Minutes of the University Senate Organizational Meeting May 23, 2007
Present:A. Adell, H. Briston, D. Falk, P. Gilkey, N. Gulley, J. Hunter, J. Hurwit, R. Illig, K. McPherson, C. Minson, W. A. Marcus, C. Moore, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, E. Peterson, T. Pyle, M. Redford, P. Rounds, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, J. Sneirson, A. Taylor, P. van Donkelaar
Excused:M. Chong, R. Davies, A. Schulz, L. Stephen, L. Vandenburg
Absent:C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, G. Berk, R. Bramhall, H. Briston, C. Cherry, L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, B. Daley, E. Herman, K. Kennedy, P. Lambert, D. Levin, P. Lu, B. Malle, S. Martinez, A. Mathas, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner, D. Olson, S. Paul, C. Parsons, T. Toadvine, N. Tublitz
CALL TO ORDER
Spring term Senate President Andrew Marcus called the organizational meeting of the University Senate to order in the Knight Library Browsing Room at 3:10 p.m.
President Marcus asked newly elected senators to introduce themselves (see members listed for terms 2007-09 at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen078/memsen078.html). After introductions of continuing senate members, the secretary of the senate, Gwen Steigelman alerted the new members to some of the organizational aspects of senate meetings and participation. She noted that name tags will be available at each meeting for senators to wear during the meeting and return at the end of the meeting (these help to identify senate members who are eligible to vote at meetings). The name tags can be picked up as member sign in for meetings on the attendance sheet. The secretary noted that she is required to keep a record of attendance at each meeting as well as absences and excused absences. Members who have more than two unexcused absences during a term are removed from senate membership. Excused absences include meetings missed due to illness or other university related business. Members should notify the secretary of their absence in advance of the meetings if known.
Although most meeting materials, as well as the agendas and minutes of meetings, are posted on the senate web page and/or circulated via a closed senate email listserv, some handouts of meeting materials will be available usually where the names tags can be picked up. The secretary noted that virtually all of current and past senate information – minutes of meetings, agendas, legislation, curriculum reports, committee charges and membership, past committee membership (where known), committee annual reports, other miscellaneous reports, letters and correspondence, and a wealth of links to other university and system websites can be found on the senate web page (see http://senate.uoregon.edu/). She noted that the availability of the treasure trove of governance information is due to the exceptional dedication and effort of Senate Webmaster Peter Gilkey, mathematics.
Comments from Provost Linda Brady.The provost began her remarks saying that earlier in the day she had met with the OSU provost and they discussed collaboration between our two universities regarding spousal and partner hires. She noted that this is a concern for our universities, both in matters of retention and new hires. Though not in the same city, we are close enough geographically to explore possible cooperative efforts. The respective vice provosts dealing with personnel will work on how such cooperation might be structured.
The provost then added her welcome to the newly elected senators and took a few moments to personally thank everyone who has served on the senate during the past year. She hoped to have a chance to say hello at the reception following the meeting, and looked forward to working with the senators in the coming academic year. She noted that in addition to the new members, several current senators either have been serving a second term or are about to. Repeated service speaks well about commitment to the university and its governance, and to the nature of the senate experience itself. The provost remarked that if President Frohnmayer were able to attend (he was in China) he would join her in expressing deep appreciation and gratitude for senate members’ effort and contributions throughout the past year, and eagerly anticipates their participation in the next academic year.
The provost commented that it was fortunate to have three extremely capable, “seasoned” faculty members to share the duties and responsibilities of the senate presidency after personal illness precluded Jeanne Wagenknecht from serving as president. She thanked Jeff Hurwit, Suzanne Clark, and Andrew Marcus personally, saying how grateful she was for their willingness to step into the senate president leadership role. The provost said their collective ability to share the senate presidential responsibilities and move seamlessly through the academic year affirmed not only their individual leadership skills, but also the high esteem in which they are held by faculty colleagues and university administrators alike. Especially during her first full year on campus, Provost Brady remarked how thankful she was for the wisdom, counsel, and advice of three outstanding presidents
Provost Brady went on to say that it has been a productive year, the highlights of which President Marcus would mention shortly. She looks forward to working with the senate leadership, the Senate Executive Committee, the Senate Budget Committee, and the Senate Academic Excellence Committee to continue making improvements in faculty salaries and tackling issues of academic excellence and importance framed by these committees’ recent reports. The provost noted that next year will likely have its own set of challenges and opportunities, but she appreciates the sense of collegiality with which each approaches his or her respective responsibilities; she expects it will be a busy and active year. Lastly, the Provost Brady spoke directly to the three senate presidents saying that President Frohnmayer wished he could be there to thank each publicly and personally for the leadership they each provided the senate this year, and to present each with this small token of his appreciation (small gift presentation to each).
Reflections on the past year.Andrew Marcus, outgoing senate president for the spring term, commented on the activities of the past year. He acknowledged the work of the other senate presidents for the year (Jeff Hurwit and Suzanne Clark) and noted that one of the best aspects of being senate president is having the opportunity to work with so many fine people. In particular, he commented about the value of the biweekly meeting he and Vice President Gordon have had throughout the year with President Frohnmayer and Provost Brady in which there was an opportunity to raise issues directly and be heard on concerns of the faculty. These were beneficial interactions which helped to improve governance at the university. President Marcus also took the opportunity to thank a number of people – the secretary, Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, Webmaster Peter Gilkey, University Archivist Heather Briston, Vice President Gordon Sayre, and the members of the Senate Executive Committee. He also highlighted the work of fall term president Jeff Hurwit on the Oregon Retirement Plan and the proposed OUS changes to retirement plan options. Jeff’s persistence in getting the Chancellor’s attention on this matter, as well as the superb contributions of professors Joe Stone and Larry Dann resulted in a plan far superior to the one originally offered. This was no small feat. Similarly, President Suzanne Clark took on the issue of faculty and course evaluations and created the joint senate and academic affairs committee on course evaluations, which did a wonderful job of examining the inherent issues and providing a set of recommendations to improve the quality of the course and faculty evaluations. Suzanne also served on the search for a new athletic director, which again, required extraordinary time and commitment to what can feel like a thankless task.
President Marcus commented briefly about the productive year it has been for the senate in breath and scope of the motions passed. He also emphasized the importance of committee work. He remarked that committees are the mechanisms for change through the senate, and that the senators help to steer the work of committees and validate their work with appropriate legislation. Although there is some frustration with the process – notably the time it takes – it is a process-rich experience that is advantaged by the engagement with other people and ideas. He commented that he feels a sense of moving forward, not always arm in arm, but nevertheless moving forward. President Marcus acknowledged there is remarkable pressure to not be engaged in the process, but he opined that we have an opportunity to engage in the reinvention of the modern university. The last point President Marcus made was a somewhat discouraging growing sense of cynicism that the senate is being shut out of the process. He suggested that this may sometimes happen, but more often there is collaboration taking place that morphs into better results. Consequently, President Marcus urged members of the senate to reject such cynicism as they go about their duties, to keep engaged in the process, and think of the long-term good of the university.
Election of Committee on Committees.Vice President Sayre presented the slate of new Committee on Committee members as follows: William Ayres, anthropology, Marcin Bownik, mathematics, Deb Carver, library, Debra Eisert, education, David Hulse, landscape architecture, Regina Psaki, romance languages. The slate was unanimously approved.
Election of the Senate Vice President.Vice President Sayre spoke on behalf of the nominating committee in reminding senators that earlier in the year the senate passed a motion to expand the criteria for the vice presidency so that the vice president would be elected from among the officers-of-instruction who have served on the University Senate in the previous five years inclusive of the academic year in which they are elected vice president (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen067/US067-11.html). The following year, the vice president becomes president by confirmation of the senate. The candidate for vice president for 2007-08 is Paul van Donkelaar, human physiology. Vice President Sayre indicated he would be pleased to have Paul serving as vice president next year. There were no other nominations from the floor. Professor van Donkelaar was elected unanimously as vice president for 2007-08.
Confirmation of the new senate president.With the vice president election completed, President Marcus ceremoniously embarked on his last official duty, which was to turn the gavel over to the new Senate President for 2007-08, Gordon Sayre.
PRESENTATION OF THE WESTLING AWARD
As chair of the Committee on Committees, newly confirmed President Sayre presented the Wayne T. Westling Award for University Service and Leadership to this year’s recipient, Professor Suzanne Clark, English. President Sayre reminded all that the award is named in honor of Wayne T. Westling, professor of law from 1979-2001, who was renown across campus for his unswerving and selfless commitment to faculty governance at the University of Oregon. The award was created by an act of the senate in November 2001 following Wayne's untimely death, and is awarded annually to a faculty or staff member for their outstanding and long-term leadership and service to the university.
President Sayre noted that Professor Clark has served on several key university committees which have tackled often contentious and high-profile topic such as post-tenure review, athletics, and diversity. Her leadership and working with others helped yield successfully solutions which respect the needs and interests of faculty, students, staff, and administrators. The author of two books, Professor Clark’s research and writings have helped lead the Humanities Center toward projects which emphasize community service, outreach, and activism. For example, one of Professor Clark’s English courses annually trains dozens of undergraduates in teaching reading to Eugene/Springfield residents. In addition, Suzanne has built alliances and earned support for new initiatives that advance the educational mission at the UO, such as her work with University Archives, which has resulted in two interdisciplinary courses, and a website devoted to the Vietnam War era, a period which included the UO presidency of her father, Robert. D. Clark.
Professor Clark’s contribution to her department is framed with extensive committee work including 12 tenure and promotion committees and five search committees, as well as directing seven undergraduate honor's theses and 15 doctoral dissertations. The list of Professor’s Clark’s service and leadership was only highlighted by President Sayre, who then offered his English department colleague his sincere congratulations and presented her with the award. Professor Clark thanked President Sayre and members of the senate, saying that she was greatly honored. (For full text of President Sayre’s remarks, please see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen067/WestlingAward2007.html.)
The organizational meeting was adjourned at 4: 10 and followed by a reception welcoming the new members of the senate and honoring the Westling Award recipient.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting November 8, 2006
Present:G. Berk, H. Briston, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, S. Cohen, A. Coles-Bjerre, C. Ellis, A. Emami, O. Guerra, N. Gulley, S. Holmberg*, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, L. Karim, P. Lambert, P. Lu, B. Malle, , A. Mathas, K. McPherson, T. Minner, C. Minson, K. Mourfy, D. Olson, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, A. Papiliou, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, A. Schulz, A. Sherrick, J. Sneirson, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle. *non-voting participant
Excused:C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, M. Dennis, N. Fujii, P. Gilkey, L. LaTour, J. Newton, G. Psaki, J. Stolet,
Absent:J. Daniels, A. Djiffack, S. Gary, Corlea (Sue) Martinez*
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Senate President Jeffrey Hurwit at 3:05 p.m. in 150 Columbia.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the October 11, 2006 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies Rich Linton.In response to an invitation from President Hurwit to update the senate on research and technology transfer at the university, Vice President for Research Rich Linton condensed a lengthier prepared presentation by highlighting core objectives for the UO’s research excellence and shared a number of concerns he is in the process of addressing. Core objectives included for research excellence include: supporting the diversity of scholarship, growing resources supporting research, strengthening collaborative research, fostering interdisciplinary research initiatives, building research capacity and infrastructure, promoting responsible conduct of research, connecting research to outreach and service, improving performance metrics and impact, enhancing strategic communications, and integrating with academic priorities. The vice president spoke about sponsored research funding and interdisciplinary research centers as well as technology transfer performance and partnerships with government, the university and industry. In FY 2006 research expenditures reached a record $96 million dollars, with direct personnel costs accounting for half of those dollars. The amount of federal dollars coming to the university was greater than the amount received from the state support. Further, Vice President Linton reported that in 2006, sponsored research programs provided more that 3,000 jobs and reflected a 67% increase in awards since 2001.
The vice president also noted a number of concerns affecting sustainability of research at the UO: faculty retention and faculty incentives, increasing the graduate student “pipeline” and enrollment (from approximately 4,000 to 6,000 graduate students), ever-increasing competition for federal grant money, research infrastructure needs, the state’s investment in research universities, funding for scholarships in the arts, humanities and professional schools and colleges, and the administration of compliance and regulatory issues in a decentralized university. (Contact the secretary for a copy of the full presentation.)
During a question and answer period there was some discussion regarding the desire to increase the number of graduate students. Senator Bertrand Malle, psychology, suggested it might be better to increase funding for the current number of grad students. He implied that the university is not getting the top graduate students now because we cannot offer them attractive financial support. Vice President Linton replied that moving toward the projected target goal (to increase the percentage of grad students from 19% to 25%), each department and program should address the kinds and qualities of graduate students that appropriately fits the department. It is a balancing act between quantity and quality of graduate students. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked what percentage of incoming sponsored research dollars goes back to the system and departments, and should we be renegotiating the percentages to the UO’s advantage? The vice president answered that 4% comes of the top and goes back to OUS; 6% goes to UO’s indirect costs, such as renovating spaces. He indicated that he has raised the issue of 4% going to OUS and it continues to be a point of discussion.
Proposed changes to OUS retirement and benefits structures.Associate Vice President of Human Resources Linda King spoke about the OUS proposed retirement program redesign and changes to the OUS tax-deferred investment (TDI) program and Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). (See OUS Announcement #2) Associate Vice President King indicated that although the retirement system changes have been under discussion for a year or so, only recently have the details of the proposed changes been made available. Further, neither the UO administration nor the Office of Human Resources has embraced the proposed changes; rather, it is their opinion that the process is moving too quickly with insufficient time for thorough consideration of the impact, especially negative impact, the changes would have on faculty and staff employees. The inclination at this juncture is to slow the process down, and if warranted, stop it all together. The associate vice president explained that OUS considers the TDI and ORP investment opportunities too numerous, somewhat onerous, and expensive for the system to manage. Consequently, OUS proposes retaining a single external record keeper for both TDI and ORP programs, who will manage the individual TDI and ORP accounts and also will advise on the investment opportunities available (which likely will be different from current, and in some cases, long-held investment products). Whereas the OUS sees advantages in management cost savings for the system and consolidation of investment statements into a single investment and/or retirement statement, the UO has among its concerns questions about the quality of investment advice and selections, frequency of changing fund choices, and the administrative costs for the record keeper and fund administrative fees that are passed along to the individual faculty and staff members..
During a discussion period, additional questions were raised from Senator Chris Ellis, economics, wondering if faculty in finance or economics were included in thinking through the proposed changes. He pointed to the lack of evidence that employing an investment manager (the record keeper) improves investment outcomes, especially when balanced against fees charged for the advice and service; further, he suggested that incentives for financial “consultants” are completely wrong, and not in the best interest of faculty and staff. Senator Malle agreed, adding that the structure of the proposed setup is not transparent. Senator Tublitz noted that the movement to decouple the ORP rate from PERS and the likely increase in health benefits in the not-too-distant future means that cost savings for the system will be borne by faculty and staff.
President Hurwit commented that although he has contacted his counterpart at OSU (to see if they shared our concerns), he has had no response to date. He also sent a letter to President Frohnmayer and Chancellor Pernsteiner sharing the faculty’s concern over the proposed changes and perceived negative impact on current faculty as well as future faculty recruitment. President Hurwit indicated he would pursue further conversations with OUS on the matter.
USA Patriot Act Annual Report.General Counsel Melinda Grier reported that there have been no subpoenas issued under the auspices of the UAS Patriot Act at the UO this past year. She reminded senators that should they received a subpoena for any reason, they should contact her office immediately.
Motion US06/07-2.Senator Tublitz withdrew his motion to establish full University Senate membership, including voting rights, for classified staff senate participants, citing the incompatibility of current contract language bargained by the classified staff’s union (see http://senate.uoregon.edu/content/motion-us0607-2-establish-full-university-senate-membership-classified-staff-includingfor text of the withdrawn motion). Senator Tublitz suggested he would put forth the motion at a later date after the next round of contract negotiations are complete. Senate participant Star Holmberg, computer science, asked for clarification between classified staff senate participants having a voice in the senate, and being able to vote in the senate. Ms. Grier replied that having a voice meant providing input on various matters, but that voting in the senate meant actually making policy or legislation; the classified staff’s union retains the right to speak as the classified staff’s representatives.
[Note: At this juncture President Frohnmayer was recognized and spoke briefly about the results of the previous day’s election in which two measures that would have had substantial negative impact on the university were soundly defeated (Measures 41 and 48). He indicated that the state board will request of the governor a 26% budget increase for higher education, with a substantial portion earmarked for improving faculty salaries and student enrollments. On an earlier matter the president indicated his full agreement with concerns voiced by Associate Vice President King and Senate President Hurwit regarding proposed changes to the OUS retirement programs.]
Motion US06/07-3. Senate President Hurwit called on Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, to present motion US06/07-3 to amend earlier legislation, US03/04 10, in order to facilitate the collection of signatures that would call for the convening of a University Assembly meeting with full legislative authority. Mr. Stahl moved as follows:
Moved to amend the legislation US03/04 10 – Enable the University Assembly to Convene with Full Legislative Authority, as follows:
CHANGE: (h) An annually updated list of the Voting Faculty with campus addresses shall be maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web site. The list shall be headed by the criteria for membership as specified by the charter and the list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible.
TO: (h) An annually updated list of the Voting Faculty with campus addresses shall be maintained and linked from the University Assembly Web site. The list shall be headed by the criteria for membership as specified by the charter and the list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible. A printed Voting Faculty membership list with campus addresses, organized by departments, shall be made available to petitioners by the Secretary of the Faculty upon submission of a petition endorsed by 40 assembly members as specified in US03/04 10 (a).
Mr. Stahl explained that providing a departmentally organized printed list of voting faculty members to valid petitioners would facilitate the gathering of signatures to convene an assembly meeting, while also guarding against possible misuse of such data being easily mined from the web page posting of the Voting Faculty list. With virtually no dissension or further discussion, motion US06/07-3 passed by unanimous voice vote.
Notice of Motion regarding availability of Affirmative Action Plans and Summary Data.Senator Peter Lambert, economics, indicated that his colleague, Mr. Bill Harbaugh, was having difficulty obtaining copies of previous and current Affirmative Action Plans, as well as relevant university summary data. Senator Lambert said the motion is intended to require that the materials be made available in library archives as well as posted on the web. Senator Lambert indicated that some preliminary progress had been made to this end, and that the motion would be withdrawn once the materials were provided as requested.
Notice of Motion to create a senate committee on Academic Excellence.Senate President Hurwit stated that the Senate Executive Committee has given notice of its intent to create a Senate Committee on Academic Excellence which will address issues affecting academic excellence such as improving faculty salaries and academic freedom conflicts.
Motion US06/07-4.Senator Ali Emami, business, was called on to speak to his motion opposing military actions against Iran. Senator Emami read the motion as follows:
WHEREAS,Iran does not represent a clear and present threat to the United States of America, and
WHEREAS,military action against Iran would constitute an act that is illegal under our Constitution, and
WHEREAS,military action against Iran would be viewed by most of the World as unjustified military aggression, and
WHEREAS,untold numbers of people will be killed or mutilated by an armed attack on Iran,
WHEREAS,military action against Iran could provoke armed conflict that would further endanger U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and could escalate into a World War,
Be it Moved that,
The University Senate of the University of Oregon opposes military actions against Iran and petitions the President of the United States to adhere to diplomatic avenues for resolving perceived disagreements between Iran and the United States.
The discussion opened with Senator Malle asking for clarification on whether it was appropriate for the University Senate to vote on a motion the clearly dealt with US politics. Senate President Hurwit replied that taking political positions has not been the model of the senate (referring to similar motion in 2002 opposing the war in Iraq that did not come to the floor due to a senate vote that the matter was not within the purview of the senate). Senator Hurwit opined that although one could argue that national politics affect the university, the senate could get bogged down in endless political statement making to the detriment of the proper work of the senate. He suggested one could make political protestations in other ways. Because the president’s remarks were in opposition to the motion, he stepped down momentarily from chairing the meeting and asked Vice President Gordon Sayre to preside while the matter was on the floor.
Vice President Sayre took over chairing the meeting and recognized Senator Tublitz, who stated that the first issue to decide was whether the motion was in the purview of the senate; he then asked the chair for a ruling. Vice President Sayre ruled that motion US06/07-4 to oppose military action against Iran was not in the purview of the senate. To open a debate on the chair’s ruling, Senator Tublitz moved to contest the ruling. The debate contesting the chair’s ruling began with Mr. Frank Stahl speaking in opposition to the ruling. He stated that the university is already involved in the national political scene citing examples of the university lobbying for department of defense monies for research that he said supports war. He stated his belief that the university is involved in American militarism, and consequently the motion to oppose military action against Iran is in the purview of the senate. Senator Ellis spoke in support of the chair’s ruling, saying that if we go forward with this motion, it is difficult to draw a line with other similar motions; he doubts that there is much gained by such activities but there are ways that the university can lose. He, too, suggested that there are other avenues to register one’s political opinions. Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, agreed with Senator Ellis and said he did not think the motion was in the purview of the senate, as did Senator Karen McPherson, romance languages. Mr. Stahl re-emphasized his belief that such issues are within the purview of the senate by referring to the interest generated in 2003 to convene the University Assembly (with full legislative authority) after the senate found the motion opposing the war in Iraq was not in the senate’s purview. (As an aside, Mr. Stahl indicated that in 2003 there was a ruling from the state Department of Justice regarding what constitutes a quorum in the Assembly, and he asked President Frohnmayer for a copy of the ruling, to which President Frohnmayer replied he wasn’t certain if the ruling was verbal or written.)
The question was called, and the chair’s ruling that the motion was not in the purview of the senate was put to a hand vote. The motion contesting the chair’s ruling was defeated by a vote of 7 voting against the chair’s ruling and 17 in support of the ruling that the motion was not in the purview of the senate.Motion US06/07-4 was not debated or voted.
With the business at hand completed, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting November 30, 2005
Present:S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, L. Feldman, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, H. Lin, P. Lu, 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, J. Stolet, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,
Excused:C. Ellis, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, G. Psaki
Absent:E. Chan, A. Djiffack, A. DuFour, A. Emami, M. Filippelli, S. Gary, J. Hurwit, M. Irvin, T. Love, S. Maier, K. McKenzie, K. Sheehan, K. Wagle
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in the Fir Room of the EMU.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the October 12, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed. Approval of the minutes from November 9, 2005 was postponed pending clarification of the provost’s statement regarding use of funds generated from the proposed sale of Westmoreland housing.
State of the University
University President Dave Frohnmayer brought the Senate up-to-date regarding the proposed sale of Westmoreland housing. He noted that transition teams, which include student members, are organized to evaluate and address childcare, international students, and financial issues related to current tenants. The president reiterated that all leases would be honored through their expiration dates. A thorough analysis of the entire inventory of university housing and childcare resources is underway; he reaffirmed that the university is attentive to both student housing and childcare needs. The childcare transition team has begun meeting with families and is collecting data on individual family needs. All existing tenants are being surveyed to determine their housing needs after leases expire on July 1, 2006. Similarly, the Financial Aid office is currently working on getting updated financial profiles of all the eligible tenants who may be displaced by the sale of the property. As stated in the last Senate meeting, a portion of the sale will be set aside to help to meet the financial needs of displaced student tenants.
President Frohnmayer continued his report by saying that legal counsel has been working with the Oregon Department of Justice to develop the appropriate request proposing the sale of the property. Upon completion of the proposal the property will be officially on the market within a short period of time. The university is already working with possible buyers of the property which includes people that are responsible for managing low income housing in this area. The president will update the State Board of Higher Education as well as the Senate on plans for the proposed sale as the project moves forward. President Frohnmayer reiterated that the needs of the tenants are somewhat indeterminate at this point until the nature of the buyer and sale is known; there is no firm way to estimate the number of people who might be displaced in addition to those who would vacate the premises due to normal turnover, which is about 30% of the tenants. Plans will be made on an individualized basis as soon as the nature of displacement, if any, is known. Finally, the president made clear that the decision to sell this property is not a cold, calculated, bottom-line business decision; rather, it is a decision based upon on the fiduciary responsibility of the UO to run its operations in the black over a long period of time and the university’s fiduciary duty to provide education of the highest quality for our students both in the present and in the future. He noted that the administration did not approach the proposed sale without consequence or knowledge of human issues that are involved which will be dealt with as humanely as possible.
Next, President Frohnmayer updated the senators on progress on the search for the new provost. All three candidates have visited the campus, and each is either involved with or directly related to people who are the leaders of AAU institutions. He thanked the search committee for their thoroughness and for the hundreds of hours of work involved in the search process. President Frohnmayer continued by saying that he wants an effective academic leader that he can work with effectively; the provost and president must be alter egos, share a high level of trust, and have a continuing capacity for growth and renewal. He indicated that the arrival of the new provost will be a time of assessment, orderly transition, and an exciting time of self-renewal.
Finally, President Frohnmayer commented on the UO Diversity Plan. He thanked the members of the executive working group for developing a refined draft of the plan, which is currently under review. The Faculty Advisory Council, a selected student group, and the senate executive committee will be reviewing the latest draft before the plan is made public. It is still a work in progress.
Presentation by Interim Vice-Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Charles Martinez.Interim Vice Provost Martinez began his presentation saying that being involved in institutional equity and diversity raises numerous challenges. The issues we are facing are not new issues, but rather ones that have moved closer to the surface as part of the changing context of the campus, of the state of Oregon, and of the entire country. The vice provost alluded to the difficulty of defining the term diversity. He suggested that diversity envelops a notion of the personal histories each individual has – family background, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, place where one grew up; it should be perceived in its broadest terms. Mr. Martinez spoke of the need to have an environment at the UO which enables a free and open conversation about diversity without the pressures and constraints that are sometimes hampered by ideas of political correctness. The conversations about diversity here at the UO require that kind of freedom, to say what we think, and to put critical issues out in the open to discuss collectively.
The vice provost provided 2000 census data for Oregon regarding different ethnic groups. Oregon’s population is 83.5% white; the largest racial/ethnic/minority group is the Latino population, which accounts for about 8% of the population (approx. 275,000 people). However, estimates for Lane County are slight higher for Latinos. Oregon student enrollment data for 1980-81, 1990-91, and 2002-03 shows substantial change in racial/ethnic/minority populations in Oregon schools (K-12). In the first year of data more than 90 % of students in Oregon were identified as white; by 2002-03 the white student population had dropped to about 76%.
The proportion of racial/ethnic/minority students has increased for each group. Plotting minority student school enrollment from 1990-91 to 2002-03 showed Latinos increased 219%, African American students increased 44%, American Indian students increased 52%, and Asian/Pacific Islander students increased 68%. However, the growth rate for white students in Oregon during the same time period was less than 1% (.8%). Oregon ranks as one of the fastest growing and demographically changing states in the country.
Student dropout rates also show demographic differences. White students make up 80% of the student population but they only account for about 65% of the dropout statistics; Latino, African American, and American Indian students account for disproportionately larger percentages of drop out students in Oregon. At the UO, demographics are similar to the overall Oregon population data mentioned previously. White students have decreased from 83.5% to 74% of the student population. In addition, about 7% of UO students have declined to indicate their race/ethnicity, thus we know nothing about those students. The proportion of students self-identified by other racial/ethnic categories is: Latino 3%; African American 1%; American Indian 1%; and Asian/Pacific Islander 6%. International minority students account for about 6% of the UO student population.
Another set of data that warrants attention is the proportion of Oregon’s minority students who complete high school, who are eligible to attend the UO, and who actually do attend. Minority high school “completers” number about 13%, while UO minority students are about 11% (minority faculty at the UO comprise about 10% of the faculty). An issue that challenges the UO is whether the proportions of minority students and faculty at the UO reflect the changing demographics in the state.
Retaining students once they are admitted is another challenge. Student support mechanisms are relatively helpful during the first two years of attendance. But during the third and fourth years, retention rates drop off and are especially noticeable among African American and Native American students. Factors affecting retention of all students are complex, involving socioeconomic, financial, programming, and inclusion issues. The four year graduation rate for white students is about 40%, but only 22% for African American, and about 10% for American Indian students.
Although the data presented by the vice provost begin to provide information, he acknowledged that minority student data for UO students are far from complete. For example, no data are available regarding the affect of offering classes during off-peak time slots (evenings and weekend), nor for evaluating student satisfaction among various group; and international students are not included in the data.
Mr. Martinez concluded his presentation by adding to comments made earlier by President Frohnmayer regarding the revised draft of the Diversity Plan. He noted one of the key elements in re-developing the plan is that it is a contextualized action plan that empowers individual colleges/schools to engage in a diversity planning process whose context fits their school or college as it relates to the plan’s six areas: (1) developing a culturally responsive community, (2) building critical mass, (3) expanding and filling the pipeline, (4) developing and strengthening community linkages, (5) developing and reinforcing diversity infrastructure, and (6) improving campus climate.
During a question and answer session Mr. Martinez indicated that the release date of the revised draft will depend on the amount of feedback from various review groups, but probably during winter term.
Remarks by General Counsel Melinda Grier.Ms. Grier provided the annual report regarding subpoenas received under the USA Patriot Act or similar laws. She stated that no such subpoenas have been received by the General Counsel’s office nor by other campus offices.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate Report -- Jeanne Wagenknecht, UO representative.Ms. Wagenknecht reported the IFS has had rigorous discussions regarding the issue of academic quality: how it is measured, how our comparator institution measure it, who our comparators are, when is academic quality measured, what the inputs and outputs are, and how best to measure the UO compared with other Oregon institutions.
Ms. Wagenknecht read a statement sent to IFS membership that emphasized there are differences among each OUS institution in defining academic excellence, and that it must be done in the context of each institution’s mission statement. Referring to the UO mission statement, Ms. Wagenknecht stressed that the UO is a community of scholars dedicated to the highest standards of academic inquiry, learning, and service. The university strives to enrich the public that sustains it through “a commitment to undergraduate education, with a goal of helping the individual learn to question critically, think logically, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically; a commitment to graduate educate to develop creators and innovators who will generate new knowledge and shape experience for the benefit of humanity; and a recognition that research, both basic and applied, is essential to the intellectual health of the university, as well as to the enrichment of the live of Oregonians, by energizing the states’ economic, cultural, and political structure.”
Ms. Wagenknecht commented about concerns she has regarding data the IFS is putting together on academic quality in the OUS, its accuracy, whether it reflects measures deemed important or pertinent to our mission. Initial reviews have been controversial, with the IFS examining what the data say and how it might be used and interpreted. President Keyes added that the academic quality discussions in progress between the IFS and the State Board of Higher Education will continue through the year. He noted that the Senate needs to appoint new representatives from the UO campus and encouraged anyone who is interested to contact him or Jeanne Wagenknecht.
Fall 2005 Curriculum Report– Paul Engelking, Committee on Courses.Mr. Engelking reported that the only change to Fall 2005 Preliminary Curriculum Report was on page 10 under the title School of Architecture and Allied Arts stating that “The Oregon University System has approved a Ph.D. program in Landscape Architecture. Effective fall term 2006.” Hearing no further changes and with no further discussion, the motion to accept the Fall 2005 Curriculum Report with noted changes passed unanimously.(See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/CurRptFinF05.html for final report.)
Senator Christian Cherry, music and dance, drew attention to the change in the name of the School of Music to the School of Music and Dance.
Motion US 05/06-1 -- to close the university from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. to facilitate attendance at a University Assembly meeting.Senator Matthew Dennis, history, introduced the following motion:
Motion US05/06-1 To close the university from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. to facilitate attendance at a University Assembly meeting when called by petition to convene with full legislative power.
MOVED to amend Motion US03/04-10 - To Enable the University Assembly to Convene with Full Legislative Power as required by the University Senate Enabling Legislation of March 1996, as follows:
CHANGE: (e) The Secretary of the Faculty shall send timely notification of the meeting to all members of the University Assembly. The notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the Assembly and that attendance at the Assembly Meeting may take priority over routine obligations.
TO: (e) The Secretary of the Faculty shall send timely notification of the meeting to all members of the University Assembly. The notification shall remind recipients that they are members of the Assembly and that the University will be closed from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM on the day of the meeting to facilitate attendance.
SenatorDennis stated that it is difficult to obtain a quorum for an Assembly meeting (which is required if the Assembly is to act with legislative authority). Although senate legislation was passed last year (US03/04-10) to encourage members’ attendance, the makers of the motion felt closing the university would enable faculty who had teaching or administrative obligations at the time of the meeting to attend. Senator Renee Irvin, planning public policy and management, asked if a quorum could be met by meeting electronically, to which the reply was that such a meeting is against state law for public meetings. President Keyes then asked that the rules be suspended to give Mr. Frank Stahl, retired emeritus professor of biology, access to the floor to speak in favor of the motion. Mr. Stahl noted that when the previous motion was passed to facilitate a legislative Assembly meeting, closing of the UO during the meeting time was not included because the costs of doing so were not available. Since then an estimated meeting cost (space rental, set-up and take down) of $6,000 to $8,000 has been provided. Mr. Stahl continued that when the assembly is petitioned to meet, the best way to keep expenses at a minimum is to facilitate the means to obtain a quorum at the initial meeting so that repeat efforts to meet (e.g., adjourn until a week later if a quorum is not met) are not necessary.
Mr. Stahl also noted that when the current governance documents were adopted, membership of the Assembly did not include management service staff; however, the following year the state eliminated the management service employment category and at the UO these staff members were then categorized as officers of administration. Because officers of administration were included in the Assembly membership, its numbers increased substantially. Mr. Stahl suggested that administrative staff Assembly members who could not readily leave their responsibilities to attend an Assembly meeting would be freer to do so if the university were closed during the meeting time.
During the discussion period, questions were raised regarding exams that might be scheduled during a meeting time, and how they would be rescheduled, whether offices would be closed as well as whether classes would be held during an Assembly meeting time. The consensus was that no classes would be held, offices would be closed, and exams could be rescheduled if given enough advance notice. It was further emphasized that such Assembly meetings (petitioned to meet with legislative authority) were likely to be quite infrequent due to the difficulty of petition signature gathering to call such a meeting. Senator Tublitz also spoke in favor of the motion, saying that the Assembly is dysfunctional unless it has a realistic means for meeting when necessary.
With discussion drawing to a close, motion US05/06-1 to close the university from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. during petitioned Assembly meetings was put to a voice vote and passed.
Motion US05/06-2 -- regarding senate sponsored public hearings on Department of Defense funded research on the UO campus.Ms. Louise Westling, English, indicated that text of the original motion had been clarified slightly; consequently, with approval from the senators she brought the following replacement motion to the floor:
Motion US05/06-2 Requiring the University Senate to sponsor public hearings during at least one regular senate meeting on Department of Defense funded research on the UO campus
MOVED that the University Senate sponsor public forum(s) early in the Winter Quarter 2006, including one conducted as an official Senate meeting (on a Wednesday at 3:00 - 5:00 pm), on the pros and cons of Department of Defense-funded research on the UO campus.
Remarks in support of the motion acknowledged the notion that some Department of Defense (DoD) research activity is done with civil benefits in mind. On our campus, DoD research funds income from overheads, licensing of patents and inventions, summer salaries, research staff and student stipends. However, Ms. Westling said that conducing DoD research activity on campus implicitly suggests support for the DoD, which also fosters the dominance aspirations of global corporate businesses and the military industrial complex that thrives on armed conflict proliferation. Ms. Westling suggested that research universities must face the possibility of complicit involvement in violation of the Constitutions and /or war crimes in the context in which the DoD operates. She commented that a public forum sponsored by the senate, during a senate meeting, would serve to educate the faculty about relevant issues and might in turn prompt the senate to generate policy in opposition to DoD funding and seek other revenue sources to support research on campus. A student, Mr. Nick Phillips, sought access to the floor to speak in favor of the motion. He said the university needs the opportunity to hear arguments on this issue. Mr. Phillips opined that opponents of militarism cannot afford to allow the military (DoD) to lobby research scientists. He continued that the DoD only funds research that offers potential military applications, thus the UO should send a message by banning all military sources of funding.
President Keyes interjected that a senate ad hoc committee on research was under consideration to explore this and other questions concerning external funding sources and to look at policies currently in place relevant to external funding from all sources.
Senator Paul Swangaard, business, wondered whether the senate should be involved in external research funding policies (it would possibly constrain researchers’ academic freedom). Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, anthropology, reminded the senators that the senate had taken an active role on this issue a number of years ago. Mr. Stahl added that the purpose of the forum was to fully inform the campus community about DoD reseach funding activity.
Faculty member Michelle Wood, biology, spoke against the motion, saying that she has research funding from various government agencies. Her concern with this motion is that to target one agency, DoD, ignores the fact that it creates problems for possible funding from other agencies. She did not think it appropriate to single out one agency without knowing possible repercussions.
The secretary raised the issue of using a regular senate meeting time for such a forum when the senate agendas are relatively full for the year. Mr. Stahl replied that the senate could call other meetings in addition to the regular monthly meetings if it needed to complete its work.
With discussion coming to an end, President Keyes put Motion US05/06-2 regarding the senate’s sponsoring a forum on DoD funded research on campus to a voice vote. The motion passed.
Asked if there was any other new business, President Keyes recognized Senator Jon Jablonski, library, who spoke of recent news regarding the fees the tenants of Westmoreland were being assessed in response to their recent records request. Saying the fees were estimated to be in the thousands of dollars, he put forth the following motion:
Moved that the university waive any fees associated with the Westmoreland Tenants Council records request dated November 16, 2005.
Because the meeting was nearing its ending time, there was little debate on the motion. President Keyes put the motion to a vote and it passed by voice vote.(Note: this motion has since been numbered US05/06-3).
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Organizational Meeting
May 31, 2006
Present:C.A. Bassett, S. Brownmiller, M. Chong*, S. Cohen, A. Coles-Bjerre, M. Dennis, A. Emami, N. Fujii, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Holmberg*, A. Hornof, J. Hurwit, P. Lambert, L. LaTour, P. Lu, B. Malle, Corlea (Sue) Martinez*, T. Minner, C. Minson, J. Newton, D. Olson, V. Ostrik, F. Pyle, G. Sayre, A. Schulz, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle
Excused:C. Bengston, G. Berk, C. Cherry, A. Djiffack, C. Ellis, R. Irvin, L. Karim, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, M. Pangburn, C. Parsons, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, J. Stolet
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Peter Keyes called the organizational meeting of the 2006-07 University Senate to order in the Browsing Room of Knight Library at 3:05 p.m.
President Keyes asked newly elected members of the senate to introduce themselves, after which the secretary provided information regarding the attendance policies, name badges, and navigating the senate web site.
Professor Anne McLucas gave a few remarks acknowledging the contributions retiring Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine G. Davis had made to the university throughout her long and distinguished teaching and administrative career. As a former dean of the music school, Ms. McLucas noted how much she and others have appreciated Vice President Davis’ mentoring skills as well as her direct, honest, and fair approach to problem-solving. (See Addendum A for full text of Ms. McLucas’ remarks.)
The next presentation was made by Dean Tim Gleason, who acknowledged Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley and his numerous contributions to the university. Dean Gleason highlighted new science buildings, research institutes, the Riverfront Research Park, strategic planning process, and superb financial acumen as earmarks of Provost Moseley’s tenure as chief academic officer during challenging financial times. He commented too on Provost’s Moseley’s support of the undergraduate mission of the university as well as his interest in promoting international programs. Dean Gleason thanked John personally for his vision and risk-taking qualities, saying the university was a better place as a result of his leadership. (See Addendum B for full text of Dean Gleason’s remarks.)
Senate President Keyes then made a few remarks as the outgoing senate president. He noted that the year was a particularly difficult, contentious year with the Student Conduct Code revisions, the Diversity Plan, the sale of Westmoreland student housing, and issues surrounding Department of Defense funded research on campus commanding the bulk of the agenda. He noted that issues such as those coming before the senate this year need to be debated and discussed in an open, respectful atmosphere. President Keyes commented that he had enjoyed the opportunity to interact and work with people who “make things work”. He thanked President Frohnmayer for providing good perspective throughout the year.
President Keyes then noted that currently there were no candidates for the Vice President position, and that efforts would be made over the summer months or early fall to identify candidates for the position, with the election taking place during fall term. He then handed the reigns of the senate to incoming President Jeanne Wagenknecht.
President Wagenknecht introduced President Dave Frohnmayer who added to the comments regarding the accomplishments of both Lorraine Davis and John Moseley, saying that although their combined and individual achievements were many, neither sought personal recognition. The president then thanked Peter Keyes for being a central part of the processes begun under former senate presidents that were brought to fruition through his leadership. He acknowledged and thanked a number of people who had contributed an enormous amount of time and effort throughout the year.
President Wagenknecht made a few brief remarks regarding the university, saying that we must continue to create brilliance and maintain it. She commented that academic excellence is not free, and that we must work to find resources to make an investment in intellectual capital. She then introduced Senator Nathan Tublitz to present the Wayne T. Westling award to the 2006 recipient, Professor of Art History Jeffrey Hurwit.
WAYNE T. WESTLING AWARD PRESENTATION
Senator Tublitz noted that Professor Jeffrey Hurwit was exemplary in service to the university and provided inspired leadership. He noted that Mr. Hurwit’s stellar contributions were both of quantity and quality. Saying that Mr. Hurwit has a commitment to serve with insight, honor and integrity, Senator Tublitz noted that Jeff listens carefully and thoughtfully to his colleagues, which has earned him their respect. Senator Tublitz concluded his remarks by saying that Jeff was a selfless, inspiring citizen of the university, much like the individual for whom the award is named. Mr. Hurwit replied that he was honored to receive the award, especially because Wayne Westling was a personal friend from whom he often received wise advice and counsel.
The meeting was adjourned and followed by a reception for the new senate members and Westling award recipient.
Remarks recognizing Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine G. Davis on her retirement
Professor Anne McLucas, School of Music
The opportunity to make a few remarks about Lorraine Davis as she steps down from her role in the administration of many years, is both a pleasure and a sorrow. The pleasure is probably obvious, since we have all had our wonderful moments with Lorraine, which I’ll get to in a moment. The sorrow has to do with the end of an era at the U of O. As one of the people I talked to about impressions of Lorraine said, we have operated for many years in an oral culture, with a lot of the most crucial information about administering things going unwritten.
When I came here as a spanking new dean in 1992 I remember being frustrated by this—where was I to turn for information about how to do my job? And then I found out where—to the master storyteller of our oral culture, Lorraine. Under that practical haircut, lurks a mind that retains the ways in which every department and every college has done things for the past few decades, along with a treasure trove of her own personal wisdom from teaching, chairing and dealing with every possible problem that comes up. And if it’s a new problem, she’ll sit with you and figure it out.
As a new dean—and even 9 and 10 years into the job—I found myself calling Lorraine at least once a week, and at crucial times even once a day. The remarkable thing was that she was usually there and ready to talk or answer e-mail, or if not, you would usually hear from her by the end of the day. I wish I had managed to get her secrets of time management while I was asking those questions! But this is true not only for green deans, but also for those with lots of experience—my successor as dean at the School of Music, Brad Foley told me that in his 22 years as an administrator he has never found an upper-level administrator who was more helpful, generous, responsive, encouraging, and such a positive spirit. He told me that she is one of the most important reasons he chose to move 3500 miles to be here because I wanted to work with her.
As one past associate dean put it, she has exemplified the qualities of "humane" and "tough", so seldom found in a single individual. Of course, some people had even more colorful stories about that tough side of Lorraine. Here’s one from Joe Stone:
Lorraine Davis: G-Woman. In a pre-dawn raid early today, Lorraine Davis, (courtesy) FBI agent, raided the rooms of a local internet piracy ring on campus. Lorraine, wearing a bright blue FBI field jacket, with the six inch letters FBI emblazoned across it, burst through the door, warrant in hand, to successfully capture the internet pirate. Simultaneous raids were executed at MIT and Cambridge in the UK to capture other members of the piracy ring. Asked to comment, Agent Davis, said, “At least we are in good company.”
And that points up another aspect of her persona—that understated humility, probably from her country upbringing in rural Minnesota.
I’d like to end by reading an e-mail from a former dean who could not be here—but if he had been, I’m sure he would be doing this speech. Robert Melnick writes from Los Angeles:
I first met Lorraine in the late 1980s. I was department head in landscape architecture and Lorraine was in the provost's office. I learned then, through a challenging tenure review, that Lorraine was honest, direct, and fair. Through my years as head and then dean, I could not have done my job without her support and advice and patience.... and her private number on my cell phone. I count her among my best friends and colleagues at Oregon. Lorraine and I always had an understanding: agree or disagree, when an issue was done, it was done. She never once reminded me of all the mistakes I made [well, maybe once] and I never argued that she should have made a different decision once it was done. Lorraine and I had our regular 6 a.m. meeting almost every day, even in the rain, cold and dark. Sometimes we talked about work, sometimes about family, sometimes we didn't talk at all. We once made a run for the border, as she reminded me, and we often tossed around ideas about the details of life between Lawrence Hall and Johnson Hall. It is too easy to say that her impact on this campus, and on all of us, is immeasurable. But it is. So, Lorraine, I thank you in more ways that I can say, and wish you the very best. There really is life after administration.
I echo that sentiment—we all thank you, and we all wish you the very best. And yes, there IS life after administration, and it can be delightful!
Remarks recognizing Senior Vice President and Provost John T. Moseley on his retirement
Tim Gleason, Dean, School of Journalism and Communication
Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the contributions of Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley to the UO. Given the length and distinction of his service to this university and the Oregon University System, the academic community, the state of Oregon and beyond it is impossible to fully capture his contributions in this brief moment. The difficulty of the challenge is perhaps highlighted by the juxtaposition of these remarks to the Today Show’s three-hour tribute to Katie Curic this morning. John has been a leader on this campus for longer than Katie has been on the Today Show, and I would argue, he has confronted and made many more tough decisions.
John Moseley came to the UO as an Associate Professor of Physics in 1979 and was promoted to professor in 1982. He was, to quote one of his colleagues, a “major player” in his area of research. John participated in the development of techniques for the determination of ion-molecule transport properties and reaction rates. He developed gas phase techniques for ion photodetachment, photodissociation, and spectroscopic measurements. And he developed high-resolution methods for molecular ion spectroscopy. He was the principle investigator on several million dollars in research grants and published at least 70 research articles.
But John quickly began to move beyond his own research program and entered the world of academic administration in order to build the University of Oregon. In the early 1980s he was instrumental in the creation and the administration of the Chemical Physics Institute. Among the first interdisciplinary centers on campus, the CPI was an indicator of John’s interest in and vision of a campus where interdisciplinary centers are the norm and where work across disciplinary boundaries is a signature strength.
After briefly serving as Chair of the Department of Physics, he was named Vice President for Research, where from 1985 to 1994 he was a member of the executive leadership teams of Presidents Paul Olum and Myles Brand. The headlines of his tenure as VP for Research include: the building of the Science complex, doubling external grant support, establishing the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, development of the Riverfront Research Park, and the creation of a number of new research institutes.
While VP for Research, John became heavily involved in both federal and state legislative relations, in overall university financial planning and budget, and to recall an effort that may evoke a mixture of memories from those participants in the room today, he chaired the strategic planning process initiated by President Myles Brand.
He was appointed Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs in 1994, and since July 2001 has been serving as the Senior Vice President and Provost of the University of Oregon. (One of the more memorable moments in my nineteen years on this campus was the day in 1994 when then law school dean and chair of the provost search committee Dave Frohnmayer informed the committee that he would be moving to the president’s office. He then returned the committee to the job at hand.)
John’s tenure as Provost is noteworthy on so many levels. He has served as our chief academic officer through exceedingly tough times and there can be no doubt that we are a better institution – some would say better than we have any right to expect given the circumstances – because of his leadership and his tireless advocacy for the UO in the Oregon University System, in the halls of the state capitol and on the hill in Washington, D.C.
John is -- for better or worse -- a scientist -- but his vision for this university embraces all parts of the university – he has a deep appreciation for the entire breadth of the institution. He has helped build our research mission across the College of Arts and Sciences and the professional schools while at the same time strongly supported and working to enhance our undergraduate and graduate teaching mission. And he is a champion of international programs.
John’s advocacy for the UO in the state legislature and with the state board of higher education has been a major factor in our ability to maintain our position as the state’s flagship AAU university. It is fair to say that not only have we benefited but also discussions, deliberations and decision at the state level have been all the better because of John’s clear focus and disciplined approach to the challenges we face in Oregon higher education.
And then there is the UO budget. Recent news stories about higher education in Oregon all include some variation of the following sentence: “All of this [drama] is playing out against a backdrop of financial uncertainty, as six of the state's seven universities search for ways to trim their budgets, and the state Board of Higher Education debates plans that could reshape the future of the 81,000-student system.” Year in and year out since 1994, John Moseley has been in the budget trenches playing a leading role in crafting and implementing funding strategies, budget strategies, budget models and implementation strategies that have kept us not just afloat but in a position to make progress on many fronts. While I suspect everyone in this room has some complaint about the current UO budget model (and certainly about their own allocation), the bottom line is that because of John’s vision, talent and dedication, we are financial in a positive position, the budget process today is more transparent, and more decentralized (giving greater autonomy to all of us).
Finally, having spent time with John touring Portland real estate over the last eighteen months, let me say a word about vision and taking risks. As we have walked through vacant spaces, John would point out features of building and spaces and talk about what they could become, if we could make it happen. Just as he has for more than 20 years, John has a vision for the potential of this university and he is going to find a way to make that vision a reality.
I know that these remarks have not done justice to the extraordinary career and contributions of John Moseley to the UO; however I appreciate having the opportunity to thank John personally and on behalf of all members of the university community for all that he has done for us. John, thank you.
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 Emeraldtoday 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Present:J. Axelrod, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, D. Close, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, H. Lin, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, P. Lu, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle
Excused:S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Djiffack, J. Hurwit, L. Karim,
Absent:D. Brown, E. Chan, S. Maier, L. Richardson, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:10 in room 150 Columbia by Senate President Peter Keyes.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the special March 1 and regular March 8, 2006 meetings were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Provost John Moseley remarked briefly about incoming Provost Linda Brady, saying that the transition from current to new provost has begun and was going smoothly. The provost commented that he has enjoyed the 12 years he has served as provost and felt he was leaving the position in the very capable hands of Provost Brady. She will be on campus toward the middle of May and will take over officially the day after commencement.
Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke followed the provost’s remarks with an update on the Westmoreland situation. She indicated that bids on the property were due May 8th. If no acceptable proposal is received, the university may extend the proposal time period; the administration also has been working with a real estate and land use consultant. The vice president added that if a proposal received is deemed suitable, the state board would have a public hearing on the proposed sale.
Vice President Dyke reported that child care issues raised by tenants were being addressed in part through the purchase of a building module that will be attached to the Vivian Olum Center. It greatly increases capacity and will be open to the children of displaced Westmoreland students (with student rates). For current tenants, an occupancy option will be extended until the end of August 2006. All student tenants have been given the opportunity to apply for other on-campus housing. Transition teams are meeting weekly to deal with issues as they come forward, and a mitigation team is ready to work on those transition issues if and when the needs arise.
Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, said she had received a complaint about the appropriateness of the housing offered to displaced tenants and wondered to whom she should send the person seeking information. Ms. Dyke responded that generally, for housing issues, contact Karen Logvin, and for financial aid issues, see Elizabeth Bickford.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked Provost Moseley to provide information regarding the status of the proposed basketball arena, the recent resignation of Dean Joe Stone, and potential cutbacks in employee benefits plans. The provost replied that he has no new information regarding the arena (there currently is no lead donor in place). He said that Dean Stone had resigned earlier in the week and he will return to teaching. Because it is late in the academic year, an interim dean will be named; Vice President Lorraine Davis is putting that process together. Regarding possible benefits cutbacks, the provost said there was some discussion of restructuring benefits to find more cost savings and be able to channel more money toward faculty salaries. The discussions should not be misconstrued as an attempt to cut total compensation (salary plus benefits). He added that there is no specific proposal in place. Mr. Tublitz remarked that the costs saving for OUS to provide a salary boost for faculty would not be enough to cover the cuts in benefits nor the changing tax implications. The provost replied that that process is not very far along and that any such change is a long way off because it would require state legislative approval. He noted that changes in the benefits package would not occur without considerable discussion.
President Keyes announced that because of the very busy agenda for the regular May meeting, an additional senate business meeting will be added for May 24th dealing primarily with the curriculum report and the diversity plan. The secretary also reminded everyone that nominations for the spring elections are due by April 21, with elections taking place April 27 through May 7.
Grade inflation report announcement.Mr. Ron Severson, Undergraduate Council chair, said that the council has developed a report on grade inflation that soon will be distributed to senators for discussion at the May meeting. It’s intention is to stimulate a campus wide discussion on the topic. Mr. Severson noted that data presented in the report show trends in grades at the UO in undergraduate courses of sufficient size and regularity. As an example of report contents, he commented that between 1992 and 2004 the percentage of “A” grades has increased at the UO. During the same years, Oregon high school GPAs rose 5.2%; SAT scores showed a modest increase in math scores, and no change in verbal scores. Also included in the report are examples of what other universities are experiencing with grade inflation. Mr. Severson asked senators to review the report and send comments and questions to him prior to the discussion in the next senate meeting.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS).IFS representative Jeanne Wagenknecht added to comments made earlier in the meeting regarding OUS’s preliminary discussions of ways to create savings by decoupling faculty groups from PEBB, that is, by making benefits packages less expensive and moving money savings into salaries. The IFS was not supportive of such a move. Part of the issue focused on the overall impact on total compensation, and what the effects would be for older, near retirement employees who would not have increasing salaries to compensate for fewer benefits (less medical coverage). She noted that we must keep a careful eye on the progress of this discussion.
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.Mr. Jim Isenberg, chair of the IAC, reported that the year has been a relatively quiet one for the committee, with few contentious issues. He commented that the committee’s monitoring indicates that the Athletics Department is running a clean, financially and athletically successful program. He explained further that topics the committee considered included: the Academic Progress Report (APR) system newly instituted by the NCAA, progress on the basketball arena, the track and field Olympic Trials scheduled for summer 2008, as well as other new aspects of the track and field program, the evolution of the Faculty Athletics Representative position description, the issue of religion and athletic teams, UO academic services for student/athletes, and a possible new faculty advisor program. Mr. Isenberg concluded his report by noting the UO will soon complete its NCAA re-certification self study and a report would be forthcoming.
Ad Hoc Academic Excellence Committee.Senator Tublitz, chair, reported the ad hoc Academic Excellence Committee met a few times to begin reviewing a good amount of information. He noted the committee met with Provost Brady who indicated that she was very interested and willing to be involved. Data from committee will be shared at a future meeting.
Motion US 05/06-5 -- to formalize emeriti faculty participation in University Senate meetings.
A motion to move tabled motion US05/06-5 to the floor was passed unanimously by voice vote. The motion on the floor for discussion was:
BE IT MOVED, that emeriti faculty of the university have the right to introduce legislation and shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate.
Picking up the discussion on this motion from the previous meeting (see March 8th minutes), points were made that members of the University Assembly have the right to the floor of the senate. But because emeriti faculty are not members of the assembly, they do not have participation rights in the senate, which seems contradictory to some information in the Faculty Handbook.Mr. Andrew Marcus, geography, contended that emeriti faculty should be included in senate workings in order to take advantage of the wisdom gained from their long tenure at the university. When it was clarified that only emeriti faculty, about 150 people, are included in this motion, the issue of including other retired faculty, and perhaps others such as non-tenure related faculty, more students, and classified staff, was raised. The question of whether these groups should have the same senate access rights as emeriti faculty was discussed briefly but not pursued because these groups were not part of the current motion. Mr. Marcus said the motion’s intent was to reinstate emeriti faculty who were once part of the assembly membership then excluded when the assembly and senate were reconfigured in 1995.
To a question regarding whether the word “emeriti” was the correct form of the word, Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, moved to amend the motion to change emeriti to emeritus. The motion, as amended, passed by voice vote. With the discussion drawing to a close the motion was put to a hand vote, with 23 in favor and 7 opposed. Thus the 2/3 majority requirement to make changes in senate bylaws was met. Motion US05/06-5, as amended, passed.The amended motion reads:
BE IT MOVED, that emeritus faculty of the university have the right to introduce legislation and shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate.
Motion US05/06-8- to amend the Faculty Advisory Council membership to include the senate vice president.President Keyes read the motion as follows:
Be it moved that,the membership of the Faculty Advisory Council be amended to include the University Senate vice president, or designee, as an ex-officiomember of the Faculty Advisory Council with full privileges.
President Keyes indicated the motion came from the Senate Executive Committee with the intention of providing greater insight and preparation for the vice president who becomes president the following year. With no one wishing to make an argument in opposition, the motion was put to a vote. Motion US05/06-8 to add the senate vicepresident, or designee, to the FAC membership passed unanimously by voice vote.
Motion US 05/06-7 --to refer the proposed revised Student Conduct Code back to committee.The ASUO student senators sponsoring the motion chose not to bring it to the floor at this time because meetings on final revisions were still in progress. Thus the motion was temporarily withdrawn.
Motion US 05/05-6 -- Concerning Lobbying the Department of Defense for UO research FundingPresident Keyes read the motion as follows:
Whereasthe President of the University of Oregon (UO), acting as representative of the University, has endorsed the AAU practice of lobbying Congress for funding for military research, and
Whereasthe Faculty of UO has not spoken on this important issue,
Be it moved that:
(1) the UO Senate notify the President of AAU that, in the absence of a University-wide discussion and a vote on the matter by UO Senate, the position of the AAU that Congress should increase the research budget of the Department of Defense (DoD) does not necessarily represent that of the University of Oregon.
(2) the UO President not sign AAU letters lobbying Congress for an enlarged DoD research budget unless and until the UO Senate proclaims its support for such lobbying.
(3) the UO President report to the UO Senate in writing each term on new AAU lobbying activities and advocacy documents urging increased funding for DoD-sponsored research.
(4) the UO President cease enlisting the support of the Oregon Congressional Delegation for the purpose of securing DoD funds for research unless and until the UO Senate proclaims its support for such lobbying.
Senator Gina Psaki spoke in support of the motion, echoing many of the sentiments expressed during the March 1st special senate meeting by those opposed to the letter sent from the AAU, and signed by the President Frohnmayer, soliciting Department of Defense (DoD) funding for AAU member universities to support research fostering a stronger military. As a sponsor of the motion, she opposes the president, on behalf of and as a representative of the University of Oregon, lobbying for DoD research funding that supports and encourages militarism. The motion would limit and restrict the president’s lobbying and signing authority without first consulting with the senate.
A number of issues were raised during the ensuing discussion, which included: that the motion, as written, was too complex; that funding sources are very sensitive subjects to faculty; that moral objections by some faculty may not be objectionable to others; that limits on the president’s signing authority and lobbying may not be within the legislative authority of the senate; and that academic freedom and some faculty members’ research profect would be greatly affected with the DoD excluded as a funding source.
Senator Psaki indicated she was not in favor of silencing academic freedom, yet other senators argued that by eliminating a funding resource for research they do that has nothing to do with support of militarism, per se, would indeed limit their academic freedom. Other faculty questioned whether there was any consensus among various faculty constituencies regarding the motion.
Senator Peter Gilkey raised the question of where the senate drew its authority to dictate what the president could or could not sign. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, stated that President Frohnmayer serves as the UO representative to the AAU, and as such he is signing as our representative. Some senators questioned whether the president would need to clear other lobbying efforts through the senate if other types of funding, objectionable to some, were sought.
The discussion then focused on different parts of the motion with possible attempts to remove or amend sections. Senator Tublitz noted that the key impetus for the motion was the AAU letter that appeared to support militarism through DoD research funding. He said that unless section 4 of the motion was removed, he could not support the motion.
Mr. Jim Hutchison, physics, also spoke against the motion saying that letters such as the one from the AAU to the DoD are sent out to many agencies soliciting funding, not just the DoD, as a matter of course. He said the question is whether we want to discuss military funding or militarism and supremacy – he sees these as different issues, since many DoD projects do not directly support growth of militarism. Mr. Hutchinson believes that by censoring research funding from some sources and not others, academic scholarship is threatened. Others in the audience commented that there was a lack of consensus on this topic and that it had not been widely debated, thus such a motion was premature. Senator Freinkel expressed her concern about the split developing over this motion between the science faculty (who may have DoD funding) and faculty in the humanities (who typically do not have DoD funding). She suggested the motion does not aptly address the real issue, which appears to be militarism.
As the discussion was winding down and with no discernable conclusion, a motion to table the motion was made and passed by voice vote. Motion US05/06—6 concerning lobbying the DoD for research funding was tabled.
The senate moved to Executive Session at 4:50 to here from the Distinguished Service Awards and Honorary Degree Committee.
After the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 12, 2005
Present: S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Djiffack, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L.LaTour, P. Lu, A. Mathes, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Singer, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht.
Absent:D. Eisert, C. Ellis, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, L. Moses, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, E. Scott, K. Sheehan; S. Simmons, J. Stolet.
Excused:N. Fujii, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, J. Sneirson.
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Peter Keyes called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in the EMU, Fir Room.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes for the May 11, 2005 regular Senate meeting and the May 25, 2005 organizational Senate meeting were approved as distributed.
Welcome and introduction
Senate President Peter Keyes welcomed all to the new academic year and began his outline of the year’s agenda after identifying members of the Senate Executive Committee as follows: Peter Keyes, architecture; Jeanne Wagenknecht, business; Gwen Steigelman, academic affairs; Paul Simonds, parliamentarian; Shaul Cohen, geography; Matthew Dennis, history; Jon Jablonski, library; Regina Psaki, romance languages, and Nathan Tublitz, biology. President Keyes urged members of the senate to contact him or another member of the Senate Executive Committee for any issues that might be brought forward to the senate for action or debate.
The president continued his remarks by outlining known issues that will be on the agenda: the Student Conduct Code, the UO Diversity Action Plan, policies on externally-funded research, University Assembly membership and protocols, non-tenured track instructional faculty policies, campus planning, revisions to the senate charter, and resources and salaries. In a brief overview of these topics, President Keyes noted that revisions to the Student Conduct Code have been in process for 10 years and finally should be completed this year. An ad hoc committee chaired by Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, is working on final revisions of the draft document and consulting with the general counsel regarding for appropriate phrasing. The revised draft would be available for senate review followed by opportunities for other members of the campus community
to participate in small group discussions of the proposed revisions. A vote on the final document is planned for the March senate meeting. Moving on, President Keyes reported that the two groups created after the controversy surrounding the release last spring of the UO Diversity Action Plan had been busy throughout the summer months. The senate ad hoc committee worked toward developing a process to enable input and feedback on the diversity plan from a broader spectrum of people within the campus community. Similarly, the Diversity Executive Working Group, a group of both staff and faculty members on campus, worked throughout the summer to revise the draft of the diversity plan document, which will be made available in the next few months. President Keyes commented that discussion during the recent Faculty Leadership Caucus suggested that there should be discussion on principles related to diversity on campus, and not solely the Diversity Action Plan alone. CODAC may sponsor a forum in January with a few days of panel discussions of issues related to the plan; the goal is to set up processes for input before the plan is officially released.
President Keyes continued his outline of the year’s agenda by noting a number of issues have been raised regarding policies on externally-funded research. Most prominent is the question of military funding for research on campus. Also related to this issue is the Oregon Entrepreneurship Tax Credits, recently passed by the legislature, which provides tax advantages for people who want to sponsor research conducted at the universities that would lead to economic growth and development. The implications of such research must be considered as well as how we function as a research university. And, President Keyes also noted that commercial and corporate funding for campus research might raise issues that should be examined. For example, some universities have had issues with sponsored research when the sponsors did not want the findings freely released. Some faculty members are not clear about the UO’s research policies and whether they adequately meet campus research interests. Consequently, the senate likely would create a senate ad hoc committee to look into these issues, review UO policies, and look to what is done nationally to see if these policies need to be revised. Vice President for Research Rich Linton is amendable to this idea, noting the merit of having a faculty committee with which he could consult and work with as an advisory group.
Another item to be considered this year concerns questions about the University Assembly membership and protocols, specifically, how membership is defined and has changed over the years, and if it is adequate or needs revision. A second issue regards the protocols for the unusual circumstance when an assembly meeting with full legislative authorityis called and necessitates achieving a quorum. President Keyes noted that the difficulty in convening such a meeting was apparent a couple years ago, thus various proposals have been suggested for how this might work, whether attendance should be mandatory, when the meeting should be held, and the costs involved. The president also indicated that a motion would be forthcoming giving retired emeritus faculty rights to participate in the senate. Also up for discussion is the status of classified staff in the senate, in particular, voting membership (currently, classified staff elects three non-voting participant members to the senate).
President Keyes commented that the Non-Tenured Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee and a working group in Academic Affairs headed by Vice Provost Russ Tomlin are developing policies and principles for implementing “best practices” for academic units to use for matters concerning non-tenure track faculty. Depending on the nature of the polices, senate legislation may not be needed. Turning his attention to the topic of campus planning, President Keyes noted that as a result of the greater clarification of planning procedures accomplished last year, especially when planning involves outside-funded projects on campus, the senate now has a representative on the Campus Planning Committee, Michael Fifield, architecture. President Keyes stated, too, that the planning office has received a very large Getty Grant to study the historical core of the campus, and that the principles we learned from the grant should be applied to future campus expansion.
The president noted that the revised Senate Charter is now in its 10th year, which requires a consideration of membership reapportionment. The senate will look at possible reapportionment as well as other revisions that might be warranted, such as expanding the pool of senate president candidates beyond the confines of senate membership. Shifting to the topic of fiscal resources, salaries, and budgets, President Keyes indicated that a number of important fiscal issues would come before the Senate Budget Committee this year. In addition to concerns about meeting the principles and goals delineated in the White Paper, allocation models for distributing recourses across campus will be explored, as well as discussions about the relationship of the financial budgetary issues and educational quality at the UO. President Keyes suggested that budget decisions and solutions that made sense 20 years ago may not make sense today, and changes will need to be made to ensure that quality public education remains economically viable.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs.Vice President Davis updated the Senate members on two items, the upcoming university accreditation process and the Provost Search. The accreditation occurs every 10 years via the Northwest Commission. Accreditation affects not only the university’s status and stature, but our ability to receive federal financial student aid as well. A 12 person accreditation visitation team will be on campus April 17th and 18th in 2007. The UO’s self-study is due around this time next year, and will involve all components of the university. Using the standard accreditation format we would be required to respond to 214 indicators. However, we are hoping to use an alternative plan so that the accreditation process can be more meaningful to us as a campus by identifying our strengths, weaknesses, and future directions. Overall, the document could be very useful for the campus. The commission has given the permission for the UO to use a new process; co-chairs of the process are Joanna Gray, economics, and Dave Hubin, executive assistant president. They will head a fairly large steering committee and have already begun discussions with the Undergraduate Council, along with some of the other standing committees. Members of the senate will be involved in providing input throughout the process as well.
Vice President Davis continued her remarks with updates on the current search for a new senior vice president and provost. The committee has been working with an external search firm, and after seeking initial information on a small sub-set of candidates, expects to bring three or four candidates to the campus for a 2-day interview processes during late October and November. The search committee hopes to have a new provost by the end of fall term. There will be opportunities for participation in that process via interviewing panels of faculty leadership; officers of administration, classified staff, student leadership; the council of deans; vice presidents; the vice provosts. In addition, there will be a formal public presentation and informal interaction opportunities with the candidates, including representation from the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, and a campus and community climate sub-group with student participation in the whole process. Vice President Davis encouraged members of the senate to actively participate and provide feedback to the search committee. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, expressed a desire for more opportunities for faculty to interact with the candidates. The vice president replied that the interview schedule is very full and it is difficult to have candidates on campus for more than two days. Nevertheless, she said she would take the request into consideration.
Remarks by Provost John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost.Provost Moseley focused his remarks on the Summary General Fund Operating Budget that was passed out at the Deans’ Council the previous day. The last budget session saw some progress in funding after 3 or 4 years of declining state budgetary support for higher education and the UO. The provost noted that the budget for 2004-05 had very little growth in general operating funds, and although it was technically not a budget cut, it has had that effect because there were no provisions for inflationary increases, such as in salaries. The UO did not generate enough revenue in the first biennial year to pay operating costs, but did so during the second year. He also commented on a negative $4.1 million figure for FY 2005 that appeared on the summary. The figure represents the amount from student tuition dollars that the state claimed the PERS revisions were going to save us on non-general funds; basically, the provost suggested, it represents a general fund cutback by another name. If we had been able to keep those funds there would have been a substantial amount of money that could have been spent last year. Provost Moseley then said the good news is the state did not continue this type of cutback, and did appropriate a non-trivial increase to the UO general fund for the new biennium. There was a cap on tuition which makes tuition growth smaller, but in the overall picture the budget shows room for growth. Unfortunately, a lot of the budget growth is consumed by increases in health benefits and PERS costs; but on the academic side of picture, we definitely see significant growth in dollars available. He said the biggest part of those expenditures was used to fund salary increases.
The provost continued his remarks commenting on the UO internal budget process which in the past has mirrored the budget process by which we received state funding, that is, the process uses the now 10-year old Resource Allocation Model. The model funded programs differentially based on a study of the various campus programs. More recently, each campus has kept its own tuition dollars. The UO budget was based on the Resource Allocation Model and on tuition; some money came from both RAM and tuition models to pay for the operation of the campus. Over the years there have been some changes made (for example, the state does not fund non-resident Masters students, but the UO does it internally). We felt there were inequities in the model and found it was necessary in some units to make ad hoc adjustments from year to year. As time has gone on, the model has become more and more out-of sync, due mostly to the shift over this time period in how much of the schools and colleges budgets is being paid from the state allotted general fund and how much from tuition; there has been a major shift from general fund dollars to tuition. The net effect was to create an increasing divergence when we tried to compare these budgets back to peer comparative data. This year will be a trial year looking at comparative data; the new provost will have to decide where to go with the data. No new budget plan will be implemented this year, but we intend to use peer comparatives in the final budgeting process much more than we have done in the past. Provost Moseley made clear the eventual goal is equitable funding of all units; academic and otherwise. Unfortunately, there is not a perfect set of peer comparators available with which we could make comparisons and decisions to fund all our schools and colleges equitably. Each dean has been asked to identify a set of peer comparator institutions for their school or college. Those institutions and our AAU peers will help provide data to improve the overall equity of our budget allocations. Provost Moseley concluded his remarks saying that it appears we will be able to balance our budget this year. He hopes to be able to do some salary and budget catch-up in the second year. And, although salaries are not where he would like them, the university has managed to maintain the level of benefits.
During a question and answer session, the provost clarified for Senator Jon Jablonski, Knight Library, that he has been talking about the educational, or general, funds that support our educational activities. The main sources of these funds are state appropriation and tuition dollars. (Fees are not included in these funds and are allocated directly to the unit charging the fees.) These funds represents about half of total UO budget; the other half is comprised of the grants and contracts, that include the overhead, auxiliary services, which includes athletics, dorms, EMU, among other things for fee service, as well as foundation money. One issue that is always looked at is when comparisons with a peer comparator are made is what is included in the comparator’s data set; generally, institutions don’t include fees in their data. In some cases where fees are specifically resource fees, such as in law schools, fees are arguably just differential tuition, and they might show up on a tuition line. But differences in fees assessed for resident and non-resident student also exacerbates the kinds of peer budget comparisons that can be made and which are reflected differently in budget lines.
Provost Moseley finished with comments about the State Board of Higher Education meeting, and one item that will be monitored is a strategic planning process. They will be looking at potential changes and new directions in the higher ed system. Also, they will get be advised about how precarious the whole system is financially, which will help them understand the pressures that we face. It will be an important theme at the State Board meetings this year.
Report on Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)—Senate Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht reported on a couple of items that will need to be addressed soon and may appear on the November Senate agenda. She noted that are normally three representatives on the IFS from the UO, and stated with great regret that Senator Nathan Tublitz has resigned from the IFS. Consequently, we need to elect a replacement for him and for Paul Engelking, whose terms expires in December, as well as someone for the alternate position. This coming year the IFS is looking very closely at issues of definition and measures along with strategies for better levels of academic quality. Ms. Wagenknecht continued her report by saying they have been working on the sexual harassment and consensual relationship policies for quite awhile. Further, when comparing the UO’s policies with other institutions, we have appropriate policies well in place and have done a good on this issue. In response to an existing sexual complaint, OUS created a sexual harassment policy to which all institutions need to adhere.
Announcements and Communications from the floor
Frank Stahl, biology, commented he wanted to talk about the US Patriot Act but Melinda Grier, general counsel, was not present.
Senate Representation and Senate Reception.President Keyes reminded senators that the senate is a representative body and encouraged senators to become more engaged with their constituents. He encouraged the senators to think about whom they represent and how can they connect with them. Lastly, he announced an invitation to a welcome reception for the senate on Saturday, October 29th at 6:00 p.m. at his house.
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.
Present:J. Axelrod, S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, N. Kinsey, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht
Excused:P. Swangard, K. Wagle
Absent:D. Brown, A. Djiffack, S. Gary, T. Piering, K. Sheehan
CALL TO ORDER
University Senate President Peter Keyes called the second May regular business meeting of the senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 150 Columbia. Because a large number of students, faculty, and staff were present in addition to the senate members, President Keyes asked that members of the University Assembly who might wish to speak on the agenda item concerning adoption of the Diversity Plan to place their names on a sign up sheet with the secretary.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the May 10th senate meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer.President Frohnmayer made brief remarks on several topics: faculty achievements and awards, arrival of two new academic administrators on campus, the proposed sale of Westmoreland housing, recent reactions to materials appearing in the student publication The Insurgent,and the university�s Diversity Plan that will be acted on later in the meeting.
The president acknowledged that the members of the faculty and students received a number of awards during the year. He congratulated chemistry professor Geri Richmond on her election into the National Academy of Sciences, and journalism associate professor Scott Maier as a recipient of the Sigma Delta Chi Award. The president noted that the university also had three Guggenheim Fellows and a Marshall Scholar this past spring. And President Frohnmayer added a welcome note to the campus arrival of new Senior Vice President and Provost Linda Brady as well as Vice Provost for International Affairs and Outreach Chunsheng Zhang.
President Frohnmayer announced that an agreement had been reached with a buyer to sell the Westmoreland Housing Complex on terms that were described as very favorable to the university. The fair market price of $18,000,000 after brokerage fees would make funds available to the university. The available funds would be used in part to allow for construction and renovation of residence halls for which the university otherwise would have had no funds. The president indicated that the university will take the matter to the July meeting of the State Board for confirmation.
The President concluded his remarks by discussing recent media coverage of a student publication, The Insurgent,which had limited circulation around campus, but whose contents were particularly offensive to some people who picked up a copy. He noted that the courts have made it very clear that although the publication of the material might be regarded as blasphemous, it is protected by the First Amendment.
Commenting on the subject of diversity relevant to the discussion scheduled for the latter part of the meeting, the president noted that he had a full page letter in the May 24, 2006 Oregon Daily Emeraldpresenting his views. He remarked that more than 1,000 faculty, staff, students and community members had provided input and labored on the current draft of the Diversity Plan, and that he hoped for a favorable vote on the matter later in the meeting.
The president then took some questions from the floor and presented some additional information on the Westmoreland sale. He noted that the purchaser was Michael R. O'Connell, Sr., a local real estate investor who is also a commercial real estate broker who was acting for himself and other investors. The president said that eligible student tenants will receive financial aid to cover the difference between the current rental rate and the new rental rate. This financial aid to eligible students could come in the form of cash grants to the student or direct payments to the landlord, and will probably end June 30, 2007.
State of the Athletics Department report. This item of the agenda was postponed as Athletic Director Bill Moos had been called to jury duty and was therefore not able to be present.
Committee on Courses.Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, presented the Spring 2006 Preliminary Curriculum Report. He noted several minor technical corrections to the report which had been distributed previously. He moved on behalf of the committee to have the report accepted by the Senate. The motion to approve the report passed unanimously. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/CurRptS06.html for the final corrected report.)
Notice of Motion to extend full rights in the senate to classified staff participants. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, gave notice that he intends to put forth a motion that would provide full senate membership, including voting rights, for classified staff participants.
Motion US05/06-10 to adopt the Diversity Plan.
As prelude to the discussion of the Diversity Plan motion, Senate President Peter Keyes made a brief introductory statement recalling the history involved. He noted that the current plan was the result of over two years of effort. The plan had been circulated widely, revised several times, and this spring there had been ample opportunity for comments that included three town hall meetings and various small group meetings. He echoed President Frohnmayer�s remarks that comments had been received from over 1,000 individuals. Noting the large number of people in attendance, President Keyes emphasized that this was a meeting of the University Senate and he reminded all of appropriate meeting decorum. He instructed that individual comments would be limited to two minutes, and that at 4: 45 p.m. he would close the debate and move to a vote.
Senator Chris Ellis, economics, rose to make a point of order concerning the requirement for a financial impact statement. He opined that the costs of the plan were not made clear. Senate President Keyes noted he had circulated a long memo to the Senate on the subject and ruled against the point of order (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/Keyes23May06.html). Senator Ellis then made a motion to appeal the senate president�s ruling; the motion to appeal was seconded by Senator Tublitz. The senate voted 7 in favor and 29 against the motion to appeal and thereby sustained the President Keyes� ruling.
Introduction of the Motion. President Keyes then called upon Senator Matthew Dennis, history, to introduce the motion. Senator Dennis recalled that the Declaration of Independence set basic principles on which our country was founded: equality, opportunity, and pluralism. He then went on to say that the plan is a means to fulfill the promise of the university mission statement which links diversity with academic quality. Senator Dennis then commented on the general framework of the plan, saying it was intended as a critical tool to help the university fulfill its mission, and was supportive of a broader shared responsibility to cultivate a safe, inclusive climate across campus. He acknowledged that aspects of the plan have been controversial and have fostered healthy debate, but he also said the process of formulating the plan has involved a great deal of consultation and multiple revisions that yielded a product of compromise in responding to all serious critiques. He noted that there had been good will and generosity both from those who have supported it from the beginning and those who have critiqued it. Senator Dennis remarked that the plan was not a top-down approach, but rather started with self examination at the local level, and where problems were identified, asks unit to begin making plans to find reasonable solutions. He noted too that the administration had promised financial transparency, and was committed to finding additional resources and the avoidance of unfunded mandates. He then moved that the Diversity Plan for the University of Oregon dated May 14, 2006 is adopted by the University Senate. (Full text of the Diversity Plan may be viewed at: http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/14May06DivPlan.pdf.)
University President Dave Frohnmayer spoke in support of the plan. He noted that the plan flowed from the UO Mission Statement and that it faithfully embodied our highest aspirations. He called attention to a letter he sent in June 2001 to the university community explaining why diversity was an imperative issue to address. He noted that in 35 years of association with the University he had never seen such a concerted effort over such an admittedly difficult and some time divisive topic. He rejected claims that the plan had found its genesis in a legal settlement, referring to a document from Provost Moseley in May 2001 indicating a desire to tackle diversity issues. The president also stated that there was not a dichotomy between diversity and quality � that enhancing quality was at the heart of our mission � and that we should not, and need not, sacrifice quality for diversity. Lastly, he noted that in response to some questions raised regarding the plan�s possible violation of discrimination laws, he received an opinion from the General Counsel that stated there is nothing in the plan that violated or recommended violations of laws against discrimination. (Copies of the legal opinion were given to secretary.) President Frohnmayer concluded by thanking the audience for their attention and then urged adoption of the motion.
Senate President Keyes then asked for members of the senate to speak who wished to the motion. Senator Ellen Scott, sociology rose to speak first. She supported the plan and felt it fitted with the broad mission of the University and that it continued the hard work of reversing marginalization and exclusion. She noted that the plan asked units to create goals and to be accountable for progress towards those goals. Further, she commented that the language of the document was �should� rather than �must�. She stated that the plan provided guidance and empowered units. Regarding the fiscal implications, she opined that putting resources toward attracting and retaining underrepresented faulty would make the university more competitive when hiring top quality faculty. Next, Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, spoke in favor of the plan. However, she highlighted a couple trends worthy of concern: a growing division between the humanities and the sciences on the diversity issue, and increasing franticness about academic excellence, somehow implying its dilution if diversity is increased. She suggested we should not lose sight of the deep underlying problems that had driven us apart and that this plan hopes to address. Daniel Close, education, spoke next to support the plan. He discussed demographic changes in our community and our state. He and colleague Pat Rounds canvassed their constituent groups (including faculty, staff, and students) and reported support for the plan, but with the sentiment that it still needed refinement regarding issues of sexual orientation and persons with disabilities. Nevertheless, he felt that a delay in adopting the plan was unwarranted. Senator Anthony Hornof, computer and information science, spoke next and echoed some of Senator Freinkel�s concerns (about the issue being a divisive one) by stating: that he was in favor of the Diversity Plan and was am opposed to the Diversity Plan, that there were 100 reasons to pass the Diversity Plan and 100 reasons not to pass it. He quoted from recent campus visitor Bell Hooks, who said it is important to be a good listener, with integrity, and like Ms. Hooks, he expressed a hope the meeting would be a context where we could engage in open and critical dialogue with one another and where we could hear and know one another in the complexity of our experience.
Senator Chris Ellis, economics, then rose to oppose the motion. He felt everyone in the room believed diversity was a good thing because they cared about some of the underlying problems in our society. However, Senator Ellis felt that the current plan was fundamentally and logically flawed, and as such, could not achieve its goals. He noted that there was a large body of literature on the economics of education and he introduced some issues raised in that literature. One issue is that economically disadvantaged people historically do poorly in education, and Blacks and Hispanics have been historically poor, thus there are not enough persons in these underrepresented groups to fill the �pipeline� to become college undergraduates and graduates from which to make hires. He suggested the proposed plan does not address the pipeline issue. He concluded by noting that there is a large bureaucracy with a large budget devoted to diversity already, and he was concerned about resource questions. He proposed putting our resources into resolving the pipeline issue.
Senator Huaxin Lin, mathematics, also spoke against the motion. He was concerned that an unintended consequence of the Diversity Plan might be a reduction of the Asian presence on the campus, a group that is overrepresented in some areas. He said a diversity plan should not discriminate against males in overrepresented groups, and that without equal opportunity for all, this plan would discriminate against some. He urged a vote against the plan. Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, was the last of the senators was the final Senator to speak. She spoke in favor of the plan and returned to the mission statement. She expressed her belief that diversity is one of many drivers of academic excellence. She stated that bold and creative visions of change seldom came from nickel-and-dime-ing ourselves. Her goal was to seek higher horizons of academic excellence.
All the senators having spoken who wished the floor, members of the Assembly were given the opportunity to speak. Mr. Alexander Kleschev, mathematics, rose to speak against the motion, feeling the question of cultural competence could be totalitarianism reborn. He urged removal of the portion on cultural competence before adopting the motion. He warned about historical lessons and asked sensitivity to those coming from backgrounds who, in his words, �went through this hell�. Mr. Gordan Hall, psychology, spoke in favor of the plan. He identified himself as an Asian American and spoke of this history of his parents who were in internment camps during WWII. He felt the plan might not be perfect, but urged the senators not to sacrifice the good of the plan in service of the perfect. Mr. Charles Curtis, mathematics, was a neutral speaker. He reiterated the concern of Mr. Kleschev concerning cultural competency and suggested those sections be deleted, especially if used for evaluation.
Mr. Martin Summers, history, supported the plan. He noted he had worked on the first draft but felt the current version did not go far enough. He also took issue with earlier characterizations that poor people are primarily Hispanics and Blacks, saying there are poor white people, too. However, he said the pipeline issue does need to be addressed, but that it is disingenuous to suggest that pouring all resources into the pipeline will result in Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities being hired at the UO 20 years down the road. He felt there were well �qualified minority persons available currently. He spoke briefly about the importance of having a critical mass of faculty in one�s area of research and teaching, saying that he was leaving the university to go to the University of Texas primarily because the African American Studies program there had 30 professors in it, and he felt the intellectual climate at Texas was better. He felt it was possible to commit resources to diversifying the faculty at the UO without sacrificing quality. Mr. Mike Kellman, chemistry, then spoke against the plan. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee he was concerned about financial matters, in particular the lack of progress on faculty salaries. He commented that the impact of the plan would be at least $4 million a year. He noted that the UO was the only campus in the university system with a balanced budget and is in danger of losing funding in order to rescue other campuses. He referred to a letter sent to President Frohnmayer by House Education Chair Linda Flores, raising her concerns about the costs of the Diversity Plan as it relates to the issue of low faculty salaries. He concluded that adoption of the Diversity Plan would place the UO in financial, academic, and political jeopardy and urged its defeat.
Mr. Michael Garcia, ethnic studies and English, spoke next in favor of the plan noting there are sound reputable economic arguments in favor of using race as a criterion for diversity in addition to socioeconomic status. Mr. Boris Botvinnik, mathematics, spoke against the plan supporting the previous testimony of Senator Lin, agreeing that the plan sends a message that certain people are not welcome. He also echoed the concerns expressed by Mr. Kleschev concerning cultural competency. Mr. Greg McLaughlin, sociology, spoke in favor of the plan. He dismissed the argument that there was a competition between diversity and quality and noted that the top universities in the country have aggressive diversity plans. He asserted that diversity enhances academic quality.
Mr. Bill Harbaugh, economics, then spoke against the plan, saying he was one of the individuals working on the alternative diversity plan, which he suggested is a good plan that Oregon could live with for a long time. He said he had serious legal questions about the Diversity Plan that President Frohnmayer is putting forward. Mr. Harbaugh quoted from correspondence he received from a concerned UO alum who offered an opinion of the plan, saying that it failed in every way to meet the legislative requirements spelled out in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that deals with affirmation action and public employer hiring provisions when giving preference to minorities. Mr. Harbaugh asked President Frohnmayer if it was his considered opinion that the plan he put forward was consistent with Title VII and other such laws, and if he was prepared to defend that statement with rebuttal of the specific points raised in the correspondence alluded to earlier. Or if not, he asked the president to explain to the senate what his objective was by putting forward the plan to the senate with the potential legal issues raised. President Frohnmayer replied that the plan has been reviewed by competent legal counsel Melinda Grier, who has nationally recognized credentials in the area of employment issues. He reiterated that it is her view, which was entered into the records earlier in the meeting, that the plan is not subject to any legal objection under Title VII. The president refuted the notion that the plan gives preference to individuals based on category or gender; rather, it says that for those qualified, the pool should be adequately canvassed to make sure that qualified persons are considered. There is no mandate requiring preference in the plan. He continued that in his view, as an attorney, the plan is consistent with the laws of the state of Oregon and was constitutional, and that he was prepared to defend it in the courts if it should come to that.
Senate President Keyes then noted that it was 4:47 p.m. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to allow the remaining four persons on the signup sheet to speak. Ms. Julie Novkov, political science, then spoke in favor of the plan, noting that diversity at the UO fulfils a compelling state interest and is part of the core mission of the university. She noted that the core of our mission is to reach a student population that is becomingly increasingly multicultural and diverse. She urged action now. She suggested that the UO needs to be a leader in hiring and retaining the faculty of color that are available. Mr. Arkady Vaintrob, mathematics, spoke against the motion. He was concerned about a narrow definition of diversity, saying that we should not mix up diversity with the Diversity Plan. He noted that he came from a different part of the world � he was concerned that the present document was interested in diversity but that some kinds of diversity were more equal than others. Ms. Sangita Gopal, English, then spoke in favor of the motion, noting her Asian background and that she came from a country with a caste system. She commented on the impact of �set asides� there for underrepresented classes. She urged more global thinking, and passage of the motion. Finally, Mr. Chris Phillips, mathematics, who was the last speaker on the list, noted the lateness of the hour and declined to speak.
The Senate President then heard a motion to call the question which was seconded. The motion to call the question passed. Motion US05/06-10 to adopt the University of Oregon Diversity Plan was voted on and passed with 32 in favor and 6 opposed.
At that point Senator Jon Jablonski, science library, asked the senate to suspend the rules so they could consider a motion he wished to introduce concerning the sale of the Westmoreland property. The motion to suspend the rules was seconded and passed. He then moved
�Be it Resolved: The Senate is opposed to the sale of Westmoreland Family Housing; the Senate directs the President of the Senate, or her representative, to present the Senate's opposition to the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.
Senator Jablonski then spoke briefly to the motion. He felt there was still a compelling need to retain Westmoreland and that without campus owned affordable housing for non-traditional students, international students, or for poor students who need below market level housing, the university would lose a certain amount of diversity. Senator Renee Irwin, PPPM, spoke against motion, feeling there was little new or constructive in the motion. Senate President Keyes called for the vote. The count was tied, 14 in favor of the motion and 14 opposed. With a tie vote, the senate president casts the deciding vote. He did so voting in favor of the motion, which then passed 15 in favor and 14 opposed.(See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/US056-11.html.)
With the hour growing late and with no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting March 8, 2006
Present: Present:J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, M. Dennis, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,
Excused:D. Close, S. Cohen, A. Djiffack, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, C. Minson,
Absent:K. Sheehan, K. Wagle
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Peter Keyes called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 282 Lillis.
Approval of the Minutes
Approval of the minutes from the November 30, 2005, January 11, 2006, and February 8, 2006 meetings were approved as distributed.
Update on the Ad HocAcademic Excellence Committee.President Keyes noted that there have been several productive committee meetings, one of which included the new incoming Provost Linda Brady, to discuss the broad topic of academic excellence. The committee will be working with Provost Brady to determine the direction this committee will take in the coming academic year.
Winter 2006 Preliminary Curriculum Report.In the absence of Committee on Courses chairman Paul Engelking, Registrar Herb Chereck brought attention to several changes/additions to the Winter 2006 Preliminary Curriculum Report: (1) on Page 4 under Linguistics, LING 602 will be listed under existing course changes instead of under new course with the request for a change of title from Supervised College Teaching to Supervised Teaching; (2) on page 11 under “Other Curricular Matters”, School of Law, the text “The Oregon University System has approved a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, effective fall term 2006,” was added; and, (3) the College of Education announcement to terminate the Early Intervention major in the College of Education was corrected to be effective fall term 2006 instead of winter term 2006. Hearing no further changes and with no further discussion, the motion to accept the Preliminary Winter 2006 Curriculum Report, as amended, was brought to a vote passed unanimously.(See http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen056/W06FinalCurrRpt.htm for the final report.)
Senate ad hoc Student Conduct Code Committee (SCCC).Senator Lisa Freinkel, chair of SCCC, reported that the Student Conduct Code revisions, as circulated in their current draft review form, were begun at least 10 years ago. A numbers of issues have come up over the years, such as dealing with unwanted sexual contact, to prompt code revisions that better reflect the realities and problems of date rape, non-consensual sex, and sexual assault. Jurisdiction of the code was solely limited to campus. Discussions of the code as related to sexual misconduct lead to issues of broader jurisdiction in terms that included not only sexual assault, but also physical assault that happens off campus. Earlier Student Conduct Code committees concluded they could not make effective revisions in a piecemeal fashion, which prompted the need for an overall revision of the code. In the course of beginning these revisions, another somewhat contentious decision was made to move away from the standard criminal procedure and make a change from a single hearings officer with students’ prosecution and defense lawyers, and work toward using a panel of students and faculty. Ten years of revision process reflects the difficulties in re-drafting a large, complex document such as the conduct code.
Senator Freinkel noted that General Counsel Melinda Grier has reviewed the revisions to ensure their legality. The proposed new code is consistent with what is becoming “best practices” in universities across the country, and is acknowledged by attorneys and users of student conduct codes that the best model is an educational model (as compared with the current criminal model). Their consensus is that colleges and universities should take care of their own students’ conduct, and that an educational model is less formal and less intimidating. Ms. Grier continued adding that by removing the criminal overlay of the code, the hope is that students will not feel the need to obtain their own legal counsel; if a student is found responsible for code violations, sanctions imposed would be more conducive to a learning experience than a criminal procedure.
During a question and answer session, Priscilla Southwell, associate dean of CAS, stated that assault is a criminal offense; if a student engages in this type of activity and is not prosecutable by regular police off-campus, why should the UO be involved in dealing with it? Ms. Grier replied that definitions of assault behaviors in the student code and in the criminal code are note necessarily identical. Decisions to prosecute made by the police regarding assault, that is, violations of the criminal code, may well be violations of our student conduct code, but in different contexts. The decisions made by the state may not be the same decision that the university would make regarding acceptable student behaviors.
Other members of the SCCC, Bill Daily, business, Chris Loschiavo, student judicial affairs, and Laura Lawson, student member, highlighted some of the proposed changes to the code and put them in context. Mr. Daily reiterated the emphasis on moving toward an educational rather than criminal format as a means for dealing with violations. He noted that an attempt has been made to simplify procedures, and further, if the proposed revisions do not meet their intended purpose, they too, can be revised at a later time. Mr. Loschiavo noted that educational models of student conduct codes have stood up when tested in court proceedings. Such codes give students an opportunity to speak for themselves, which is learning experience. The revised code is written to treat all students the same way, with equal care, honesty, and dignity. He noted that the committee tried to take the adversarial nature out of the code to foster fact finding in order to make the best decisions. Ms. Lawson commented that students were included in the revision process, which was contradictory to assertions made in a recent Daily Emeraldarticle that said students were not involved with the rewriting.
With the discussion winding down, President Keyes noted that the senate will use a second meeting in May on the 24th as a business meeting and move the year end organizational meeting to May 31st.
Diversity Plan Report.Charles Martinez, interim vice provost for institutional equity and diversity, presented an overview of a revised draft of the draft diversity plan released in spring 2005. He noted that a working group of 14 people, the Executive Working Group, contributed to the current draft. He emphasized that the document is a draftthat represents diverse opinions, sets directions, empowers colleges and schools to do their own strategic planning, and is developmental in nature; thus, it does not address immediate problems but is a plan for the future.
Mr. Martinez continued that the draft is tied to the UO Mission statement in affirming the “ the principles of equality of opportunity and freedom from unfair discrimination for all member of the university community and an acceptance of true diversity as an affirmation of individual identity within a welcoming community..”. And further, the draft plan affirms the university’s commitment to equity, to diversity, and to the development of faculty and students who will participate in the global community. Mr. Martinez emphasized that the relevant diversity data (presented to the senate at an earlier meeting) and real life experiences of students demonstrate the need for the plan. He noted that it is a guiding document that sets minimum, not maximum parameters for effort, and mandates strategic planning at the school, college, and unit levels. Planning at these levels should include faculty, staff, students, and community-diversity representation to help guide the planning. He further stated that some new initiatives identified have resource implications, while others are cost neutral. His office is charged with reviewing existing resources and looking at their effectiveness and that they are used appropriately.
Mr. Martinez noted that each school, college, and unit would be responsible for submitting activity reports each year to the provost and him (the vice provost) documenting progress on strategic plans. In turn, the provost will prepare a written and oral report for the senate and larger public each year that summarizes individual reports, progress, and challenges. A full review of progress on outcomes for each strategic plan would occur every five years, with strategic plans consequently revised. The university’s plan also is to be reviewed and revised as needed every five years, with an ongoing climate review at least every two years. Timelines for these activities will be set by the provost and vice provost as stipulated along with the release of the final plan.
Mr. Martinez next noted the six main points of the plan: (1) developing a culturally responsive community, (2) improving campus climate, (3) building critical mass, (4) expanding and filling the pipeline, (5) developing and strengthening community linkages, and (6) developing and reinforcing diversity infrastructure. He pointed out that the term diversity is given a broad meaning to include differences such as those based on race, ethnicity, national origin or citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic class, and political affiliation or beliefs. Mr. Martinez acknowledged the controversial responses generated by the term “cultural competency” in the first draft. He said the Executive Working Group defined the term as an active and ongoing process of self-reflection, learning, skill development, and adaptation, practiced individually and collectively, that enables us to engage effectively in a culturally diverse community and world. Cultural competence allows us to recognize that our statements, convictions, and reactions are conditioned by the culture in which we live. It enables us to bring this knowledge to bear in out interactions so that we can to participate respectfully and effectively in out pluralistic university, state, county, and world. Mr. Martinez acknowledged a need for further conversation about the term’s meaning in higher education, and at the UO specifically; but he noted that the draft plan does not use the term, and neither dictates nor discourages use of term in college, school, or unit strategic plans. Mr. Martinez closed his presentation by saying that President Frohnmayer is now soliciting for members of a Diversity Advisory Committee, charged with getting feedback on the draft plan to the president with recommendations for consideration by the president into the final plan.
During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, commented that he appreciated the incredible amount of work that went into creating the new draft document. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, raised the issue of whether the senate procedures regarding the plan would be to adopt or to endorse the plan, feeling that the plan should be brought to the senate for its adoption. Lastly, a senator raised the point that the Westmoreland Housing issue, especially as it relates to the many minority students who live there, was not specifically addressed in the draft plan, which he felt should be included as a diversity issue. He further took issue with the overall intention of the plan, wondering if its intention was to reduce numbers of minority students and faculty who are overrepresented (in terms of their proportion when compared with other diversity groups). He opined that this aspect of planning was not addressed in the revised draft. Mr. Martinez replied that the plan provided no litmus test for “too many” of any one minority or diverse group, but felt there were provisions in the plan that addressed the broader community issues such as those generated with the proposal to sell Westmoreland. (See http://vpdiversity.uoregon.edu/DiversityPlan3-6-06.pdf for the text of the draft diversity plan.)
Motion US05/06-5 to provide emeriti faculty access to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. Senate President Keyes noted that a notice of motion given at the May meeting of last year’s senate, dealing with rights of emeriti faculty members to have access to the senate floor for discussions and to introduce legislation, had been mistakenly not carried over to the fall term. Consequently, the motion was now put forth as follows:
BE IT MOVED that emeriti faculty of the university have the right to introduce legislation and shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate.
Parliamentarian Paul Simonds spoke against the motion, saying in essence that the retired emeriti faculty had plenty of opportunity for their input on senate and university matters when they were regular faculty members before their retirement. He stated that it was time for the current generation of faculty to move forward with their own agenda, discussions and legislation.
The rules were suspended to allow Frank Stahl, professor emeritus in biology, who was largely responsible for framing the motion and moving it forward. Mr. Stahl noted that when the senate was reconstituted into its current format, University Assembly members, which includes all faculty, were given the right to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. However, emeriti faculty members were not included as members of the assembly, and thus currently do not have the same rights as the regular (non-retired) faculty. Mr. Stahl felt this was an oversight, and thus he supports the motion to give emeriti faculty the right to the floor and to introduce legislation.
With the hour growing late and with a noticeable decline in attendance, there was a call for a quorum, which was met with 26 members still in attendance. However, Senator Peng, mathematics, then moved to table the motion until the April meeting in order to have time for a full discussion. The motion to table was put to a voice vote and passed.Motion US05/06-5 was tabled until April 12th.
Before adjourning, President Keyes noted that there are two notices of motion listed under the new business section of the agenda; he will forward those motions to the senators in time for consideration at the April meeting.
Present:S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Djiffack, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, P. Lu, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, S. Simmons, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,
Excused:C. Ellis, N. Fujii, G. Sayre
Absent:A. DuFour, D. Eisert, M. Filippelli, M. Irvin, L. Karim, T. Love, S. Maier, K. McKenzie, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, K. Wagle
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the university Senate was called to order at 3:10 p.m. in the Fir room of the EMU.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of the minutes from the October 12, 2005 meeting was delayed until the next senate meeting (November 30, 2005).
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SALE OF THE WESTMORELAND STUDENT HOUSING COMPLEX
Vice President for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke opened the discussion on the proposed Westmoreland Housing property sale by providing some basic statistics about the property and its current occupants. There are 404 one and two bedroom housing units (327 and 506 square feet, respectively), which account for roughly 48% of the university’s off campus housing units. Originally designed for student family housing, approximately 12% of leaseholders have children, half the rate of five years ago. Occupancy rate is 87% -- 353 leaseholders, 340 of who are actively enrolled at the UO. (By comparison, Spencer View housing with 272 units has a 91% occupancy rate.)
Using a series of pie charts, Ms. Dyke revealed demographics of the Westmoreland student leaseholders: 74% are US citizens, 26% are international students; 38% are doctoral students, 34% masters/professional students, and 28% are undergraduates. Of the US citizens, 7% have children; for international students, 4% have children. Nearly three quarters (74%) of the leaseholders are between the ages of 21 to 30 years old. In addition, Westmoreland has a childcare facility which currently has 44 children (28 FTE) enrolled; 10 are children of community members, 3 are faculty/staff children, and the others are children of undergraduate and graduate students.
Vice President Dyke explained that through the proposed sale of the Westmoreland property the university would be better able to achieve several campus initiatives such as generating funding for new and renovated housing projects, securing additional properties to meet the university’s needs, such as the large Romania property, and possibly expanding academic programs and facilities in Portland. She further indicated that the needs of the current student residents of Westmoreland have not been forgotten, and noted the following commitments made to these students:
Exiting leases are guaranteed through June 30, 2006;
Students with children have first right to other family housing and access to alternative day care on campus;
Moves of current residents into currently vacant units in other university housing will be facilitated; and
Advisors in financial aid and housing will work with each individual student lease holder to devise a transition plan to meets his/her needs.
Ms. Dyke continued by providing a chronology of steps taken to inform the residents of the request to the state board to sell the property. Interim Student Affairs Vice President and Director of Housing Mike Eyster and Vice President Dyke met with Westmoreland students for a preliminary discussion of the transition support that would be necessary for students. More such meetings are planned in a variety of formats throughout the year. Mr. Eyster will meet with the Family Housing Board at its November and subsequent meetings to discuss the transition issues. In addition, two transition support teams have been formed to assist with child care transition issues, and housing and graduate student transition issues. The first team is led by Work and Family Services Administrator Karen Logvin; Housing Director Eyster and Associate Dean of the Graduate School Marian Friestad will lead the other transition team. Student parents at Westmoreland, GTFs, student parents at Moss Street Children Center, non-traditional student ASUO representative, financial aid administrators, and international programs administrators will comprise the team members. Included in the tasks of these transition teams is performing needs assessment, meeting with parents, coordinating financial aid and services used and needed by international students, and identifying solutions for meeting assessed needs.
Vice President Dyke said that the university does not have an offer for the property currently, but two developers have expressed an interest in developing the property for affordable housing and there is speculation that there may be other developers similarly interested. In addition to receiving fair market value for the property, the state board may consider other factors before approving the sale. She then opened the floor for questions and discussion.
Questions from the senators raised a number of issues: how many graduate students and international students would be affected by the sale, and what might be the impact on recruiting graduate and international students if affordable housing is not available; what is the urgency for the sale at this time if not for pressing infrastructure and maintenance issues; what are the plans for using the proceeds of the sale; how long has the sale been contemplated, and why was there no consultation with faculty and students; how could the administration expect faculty and student support for the sale with no role in the decision-making process; what will be the consultation process for spending the money raised from sale of the property; and how does the property sale fit into overall campus planning.
In response, Vice President Dyke commented that the administration was aware of the disruption such a sale creates for current residents, but they were working through the transition teams to minimize the displacement concerns. The fact that there has been an expressed interest from several developers to create more affordable housing at the Westmoreland site may result in a minimal amount of disruption for current leaseholders and better, affordable housing available in the future. Ms. Dyke indicated that the administration is charged with stewardship of the university’s resources, and the proposed property sale is part of that stewardship. Mr. Eyster added that the administration is constantly thinking about future plans for the university through ongoing evaluation of its resources. He said that the possible sale of the property had been contemplated perhaps last fall. Regarding the urgency of the sale issue, the sale makes good business sense at this time because of declining occupancy rates, need for housing closer to campus, maintenance and infrastructure needs, and, money from the sale could be spent on other property and housing needs of the UO.
Another senator expressed concern for the lack of consultation about the sale and the negative impact the sale would have on recruiting and retaining graduate students if the amount of affordable housing is reduced due to the sale. Low graduate student salaries make it extremely difficult to find affordable housing. Ms. Bing Li, chair of the Westmoreland Council, was recognized by President Keyes to make a statement in opposition to the proposed property sale. She made a long, impassioned plea not to sell the property by providing data emphasizing the low incomes of students (GTFs), the lack of other affordable housing in Eugene, and the proximity of childcare available for those students with children. She discounted university claims that infrastructure and building maintenance was a legitimate reason for selling the property, suggesting that the recent $75 rent increase could be used for any physical maintenance problems, thus she questioned the real reason for selling the property. Ms. Li said the loss of affordable housing, which particularly affects graduate, international and minority students, is too detrimental for too large a number of students to go forward with the proposed sale, and also noted that a meaningful plan to relocate Westmoreland students had not been formulated. She stated that the university should do more to serve and support the students and children in Westmoreland, and not force them to make difficult housing and childcare decisions when they can least afford it. Saying that she just wanted a home, Ms. Li wanted a guarantee that the university would provide affordable housing for the current tenants. A number of students and leaseholders from Westmoreland were present at the meeting showing support for Ms. Li’s position.
As the discussion continued, a number of senators reiterated their concern over the affect on graduate student recruiting, the lack of faculty consultation on the issue prior to the decision to sell the property, and how the money from the sale would be spent. To address some of these concerns, Provost John Moseley spoke to the senators saying that there was a high likelihood that the property would continue to be used for housing and low rent housing, but run through private developers rather than by the university. He stated that whatever money is made from the sale of Westmoreland, that amount would go into university student housing. He clarified that in the short term the university will use some of the money for the purchase of the Romania site from the UO Foundation (which does not have the funds to purchase the site outright) and for another site near the university which may be used for housing or other uses. Some of the money would be used to transition the current Westmoreland students into other housing options. However, the provost again emphasized that in the end, the same amount of money gained from the sale of Westmoreland would be put back into improving student housing. The provost noted the university expects to build more student housing, but if it does not proceed with the sale of the Westmoreland property, the university will have no opportunity to do such building.
To a question about how the sale would affect classified staff who work at the Westmoreland facilities, Mr. Eyster responded that no layoffs were likely. As the discussion drew to a close, some senators again expressed their continued dismay with not having been involved, through the Campus Planning Committee or through the senate, in the decision-making process, alluding to the lack of consultation last year surrounding the Howe Field site for a possible proposed basketball arena.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
University President Dave Frohnmayer opened his remarks on the state of the university with data that revealed a modest increase in fall enrollment to approximately 20,500 students. He report that there is greater variety in student origins and that the incoming student GPA average is 3.49. He also noted that the planned 7% tuition increase was “bought down” by the legislature to a 3% tuition increase level. The president then touted the successful combining of Freshman Convocation with the traditional campus Fall Convocation. Over 4,000 people attended the new joint convocation at the start of the academic year where new faculty were introduced and nationally acclaimed University of Maryland Professor of Physics Dr. Jim Gates communicated ideas at the frontiers of particle physics to the assembled students, faculty, parents and community members. The success of the new combined convocation format warrants its continuation next fall.
The president then touched briefly on several campus topics of interest.
Diversity report.The draft diversity report released last spring was worked on by an executive working group as well as a number of faculty members over the summer months. The updated working draft of the 5 year diversity plan is nearing completion and will be vetted internally this fall. He indicated, too, that the journalism and communication school already has their diversity plan developed.
Westmoreland property sale.The president reaffirmed his awareness of the humanitarian consequences of the Westmoreland property sale. He stated that the university will continue to make the UO attractive to international students and a diverse student body. Although he did not know at this time either the identity of buyer or the timing of the sale, he indicated that if the price was not right, there would be no sale. The president recognized the sale would be a disruption in students’ lives, but, on balance, he felt the opportunities the sale would provide – new student housing and others -- merited proceeding with the sale.
Provost search.There has been a high level of engagement with the candidates for provost. He commented about the importance of the provost position and commended the search committee for their work on such a daunting task. The campus visits will be concluded by the end of November.
Basketball arena. The president said there is no arena – there is an arena site (the Williams Bakery site). He indicated that the university has raised funds for a design phase, but the project needs a heroic effort and gift for the arena to become a reality.
Budget and comprehensive campaign.He reiterated that he expects the university to have a balanced budget for the biennium and that faculty salaries are the highest priority. The comprehensive campaign is at $371 million as of September 30, 2005. Grants and contracts have increased by approximately 50% this past year.
Building improvements. The president listed the campus building projects over the past 24 months: Lillis, the Art museum, Living Learning Center, Hayward Field entrance, Student Recreational facilities, Many Nations Longhouse, Student Health Center improvements, ground-breaking for the Education College expected in August 2006, and improvements are planned for Robinson Theatre.
Academic Initiatives.The president noted that a Humanities Roundtable was held recently dealing with topics exploring how the humanities might be taught differently and how to make the humanities more visible. The East Asia initiative has resulted in 70 faculty who have significant scholarly engagement with Pacific Rim people and places.
During a question and answer period, a senator asked the president what price the UO would accept for the Westmoreland property and what type of buyer was sought in relation to student needs. President Frohnmayer replied that he had no income test, but that he does have concerns about childcare and rent costs in considering the overall offering price. He is looking at remediation effect for students.
Several notices of motion were given. Senator Matt Dennis, history, gave notice of a motion to amend US03/04 to enable the University Senate to convene with full legislative power. Faculty member Louise Westling, English, gave notice of a motion for the University Senate to sponsor public hearings on the implication of the UO’s relationship with the Department of Defense and campus research activities. And President Keyes reported that he received a motion from faculty member Paul Engelking, chemistry, to limit wireless computer internet access for students during class time. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/ senate.html for full text of these motions.)
Emeritus Professor Frank Stahl provided some clarifying information regarding the motion to convene the assembly with legislative authority. He explained that it was difficult to convene the assembly and meet the required quorum, as was experienced several years ago. Consequently, the proposed motion would require closing the university from 3:00 to 6:00 on the day of the assembly to encourage attendance to meet the quorum necessary to act as a legislative body.
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.