Minutes of the University Senate Meeting January 11, 2006
Present: S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, D. Eisert, C. Ellis, A. Emami, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, S. Simmons, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,
Excused: L. Feldman, S. Gary,
Absent: E. Chan, A. Djiffack, A. DuFour, G. Psaki, K. Sheehan, J. Stolet, K. Wagle
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in Lillis 282
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of the minutes from the November 9th meeting was approved as distributed. Approval of the minutes of the November 30, 2005 meeting of the Senate was postponed until the February 8, 2006 meeting.
State of The University
Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley began his report by noting that all senators had received President Frohnmayer's letter. He commented on President Frohnmayer’s statement regarding our newly appointed Provost Linda Brady and said she will be joining us in June; officially the first of July. Provost Moseley expressed his own confidence in her ability and stated he expected to have very strong leadership coming from her experience. He indicated that the article in The Daily Emerald today was a good one. He indicated that "after 12 years I deserve the opportunity to not be doing this any more" and he looks forward to other opportunities.
Provost Moseley indicated that some other searches were also coming to a close. The search for a Dean of Law School at the UO has interviewed 2 candidates, and a 3rd is on campus now. It was hoped to bring the search to conclusion soon. In addition, there has been an offer has been made to a very strong candidate for the Vice Provost for International Programs position and we hope that important search will come to a conclusion very soon.
Provost Moseley continued by commenting again on President Frohnmayer’s letter about the diversity working group hoping the resulting diversity plan will have broad acceptance with the university community. He stated these were not easy issues: if they were, it would have been easy to resolve them. Diversity issues are critically important and it is very important that we continue to work to resolve them.
Provost Moseley reported on the University's budget and stated it is reasonably on track for this year. There is a potential issue in that the state’s Department of Health and Human Services is experiencing a shortfall in the area of $150-200 million because the state’s “kicker fund” is not accessible and the state budget needs to be balanced within its current confines. However Provost Moseley was hopeful and somewhat optimistic that the shortfall would be resolved without visiting an unexpected budget cut on the UO. Provost Moseley and Vice President Dyke will be meeting with Senate Budget Committee and they will be talking about the evolution of University's budget model as we go into the future. Also they will be talking about faculty salaries and what we can do in the second year of this biennium, and how to get back on track with the White Paper on salaries.
Provost Moseley also discussed the intention of the University to sell the Westmorland Housing complex. President Frohnmayer had sent everyone a letter outlining his position. The Provost wanted to expand on a couple of items in the President's letter; he referred to the Senate report of 2002 which was work of an ad hoc committee appointed by then Senate President Nathan Tublitz. He quoted from the report: "In our view the University is facing an imminent crisis, one that will most likely impact our ability to attract and retain top students while offering them and ourselves community housing available to residential students.” The Provost noted that it was exactly to accomplish those goals that the University had proposed to sell the Westmoreland C housing complex. To address this situation we ask the Senate to contribute to supporting this plan that will lead to the construction of new students’ residencies and renovation of existing housing. The University is building a new Living Learning Center and wants to come up with some plans and/or alternatives that would allow the University to improve the existing housing stock and to add to it by 15%. Provost Moseley noted this will be quite a challenge and will require some funding; we don't know if this can be accomplished without the resources obtained from sale of Westmoreland Housing Complex. The Provost stated that it was the University’s full intention to follow that recommendation by the Senate Committee because we strongly agreed with it. He noted that the University loses many non-resident students because of the quality of our housing, and that affects our budget. The housing is not getting better and the expectations of students are continuing to increase. He said if we are not yet in a crisis now, we are certainly going to be in one very soon since because the University offers housing that will not attract the kind of resident and non-resident students that we want to be here. Most non-resident students live in the dorm during their first year here. Absent the funds of the Westmoreland housing complex, we have no ability to improve beyond the existing commitment made to the Living Learning Center.
During a question and answer session Senator Jon Jablonski, library, asked if the 15% increase figure includes whatever is being lost from Westmoreland. Provost Moseley replied that what we are really talking about is on-campus housing, a more limited charge regarding our crisis, in how we are dealing with serving our incoming freshman students. He noted that Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Mike Eyster has a plan for expanding graduate student housing in addition to existing housing on Villard St. south of campus. The East Campus Plan identified some areas where we could build other family or graduate student housing. He clarified that the additional 15% would be an additional 450 dorm rooms. A student senator then asked assuming that we lose 404 units (in Westmoreland), by what time would the 450 units be in place. He wondered what would happen if there were an extra 1,000 students expected next year? Provost Moseley replied that another 1,000 students in town is not expected. However, the full expectation is that those students who are living in Westmoreland will be able to live there under private ownership; it is impossible to state this with certainty as there is not a deal yet. He also stated that when we have a deal, that the University will either have a plan for mitigation or a plan to allow the students to continue to live there in Westmoreland under much of the same circumstances as they do now. The Provost commented that we do not yet know who the buyer will be and what the buyer's plans are; thus we do not know what mitigation plans, if any, will be needed.
Provost Moseley stated that it is not true that if a low income housing agency buys the property that students cannot live there. Much will depend on what funding the agency might arrange. The UO has told various agencies that it will look more favorably on an offer that will enable students to continue to live there in Westmoreland. The Provost noted that rents are fairly close to market now and are low cost because the apartments are small. A private owner might be able to raise rents a little bit, but not a lot. A question was then asked about President Frohnmayer’s comment that said rents would have to go up a bit because they have been low for a long time. Provost Moseley responded that the rents will have to go up because the apartments at Westmoreland have deferred maintenance to be done. The UO could continue to own those apartments and simply let them deteriorate, but the UO would basically be losing an asset and that is not what the UO is going to do. Rents are going to go up.
Senator Gordon Sayre, classics, commented about the desire to provide new on campus housing that would appeal to out of state students -- dorm rooms that are larger and more attractive. He wondered if there was any recognition that UO has to serve two kinds of students, those incoming on-campus freshmen and those at Westmoreland who want the lowest rent and who do not need to be on campus. He asked if it really was in our interests to displace those students to serve the market of the out of state students. Provost Moseley replied that there were several incorrect assumptions being made. First, he thought it highly likely that graduate students would be able to live at Westmoreland. Second, he stated that the UO would also provide other reasonably priced housing for graduate students. Third, that by improving the dorms we will raise the rents on all the dorms but the intention is to have a broader cost range within the dorms for those that are price sensitive. The Provost noted that campus housing is not an imagined market but a real market. He said that if we loose 100 non-resident students per year because of the quality of our dorms, it accounts for approximately $1.7 million per year from our budget’s bottom line. Senator Sayre then asked why not build new dorms using bond financing. Provost Moseley reported that costs today are higher than in the past, and the rents would be higher even for that size unit. He felt they could look at the demand for 500 square foot apartments at lowest rent.
Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, then noted that one of the things one hears is that there is a real clash of values, and that we needed to have a discourse that is very bottom line oriented: how to protect the class of students living in Westmoreland which is very different from the revenue providing class of freshman we need to seek out. She wondered if the administration has thought about a way to mediate this clash of cultures and she felt it has not been fully addressed. Provost Moseley replied that it will be addressed because if there is a need the UO would present a mitigation plan. He noted that the UO is not in the business of subsidizing various aspects of a college education such as books, housing, and so forth. Instead, the UO assists financially needy students through financial aid and that is the way this sort of support is provided. He noted that Westmoreland may be low cost housing, but there is no income standard for living there; it is not undergraduate housing nor is it graduate student housing, it is all-comers housing. There is no income or financial assessment made as to tenants’ need. The financial mitigation to be offered will be the done through the appropriate channels of financial aid.
A student senator raised students’ concerns that it is not clear if students would be able to continue to live in Westmoreland. He expressed concern because housing availability in Eugene is low. If UO has plan for what to do with the money (gained from the sale of Westmoreland), he asked when would the UO be able to say there are 404 units of UO housing to replace what was lost in Westmoreland; how long would it take to be completed. Provost Moseley replied until he gets the report back from Housing Director Mike Eyster and Campus Planner Chris Ramey, he could not commit to a timeframe, but noted that we are in need of that housing.
Announcements
Grade Inflation Issues. Undergraduate Council Chair Peter Gilkey, mathematics, reported that the Undergraduate Council is considering the topic of grade inflation and expects to have a report with both factual information and recommendations available to the Senate later in the winter. If anyone has comments or would like to be involved in the process, contact Mr. Gilkey.
Notice of upcoming motion. -Senate President Peter Keyes noted that there will be a motion presented to the Senate later in the winter to give emeritus faculty the right to the floor of senate meetings.
University Accreditation Process. Executive Assistant to the President Dave Hubin noted that a steering committee for the accreditation self-study has been formed co-chaired by himself and Jo Anna Gray, economics. Regional accreditation is the accreditation that, in the context of American education, is the way the US Department of Education grants the authority for an institution to provide financial aid. On 10 year cycle, every institution goes through a self-study re-accreditation process, which involves about an 18-month long intensive self-study. The UO is about six months in to our process. Mr. Hubin stated that the steering committee wanted to make formal contact with the Senate to give an update and overview to the accreditation approach being taking and to establish a pattern of continual work with the Senate. The UO will be visited by an accreditation team of 15 faculty members and administrators from our peer institutions on April 17, 2007. The accreditation process and visits are part of a very structured operation. About six weeks before the April 2007 date the UO will submit our self study to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
The country is divided into 5 regions, we are in the Northwest. It is a polyglot assembly which contains other peer institutions such as the University of Washington, as well as community colleges, proprietary colleges, and so forth; it sorts this constellation of higher education institutions by region, not by type. We will be visited by colleagues from peer institutions from across the country. The UO will have been undertaken a very thorough self study that we will present to them. These self studies are prepared in response to an accreditation handbook. This handbook contains a complete list of standards to which we are to aspire and the UO is to attest that we have done. There are 9 standard are broken to into 214 elements, and many indicators. Such reports often are not very readable and very few people have sought out the UO 1997 self study because it is organized in a form that does not coincide with admission or the way we organize ourselves (It is organized in response to the 9 standards, 214 questions, 7 policies and then dozens of indicators.)
President Frohnmayer has asked that we be given the latitude to approach this in a different manner. He asked that we approach the Commissions of the Colleges of the Northwest Region and if we could approach the self study with a different design. Rather than arranging it around the standards and elements, it will be arranged around our mission. The presentation will be around Service, Scholarship, and Teaching or perhaps around the 4 cornerstones of the capital campaign. We want to do a self study around the issues and factors that facilitate or detract from our ability to complete our mission. This took some negotiation on our part and a formal conference call after which there was some enthusiasm towards the approach we are taking. We want to do our self-study around the question: “What are the issues and factors that we can facilitate or detract from our ability to complete our mission.” Accreditation should be asking the question, "To what degree did you meet the mission you present to the public."
We have negotiated the freedom to approach this in a different way and he wanted the Senate to know of their progress to date. We have assembled an excellent steering committee which contains representatives from many of the universities standing committees such as the Undergraduate Council, Graduate Council, the Faculty Advisory Council, the Senate Executive Committee and next year’s Senate President. We have identified the organizational structure for the report and have devised a strategy for gathering the information for the self study. The approach that is typically taken in higher education is the steering committee is frequently broken up into subcommittees dealing with the 9 standards. We are going to rely on the existing UO committee structure instead. The co-chairs have been visiting with the various campus committees: the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Student Affairs Council, and so forth. We are reaching out through the Committee on Committees to the chairs of all the standing University Committees. The steering committee is meeting and starting to winnow the list of questions about how effectively we are meeting our mission. For example, one such question might be do we have shared governance in patterns that work well. If that becomes an issue, that is an issue that would be addressed within standing committees that exist. The next calendar year will be one of great activity. We are approaching it with an informal calendar that recognizes that we will have a new provost coming July 1st. So we need to decide what we need to convey to a new provost about this institution. She will be engaged in shaping what goes into the report. We are asking the Senate for your counsel, to know what issues that we need to address. For example, the Undergraduate Council brought up questions concerning the first year programs: what are the ways in which we articulate with other post secondary education; how do we articulate with K12; and questions relating to transfer credit. These are discrete and specific issues that are coming from the Undergraduate Council and such issues will be consolidated. We will run them back to the campus through the committees and through the UO Senate for discussion and appropriate determination. Other issues might concern resources and salaries issues, or opportunities of shared governance.
Mr. Hubin continued by saying do we run a risk of running afoul of the accreditation team. We have negotiated the freedom to approach the self-study report in a different manner, that we think will be readable to our public, but there will be a very thoughtful concordance between that report and the 214 elements and hundreds of indicators and elements; the report will be cross referenced in concordance. Mr. Hubin invited the Senate to get back to us and give us their input. No questions were asked at this time.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Senate Ad Hoc Student Conduct Code Committee. -Chris Loschiavo, student life, and Lisa Freinkel, English. Mr. Loschiavo noted that the review process for the Student Conduct Code began approximately 10 years ago. Over last several years the Student Conduct Committee has made a lot of progress in getting through the entire document and making some significant changes to improve the overall process. He explained how the process currently works and what happens if a student violates the Student Conduct Code. He also indicated some of the major drawbacks to the process that have identified over the years. Mr. Loschiavo said that when there is a reported violation of the Student Conduct Code the Office of Student Judicial Affairs gets involved to contact the students in writing regarding what they are accused of and what they need to do. At the first meeting the student has two different options. The first option is an informal hearing/conference, which is a one-on-one meeting with a faculty or staff member or graduate school hearing officer to go over the violation and to see what was written, what evidence we have, and ask the student tell his/her side of the story. The hearing officer makes a decision and if it is decided the student violated the conduct code sanctions will be imposed. Mr. Loschiavo said his office usually is focused on education, so typical sanctions for alcohol and drugs violations might be a drug education seminar or a substance abuse assessment.
For academic dishonesty issues, if the issue is not resolved by the faculty, Mr. Loschiavo’s office hears the case. The faculty member determines any grade penalty and Mr. Loschiavo’s office determines other penalties. Many times that consequence might be a citation workshop at Academic Learning Services or an academic integrity seminar. In such instances, when we have cases resolved through the informal conference process, that hearing officer’s decision is final. That record stays with the student until he/she graduates and upon graduation it is destroyed.
Mr. Loschiavo continued saying the other option is a formal hearing and is very much like a trial. The first thing the UO does is hire a prosecutor usually from the Department of Justice. Most students have their own attorney, so it is a very adversarial process. In that process we present cross examination of witnesses then the faculty student hearing board makes a decision as to whether or not the student violated the student conduct code and if so makes sanctions. The faculty student hearing board is the only group that has authority to suspend, expel, or put negative recommendation on student’s academic transcript. Generally the UO refers serious cases for a formal hearing; or, any student accused of any violation can elect to use the formal hearing as their option.
Mr. Loschiavo continued that these processes are very different. The informal conduct hearing process hears violations ranging from alcohol and drug violations, academic integrity, sexual misconduct, theft, computer use policy violations, and so forth. Last year we handled approximately 4,200 conduct cases; the typical range is between 2,500 and 3,200 violations. The different processes create different problems. One is that formal hearings are so resource intensive and difficult to schedule we rarely have anyone choosing to select that option. It creates a disincentive for new students to have their case heard by peers; they don't want to put in the required time and effort, and this type of procedures can be intimidating. Mr. Loshiavo commented that faculty members are reluctant to use the informal conduct hearings process because it might end up in formal hearing. Also, there are students who have been victimized and who are reluctant to use the conduct process because the time, intensity, and adversarial nature of the hearing process. So what this means is that we have a process that is very under-utilized and when it is used it can take 6-8 weeks to get the case scheduled and heard.
This formal hearing process is a little too long from the date of the incident to resolving the case from the point of view of the educational impact. We feel the quicker the case is resolved the better and more valuable the educational sanctions will be. The code is written for students and we want to make the document easy to understand and accessible to students. The Student Conduct Code is so complicated that many students do not read it. Also, there is difficulty trying to address when acts of violence occur off campus; currently our hands are tied because of where the offense occurred. Overall the philosophy of student conduct every year has evolved into really being about student’s education; the mission of the UO is to try to impose sanctions and hear cases with education of the student in mind. Mr. Loschiavo concluded his report by saying the Senate will receive a draft of proposed major changes in February, and a final code will be presented in March for a vote on it in April.
Report of the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR). -James O’Fallon, law school, reported that this presentation is one of the byproducts of the task force on the relationship of the academic to the athletics that was directed by President. Frohnmayer. The Faculty Athletics Representative is the person who, under NCAA regulations, signs off on eligibility for all student athletes and representatives who represent the institution in athletics competition sanctioned by the NCAA. There are legislative elements of the function of his job with each of the PAC-10 schools, the athletics directors, and senior women’s administrators which make up the council that governs the conference. In addition, often the FARs often serve on NCAA committees.
Mr. O’Fallon spoke about some academic issues related to athletics. He noted there has been some publicity about the new NCAA academic reform movement, which has been going on for a few years now. The general purpose of the program is to push student athletes who complete their 4 years of athletic eligibility within the 5 year window to ensure their graduation. The NCAA’s academic requirements are structured to promote that end, although not necessarily to ensure that. The basic rules that now operate for all our student athletes require that they complete 36 credit hours of their program in their first year of attendance. Each year after that they maintain it to get at least 27 credits during the regular term and they can also add summer term. When student athletes reach certain benchmarks in entering their third year of attendance, they have no more than 60% percent of their degree requirements remaining for graduation. In their fourth year student athletes have no more than 40% remaining, and entering their fifth year they have no more than 20% remaining in their degree program to graduate.
Mr. O’Fallon stated these are not overwhelmingly difficult benchmarks to reach and they do a fairly good job at achieving them. A further incentive is the NCAA’s program currently being set up that is designed to give institutions additional reasons to try to advance their athletes academically. The term academic progress rate is an institutional team-by-team measure, and is based on the retention of student athletes from term to term and their continued eligibility to participate. It operates primarily on a fiscal model that says if you keep 90% of your students moving along this line you will be guaranteed a 50% graduation rate at the end of five years, which is the target they are looking for. There is considerable reason to believe the NCAA’s statistical model isn't a good one. An institution may have may have much better graduation rates than are being predicted by the model. He noted that the university will be seeing a report that the Football Program at the UO will likely lose two scholarships next year, which means there are two fewer opportunities to offer to incoming students athletes because our football team has fallen a bit short on retention and eligibility requirements over the last couple of years. Mr. O’Fallon stated this is something to be concerned about and there appears to be a reason for it. A significant number of football players have realistic professional opportunities in front of them, and in their last year after they have completed their eligibility they tend to pay a lot of attention to the NFL draft camps. These student athletes live on financial aid they receive through scholarships and they have to be enrolled in order to receive the financial aid. Consequently, they tend to enroll in a full course load where they are guaranteed financial aid, and in a few too many instances walk away from their academic responsibilities. This is a problem we share in common with other schools. Basketball programs have similar difficulties. As with any new program, one would expect to see some unintended consequences and this will get more attention in the long run. The UO is in good shape relative to most Pac-10 institutions, generally.
Mr. Fallon said there is another measure called the graduation success rate. It is the NCAA’s form of graduation rate reporting that departs from the standard federal methodology by its different treatment of students who transfer from the school in good academic standing. This is an area of particular sensitivity in athletics competition because very often when students come to a program they are doing fine academically, but if the program is not living up to their hopes athletically, the students may think they would have a better opportunity to play elsewhere and then transfer to another institution. The student shows up as a “loss” – not graduating -- even if they graduate elsewhere; it appears as a negative mark against the UO’s graduation rate. The UO has just received the first set of graduation success rates number from the NCAA and they also include where we stand with respect to other institutions. The UO looks reasonably good on that report. The best rate was from woman's basketball which was 93%; the UO’s overall graduation rate is about 55-60%. Comparatively in the PAC-10 our graduation rates were fifth in men’s basketball (53%), first in women’s basketball, third in football with a 63% rate; first in men’s track and field at 82% and in women's track and field at 71%. There is a subcommittee working on academic integrity issues and the Senate will hear further about this next fall.
Mr. O’Fallon finished his report by providing examples of some of the exceptional student athletes at the UO. Many receive academic honors, for example soccer player Kaitland Gamble, a first team academic all-American with a little better than four point grade point average in biology. She has been nominated for a NCAA post-graduate scholarship, pursuing a graduate program in neurobiology. Mr. O’Fallon concluded his report saying that he continues to believe that intercollegiate athletics is an important aspect of what we do here at the UO.
NEW BUSINESS
President Keyes read motion US05/06-4 regarding the proposed sale of Westmoreland Housing Complex as follows:
Whereas the proposed sale of the Westmoreland housing complex:
(1) significantly affects the lives and educational possibilities of a wide range of current and future graduate and non-traditional students, including international students, students with families, low-income students, and older students;
(2) eliminates the most affordable half of the university housing available to students with families;
(3) has not been fully discussed and approved by the appropriate University governance structures and committees; and,
(4) directly and indirectly influences the ability of the University to fulfill its explicit commitments to access, affordability, diversity, community, international awareness and graduate education, as stated in the University Mission Statement;
Be it resolved that the University of Oregon University Senate:
·(A) Is opposed to the sale of Westmoreland Family Housing as planned; and
·(B) Urges the University President to:
(1) Re-start the planning process following established university governance procedures;
(2) Include all affected University stakeholder groups in all future planning processes and, and
(3) Provide the University community with a clearly-stated strategy on how any future actions regarding the Westmoreland Family Housing property will serve the long-term academic mission of the University.
Senator Karen McPherson, romance languages, expressed concern with the processes surrounding the proposed Westmoreland sale and the relatively late, and even deceptive, information the senate had received about it. .She said she had little confidence that many questions central to the matter have been taken seriously. Some of the major concerns were that an asset is being to sold to pay for things other than replacing the value that Westmoreland currently provides for students, especially international students and GTFs with low salaries. Affordable housing is an important way to attract the best students. Many international students do not have same opportunities as incoming freshmen.
Senate participant Star Holmberg, computer & information science, referred to a letter from her department sharing concern they have over the proposed sale. Her department has a number of international students and GTFs, and they are concerned about future prospects of international students coming to the university -- they really value having that affordable housing. Ms. Holmberg asserted that the administration not looking at big picture, and is looking at athletic community and their needs.
Senator Matthew Dennis, history, also expressed support for the motion. He said that serious questions remain about the impact of proposed sale on the University and have note been addressed by the administration, with consequences of alienating the stake holders. He commented that the administration might be right in taking this course, that the proposed sale may make sense fiscally. However, many people are skeptical, but open-minded. The administration seems not to have taken into account the full impact on the residents. He suggested that measures taken to ameliorate consequences are inadequate and after-the-fact. Issues of concern regard how the sale impacts on non-traditional students, whether it is consistent with our mission statement, if it reflects equality of opportunity and true diversity, and our commitment to affordable higher education. In addition, the administration is vague about what it will do with funds from sale; there is lack of detail. He expressed concern that future communication with senate and other stake holders will fail to occur. Senator Dennis suggested that the process might have gone differently if consultation had taken place in advance, and thus supports the resolution that the process is restarted.
Senator Mike Filippelli, ASUO, noted that a number of different groups have expressed opposition to the sale of Westmoreland, none of which were consulted before decision was made. He felt it was time that we as senate also oppose this sale based in part because it was not consulted and we need to go through traditional process.
Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, also expressed support of the motion. She expressed the belief that the administration feels sale of university assets that is not under purview of shared governance, and does not need to consult about it. That philosophy is not shared by those that support this motion. That is an assumption that needs greater dialogue -- how do matters of financial assets relate to issues we all agree are shared governance. She suggested that if we don't have this dialogue, the Senate will be ignored. Senate leadership should open that dialogue.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, expressed his support for the motion adding that he helped write it. ,He opined that the University is in a critical situation of having to make very complicated situations. Saying that he viewed the university as a family, he commented that a family has to make consensus decisions, and we have developed a history of not making decisions by consensus. It means we need to work together and change dynamics of the way we are interacting to avoid situations like this that hurts the community in a long-term way. He said he supports this motion because it suggests ways of working together to move forward rather than moving sidewise.
With no other discussion, motion US05/06-4 urging the president to restart the process regarding the sale of Westmoreland Housing Complex was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
The secretary gratefully acknowledges the compilation of these minutes by professor Peter Gilkey, mathematics, and final editing assistance by Linda Adkins, academic affairs.
