussion when they came before the Senate floor.

Both Senator John Bonine (Law) and Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) commented that several policies posted to the Senate website did not coincide with similar policies found in the online Policy Library. Senate President Kyr thanked them for bringing that piece of information to his attention and replied that he would look into the matter and make sure it was corrected. He then provided a brief account regarding the background of both the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech and Facilities Scheduling Policies.

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that a search was underway for the next Senate Executive Coordinator. The position was open until filled and applications were still being accepted. He encouraged all Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) to apply for the position, as it was possible to have a dual appointment. He then commented that this was one of the greatest years in the history of the university and the Senate was going to play a large part in making it such a great year through their service and participation. He again encouraged Senators to fill out their surveys and to attend the Provost and President’s Forums as both the President and the Provost were interested in hearing Senator’s ideas and concerns. He then thanked everyone for their service and hard work.

3.2 Questions and Comments with Response

3.3 OAR on Random Drug Testing; Robert Kyr

Senate President Kyr stated that the OAR on Random Drug Testing had been sent to every member of the Senate, and it had been posted to the Senate website. According to Senate President Kyr, a public hearing had taken place which was not very well attended, and only one person, Associate Professor Brian McWhorter (Music & Dance), provided public testimony on the issue. Senate President Kyr then opened up a period of discussion on the OAR.

The first comment came from Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics). He stated that the issue regarding the OAR centered on the Senate voting or not voting on the proposal before it went forward. He believed that it was clearly an academic issue and as such, the Senate should have been consulted before the preliminary policy was enacted. Senator Harbaugh stated that he wanted to vote on the proposal. Senate President Kyr then called for further discussion.

The next comment came from Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages). She commented that since Professor McWhorter was at the Senate meeting, might he want to summarize his comment. Senate President Kyr replied that Professor McWhorter had just recently left the meeting as he had teaching responsibilities elsewhere on campus. Senate President Kyr then provided a brief summary of his comment, which was that Professor McWhorter had hoped that there would be Senate consultation.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) stated that he was concerned about the process, and believed that it was terribly important that the process outlined in the UO Constitution be respected. According to Professor Stahl, if the Constitution was not respected, the Constitution would die and shared governance would die with it. As he understood it, the OAR was an emergency policy and according to the Constitution, emergency policies were valid for sixty to ninety days (he was not sure) and then became non-renewable. He believed that that time period gave anyone a reasonable amount of time to bring a proper policy proposal to the Senate, and once adopted, an OAR could be properly based. He reiterated that respecting that Constitutional process was much more important than the particular OAR. He asked the Senate to not vote on the OAR as a protest to the manner in which things had gone forward regarding the OAR and encouraged the administration to bring the OAR forward properly.

Senator John Bonine wanted to know whether or not the proponents of the draft regulation could state why a time or compliance issue existed with NCAA standards. He then commented that there were three issues to consider. The first was whether it was a good rule or not. The second was whether the rule was urgent or not, and the third issue was regarding the proper process. He did not believe that the Senate could properly evaluate the issue at the meeting, but suggested that a committee be formed to consider the particulars. He then called for a point of clarification regarding the aforementioned issues before further discussion continued.

Gary Gray (Senior Associate Athletic Director) commented on the time issue. He stated that the Athletic Department wanted to complete the OAR by the beginning of the school year, and that his department had wanted to complete this update for many years. According to Mr. Gray, there was an NCAA ruling that occurred around 1997 that would not allow for random drug testing, and that ruling had recently been changed. Both Oregon and Oregon stated were interested in beginning random drug testing, which would conform to standard practices of 90 – 95% of pier institutions. He believed it was a student welfare issue, and random drug testing would help students to make wise decisions. He then asked Senator Bonine if his reply answered his questions, to which Senator Bonine replied that it only answered his first question regarding if it was a good idea. He was still interested in addressing issues of urgency and process. Mr. Gray then commented that the NCAA was not mandating the university to institute random drug testing, as they have their own system for random drug testing, which was fairly infrequent and was centered on performance enhancing drugs. According to Mr. Gray, the university wanted to instill a year-round process to prohibit drug use and enhance student welfare.

Senator Bonine then asked why the Senate was not consulted before this policy was put into place, to which Mr. Gray replied that he was not in on any of those conversations. He believed that changing an OAR did not require Senate approval, but did not know the particulars regarding administrative law. Senator Bonine replied that as a professor of administrative law, he was well versed in the Oregon Administrative Procedure Act. According to Senator Bonine, regulations were considered policies enacted into law and must therefore come before the Senate for approval. He then stated that the administration dealt with policies regarding the practical matters of the university and the Senate dealt with policies regarding academic matters of the university, but under the Policy on Policies, the Senate President must be informed of all policies. S/he would then consult with the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) to determine if the policy was academic and if so, it would come before the Senate for a vote. It seemed to Senator Bonine that no one had informed the Athletic Department that the process outlined in the Policy on Policies was in place.

Senate President Kyr asked for a point of clarification regarding Senator Bonine’s statement. He wanted to know if Senator Bonine meant that it was the Senate’s job to determine in part if a policy was academic or not, to which he replied that in part it was, but the administration could disagree with the Senate on this issue.

Mr. Gray commented that the university had always had an institutional drug testing policy that was based on reasonable suspicion that the student athletes were required to sign-off on at the beginning of the term. The change was going from a policy based on reasonable suspicion to a random drug testing policy.

Professor Frank Stahl commented that the problem concerning the OARs was that they might be used to set policy. If this became the case, he believed that the university would suffer from two parallel policy making processes, one of which seemed to come through the Office of the General Counsel more than any other. The other comes from the University Constitution, which involved the Senate. Whether or not the Senate was involved in any given policy was up to the Senate Executive Committee. According to Professor Stahl, the use of OARs to set policy was forbidden by the UO Constitution, and the role of the OARs was to describe how a policy would be implemented and must not be used to set policy, otherwise there would be two policy setting processes running off in all directions and eventually leading to inconsistency and chaos.

Senator Bonine stated that the OARs could not be seen as an alternative to the Constitutional process, but could be used to set policy if the Senate Executive Committee decided that a policy proposal was not an academic matter. Likewise, if the Senate set policy on an academic matter, it may either adopt it as legislation or ask that it be formalized into an OAR, which was what took place regarding the student conduct code. The pathway to deciding these matters was the important issue to him.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) read from the rule summary that was distributed from the Office of the General Counsel:

The university seeks to educate its student athletes about the detrimental effects of drug-use on    their health, safety, academic work, and future careers.

He then commented that this issue seemed to be an academic matter, and continued to read from the rule summary:

The university must abide by NCAA rules and uphold the integrity of its athletic department.

Senator Harbaugh stated that this statement contradicted what Mr. Gray had just told the Senate that there was not an NCAA rule requiring random drug testing. According to Senator Harbaugh, that conflict was a good example of why the Senate should be involved in these types of processes.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) thanked Senator Bonine for clarifying the Policy on Policies process, and speculated that there were probably several policies in place that had not gone through this process. She thought it would be a good idea to discuss how the Senate would deal with these policies as they encountered them. She stated that the Senate was sounding awfully bureaucratic, but was glad that there was a streamlined process in place for the future. She supported the direction that the Senate was heading toward and wondered how things would proceed going forward. Senate President Kyr stated that things were moving in the right direction, but more clarity was needed across the university about the Senate’s involvement in the policy process. He then asked how the Senate should proceed regarding this issue.

Senator Bonine stated that the principle was what was important and he thought random drug testing was a good idea. He believed it was up to the Senate to decide whether or not it wanted to spend the time evaluating the policy. He then read a draft policy regarding the OAR to the Senate for their consideration:

Whereas the proposed policy on random drug testing has been put forth in a proposed state regulation without being first sent to the President of the University Senate as required by the Policy on Policies, but whereas this action that was initiated prior to the arrival of the universities new President and whereas urgency is expressed by the Athletic Department, and whereas the Senate will be busy this academic year with a variety of matters, resolved that the shared governance of the University of Oregon embedded in state law through the University Charter of 1856 and the Constitution of the University of Oregon contemplates that policies should come to the Senate President and Senate Executive Committee for an opinion on whether an academic matter is involved, nevertheless, we do not choose to act upon this matter, but to leave it to the administration.

The next comment came from Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics). He believed that the Senate needed to discuss the content of the OAR. He did not like the OAR and believed there to be factual inaccuracies in the current language of the policy.

Senate President Kyr recommended referring the motion to the Senate Executive Committee who would then decided on a possible way forward for the motion. Senator Bonine pointed out that once a temporary rule was established, it had a shelf life of one hundred and eighty days. He then stated that the Senate could not act on the rule during this period of time.

Senator John Ahlen (International Affairs) commented that he was unclear on the issue of urgency regarding the OAR. He was also interested to learn if this issue regarded student safety and if so, had an incident occurred in the past that necessitated urgency. He then asked if student athletes had been unsafe in the past. Senate President Kyr asked if anyone could address Senator Ahlen's questions. Mr. Gray replied that student welfare was the utmost reason for changing the OAR, and the Athletic Department had wanted to make this change for quite a while. 

Senator Christopher Sinclair commented that the overturned NCAA court ruling did not sound like an emergency situation to him and as the Senate could not act on the rule for one hundred and eighty days, he recommended taking that time to seriously consider the policy through discussion as the Senate had always done.

Senator Mark Gillem (AAA) agreed with Senator Harbaugh that based on the language of the motion it was clearly an academic matter that the Senate should consider. He offered a friendly amendment to Senator Bonine's motion, which was then seconded.

David Hubin (Senior Assistant to the President) asked for a point of clarification. He wanted to insure that the current rule that was in place was not going to be repudiated by the vote, to which Senator Bonine insured him it was not. Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. Before the Senate could vote, Senator Charles Martinez (Education) stated that Dr. Hubin’s clarification was important and asked for the motion to be read aloud for final clarity. Senate President Kyr asked Senator Gillem to reread his motion to the Senate body. Below is his motion:

The Senate moves that the Senate Executive Committee establish a committee to review the OAR policy on random drug testing in light of its impact on academics and the Senate requests that the administration not enact a permanent rule any sooner than legally necessary.

After the wording of the amendment was agreed upon, Senate President Kyr called for a hand raise vote on the motion. The vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously. He thanked the Senate for their action and proceeded to the Open Discussion portion of the meeting.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

Senate President Kyr invited Jay Kenton to the Senate floor to discuss issues related to ORP and PEBB.

4.1 ORP & PEBB; Jay Kenton, OUS Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration

Before beginning his discussion, Mr. Kenton thanked the Senate for their time and the opportunity to come before them to discuss issues related to ORP and PEBB. According to Mr. Kenton, when the Oregon State Legislative Assembly adopted Senate Bill 242 at the previous session, it included a requirement that OUS form two labor management committees to study the optional retirement program as described in the ORSs and to evaluate continued participation in the PEBB program transferring to a different program called OWEB, a program operated on behalf of the K-12 school districts throughout the state as well as the community college system, or to look at other alternative plans. It was mandated in the statute that the committee report back to OUS, originally in October, but Mr. Kenton appealed to OUS asking for more time to for all constituents to comment on their findings. He had come to the Senate to discuss the committee’s preliminary recommendations and requested that the Senate provide feedback on their recommendations.

The first committee discussed was the Optional Retirement Program (ORP). He showed a series of slides to the Senate and stated that he was the chair of the committee, but actually was more of a facilitator during meetings and did not participate in committee action including voting. He then thanked Associate Professor John Chalmers (Finance) for his hard work on the committee. Moving on, he mentioned that the committee surveyed 100% of program participants and received a 45% response rate. One challenge with the program was that ORP was a defined contribution plan and was linked by statute to the PERS Program, which was a defined benefit program. He then explained the concept of a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan to the Senate body. Mr. Kenton stated that linking both ORP and PERS was problematic for a variety of reasons. The first was continuing eligibility. PERS would not provide one year of credit until an employee had worked six hundred hours in each year of their employment. ORP contribution would be lost for any year where an employee worked less than six hundred hours. The committee was interested in changing that stipulation. PERS rates fluctuated and every time a rate fluctuation took place, the ORP rate adjusted accordingly. Many people on the ORP plan were not aware that their rate had been subjected to a PERS rate fluctuation.

During the last IRS certification process (which took eighteen months to complete) the IRS wrote to OUS stating that they had never seen a defined contribution plan linked to a defined benefit plan and the IRS wanted to see a definitely determinable rate for the ORP plan. Mr. Kenton assured the Senate that the IRS recertified the programs, but the IRS mentioned the lack of a definitely determinable rate as an issue that should be address by OUS. According to Mr. Kenton, the committee’s preliminary recommendations were three fold. He then mentioned another point he had forgotten and stated that the statute also required OUS to offer participants in the plan a choice between two annuity providers and two mutual fund providers. Recently, the industry had changed with the development of open architecture fidelity platforms that offered unlimited annuities and mutual funds through one company. Due to this recent change, the committee suggested the removal of that language requiring OUS to provide two annuity and two mutual fund providers. Their second recommendation was to restate the eligibility requirement. Once a person was initially eligible for retirement, they would use the six hundred hours to determine initial eligibility, and once eligibility was attained, a person would always be eligible no matter how many hours they worked in a year. He stated that benefits officers at the seven campuses looked at each person and made an informed decision regarding whether or not a person was going to hit the eligibility mark. Around forty times per year, someone who they thought was going to be eligible did not make the mark and vice versa. These mishaps were very time consuming and disruptive to all involved. The committee’s third recommendation was to establish a new contribution tier for people who were hired by OUS after July 1, 2014. He made it a point of mentioning that OUS was not changing anything for current participants. What they had would remain unchanged. The rate would only change for future participants. He then mentioned that this was an area where the committee could not come to consensus. The current report guaranteed an eight percent contribution rate with a match of four percent for every four percent that someone contributed to a 403B. Mr. Kenton stated that according to HR professionals, employees should invest 14 – 16% of their salary for thirty years in order to have enough money to comfortably retire on, and this was why they set the new rate for employees hired after July 1, 2014. The current rate was 12.23%, and the new system would keep the rate of contribution at 12% encouraging employees to contribute an extra 4% to achieve the full rate. He reiterated that the committee did not reach a consensus on this recommendation. Some thought the rate was too high and some too low. A lively debate took place within the committee, and they came up with the current recommendation. He then called for questions from the Senate body.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) asked if people who were currently in ORP would continue to be linked to PERS or would they be severed from the current system, to which Mr. Kenton replied that nothing would change from participants current plan. He explained that the reason why the July 1, 2014 date was selected was that the committee did not want anyone to have been offered a job and have their decision to accept or reject based on one benefit program that had been recently changed. She then asked if the rate fluctuation would continue between PERS and ORP for those currently enrolled, to which Mr. Kenton replied that the fluctuation would continue. He commented that the committee sought legal advice regarding this matter. He asked the OUS Legal Counsel that if the fluctuating rate ever dropped below the fourth tier rate, could participants opt into the fourth tier, to which OUS Legal Counsel replied no, as it was against IRS rules, but a participant could decide to roll their entire PERS or ORP contribution en mass to the fourth tier plan. Currently, this option did not exist, but it was a legal option and would be monitored moving forward.

Associate Professor Marcin Bownik (Mathematics) stated that he had read Mr. Kenton’s report and identified a huge inequity in employer contribution rates between tier one, tier two, and tier three members. He stated that tier one and two members were receiving roughly 16% contribution rates and tier three members were receiving only 6%. According to Professor Bownik, UO employees who were hired after August 2003 were receiving less than two fifths of the employer contribution rate than those who were hired before that date. He stated that this inequity needed to be address by Mr. Kenton and the committee and at the very least, should be mentioned in their report. Mr. Kenton replied that Professor Bownik was absolutely right. Under former Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski a PERS reform was initiated that established this third tier rate structure. He then mentioned that this was a larger issued that was the business of the PERS Board, but he was willing to bring the issue to the committee for a discussion and possible inclusion in the report.

Senator Steven Pologe (Music and Dance) referenced Mr. Kenton’s previous remark regarding the open architecture fidelity platform investment option, which Senator Pologe believed was being eliminated and did not know how this would benefit OUS employees. Mr. Kenton stated that it was not being eliminated, but would be retained and would lower administrative fees currently paid by OUS employees.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) stated that he believed the committee was charged to examine the ORP program and to make various recommendations to the State Legislature. He also believed that the report was required to include faculty feedback as a part of that report. If that was the case, he stated that it should be made clear that the inequity between tier one/two and tier three existed. He realized that the committee had limited power to change the inequity, but wanted to make it clear that approximately half of all UO employees were in the tier three category and this was not reflected in the committee membership who were evaluating these benefit programs. He then stated that he would be putting a motion forward at the next Senate meeting that would address this inequity. Mr. Kenton replied that Senator Sinclair’s request was noted, and he would bring the information to the committee.

The next comment came from Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology). He wanted to know if the committee could include in their report the option for an employee to request an en mass roll over of their retirement funds if the PERS percentage rate fell below the tier three rate, to which Mr. Kenton replied that he was happy to bring that request back to the committee. He remarked that in the short run, with PERS rates being what they were, he did not feel that people would be interested in pursing that option, and stated that the rates were likely to increase in the future. He then stated that the tier three account was linked to PERS and when the PERS rate changed, the tier three rate changed. The tier four rate that the committee was suggesting would be a stand alone rate written into statute and would not change.

The second committee was charged with looking at health and wellness issues and continued participation in PEBB. He displayed the committee membership, which included several faculty members from the UO. With health care reform happening at the national level, the committee felt that it would be in their best interest to obtain a consultant. The committee selected Gallager Benefit Services to advise the committee, and also sent out a survey to 100% of participants. They received a 40% response from those surveys. They also talked to the Governor’s health advisor who had recently become the chair of the PEBB Board, and adopted a filter, which was used to evaluate various options. The committee came up with nine options that they felt were important to offer to their employees. 70% of employees expressed a desire to evaluate options other than PEBB. According to Gallager Benefit Services, OUS paid sixty-seven million more dollars than claims costs. Mr. Kenton stated that the OUS System was very healthy, and that PEBB covered over fifty two thousand lives, and over 25% of those lives were from OUS. He then stated that Governor Kitzhaber was a national leader in healthcare reform and had established coordinated care and was partly responsible for the HEM requirement. The Governor believed that disaggregating the pool would disadvantage the reforms, and wanted to amalgamate PEBB, OWEB, the Oregon Health Plan into one pool of around one million lives in order to apply pressure to the various networks to bend the cost curve. The committee agreed that if the decision was made to separate from PEBB, they wanted a stronger voice in the debate, subsidization should decrease over time, and transitory workers should have better options when working abroad. Mr. Kenton stated that their reports were due by December 1, 2012, and he wanted to hear from all constituent groups. Senate President Kyr stated that this report would be posted to the Senate website and he would be happy to include any other information that Mr. Kenton would like to submit. Mr. Kenton thanked the Senate for their time, and asked for any further questions.

Senator Christopher Sinclair stated that vesting for post-doctoral students must be less than two years. Currently, it was at five years, and half the money that was deposited into their accounts was taken away if they did not reach the five year vested period. Mr. Kenton thanked Senator Sinclair for his comment.

5. REPORTS

5.1 ASUO Report; Laura Hinman, ASUO President

Laura Hinman (ASUO President) greeted the Senate and thanked them for allowing her to present her report. She then introduced Will Campodonico, the University Affairs Commissioner, who was responsible for recommending student appointments to committees that faculty and staff served on at the UO. She echoed Senate President Kyr’s sentiment that this was a year filled with hope and promise. She began her report by mentioning the street fair that was taking place on 13th Street, which supported the ASUO’s vision of community on campus and brought a little slice of Eugene to campus. She also mentioned the homecoming parade, which was held in a similar spirit and invited the Senate to attend these events. Her administration had recruited a sexual violence preventative task force to address five specific charges regarding reported and unreported sexual violence crimes that took place on campus. She stated that many campus crime alerts were sent out over the summer and the results of the taskforce’s work would be presented to her on how to move forward on this issue.

According to Ms. Hinman, there was an enormous lack of academic focus in the ASUO, and Harlan Mechling, the ASUO Academic Director was working hard to provide a structure with expanded opportunities for undergraduate research. His initiative also focused on expanding the undergraduate symposium, and increasing study space at the EMU. Her administration created a taskforce to address the capacity issues on campus regarding services that the ASUO provided and other campus provided services like counseling and classroom capacity. She hoped that the Senate would take up the issue of classroom capacity as well.

The ASUO was also working on three educational campaigns to get students involved in the social ordinance/unruly gathering policy proposed by the City of Eugene. They were also running an EMU Referendum Campaign and she encouraged Senators to visit the EMU to view its current condition. Her administration would be putting forward a proposed fee in November. Finally, her administration was working on an educational campaign urging students to vote and they had already registered over four thousand students to vote in the past two and a half weeks. She ended her comments by thanking the Senators for helping students to become more involved in various committee and governance issues and mentioned that she really appreciated their collaborative spirit. Senate President Kyr thanked Ms. Hinman for her report.

5.2 Student Voter Drive; Lamar Wise, ASUO Senator

Laura Hinman delivered the Student Voter Drive Report (mentioned above), as Lamar Wise was unable to attend the Senate meeting.

Items 5.3 – 5.11 were discussed in Senate President Kyr’s opening remarks.

5.3 President’s Forums in Winter & Spring Quarters

5.4 Provost’s Forums in Winter & Spring Quarters

5.5 Search for Senate Executive Coordinator

5.6 Policies for 2012 – 2013: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech; Facilities Use Policy; Legal Representation Policy; “Fee for Service” Policy; Financial Conflict of Interest in Research

5.7 Tenth Year Review of All University Standing Committees

5.8 Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Excellence

5.9 Ad Hoc Committee on Instructional Technology

5.10 UA Senate Liaison Committee

5.11 Survey on University Priorities (Provost’s Office and Senate)

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr read the three notices of motion (as they are listed below) aloud to the Senate body.

6.1 Notice of Motion: Faculty Input into Hiring Executive Administrators; Bill Harbaugh, Senator (Economics)

6.2 Notice of Motion: Review of Executive Administrators (Harbaugh)

6.3 Notice of Motion: Release Time to Enhance Senate Effectiveness; Frank Stahl, Professor Emeritus (Biology)

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Christopher Sinclair to place his notice of motion, which was on the inequity of contribution rates. Senator Sinclair placed the notice of motion and stated that he was looking forward to a discussion at next months Senate meeting. Senate President Kyr mentioned that there were two other motions that would be announced later on in the coming weeks. He then thanked the Senate for their hard work and participation.

7. ADJOURNMENT 

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the October 10, 2012 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:16PM.

Minutes of the University of Oregon Senate Meeting for May 11, 2011

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 11 May 2011

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

Present: Kate Bidwell, John Bonine, Jane Brubaker, Carl Bybee, Kassia Dellabough, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, Deborah Healey, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Peter Keyes, Theodora Ko Thompson, Robert Kyr, Carla McNelly, Stephanie Midkiff, Reza Rejaie, Sonja Runberg, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, Ying Tan, Nathan Tublitz, Marie Vitulli, Dean Walton, Melanie Williams

Absent: Arkady Berenstein, Elisabeth Chan, Harsha Gangadharbatla, Roland Good, Michele Henney, Grace Hockstatter, Mary Ann Hyatt, Colin Ives, Doug Kennett, Peter Lambert, Anne Laskaya, Huaxin Lin, Ian McNeely, Leah Middlebrook, Terrie Minner-Engle Marilyn Nippold, Jeremy Piger, Brian Powell, Michael Price, Nick Proudfoot, Priscilla Southwell, Larry Sugiyama, Evan Thomas, Vadim Vologodsky, Peter Walker, Peter Warnek

Excused: Tracy Bars, Lydia Van Dreel, Glen Waddell

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Nathan Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for May 11, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center. Before approving the minutes, Senate President Tublitz asked the Senators to join him in welcoming newly elected Student Senator Kate Bidwell to the Senate body. He then reminded the Senators that the meeting was being streamed live over the internet, and therefore, Senators must speak into a microphone when commenting or asking questions.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes

Senate Senate President Tublitz asked the Senate body for a motion to be made to approve the minutes. A motion was made by Senator Peter Keyes (Architecture) to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Seeing no corrections, a voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean

Senate President Tublitz stated that President Lariviere was unable to attend the May 11 Senate meeting because he was attending the funeral of philanthropist and real estate pioneer Harold Schnitzer. The President asked his Senior Executive Assistant, Dr. David Hubin (Office of the President) to deliver the President’s remarks. Dr. Hubin stated that President Lariviere wanted him to convey that he was absent due to the memorial for Harold Schnitzer, a person that President Lariviere has characterized publically as an Oregonian for the ages. He is attending the memorial with Judith Basken, Deborah Green, Larry Fong and several other faculty and staff members from the UO. Dr. Hubin then stated that later in the Senate meeting, he will be returning to discuss the nominees for the Distinguished Service Award of which Harold Schnitzer was a recipient in 2001. At that time, he was known, not only for his philanthropy across the state of Oregon, but also for his founding gifts towards the Judaic Studies program at the University of Oregon. He then mentioned another topic on behalf of the President which was to convey his congratulations to Professor Geraldine Richman for achieving the very high honor of election into the National Academy of Sciences. This is a very distinct honor and he wanted to make sure it was noted for
the archives. Dr. Hubin then announced a new tradition entitled, UO Remembers, which President Lariviere will be implementing at the end of the spring term. During the time of the Assembly, faculty and staff members who had passed away were recognized and acknowledged by the Assembly, and President Lariviere has asked that on May 25, a brief reading of the names of those who have passed will transpire by the Pioneer Mother to memorialized those UO faculty, staff, and students who are no longer with us. Finally, Dr. Hubin stated that President Lariviere does not always comment on the agenda of the Senate meeting, but he wanted the Senate to know that he is pleased that the Senate is discussing the Resolution to support Oregon Senate Bill 742. He then referenced two letters that were signed by President Lariviere in support of this Bill which were posted to the Senate website. He stated that he felt a little tentative in conveying a Presidential endorsement of a UO Senate Resolution, but instead stated again that President Lariviere was pleased that it was a part of the May 11 agenda.

After Dr. Hubin concluded his comments, the Senate was informed by an online viewer that the sound of the live internet broadcast was not working. Senate President Tublitz took this brief interruption to mention two points. First, he informed the Senate that the motion Dr. Hubin was referring to was Motion US10/11-14, Resolution on Tuition Equity, and secondly, he mentioned that during the Distinguished Service Awards portion of the agenda, the Senate will convene in Executive Session. Due to the nature of the awards, all non Senators must leave the room with the exception of the Senate Executive Coordinator, Senate Parliamentarian, and the media. The media must turn off all cameras and the live feed to the internet must also be shut down for that portion of the Senate meeting.

At that point, Senator John Bonine (Law) asked Senate President Tublitz if Senators were able to comment on the President or his representatives statements made during the Senate meeting. Senate President Tublitz stated that Senators were able to give comments on the Presidents statements. Senator Bonine then offered up a comment on Dr. Hubin’s remark that the President is not in the habit of commenting on the Senate’s agenda. He asked the Senate to begin thinking about this comment and then stated that the Senate wants the President to come together with them in shared governance. He had heard before that occasionally President Lariviere might think that in order to allow the Senate to exercise their authority, there needs to be some distance. Senator Bonine feels the opposite is true and he would welcome comments by President Lariviere on the Senate’s agenda. He then asked Dr. Hubin if he had any comments on his remarks. Dr. Hubin responded by stating that it was a point well taken. He might have expressed that sentiment more gingerly than President Lariviere and did not want to overstate the President’s reticence. According to Dr. Hubin, the topic of free exchange is a positive one but the President is not trying to tell the Senate how it should vote. Seeing no further comments, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin the New Business portion of the Senate meeting.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion US10/11-13: Legislation to adopt New Senate By-laws, Senate Executive Committee

Senate President Tublitz began by offering background information on the new Senate By-laws. He stated that approximately one year ago, the Statutory Faculty adopted a new Constitution. As part of that adoption, the Senate was asked to rewrite its By-laws. The current By-laws were written by Senate President Tublitz and others, reviewed by members of the Senate Executive Committee, sent out for comments by the Senate, and now the Senate Executive Committee is bringing the By-laws to the Senate floor for a discussion and hopeful approval. Due to the length of the By-laws, Senate President Tublitz recommended going over the changes that have occurred until all Senators are comfortable. Questions are welcome at any time. At this point, Senate President Tublitz discussed the major changes to the Senate By-laws. He pointed out that sections highlighted in yellow are taken directly from the UO Constitution and are unalterable by the Senate. The first two sections of the Senate By-laws were taken directly from the UO Constitution and cannot be changed. The first section describes the scope and authority of the UO Senate. The second section describes the apportionment of the Senate, the terms of office, the election process, and voting rights and procedures. Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate has been reapportioned for the upcoming year. Article three describes Senate rules and procedures. The Senate follows Robert’s Rules of Order (newly revised). There is no change from the current By-laws in Article three. The agenda has been changed. For many years, the Senate has run an agenda by which the motions have been left to the end of the meeting, and as a result, business is occasionally not taken care of. This has been changed for 2010 – 2011, and new business has been moved to the top of the agenda. This change is reflected in the new edition of the By-laws.

Senator Marie Vitulli (Mathematics) stated that before the Senate meeting, she printed the By-laws and section 3.1 is missing from her edition. Senate President Tublitz directed her to section 3.1 which was posted to the Senate website and taken directly from the UO Constitution.

According to Senate President Tublitz, the section on dealing with writing a Senate motion had been rewritten and expanded in order to clarify the steps involved when creating a motion. Section 3.8 addresses a change that has resulted from an amendment to the current UO Constitution. According to this recent amendment, the President has the right to veto any Senate decision if s/he feels that the decision is not in the best interest of the university, but s/he must do so in sixty days from the time the Senate decision has been formally adopted. Senate President Tublitz then mentioned to the Senators that currently, the UO Constitution is being revised and this section of the By-laws may have to be changed if the UO Constitution is changed.

There is a section on Senate officers that puts into writing processes that define lines of authority and what happens when a Senate officer steps down or is no longer able to serve in his or her position. It also states that the person who is elected Senate Vice President is also the President Elect of the UO Senate. The only significant change to this section requires the Senate to elect a vice president during the end of spring term instead of electing a vice president during the fall term, which is the current practice. Senate President Tublitz believes that it is important to have a Senate vice president during the summer to help the incoming Senate President. It is also important to have a backup if the current Senate President resigns or is unable to perform his or her duties during the summer. The position of Senate Secretary has been updated to Senate Executive Coordinator, and the list of duties has been increased accordingly.

All Internal Senate Committees have been written into the By-laws. Aside from providing greater detail as to the proceedings of these committees, the only change to this section is in regards to the membership of the Senate Executive Committee. The membership has been increased to include all constituencies of the UO Senate. Senate President Tublitz stated that because the Senate Executive Committee sets the agenda for the Senate meetings, it is very important to have a wide range of viewpoints from all constituencies represented on this committee. In order to maintain close connectivity with the administration, the UO President shall now be invited to attend all Senate Executive Committee meetings, although s/he is not required to attend.

Article six describes the Academic Council, which was created by the UO Constitution, and whose members consist of all the chairs of the major academic councils on campus. According to Senate President Tublitz, the final two sections of the By-laws included no change to the current By-laws.
After going through the By-laws, Senate President Tublitz opened the floor up for discussion. The first comment was from Senator Dean Walton (UO Libraries). He asked for a point of clarification regarding student senator voting. He wanted to know if student senators could vote for the Senate Vice President even thought they are leaving at the end of spring term. Senate President Tublitz replied in the affirmative. Seeing no further comments, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senators that as a result of revisions to the current UO Constitution, the Senate By-laws will almost certainly need to be revised during the coming academic year. After a final request of questions or comments on the By-laws, Senate President Tublitz moved to a vote. A voice vote was taken, and the new Senate By-laws were passed with one abstention and will go into effect immediately.
After the new By-laws were passed, Senate President Tublitz thanked the Senate Executive Committee for their hard work on the By-laws. He then gave a special thanks to Senate Parliamentarian, Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) for his repeated and extensive assistance in the development of the Senate By-laws. Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) then formally thanked Senate President Tublitz for his hard work and dedication and for taking on the lion’s share of the work in preparing the By-laws. The Senate body applauded his efforts.

3.2 Motion US10/11-14: Resolution on Tuition Equity, Zach Stark-MacMillan, Student Senator & Jill Torres, Student

Senate President Tublitz invited Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) and Jill Torres (Curriculum and Teaching Graduate Student) to the Senate floor to discuss the Resolution on Tuition Equity. Ms. Torres stated that she is a graduate student in the College of Education, and is training to become a teacher. She has been a student at the UO since 2006. Senator Stark MacMillan stated that he was a Student Senator and was the President of the ASUO Student Senate. Ms. Torres then stated that both she and Senator Stark MacMillan were at the Senate meeting to discuss the Resolution on Tuition Equity which is derived from a resolution passed by the city council for the Dream Act. Senate President Tublitz asked for Ms. Torres to review the Resolution for the Senators and to provide pertinent background information. Ms. Torres commented that Senate bill 742, which was recently passed by the Oregon Senate, is currently being voted on in the House of Representatives. The bill provides in-state tuition for undocumented students who have been going through the Oregon school system and have been accepted to college and not been provided financial aid. The bill provides an equitable solution for students who would have to pay three times the amount in order to attend college. Currently, undocumented student are required to pay out of country tuition which is over twenty-one thousand dollars per year and are ineligible to apply for financial aid. This bill allows those students a more affordable opportunity to obtain an advanced degree. Ms. Torres stated that there is no cost to the University. The UO will simply be charging less money to these students. She believes that this will generate a greater financial opportunity for the UO because student who could not afford tuition will now be able to pay for their college education at these reduced tuition rates. Ms. Torres then reminded the Senators that this resolution is not offering financial aid. She then explained her decision to bring this resolution before the University Senate. One aspect of her work in education is to provide outreach to the Latino communities in underrepresented areas. Senator Stark MacMillan stated that these students would have to have graduated from an Oregon high school. Senate President Tublitz then reminded Senators that they would be voting to accept this resolution to support this initiative. Before opening the floor for comments and discussion, Senate President Tublitz stated that that very morning, President Lariviere had testified to the House Rules Committee in support of the Resolution and displayed a letter to the Senate body that President Lariviere signed and submitted to the Committee. President Lariviere has also signed another letter in support of this bill along with the presidents of Oregon State University and Portland State University. Both letters are public and support Senate bill 742. Dr. Hubin then stated that the two letters were not dated and he informed the Senate that the letters were sent on March 3, 2011.

A comment was made by Professor Edward Olivos (Education Studies). He stated that all faculty and staff from Education Studies fully support the resolution on tuition equity. He then recounted a story about his recent visit to a local high school with a colleague. During their visit, Professor Olivos had a discussion with several career counselors about their first experience in working with Latino students. The counselor was advising the student on how to apply to various colleges and financial aid programs but did not know that the Latino student was undocumented. According to Professor Olivos, the result of the counselor’s efforts ended in deportation for the Latino student. Professor Olivos believes that the resolution on tuition equity would provide a greater opportunity to local high schools and career counselors on how to advise undocumented Latino students who have lived most of their lives in Oregon and who have been brought up through the Oregon education system.

Senate President Tublitz stated that the resolution on tuition equity is completely student generated, and one of the nice things about working so closely with the Student Senate, the Senate leaders, and the ASUO leaders is that each group has a great deal in common and can continue to make strong ties and bringing us together on important issues such as the resolution on tuition equity. Seeing no further questions or comments, Senate President Tublitz called for a voice vote on the resolution on tuition equity. A voice vote was taken and the resolution on tuition equity passed unanimously.

3.3 Motion US10/11-15: Adoption of Policy on the Appointment of Officers of Administration, Linda King, Associate Vice President for Human Resources

Senate President Tublitz invited Linda King, Vice President for Human Resources, to the Senate floor to introduce the policy on the appointment of officers of administration (OA). Ms. King stated that the policy establishes and defines employment appointments for OAs. The policy is comprised of two types of employment. The first is called indefinite tenure which are positions that are expected to continue from year to year. The second is called other and are for a shorter duration, are more than likely grant funded, and are project based. According to Ms. King, the new policy provides provision for OAs and is labeled an H contract. A major difference in the new H contracts is the time an OA receives before nonrenewal. Currently, there are A contracts that have up to a one year notice of nonrenewal. Almost half of all OAs have F contracts which have no renewal provision. The H contract will provide one month notice of renewal for the first year and three months notice for every additional year. All new OA appointments will receive H contracts. OAs that currently hold A contracts will retain their A contracts for as long as they are university employees. OAs that currently hold F contracts will be moved to H contracts, unless their position is of a short enough duration that H contracts would not be appropriate. She then stated that the reason for creating the H contract was consistency. Another reason was to reduce the financial and organizational constraints that are inherent in having one year notice periods, but at the same time acknowledging that it is important to provide reasonable notice periods for OAs. They also wanted to better align their practices with comparator institutions both in Oregon and nationwide. Ms. King then provided background information on how Human Resources arrived at the decision to create H contracts. Human Resources met with the OA council and the steering committee for the OA policy initiative. These two groups helped HR in developing the H contracts as well as other policies. From these meetings, HR developed a proposal that was presented to various deans, vice presidents and the OA council. During the month of January, HR posted an OA policy forum where people could offer comments on OA policies. Two open forums were held, also in January, to discuss the policy on OA appointments. The final draft of the policy was posted to the HR website during the months of February and March with the completed version being posted during the month of May. HR is hoping to implement the contract by July 1, 2011. Senate President Tublitz then asked for questions or comments from the Senate body.

The first comment came from Senator Melanie Williams (Romance Languages). She recalled a past instance where two administrators were given timely notice and it took the university five months to sort out the details of the action. She then asked if this type of scenario could repeat itself under the new H contract guidelines. Ms. King responded by stating that she did not think the situation Senator Williams was referring to lasted five months, but transpired over a shorter timeframe. She then stated that if a decision is made to rescind timely notice, it could happen during or after the time period allowed in the contract. Senator Williams then offered a follow up questions and asked Ms. King to discuss the comments and discussions that transpired regarding the H contracts. Ms. King replied that on the open forum various comments were made. There were very few comments on the three month time period. Several comments were made from OAs that currently hold F contracts requesting an upgrade to A contracts before July 1.

The next comment came from David Landrum (Finance Director, Provost Office). Mr. Landrum reaffirmed Ms. King’s comments regarding the participatory manner in which the policy had been drafted among OAs. He stated that the overall impact of the policy is a positive one for OAs. He then stated that he is currently employed under an F contract which gives him no renewal provision. The H contract will enhance his benefit by providing the three months of notice. He then stated that have had ample time to address this policy and while it is not a perfect solution, it is a very good solution in moving forward for the OA community.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked Ms. King if there were previous policies on contracts. She responded that there were previous policies developed for OA employment. Senator Bonine then stated that the policy, US10/11-16 adoption of policy on classified research, uses a form that talks about policy update. One of the purposes of that form is to display changes to the policy. According to Senator Bonine, this OA policy is a new policy and provides very little information, apart from what was mentioned orally, regarding previous OA employment policies. He wanted to know why the drafters of the policy decided to not include information on past OA employment policies. Ms. King replied that the other policies were not other versions of the current OA appointment policy, but were completely different policies. In terms of the form and documentation of the policy, Ms. King stated that this was her first time drafting a policy and if there were additional documentation requirements, at which point, Senator Bonine stated that policy formatting was not the issue under discussion. He was more interested in the internal process that went on in the development of the policy. Senator Bonine then mentioned an exclusion/grandfather clause that allows for one year of timely notice. He asked if there were any contracts that provide more than one year for timely notice. Ms. King replied that as far as she understood one year is the longest time period for giving timely notice. Senator Bonine then asked if OAs who do have up to one year will continue to have that benefit during their time at the university. Ms. King stated that they will as long as there are employed as an OA. Senator Bonine then asked what percentage of OAs will not be subjected to the three month rule but to a longer rule. Ms. King replied that approximately half of all OAs have the longer contract. According to Ms. King, this is an issue that OAs care very deeply about. It was part of the Universities commitment for those OAs who have the one year contract that those contracts remain as assigned.

Senate President Tublitz commented that Senator Bonine brought up a good point about policies. If this policy is adopted, it will be posted to the policy library, and as it currently stands, provides very little background information. In the future, the Senate will ask policy drafters to provide background information to establish a sense of context. He then asked for final questions and comments from the Senate body. Seeing none, Senate President Tublitz reminded the Senate body that the Senate was voting to adopt the policy on the appointment of officers of administration and forwards it to the University President for his action on behalf of the University. He then added an additional comment that if the Senate votes affirmatively on a particular motion and if the president chooses to veto the Senate vote, he has to return to the Senate and the Statutory Faculty and explain why he chose to veto the Senate vote. A voice vote was taken and the policy was passed with four abstentions. Senate President Tublitz then thanked the OA Council and Ms. King for presenting the policy before the Senate.

3.4 Motion US10/11-16: Adoption of Policy on Classified Research, Lynette Schnekel, Assistant Vice President for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate that the policy on classified research has been tabled until next year. He then went on to explain the reasons why it was tabled and stated that in 1967, the University Assembly passed a resolution stating that there will be no classified research conducted at the University of Oregon. By classified, the Assembly meant secret research or research that was not open for public dissemination. The office of research has decided to update the current policy and after completing their update, several discrepancies were brought to light. One such discrepancy was that the update failed to address the private funding of classified research at the UO. The University General Council is in the process of determining these and other discrepancies that exist in the motion. Until these issues have been resolved, the Senate has requested to table the motion until the fall.

Senator John Bonine (Law) asked if Senate President Tublitz could elaborate on the current review process for the policy on classified research. Not knowing that the motion was going to be tabled, Senator Bonine performed a side by side comparison of the 1967 resolution and the current policy as was posted to the Senate website. According to his comparison, there are many differences between the two documents and his concern was that there is nothing in the current document stating that such differences exist. The policy update did not address changes made to the 1967 version. In addition to knowing the procedure of review, Senator Bonine asked the administration, concerning this policy and all future policies, to provide context, background, and specific information as to why a change is being made to an older policy. He then stated that the current policy update is an agenda document that says the policy was updated because of periodic review of policy to insure relevance, accuracy, and compliance with federal and state regulations. Senator Bonine seriously doubted that every change to the classified research policy was done in order to comply with these regulations. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that the basic rule is that the Senate and Administration must agree on all policies. To reach that goal, a policy, which is almost always drafted by the Administration, comes to the Senate. First it goes to the Senate President who takes it to the Senate Executive Committee. If both the Senate President and Senate Executive Committee find some virtue in the policy, it is posted to the Senate website and comes before the Senate. In this particular case, several Senators found problems with the original update of the classified research policy and it was sent back to the Administration who then rewrote the policy and resubmitted it back to the Senate President and Senate Executive Committee. Further discrepancies were found by Senators and the policy was again sent back to the Administration where it is currently being redrafted. Senate President Tublitz believes that this iterative process is a positive one and will continue. Due to the face that this policy has been twice handed back to the Administration, Lynette Schenkel (Associate Vice President for Responsible Conduct of Research) and the person who has been carrying the policy updates forward, has agreed to establish a faculty committee to review the document in greater detail. That committee will soon be established and will review the verbiage presented by the Administration and perhaps revise the document before bringing it before the Senate. Senator Bonine then stated that in addition to the formation of the faculty committee, he would like to ask the Administration to request that there be a more robust explanation of changes made to the document.

Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (Music and Dance) thanked Senator Bonine for the points he just made and then asked if there was a way to put into practice some format which would request that updates made to older policies be accompanied by an explanation of changes made to policies before coming to the Senate. Senate President Tublitz stated that this is a good idea, and since the Constitution is currently being rewritten, perhaps it could be placed inside that document.
Senator Dean Walton (UO Libraries) asked if there was going to be a discussion on proprietary commercial research. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that today he learned there was no legal definition of the word secret and there is no legally accepted definition of the word proprietary. The wording in the policy had to do with secret proprietary research which is what caused the problem. In his opinion, the issue with the policy has to do with coming together to solve a problem involving a sticky situation and allowing our research to go on while not violating moral or ethical rules for our community.

3.5 Spring Curriculum Report, Committee on Courses, Paul Engelking, Chair

Senate President Tublitz invited Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) to the Senate floor to discuss the Spring Curriculum Report. Professor Engelking then elaborated on the various changes that were made to the Spring Curriculum Report by the Committee on Courses. When discussing a change made to English 455, Professor Engelking stated that the words “UO administrative actions” were added to the course description. Senate President Tublitz then asked for a point of clarification to the meaning of this term. Professor Engelking responded by stating that the Committee on Courses has delegated to several employees, including the registrar, the authority to make changes to the curriculum report and to bring those changes before the Committee on Courses who would then ratify them and bring them before the Senate for approval. Several more curriculum changes were discussed as well as the curriculum report. Senate President Tublitz then asked for questions and comments from the Senate body and seeing none, moved for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Before leaving the Senate floor, Professor Engelking revealed that today was his birthday and jokingly asked for volunteers to take over his position as chair of the Committee on Courses. As he was leaving the Senate floor, an impromptu chorus of the Happy Birthday song was sung by the members of the Senate body in his honor.

3.6 Results of Spring Senate Elections, Chris Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

Senate President Tublitz invited Chris Prosser (Senate Executive Coordinator) to the Senate floor to discuss the results of the Senate and Elected Committee Elections. Mr. Prosser stated that the election ran for two weeks and went relatively smoothly. He then informed the Senate body that the election results were posted to the Senate website under the latest news section of the homepage. Senate President Tublitz then thanked Mr. Prosser for his work in running the election.

3.7 Distinguished Service Awards, Dave Hubin, Senior Assistant to the President (N.B. The Senate will convene in Executive Session for this discussion)

For the discussion of the Distinguished Service Awards, the Senate convened in Executive Session.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

Due to the large number of new business items, there was no open discussion during the Senate meeting.

5. REPORTS

5.1 Report on Non-tenure track faculty, Ali Emami and Michele Henney, NTTF committee co- chairs

Senate President Tublitz then welcomed Senator Ali Emami (Business) to the floor to discuss the Non- tenure Track Faculty Committee’s report on Non-tenure track faculty (NTTF). Senator Emami stated that the report focused on 2010 – 2011 NTTF activity. Over the last five years they have seen continuous positive changes in NTTF affairs due to the excellent work of many groups and people, especially deans, department heads, and Academic Affairs, who worked in consultation with and provided recommendations to the NTTF committee. The result of their work was the creation of a document entitled U of O Policies for NTTFs dated November 12, 2007 and posted to the Academic Affairs website. According to Senator Emami, this document defines adjuncts and career NTTFs and establishes guidelines for NTTF appointments, ranks and titles, salary and compensations, evaluations and promotions, and ways to dispute conflicts. The previous chairs and members of the Senate NTTF committee deserve a special recognition for their hard work in creating the NTTF document. Currently, Academic Affairs is in the process of completing the activations of the rank of lecturer and the reclassification of academic librarians from officer of administration status to NTTF status with associate ranks and titles as well as establishing the professor of practice category for adjunct faculty to attain significant prominence in their respective fields and disciplines. This process is currently in the hands of the Oregon University System. Current accomplishments of the NTTF Committee include working with Academic Affairs on the review and revisions of the NTTF evaluation and promotion process, which is in the draft stages of development, and at the suggestions of the committee with the commitment of the system presidents, to the improvements of salaries for all unclassified staff and OAs. Academic Affairs is undertaking the review of salaries across campus in comparison to comparator schools. The NTTF Committee is in the process of conducting a survey of NTTFs to determine the existence of the 2007 NTTF Policy document and its implications. Upcoming issues include the development of the unit specific standards and statements regarding the evaluation and promotion of NTTFs and the process by which these criteria statements will be weighed, reviewed, and approved. Another future issue is to provide a unified standard for the process of hiring adjunct professors to insure consistency, fairness, and openness. The main objective is to insure that the job position defines the appointment and that academically it does not defined the position. A third item is in regard to the length of contracts for career NTTFs. Currently, the contract length is one year. Senior instructors have two year contracts. It is the hope of the NTTF Committee that the one year contact length will be extended. The fourth upcoming item is a discussion on creating an elected committee for the evaluation, promotion, and retention of NTTF similar to that of tenure track faculty. According to Senator Emami, the surveys will be distributed during the coming week and the committee has asked all NTTFs to respond as soon as possible. He then asked for questions from the Senate body.

The first question was from Senator Melanie Williams (Romance Languages). She thanked Senator Emami for his report and stated that she was curious about implementation timelines. According to Senator Williams, instructors in her department have not heard anything regarding when the implementation of Instructor and Lecturer 2 will occur. She then asked what the timeline would be for implementation of these new positions and if there were any discussions regarding salary increases. Senator Emami asked Senator Williams if she was referring to Senior Instructors, and she replied that she was. Senator Emami stated that he thought Senior Instructors were all dependent upon their own initiative. They can apply for promotion by writing a letter to their department heads. Senator Williams asked if this was correct for Senior Instructor 2 and Senator Emami replied that he believed so. He then turned to Dr. Kenneth Doxsee (Associate Vice Provost, Academic Affairs) for further information. Dr. Doxsee stated that he was not entirely sure in regards to Senior Instructor 2. According to Dr. Doxsee this is an internal matter for Academic Affairs and he recommended proceeding with that recommendation but wanted to double check to make sure that there was nothing pending with OUS (Oregon University System) regarding the position of Senior Instructor 2.

Senate President Tublitz then asked Dr. Doxsee and his colleagues in Academic Affairs to please send a reply to Senator Williams directly and to the Senate answering her question regarding the position of Senior Instructor 2.

Senator Williams then asked a follow up question regarding a power point presentation that was posted on the Academic Affairs website. The presentation discussed the possibility of NTTFs being able to accept a sabbatical. Senator Williams stated that it was wonderful that these discussions were taking place and asked if a timeline had been established for implementation of NTTF sabbaticals. Dr. Doxsee replied that there are some interesting questions that Academic Affairs is looking into towards implementing this policy. He stated that Senator Emami mentioned one in particular regarding the development of a PC type committee. Dr. Doxsee stated that he wanted to get the opinion of the Senate on this item. He believes the NTTF Committee will put forth two proposals one of which would call for the creation of such a committee and one of which would not call for such a committee. Dr. Doxsee stated that he waffled on whether or not this committee should be created, and went on to say that conceptually, it makes sense. At the same time, he does not believe there will be problematic promotions for NTTFs. Every year NTTFs are evaluated by their colleagues for contract renewal. When it comes time to be considered for promotion, he hopes people will see this as an opportunity instead of a risk. Dr. Doxsee then stated that the timeline will be discussed at a later date. Turning back to Senator William’s question, he replied that Senior NTTFs would be eligible for sabbatical under the same considerations that tenure track faculty are up for sabbatical. One of these considerations is that your sabbatical be a period of time for professional development, not just a year away. A second consideration, and tenured faculty face the same thing, is requesting time away when your department cannot afford your absence. Often times these sabbatical requests will not be approved. Dr. Doxsee then discussed whether or not NTTF promotions should be on a standard clock as tenure track faculty promotions are. According to Dr. Doxsee, there are no legal requirements for NTTF promotions as there are for tenure track faculty. He hoped that there will soon be a document posted and open for comments interpreting the policy in terms of practicality on whether NTTFs should be promoted in a similar manner as tenure track faculty.

Senate President Tublitz stated that all of these discussions are very important and that great progress was being made. He then stated that he established the NTTF Committee when he was Senate President nine years ago and the committee has done a very good job. However, none of the policies for NTTFs have come through the Senate. It is very important that from now on every NTTF policy, because they deal with academic issues, be approved by the Senate. Senate President Tublitz then stated that the implementation and explanation of the current policy, which was not approved by the Senate, should come before the Senate for approval. He then asked formally that everything regarding NTTF come to the Senate for approval just as everything regarding tenure track faculty does. He then reminded the Senate body that since 1990, the number of tenure related faculty members has gone from six hundred fifty to six hundred seventy-five while the number of students has increased from seventeen thousand to twenty-four thousand. The number of NTTF has increased from under two hundred to over three hundred fifty. NTTFs are a significant group of people who have dedicated their lives to this University and it is extremely important that the Senate helps them feel comfortable at this University. He then told Dr. Doxsee that he appreciated his efforts but asked that they come before the Senate for approval. Dr. Doxsee replied that he would bring the final implementation plan before the Senate. He then stated that sometimes it is forgotten that NTTFs are not just instructors, they are also research assistants and associates and that there are well over six hundred NTTF. Senate President Tublitz stated that he was correct and that he was referring to the instructional faculty component.

The next question came from Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA). She stated that she was also involved with early NTTF policy work in 2007. The piece of information that was not included in their legislation addressed adjunct faculty under 0.5 FTE. This is a large group of people, and the committee has not been able to take a more proactive approach in terms of addressing issues of work environment, access to resources, etc...She then asked for an update in this area and if there were any plans to incorporate adjunct faculty in a more inclusive way. Senator Emami stated that as far as the committee is aware, adjunct faculty are on different contracts. They are on D contracts and by definition are employed at 0.5 FTE or lower. He did not know if they would be a part of the committees work. Senator Dellabough then remarked that she would like to go on record that adjunct faculty are an urgent group that must be addressed. She is concerned that they will be left out and are not included or recognized as a significant group. She then stated that adjunct faculty need more attention around working conditions, and just because they are not formally classified as NTTF at 0.5 FTE or greater, they are still a very large group of participating professionals that make our campus work. According to Senator Dellabough, if the committee feels it is not appropriate, then the Senate needs to address the issue through an ad-hoc committee. Senator Emami then asked Senator Dellabough to be more specific in her request to the NTTF committee. She replied that the committee has done an excellent job in continuing to move forward with NTTF working conditions, but there are a group of people who are employed below 0.5 FTE whose working conditions are unacceptable. According to Senator Dellabough, they do not have representation and she wants to know when they will be attended to. Senate President Tublitz then stated that faculty in the College of Arts and Science (CAS) do not experience this very often, but most of the professional schools hire adjunct faculty to come and teach one class every once in a while. It is a significant group of people and as we are moving forward trying to improve working conditions for the various groups on this campus, this particular group should not be left behind.

Senator Harinder Kaur Khalsa (Romance Languages) asked a question regarding promotion. As she understands, only career instructor positions are eligible for promotion. There is a pool of instructors who are eligible, but because there is no career instructor position there is no opportunity for them to be promoted. She then asked how the committee will handle this situation. Senator Emami stated that by definition, there are temporary staff employees or faculty that are hired and have no criteria for them to have a career path in which they can be promoted. Senator Kaur Khalsa then stated that if these people have been teaching full time for three years they will be hired. If they are not hired as a career instructor, then how will they be promoted? Senator Emami then replied that he believes there is a policy that states that if these people want to be hired as a career instructor, they have to go through a national search. Senate President Tublitz then added that it is a different type of appointment, application, and review process.
Dr. Doxsee then offered a point of clarification and stated that part time NTTFs need to be explored with the NTTF committee. Adjunct appoints are, by definition, of limited duration. All NTTF appointments correlate to the specific needs of the University. Adjuncts are employed for a three year maximum time period. If you are currently an adjunct, and have been employed for a considerable amount of time, the rules are changing and your department might need to consider transitioning to a career instructor position. If they announce a career position, an adjunct is certainly eligible to apply and that adjunct might have a competitive edge. To be eligible for longer term appoints and promotion, you must be in a career instructor position. Senator Emami then stated that one of the purposes of their survey is to gather information regarding the number of people with adjunct positions and then figuring out how to convert that position into a career position.

Senate President Tublitz then stated that time was running out and brought the conversation to a close. He stated that this is a very important issue and the conversation should continue. He asked Senators to send all question regarding NTTF to himself, Senator Emami, and Academic Affairs. Senate President Tublitz then thanked the NTTF committee for their excellent work and asked the Senate body if there were any notices of motion.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

6.1 Notice of Motion(s)

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing none, Senate President Tublitz called the May 11, 2011 meeting of the University Senate to a close at 5:05PM.

Syndicate content