Minutes

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate Wednesday May 10, 2006

 

 

Present: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, H. Lin, R. Irvin, L. Karim, P. Keyes, N. Kinsey, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly*, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, T. Piering, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer*, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle

 

Excused: S. Brownmiller, A. Djiffack, C. Ellis, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, N. Tublitz

 

Absent: E. Chan, S. Holmberg*, L. Richardson, K. Sheehan, J. Stolet

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:07 by Senate President Peter Keyes.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the April 12, 2006 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks by member of the administration. President Frohnmayer was delayed in traffic traveling from Portland; his remarks were postponed pending his arrival and time available later in the meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Results of the faculty/staff spring elections. The secretary reported that the results from the recent faculty elections were posted on the senate web page and would be sent out by paper copy as well. She thanked everyone who participated, saying that nearly all positions are filled.

 

Schedule for remainder of the term. President Keyes reminder everyone that an extra senate business meeting is scheduled for May 24, with the main focus being the Senate’s action on the Diversity Plan. President Frohnmayer appointed a Diversity Advisory Committee charged with soliciting and hearing feedback on the draft that was released in March, and making recommendation for further revisions based on those comments. The recommendations for revision will be sent to the Executive Working Group for incorporation in to the final draft. A copy of the revised diversity plan, and memorandum explaining recommended revisions, will be available for senators’ review (and posted on the web) on May 14^th with action on the Diversity Plan set for May 24^th. The usual year end senate organizational meeting will take place the following week on May 31st in the Browsing room of Knight Library. In addition to the election of next year’s senate vice president, the meeting on May 31^st will have a reception to honor the Wayne Westling Award recipient and to welcome new incoming senators.

 

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Undergraduate Council report concerning grade inflation. Undergraduate Council chairman Ron Severson began his report noting that council members Mark Thoma and Registrar Herb Chereck compiled the data for the trends in the report sent previously to senators titled Grade Inflation at the University of Oregon. The council would like comment on the report: is grade inflation a problem at the UO, and if it is a problem, what should be done about it. The council wishes to stimulate a campus wide discussion on the grade inflation issue. The report shows distribution of grades at different level classes and looks at data by various characteristics, faculty demographics, and compares the UO to national trends. Percentage of A’s is up by 10%, percentage of A and B’s increased by 7%, and undergraduate GPAs by 5.1%; the UO data are roughly the same as national trends.

 

Mr. Thoma commented on the lack of data available to do an in-depth study, so the report reflects the council’s best efforts at organizing and analyzing data. They choose to break data down by school or college (professional schools/colleges) within UO and by division within College of Arts and Sciences. Data was sampled over several years and by grade level, selecting the 20 largest courses that persisted across 4 time periods, hoping those were the most influential courses. Other caveats were that the course had to be graded and had to have at least 20 students enrolled. Unfortunately, AAA, Journalism, Education, and Business samples were too small. Education had been dropped from the individual unit reports because the programs had changed too much during the time period, but where possible, kept in the aggregate data.

 

Mr. Thomas remarked that the data in the report is meant to be a starting place for discussing grade inflation at the UO. He noted too, that percentages reflect change in percentage, not the percentage change. He suggested that individual units look at the numbers to help determine what is occurring in their units. Mr. Severson emphasized that the Undergraduate Council was only gathering data, that they had talked to various bodies, and that they believed that the causes for grade inflation may be departmentally specific.

 

A discussion followed. Senator Gordon Sayre, English, inquired if grade distributions correlated with the kinds of people teaching courses. Mr. Severson indicated that it might differ from department to department. Mr. Thoma indicated it was not studied statistically and hoped that the various departments would ask those questions. Mr. Severson indicated that at every presentation, the relations between grades and course evaluations had come up.

 

Senator Anthony Hornof, computer and information science, wondered if there was a link between higher grades and higher evaluations. Mr. Thoma indicated that the Undergraduate Council had not studied that question; they had not attempted to do anything at the individual instructor level. Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht noted that the Teaching Effectiveness Program had gathered some data and urged the Undergraduate Council to look into the usefulness of their data. Mr. Severson noted that the Undergraduate Council had reported some things that other universities are doing. He discussed in some detail the policies that Princeton University had implemented. Senator Scott Maier, journalism and communication, inquired concerning how to “re-socialize students” about grade expectation in college versus high school, and noted that in many conversations had said to students that “C is not a failing grade” and “no I won’t change the grade”. It was noted that when this question was taken to students, that they had said faculty need to stand up to students and say “no”. Mr. Severson agreed that we needed to do better on that issue and noted that grade inflation at the UO is close to the national levels and also to the high school levels.

 

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, made the point that it is natural for grades to be higher at the 400 level as opposed to the 100 level, as there had been selective filtering going on. Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, commented that it was important to bring these issues up for discussion and thanked the Undergraduate Council. He wondered if some of the changes were demographic in nature; for example, the percentage of women had increased and women tend to get better grades. It was noted that institutional rules can change and thereby affect grade inflation. Mr. Thoma replied that they had made an attempt to look at student characteristics, but not gender. Mr. Severson concluded the discussion by urging those in attendance at the meeting to go back to their departments and talk about these issues. (For full text of the report, see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/UGC-GradeInflation8Mar06.pdf See also additional information provided at the Senate.)

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion to confer degrees. Mr. Hal Sadofsky, mathematics, represented the Academic Requirements Committee and made the annual motion to confer degrees as follows:

 

The senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2005-2006 and Summer Session 2006, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

 

There was no discussion and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion to recommend 2006-8 committee appointments. Senate Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht, who chairs the Committee on Committees, moved the approval of the committee's recommendations concerning 2006-8 university committee assignments. She thanked everyone who volunteered to serve on committees, and noted that the COC made an attempt to look at the amount of time service on the various committees entailed in order to make appropriate assignments. She noted that things could change over the summer, and if there were people who were disappointed that they were overlooked they should let the COC know.

 

The motion to approve the recommended committee appointments passed unanimously without further discussion.

 

Motion US05/06-9 – to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code. Senate President Keyes began with a brief historical review of the review process, noting that the process had gone on for over 10 years. Last’s year Conduct Code Committee had worked very hard in its attempt to finish it, but was at an impasse at year’s end. They presented their progress to date to the Senate at which time an ad hoc committee, chaired by Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, was appointed by then Senate President Marcus. The ad hoc committee worked throughout the year on the language and formatting. The revised code became public in February. With a lot of feedback, town hall style meetings and small group meetings were held before the ad hoc committee finalized the draft currently presented for discussion and a vote.

 

Senator Freinkel then presented the committee report, first reading from a prepared statement (see Appendix A). In brief, in 1994 the code had been revised concerning sexual misconduct off campus. The present code simply completes the work begun 12 years ago to bring the code into conformance with national standards. Jurisdiction is a major question: to what extent should the University deal with off campus behavior. Another major question deals with representation: should lawyers be allowed to represent (speak for) students at conduct hearings. Senator Freinkel noted that a large part of the discussion over the years concerned what we should think of ourselves as a community. She commented that the UO has a collective charge to nurture its community and cannot leave these values up to an external community.

 

Senator Jared Axelrod, ASUO, and who is ASUO president-elect, then read from a prepared statement (see Appendix B). He asserted that the current revised code under consideration needed to be improved, suggesting that it be referred to the Student Conduct Committee for further work. He said the further work could be completed in a single year (and would not take another 12 years). Senator Axelrod continued that he was troubled by the increase in administration authority in the code. He felt under the proposed code, students will have fewer rights and protections. He was concerned that they would lose the right to be represented by an attorney and also that the proposed code increased off campus jurisdiction.

 

Senator Freinkel then moved US05/06-9 as follows:

 

University Senate adopt the final draft of the revised Student Conduct Code.

 

Senate President Keyes opened the floor for discussion. The subsequent discussion was spirited and lengthy, dealing initially with the “legal representation” issue. Senator Freinkel explained that the desire was to move the code to a more educational environment where the students could tell their side of the story in a less adversarial, more conversational way. She noted that students have the right to have a lawyer with them as their advisor in a conduct hearing, but not to speak in place of the student. Mr. Chris Loschiavo, student judicial affairs, joined the discussion emphasizing that the university did not to be in the role of prosecutor. Senator Michael Filippelli, ASUO, also stated his concern that students would have less procedural protections and that the jurisdiction of the code has grown beyond the campus boundaries. Another student senator, Toby Piering, echoed this viewpoint with concern about the possible consequences and ramifications for students in a serious conduct hearing without a lawyer speaking for them. ASUO Senator Dallas Brown asked about the representation issue, wondering if there could be two different systems put into place. Mr. Loschiavo answered that it had been decided not to go in that direction. It is possible to have lawyers speak for each side if both parties agree, but it is such an adversarial process most people do not want to be part of it. He reminded the student senator that there is an appeals process, and, if that does not result favorably for the student, it can be taken into the court system.

 

A student senator asked why if the code permitted a lawyer to be present to provide advice, was it inappropriate to have a lawyer providing testimony and examination. Senator Freinkel noted that this topic had been considered by the Conduct Code Committee and rejected. She added that there were irreconcilable differences in philosophy at this point.

 

The rules were suspended to permit several students without access to the floor to speak. One student recounted his experience at the University of Minnesota where they had both an informal and a formal conduct code process. Senator Freinkel noted that this issue had been debated previously by the committee. Senator Psaki asked if the experience other universities have had with the best practices “model code” had worked. Mr. Loschiavo noted that he had professional and anecdotal evidence that it worked.

 

Student Steven Newman, Daily Emerald, was concerned the UO was putting this type of conduct code in place solely because everyone else was doing it. Senator Freinkel replied that was not the case; the changes proposed have been tried other places and seem to be working and fairer. The proposed changes are not radical. Ms. Laura Blake Jones, associate dean of students, noted that the vast majority of conduct cases do not go to a formal hearing (only 3 went to a formal process last year). A discussion was then held on record keeping and file retention. It was noted that the UO was not in compliance with state law at present: records have to be kept for up to 5 years after a student graduates in most cases, although in some cases records can be destroyed earlier. The code was revised to reflect appropriate compliance.

 

The role of the conduct coordinator (Mr. Loschiavo) was discussed, with emphasis that he does not develop policy. Senator Susan Gary, law, indicated that she supported the revisions in the conduct code, noting that there is a movement in the legal community away from litigated to alternative processes for dispute resolution. Another senator worried that in serious cases it was especially important that a student who could not speak for herself was permitted to have someone speak for her. She was concerned, too, about serious cases where consequences for behavior could also have criminal or civil consequences. Senator Freinkel responded that such cases were examples of why lawyers were permitted to be present.

 

As the hour growing late, the question was called. Senate President Keyes asked for a vote on the motion. A hand vote resulted in 24 in favor and 7 opposed. Several student senators then called for a “division of the house”. During a brief consultation on procedures with the Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, another senator asked for a roll call vote. The roll call vote again indicated 24 in favor and 7 opposed. Motion US05-06 – 9 to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code passed. (See Appendix C for the roll call vote.)

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

 

APPENDIX A – Statement from ad hoc Student Conduct Code revision committee chair Lisa Freinkel delivered during the debate in the UO Senate May 10, 2006 concerning the student conduct code

 

Times change. I'll be as brief as I can today, but I have a number of important points to make, and I hope you'll bear with me.

 

In 1996, I joined a Student Conduct Committee that was already in year two of the process of revising the student conduct code. That process had begun in 1994 with a very vibrant student-led initiative to revise the language in the code pertaining to sexuality. The students leading that initiative were concerned about what we would today call campus "climate" -- but that word wasn't much in circulation a decade ago. In those days there wasn't much of a sexual misconduct code, and there were no provisions enabling the university to address sexual misconduct off campus. And yet, as now, some 80% of students lived off campus. The students leading this initiative interpreted the University's inability to address almost all reported incidents of sexual assault as a lack of willingnessto do so. As a lack of concern.

 

Let me pause here to make my first important point: the question of jurisdiction is first and foremost a question of paying attention. What conduct do we think that we, as a University -- as a community committed to the pursuit of knowledge -- ought to notice, to pay attention to? In the case of academic dishonesty we and every university and college in the country recognize that location does not matter. Wherever plagiarism is thought to occur, the University pays attention. Now, paying attention doesn't necessarily mean pursuing action -- it certainly doesn't mean imposing specific or indeed any sanctions in any given case. It just means that we as a community affirm that we ought to care.

 

And so in 1994, a large and committed group of students made the case that we ought to care about alleged acts of sexual misconduct involving our students even when they occur off campus. They argued that not to do so is itself a decision -- a form of action -- that has a deeply chilling affect not just on alleged victims of such misconduct, but on the University community overall. It was a political argument; it was in many respects a feminist argument. And in certain ways, the UO was a trailblazer. We got national press, we got lots of local attention, and we got some people really mad. At the same time, the code revision passed unanimously in the University Senate.

 

Times change. Now, a decade later, different students are suggesting not only that we resist finishing what we started in the 90s, but that we revisit even the logic of the sexual misconduct code. Let me make my second big point here: by extending jursidiction in the question of violent offenses, we are simply completing the work begun more than a decade ago. We are also keeping with national best practices. In the existing code, we read that sexual misconduct is "an offense the University of Oregon recognizes as an act of violence." Back in the mid-90s, the students and faculty of the Student Conduct Committee were already arguing that other serious acts of violence warrant the University's attention off campus. That these acts can also have a deep impact on campus climate, particularly because acts of violence often dovetail with social intolerance -- with forms of discrimination be they sexual, racial or class-oriented.

 

Jared Axelrod on behalf of the ASUO executive, the Office of Student Advocacy and the student members of the Student Conduct Committee has argued that the Conduct Code should be remanded to the SCC [Student Conduct Committee] for further consideration. I'm going to talk about this suggestion in closing, but as it comes to jurisdiction, where's the real point of contention here? It isn't the issue of violence itself; instead the problem lies in the ad hoc committee's deletion of a single phrase: "and the alleged victim is a member of the campus community." We've argued that the sexual misconduct code itself is not currently limited in this way -- to impact on campus community members only -- and that other acts of violence should be treated similarly. Again jurisdiction doesn't necessitate action; what it opens the door for is accountability -- attentiveness. Picture, for instance, a racially motivated attack, an attack of a white student on a non-student person of color. Jurisdiction is about accountability. It's about community standards.

 

Okay let me make two more points and then close. In the past few weeks you may have heard the phrase "double jeopardy" bandied about. Even the Office of Student Advocacy has agreed that double jeopardy is not what's involved in administering either the current or the proposed student conduct code. But, a key philosophic point is hidden under this misnomer and we need to address it. In the name of avoiding "double jeopardy" the suggestion has been made that we back away from any apparent overlap between the conduct code and criminal or civil law. It has been implied that it is unfair for a student to have to "pay twice" for a single action.

 

To heed this kind of objection would be absolutely disastrous -- not only reversing the Code as it has stood for more than 40 years, but utterly challenging the way that we think of ourselves as a campus community. A university is not a service-institution. It's not -- at least not yet -- an institution where we educators deliver our service, where students receive our goods, and where everybody lives their lives elsewhere. If that were our institution, then we wouldn't really need a code of conduct any more than a supermarket needs a code of conduct. We could just deliver our service and be done with it, referring all misconduct to the courts and to the police.

 

But that's not my picture of a University -- and, for what it's worth, I am not alone here. The overwhelming majority of campuses nationwide have codes like the one we're proposing. OSU and Portland State do; our comparator institutions do. And why? Because a university is not a supermarket --  it's a community dedicated to the advance of knowledge... to the furtherance of society and of civilization. And at the heart of its mission is the need to maintain an environment where the rights, dignity, welfare and freedom of all members are protected -- is held sacred. Only then can true learning flourish. It's because of the preciousness of this sense of community that arguments about campus climate get made to begin with.

 

So I ask you to consider this discussion of the conduct code as part and parcel of our collective charge of nurturing a healthy community by defining our essential values. Respect. Responsibility. Freedom of thought.

 

These are not values that we should or even can leave up to an external community to define and maintain.

 

My last point: this proposed language needs to be voted on today. We've spent twelve years -- and by we, I mean students, staff and faculty -- hashing out the terms of the Code. The most contentious issue -- the so-called question of representation -- was voted on and decided by the SCC. This is perhaps the most discussed piece of legislation that has ever come before the University Senate. These revisions spent years in committee before they came to the Senate. The Ad Hoc Committee spent 2 months soliciting feedback and responding point-by-point to all feedback solicited. We conceded major issues, revised more than 30 provisions in the Code. The document you have before you today is indeed the result of many years of discussion among many, many stakeholders and it represents a serious spirit of compromise and conversation. The problem has been that there exists a fundamental difference of opinion here: the Office of Student Advocacy, the ASUO executive that it advises, and the students appointed by the ASUO to the Student Conduct Committee, these bodies fundamentally disagree with the philosophy behind the revision process itself. These differences are irreconcilable. These are the differences that deadlocked the SCC for years. It's because of this deadlock that the code was taken out of the SCC and put in the hands of a Senate ad hoc committee. To send the Code back to the SCC would mean the death of this revision process.

 

And so the decision is yours -- is ours to make... as it should be, according to the University charter.

 

 

APPENDIX B – Statement from SenatorJared Axelrod, ASUO representative, delivered during the debate in the UO Senate May 10, 2006 concerning the Student Conduct Code

 

The current code makes a lot of improvements. Over the many years of debate and discussion regarding the update of the code, students and faculty have made beneficial changes. These efforts have not been futile; and students have been appreciative of the opportunity to provide feedback to the committee regarding code revisions.

 

Nevertheless, more changes needs to occur before this becomes a permanent document. We understand there is a need for haste to approve this document. However, as students, we believe it is the duty of the Senate to approve a sound document that would adequately represent the needs of the campus community.

 

Due to the following concerns, we respectfully request that the proposed code be sent back to the Student Conduct Code Committee so that a finalized, cohesive, and beneficial code may be developed:

 

1.     We are troubled by the increased university administration's authority over student conduct procedures and policies. The proposed code changes the Director of Student Conduct's responsibilities from administering the Student Conduct Program to the ability to develop policies and procedural rules for the administration and hearings board regarding the student conduct system.

2.     We are concerned about a lack of a statute of limitations of non-academic offenses. An indefinite period of time for bringing non-academic misconduct charges in fundamentally unfair.

3.     Under the proposed code, students will have fewer procedural rights and protections. In recent changes, students will lose their right to be represented by an attorney, students will lose the right to have their advisor directly question accusers and witnesses, and students will loose the right to file motions, request depositions, submit rebuttal evidence, and engage in other administrative hearing practices.

4.     The proposed code increases the university's off campus jurisdiction. The ad-hoc committee has expanded off campus jurisdiction to reach beyond conduct aimed at university community members.

5.     The proposed code will allow increased retention of student disciplinary records. Possibly one of the most unacceptable changes, the ad-hoc committee has removed any reference to a time period for disciplinary file retention, however, it does provide a process for ``voiding'' files, a power which resides solely in the hands of the Director of Conduct and Community Standards.

 

We ask that all University Senate members review the document for what it is and the affects it will have on students, and not how much time has been put into it. We recognize that many years has been spent updating this code, but please do not disregard these important aspects in the final stages of approval. Students should have these fundamental rights, and until these are replaced under this proposed code, students cannot willingly support this document. As student representatives, we insist that you do not approve this code that you have before you today.

 

 

APPENDIX C – Roll Call Vote on Motion US05/06-9 to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code

 

Those in favor: C. Cherry, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, H. Lin, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, L. Moses, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, G. Psaki, G. Sayre, J. Sneirson, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle (23 total)

 

Those opposed: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, M. Filippelli, N. Kinsey, L. LaTour, C. Minson, T. Piering (7 total)

 

(Note: the vote tally was revised from 24 to 23 in favor, and 7 opposed, when it was realized shortly after the meeting that President Keyes’ named had been inadvertently called during the roll call vote. The revision did not alter the outcome – the motion was passed.)

Minutes of the Special University Senate Meeting March 1, 2006

 

 

Present: D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, R. Irvin, P. Keyes, C. McNelly, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet,

 

Excused: A. Hornof, L. LaTour

 

Absent: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, A. Djiffack, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, J. Newton, L. Richardson, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle

 

A special meeting of the senate to discuss the topic of Department of Defense (DoD) funded research on the UO campus, as required by Motion US05/06-2, was held on March 1, 2006 in room 180 PLC. University Senate President Peter Keyes invited panelists from different perspectives on the issue to make short opening remarks prior to opening the floor for discussion. In addition, Vice President for Research Rich Linton was asked to offer a brief history and current status of Department of Defense funding at the UO and Peter Gilkey, president of the UO chapter of AAUP, was asked to comment on the topic as it relates to academic freedom issues.

 

Members of the panel included Jim Hutchinson, professor of chemistry and researcher with on of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) projects, Helen Neville, professor of psychology and researcher with the Brain, Biology, and Machine Initiative (BBMI), Brian Bogart, graduate student in Peace Studies, and Louise Westling, professor of English. Ms. Westling was not in attendance, so Frank Stahl, professor emeritus of biology and researcher with the American Cancer Institute, offered to replace Ms, Westling on the panel.

 

Vice President Linton opened his remarks expressing his belief that free speech and interchange across disciplines is at the core of academic freedom. He noted that the focus of the forum should be on the UO’s sponsored projects and the policies that apply to its conduct. Consequently, his comments were primarily directed to provide information about the realities of the UO research efforts, especially related to DoD support. Mr. Linton explained that the UO’s formal association with DoD research dates to the 1950s; however, our best records date since 1990 and show the annual DoD sponsored funding to the UO has ranged from $1.4 million to $8.2 million, with and the corresponding annual percentage of UO’s competitive grant funding varying between 1.8% and 9.1% of the total. DoD funding at the UO has been routine for decades, and has been a significant contributor to research at an average of about 5% (plus or minus a few percentage points) of the total grant dollars per year. Mr. Linton noted that the UO prohibits classified research, thus the research results are in the public domain with the associated freedoms to publish and disseminate the information; the research is not “secret”. By banning classified research, the UO in essence prohibits activities relevant to direct weapons development.

 

Regarding current DoD funded projects on campus, Mr. Linton noted that funding for basic research is pursued by researchers in the same manner as with other federal agencies: it is the faculty members’ choice, and they are never required to accept such funds in support of their individual projects. Currently there are 18 active UO projects with about $14 million in funds received from DoD entities, such as the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Army’s Advanced Technology and Telemedicine Center (TATRC). These programs focus extensively on the ONAMI and BBMI initiatives, but there are significant fundamental research programs in areas such as surface chemistry, optics and photonics, electronic materials, and computer network security. He noted, too, that there are eight additional projects with about $1.5 million in funds received from subcontracts from non-DoD sources, but the original source of funds is the DoD. (One example is the new Chinese K-16 immersion program, supported by DoD, but with funds administered through the Academy for Educational Development to UO’s Center for Applied Second Language Studies.)

 

Mr. Linton summarized why the UO pursues DoD funding by listing a number reasons: it (a) supports the UO’s basic research mission, primarily in science and technology, (b) contributes to graduate education, (c) complements other funding sources for research, consistent with all UO policies, (d) stimulates collaborative research and outreach, (e) supports applications that have broader benefits to society, e.g., health care, (f) helps provide seed funds for new research areas that can then attract additional research support, and (g) focuses on basic research (in which we cannot control the ultimate societal applications or ultimate relevance to weapons systems (which can also be said for NIH, NSF, DOE funded projects). Mr. Linton noted that the Oregon Congressional Delegation is helpful in securing earmarked, targeted research investments that bring federal tax dollars back to Oregon’s universities.

 

Mr. Linton concluded his remarks by commenting that research funding at the UO is faculty-driven, the work is not classified, and results are in the public domain; thus DoD funding is not an inherent threat to basic academic freedoms. He suggested that if we eliminate the UO’s academic freedom to pursue DoD funding, what would be the next agencies to be questioned and what would be the political agendas behind such issues?

 

Panelist Frank Stahl spoke first in response to the point made that the UO does not conduct classified research. He said that the US spends more on defense (than other budget areas), using it for offense, not defense, than any other area of the budget. (Mr. Stahl provided handouts showing the military spending proportions of the US budget.) He opined that the US goal is world dominance and that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not making us more secure, but are instead raiding the US treasury. He further stated that our economy is a war-based economy driven by the military-industrial complex, and thus he questioned if it is ethical to serve the Pentagon. Mr. Stahl indicated that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) goal is to fund high tech programs designed to give the US military an advantage in its roles and missions. On the issue of whether NSF and HIH funding is “cleaner” than DoD funded research, Mr. Stahl indicated that both NSF and NIH’s stated objectives are in line with university’s goals. He concluded his remarks by saying that neither the Congress nor the courts are doing anything to oppose the military-industrial complex mentality of spending, and thus it is up to individuals to speak out about it; indifference to the current situation, he opined, is not an ethical option. (Other materials in the handout included the UO mission statement, an article from the Defense Sciences Office indicating that DARPA is really about brain research, a listing of BBMI’s defense-related applications, a lobbying letter from the AAU to the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, signed by the executive committee of the AAU, of which President Frohnmayer is a member, and an edited email exchange between Mr. Stahl and a former UO professor of history on the meeting’s topic.)

 

Jim Hutchinson, who is a faculty project manager for one of the ONAMI projects funded by the US Air Force, was the next panelist to speak. He began his comments indicating that ONAMI projects are not related to weapons research or classified research; rather, it is faculty driven research doing the same kind of research as that funded by NSF, DOE, and NIH. Mr. Hutchinson said that DoD funded research projects serve several functions: to broaden the resource base to support faculty scholarship during a very difficult funding period, invest in young faculty’s start up resources, support graduate students, and build state-of-the-art research infrastructure (like the CAMCOR facilities) that benefits the entire campus research community.

 

Mr. Hutchinson then provided descriptions regarding the positive outcomes of his safer nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing initiative, such as applying green chemistry principles to nanotechnology, discovering production techniques that do not generate waste and pollution. He noted that DoD funding allows him to lead and influence efforts that are focusing only on problems, not solutions, and which support interdisciplinary programs that are so broad ranging they fall between the cracks with traditional funding sources. Mr. Hutchinson listed a broad array of the types of science the DoD funds support which have wide-ranging benefits for both the DoD and societal interests in fields such as communications, medicine, and electronics. He re-empathized that the projects are faculty driven in the same way that other faculty research funding is pursued. Mr. Hutchison concluded his remarks by saying that DoD research funds provide seed funding to make researchers more competitive for other funding, allow for basic research discoveries that enhance economic development in Oregon and spur other research activities, and provide critical additional resources in a diverse funding portfolio during times of decreased support for research.

 

Peter Gilkey spoke next representing the view of the AAUP on academic freedom. In the interest of brevity and cutting right to the heart of the matter, Mr. Gilkey conveyed the notion that freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry are at the very core of a university. He stated that freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry (including pursuing research inquiry interests) are not relative “goods” to be balanced against other competing “goods”; rather, they are absolutes. Mr. Gilkey noted that classified research, by its very definition of not sharing results, is antithetical to university research. Mr. Gilkey concluded his remarks citing his belief that professors should be free to pursue research ideas and funding for them, and that absent freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, one does not have a university.

 

The next panelist to speak was graduate student Brian Bogart. Mr. Bogart began his remarks by saying that the meeting was really about democracy, and went on to talk about the US and USSR Cold War experiences, suggesting that the men who control national policy have kept the US in a war mentality. Mr. Bogart clarified that he is not against the military, science, or defense, but that he is against the increasing dependence on, and the growth of, the military complex. He stated that the US defense policy is unilateral and that the government is pursuing a policy of manipulating the people to its own goals. Mr. Bogart pointed out that while military funding is growing to ever higher new levels, basic needs such as funding for schools and infrastructures, such as roads, go wanting. He suggested that we have been asleep at the wheel, and that militarism is evil. By refusing DoD funding, the UO is expressing the freedom to choose other means to gain knowledge.

 

Helen Neville was the final panelist of the afternoon. She provided a brief history of the BBMI at the UO, noting that the overarching goals are to foster the understanding of the biological basis of cognition, action, and complex behavior in general. She commented that the involved UO researchers sought and received funding for BBMI from NSF, NIH, private foundations, and donors, and then members of the congressional delegation on a visit to the UO offered to help obtain further funding for the BBMI from Congress. Ms. Neville indicated current research occurs in three primary directions: (a) basic research, to discover the infrastructure for genomics and proteomics, mammalian genetics, neuroinformatics, and magnetic resonance imaging so that we could study, in animals and humans, the biological mechanisms of different cognitive processes, such as attention; (b) clinical neuroscience, which uses the results from the basic research to characterize how these systems are affected after different types of brain damage; and (c) brain development and education, which characterizes how the systems important for cognition and action develop, the degree to which they are genetically constrained, and the role of input from the environment in shaping their development and function. She stated the her research looks at how to fix deficiencies in brain function, and that the real goal is to disseminate information via scientific journals, provide information to parents and teachers (through workshops), physicians and policy makers (such as those in the Head Start program) in order to make a difference in human society.

 

With the panel presentations concluded, a motion was made and passed to suspend the rules of the senate in order to open the floor for discussion among everyone in attendance (students, community members, etc.). The floor was open for a question and answer period. (Note: some speakers identified themselves, but many others did not and are identified as audience members.)

 

Mike Posner, psychology, asked Mr. Stahl if he though the UO should eliminate all government agency funding. Mr. Stahl replied that the DoD controls such a large amount of UO funding it must be brought under control. If the UO starts denying DoD funding, that would let the government know that we are not interested in world dominance. Another faculty member asked if eliminating the research that is beneficial is better than not doing the beneficial research at all. Mr. Stahl replied that we need to find other funding sources. He acknowledged that if it is only the UO that makes a statement to deny DoD funding, it would be futile; but if all US universities deny the DoD funding, it would make a powerful statement. Another audience member supported this notion, saying that there is a point in not going along with accepting funding from the DoD; our Congressional representatives would then need to lobby other sources to receive funding. Mr. Bogart commented that there are more than 300 universities with DoD funding. He asked rhetorically, if we do not stand up now (and say no to DoD funded research), when should we? Mr. Bogart noted that UC Berkeley is interested in collaborating against DoD research funding.

 

The discussion moved to the issue of whether DoD research funding was ethical. Individuals spoke on both sides of the topic, some saying the work they were doing was not war related, and had a positive societal impact, others suggesting that individual faculty researchers could (and should) have the freedom to make their own choices regarding what type of research they pursue and by whom it is funded. Others made the point that all DoD funding is ultimately interested in making individual soldiers better warriors as well as the military, in general, more lethal in its activities; accepting funding from the DoD was tantamount to supporting war efforts. Some individuals noted that although they disagreed with the DoD’s aggressive war postures, they felt each faculty member ought to be able to decide what kind of funding to pursue. Still others believed that the only way to get control of the out-of-control DoD spending going on, was to make our own statement in opposition to DoD research funding, to not do the research, and to encourage all other research universities to take a similar stance that would send an undeniable message to the government.

 

An audience member asked at what level the ethical decision applies: for individuals, or for the entire university. For example, basic research ultimately may be applied in ways some would consider ethically “good” while others would consider it ethically “bad”. And where does one draw the line? If the UO denies DoD funding now, in the future would we deny funding from another government agency that is funding research in other ethically questionable areas, or even political areas? Proponents of rejecting DoD funding said that they felt the reach of the DoD (through the military industrial complex) is so far out-of-balance, and our control lacking, that a stand against receiving DoD funding was the most powerful statement that could and should be made by the university. Individual researchers could seek funding through other sources.

 

Regarding attempts to find other funding sources, Mr. Linton indicated that DoD funding accounts for about 5% of the UO research funding. He noted that success rate to obtain NSF funding is down to about 20%. Because DoD funding is specifically earmarked for certain projects, the UO strategically looks at what projects faculty members are interested in pursuing to see if there is a fit. Mr. Bogart remarked that he did not trust how the DoD spent its research funding. Mr. Stahl added that he will introduce legislation in the April senate meeting to require President Frohnmayer to lobby the AAU not to lobby for DoD research funding. Mr. Stahl also reiterated his position that the goal of the DoD is to make the US the best fighting force in the world, and the UO needs to ask itself it subscribes to this goal.

 

Mr. Bogart and Ms. Neville exchanged opposing views on whether the type of research done via the BBMI was tied to supporting weapons based research (as outlined in the DoD funding application description), or was used for positive societal outcomes, as explained earlier by Ms. Neville. A member of the audience commented that the afternoon’s discussion really was a discussion of academic freedom. He did not think it was the role of the university to foster any one political viewpoint at the expense of individual researchers’ lines of inquiry. He noted that all researchers have potential problems with how their research might be used or applied by others, but it should not inhibit the freedom to pursue certain research interests. Mr. Tom Dyke, chemistry, agreed with this position, saying that many types of research would offend others, but it should not curtain research in a democratic university; similarly, a student added, if we curtail some funding (DoD), on what basis would the UO make decisions to curtail other funding sources that were seen by some as offensive.

 

Comments for the remainder of the session seemed to fall on one side or the other regarding whether this issue was primarily one of fundamental academic freedom, or one of ethical decision making regarding the DoD (military), and who should make those decisions, the individual faculty member/researcher or the university.

 

As the hour grew later, the discussion wound to a close. President Keyes thanked the panelists and members of the audience for their participation in the forum and adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

 

---

Minutes of the University Senate February 8, 2006

 

 

Present: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,

 

Excused: N. Fujii, A. Hornof, L. LaTour, L. Richardson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard,

 

Absent: E. Chan, A. Djiffack, L. Karim, K. Sheehan, 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

 

Due to late availability, approval of the minutes from the November and January meetings were postponed.

 

State of The University

 

President Dave Frohnmayer spoke briefly on several topics of interest. First, the president indicated that enrollment levels have been sustained at least at the levels expected. Although admissions for the coming year will likely be flat, they will reflect the mix of students – national and international, in-state and out-of-state – that will be good for the diversity and fiscal health of the university. Secondly, the president spoke about the strategic planning process of the university that has been taking place through the State Board of Higher Education. Part of the planning involves addressing governance issues in respect to the relative autonomy of each OUS institution, but at this point, there is no clear indication of what the board may be thinking on this issue. Next, President Frohnmayer commented on the extraordinary effort the Diversity Plan executive working group has made to ready the draft plan for review by various groups, such as the Faculty Advisory Council, the Senate Executive Committee, and student groups. After several weeks of feedback from these groups, a more precise document that outlines the roll out of the diversity plan, including timelines and implementation, will be made available.

 

Lastly, the president updated the senate on the Westmoreland proposed sale matter. He noted that the Department of Justice has okayed the request for sale proposal and that the university is proceeding. There is not likely to be any action on the proposal before May. The president further noted that the administration was proposing the sale in response to a housing crisis identified in an ad hoc 2002 senate report noting the poor conditions and inadequate housing for students on campus. At that time, no monies were available to improve housing. The proposed sale of Westmoreland would help remedy the housing situation for all students. If a buyer, acceptable to both the university and the state board is found, the proceeds from the sale would be used for several purposes: renovation of existing residence halls, paying off our debt share (about $1 million per year) of the OUS consolidated debt pool created by other campuses’ buildings; purchasing other properties (the Romania property from the UO Foundation, and the Department of Transportation property in the south part of Franklin Boulevard); and remediation for students and families if displaced from Westmoreland. Additionally, child care issues are being addressed by a working group to make plans to meet those needs through other campus child care facilities. With his remarked concluded, the president opened the floor for questions.

 

Senate President Peter Keyes asked President Frohnmayer to comment on the possibility of medical programs being offered at the UO in conjunction with OSHU and Peace Health. President Frohnmayer responded that in the face of an aging cadre of health providers – doctors—50% of whom will retire in 10 years, he was approached about a year ago to see if the UO would be part of a consortium to help provide medical education. He said there were many upsides to participating in such a consortium, such as better health services eventually and a better library. If the plan develops further, perhaps the 3^rd year student cohort would be on campus this summer. He noted that CAS, the departments of Biology and Human Physiology, and the Graduate School have been examining these possibilities for doctoral programs. Senator Regina Psaki, romance languages, expressed her amazement that the senate had not had any discussion on these new programs. The president responded that it is difficult to know when to share an idea that is still only a notion more broadly. He noted that the FAC was consulted. Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, confirmed that his department has been talking about the medical education possibility for a while, but recently the idea has started to come together very quickly. He offered his opinion that it was a great opportunity. Concerns were expressed about the allocation of resources, for the library, for example. President Frohnmayer indicated the program would only be expanded if new resources were provided.

 

Questions then focused on the proposed Westmoreland sale. Senator Mike Pangburn, decision sciences, asked when the Westmoreland units would be replaced. The president answered that until there is knowledge on who the buyer is and how the property might be used, there is no way to know at this point how many, if any, of the housing units will go away. Senator Jon Jablonski, library, asked about the loss of $400,000 that is generated by Westmoreland. President Frohnmayer replied that cash from the sale enables bonding and can be leveraged many times over. Next, Senator Matthew Dennis, history, expressed his belief that more communication, as well as the kind of communication between the administration and the faculty would be welcome. He also said that to the extent that a possible controversy or concern can be anticipated, involving more people in the discussion and decision process sooner would be helpful. He noted that a concern about the sale is that the students at Westmoreland are often international, graduate, and/or with children, and that their needs are being sacrificed for the undergraduate student needs. Elimination of Westmoreland housing will affect graduate student recruitment. President Frohnmayer responded by saying that it is hard to talk about the sale without creating uncertainty, thus until the university is really ready to pursue the project, one does not wish to cause unnecessary concern. He commented that he is very concerned about the entire campus and the quality of our students’ lives – to delay the process further delays action to help solve the housing problem. Further, he suggested that he is quite aware of our international student population, and the way to deal with recruitment issues is through financial aid and other academic inducements beyond the housing issues.

 

Senators Shaul Cohen, geography, and Nathan Tublitz, biology, engaged the president in a lively exchange regarding the senators’ desire for more inclusion, consultation, and shared decision-making before major decisions at the university are announced. The president expressed his belief that the university charter recognizes there is a difference between the core matters of academia, such as curriculum and academic reputation, and the responsibilities of administration. Faculty governance does not extend to co-decision-making on administrative decisions of the kind that involve university housing and axillaries; it has never been the province of the faculty through shared governance. He continued that there is a difference between faculty and administration responsibilities and co-governance as exhibited through lines of accountability. Senator Cohen responded saying that he differed in that view of shared governance, and to be told that the faculty should only be concerned with academic issues was very disenfranchising. He continued that the faculty, many of whom work here for decades, are very invested in the decisions that the university makes. President Frohnmayer clarified that throughout his tenure as president of the university he has purposefully not drawn a line between the roles of the administration and faculty and does not intend to do so. His example was one that simply (and legally) identified the areas of his accountability to the governor, the state board and to the university as a whole.

 

Senator Tublitz then raised two issues. First, he clarified that the report from the ad hoc committee on housing that he was involved with did not mention balancing the need for improved housing on the backs of graduate students, such as the ones in Westmoreland. It did mention a need to free up funds, but the human costs in the Westmoreland sale are very large and go beyond the campus. He contended that the human costs have not been fully considered by the administration. Second, Senator Tublitz asked the president if any action has been taken regarding the two recent senate resolutions (a) to waive the fees charged to Westmoreland Tenant Council for their public records request and (b) to restart the process of considering the sale of Westmoreland. President Frohnmayer replied saying that he disagreed with Senator Tublitz’s comment suggesting that he had not considered the human factors involved with the proposed sale. Regarding the public records request, the general counsel has asked the requesters to narrow the scope of the request and, if done so reasonably, the request would be free of charge. He was not aware of any response from the requesters. As for restarting the sale process and involving stakeholders in future planning processes, the president indicated that there is no actual proposal from buyers at this point, so beyond the comments and current discussion, there is nothing at the moment to discuss further. Senator Tublitz lamented that there had not been an open conversation before a decision was made to sell Westmoreland. Referring to the need for shared governance between the administration and the faculty, Senator Tublitz made the analogy that the head of a family (e.g., the university) must consult with members of the family before making important decisions. The discussion drew to a conclusion as Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, urged both the administration and the senate members to try to come to terms with their differences, believing that we all have the best interests of the university in mind, though there may be different views on how best to achieve it.

 

ANOUNCEMENTS

 

President Keyes announced that a senate forum on the issue of Department of Defense funded research on campus was tentatively scheduled for February 22^nd with 6 panelists: 1 current DoD funded researcher, 2 professors opposed to DoD funded research, 2 in favor of DoD funded research, and 1 speaking from the AAUP’s academic freedom viewpoint. (Note; the forum was subsequently rescheduled to March 1^st.)

 

Senator Jablonski reported that the fee for documents requested by the Westmoreland Tenants Council had been reduced from $2,967 to $1,967. He noted that the Family Housing Board, a university committee, submitted its own much more narrowly focused request for information related to the Westmoreland sale. It is hoped that these documents in conjunction with those requested by the tenant’s council will provide the information needed to argue against the sale. Senator Jablonski thanked Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Mike Eyster, who heads the Family Housing Board, and other senators who supported the resolution (US05/06-3) to waive Westmoreland document request fees, citing his professional obligation as a librarian to foster open access to information.

 

President Keyes next moved the conversation back to faculty governance issues. A regular 10 year review of senate representation and/or reapportionment is due this year (2006). The president remarked that it would be a good time to look possible changes that might provide improved governance. He suggested several topics to consider: expanding the candidate pool for the senate president position; reviewing the status of classified staff representatives as participants in the senate; and adding the senate vice president as a member of the FAC. President Keyes also suggested a broader structure for consultation and advising on campus in which a senate committee would specifically advise each top administrator and would, in turn, have its committee chair be a member of the Senate Executive Committee. For example, the FAC advises the university president, the Senate Budget Committee advises the vice president for finance and administration, an academic quality committee advises the provost, a research policy committee advises the vice president for research, and an advancement committee advises the vice president for advancement.

 

In commenting about the proposed advising structure, Associate Dean Priscilla Southwell raised a philosophical question as to whether senate representatives were representing their own viewpoints or the views of their constituents. President Keyes responded that as a senator, he tried to get a sense of what his constituents felt about various issues, and Parliamentarian Paul Simonds concurred that representing constituents’ views was the intent when the senate was reformed ten years ago. Further comments noted that it is not always possible to have constituent views known, and that a “worldview” may be more appropriate.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Ad Hoc Committee on the Student Conduct Code. Senator Lisa Frienkel, English, noted that the proposed revisions to the code are available on the web page. She provided a timeline for how the process for revision has emerged over the past 10 plus years. Broader revisions have focused on issues of violence and sexual assault, especially when it occurs off campus. The Student Conduct Code Committee provided a draft revision last year to the ad hoc committee for final polishing and formatting. The code revision will be reviewed in the March senate meeting, have small group meetings for feedback the following several weeks, and get a final vote on the code at the April senate meeting. Senate Frienkel made clear that there was no intention to put aside the work of previous committees, but rather to finish and polish the document and get it ready for review, feedback and eventual promulgation. A member of the Student Conduct Code Committee asked for clarification as to when they would have a chance to respond to the revised code so that they could answer questions they may receive from students. President Keyes said there would be opportunity to get feedback in small group meetings after the March senate meeting.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US05/06-5. Mr. Andrew Marcus, geography, introduced briefly the motion US05-06 -5 to change the senate by-laws to permit emeriti faculty members access to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. The motion grew out of work done last year during his term as president, and came up during discussions about convening the University Assembly. The senate charter does not include emeriti as members of the assembly, and consequently, emeriti faculty do not have access to the senate floor for discussion or to introduce legislation as do members of the assembly. Another question arose concerning the definition of emeriti and whether emeriti have governance roles in their respective departments. The motion will be voted on at the March senate meeting. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/US0506-5.html for full text of the motion.)

 

IFS representative election. Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht preceded the election of new IFS representatives with a brief update on the IFS meeting held on the UO campus recently. Topics at the meeting included, institutional differentiation, research, state funding, benefits and salary rebalancing, background checks from human resources, general education requirements, strategic priorities, academic excellence, and access and affordability. Another issue discussed was the IFS faculty representative to the OUS board. Ms. Wagenknecht said she has more information on all these topics if senators want more information. Finally, John Nicols, history, has indicated a willingness to serve on the IFS for a 3 year term (January 2006 through December 2008). With no other nominees, the senate voted to appoint Mr. Nicols to the IFS. If others are interested in serving on the IFS, please let Ms. Wagenknecht know.

 

Senate ad hoc Committee on Research Policy. President Keyes suggested that perhaps it is time to revise the charge and make-up of the Technology Transfer committee, whose activities have changed as technology transfer has grown at the UO. Changes might be that it reports to the senate and advises the vice president for research. Issues that the committee might immediately address include outside funded research and also university defense of faculty research. Currently, the university will defend faculty research but not faculty publications, citing freedom of speech issues.

 

Ad hoc Committee on Academic Excellence. The new provost, Linda Brady, already is working with deans to define academic excellence. The senate feels this is a topic of concern to it as well, and thus the notion is to form an ad hoc committee on academic excellence that will meet with the new provost to discuss these issues. Out of the meetings with the new provost, the committee would present a report or perhaps white paper to the senate by the end of this academic year. Mr. Dave Hubin, executive assistant president, suggested that the proposed academic excellence committee should have a member on of the accreditation committee on it as well.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

 

---

Minutes of the University Senate meeting January 10, 2007

 

 

Present: C.A. Bassett, H. Briston, A. Coles-Bjerre, M. Dennis, A. Emami, P. Gilkey, O. Guerra, N. Gulley, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, P. Lambert, A. Mathas, T. Minner, C. Minson, K. Mourfy, J. Newton, D. Olson, V. Ostrik, A. Papiliou, C. Parsons, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, A. Schulz, A. Sherrick, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, N. Tublitz

Excused: S. Brownmiller, N. Fujii, B. Malle, K. McPherson

 

Absent: C. Bengston, G. Berk, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, S. Cohen, J. Daniels, A. Djiffack, C. Ellis, S. Gary, S. Holmberg*, L. Karim, L. LaTour, P. Lu, Corlea (Sue) Martinez*, M. Pangburn, F. Pyle, L. Richardson, K. Wagle

 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:04 p.m. in Columbia 150 by Winter Term senate president Suzanne Clark. Minutes of the November 29, 2006 meeting were approved as distributed. President Clark thanked Jeff Hurwit, who served as senate president Fall Term, for his leadership and guidance, and reminded senators of the importance of exchanging information about senate issues with their respective constituent faculty members.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

[Note: Because President Frohnmayer and Provost Brady were delayed in their attendance, President Clark asked for and received consent to proceed with committee reports until such time as the president and provost arrived.]

 

OUS Advisory Committee on Retirement Plan Changes. Joe Stone, economics, reported that a series of meetings for the advisory group, with representatives from all OUS campuses, is set for Winter Term with hopes to have their work completed in early spring. The initial focus is on the tax deferment options, then on the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). It was noted that Larry Dann, finance, has agreed to serve on the committee as well. Mr. Stone provided a packet of retirement plan related materials (see http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen067/dirJS-10Jan06/JS.html for copies of materials) including the OUS letter to the representatives on the committee, the charge to advisory committee, a background article from OUS from a finance magazine, an OUS outline of their thoughts concerning the retirement plan’s direction, and a commentary regarding turning investments over to the experts. He indicated that the objections and questions raised by the UO faculty have had a positive effect in providing an opportunity for individuals to opt out and continue with their current investment companies. Still, there are a number of questions remaining that need attention: What are the minimum steps required to meet the new federal regulations? Do they apply equally to various plans? Why should we expect a single provider to provide improved investment options and returns? Why should we expect transparency? What are explicit fiduciary requirements? What are our options if answers are not fully satisfactory? Mr. Stone invited interested faculty to contact him or Mr. Dann with their concerns about the proposed changes to the retirement plan.

 

Senate Budget Committee (SBC). Committee chairman David Frank, Honors College, reported that the budget committee is pursuing four agenda items in an effort to fully fund the White Paper developed in 2000 concerning faculty salaries and compensation. The SBC (1) aspires to work with the administration to achieve 95 % parity with our comparator group in the next 5-7 years; (2) plans to address salary compression and inversion, perhaps modeling the U. of Washington plan; (3) plans to continue discussion on the proposed changes in the retirement program; and (4) will try to pursue arrangements that the proposed salary increases offered by OUS not be tied to cost of living and not be across the board, and instead engage in a conversation as to how the money should be distributed.

 

During a question period Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, commented that because the original White Paper is 7 years old it would be a good idea for the university to reaffirm the concepts in the White Paper, and that salary enhancement is the number one priority. He suggested that the SBC could bring an updated White Paper, with the administration’s full support, back to the senate. Senator Ali Emami, finance, noted that non-tenure track instructional faculty are not included in the White Paper, to which Mr. Frank replied that NTTIF are accommodated in a separate process which was encouraged in the White Paper.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from President Frohnmayer. The president opened his remarks saying that he had just returned from meeting with the Campaign Leadership Council in Portland, and the campaign is more than 80% toward its goal (of raising $600 million) and right on target. Further, the president commented that the working assumption is that the White Paper is the document of record on faculty salary goals; he is committed to it. He reported a substantial effort is being made to raise faculty salaries: the governor’s budget for OUS includes $8 million for salaries, $6.9 million to reduce student-faculty ratios, and $14.6 million to help compensate for increased enrollments. Overall, the budget represents a 17% increase over the last biennium and would be a welcome step in a ten year period needed to rebuild higher education. The governor’s budget is not enacted, but there are indications of support for these major thrusts of the budget, and it contains $30 million bond for new science buildings, which is a testament to the strength of sciences at the university. He agreed, too, that the sense of urgency in addressing changes to the retirement system is felt mainly on our campus so it is doubly important to connect with other campuses on the matter.

 

The president then turned to the progress in the search for a new Athletics Director and the proposal for the creation and endowment of an academic learning center. In talking to the Athletics Director search team, he emphasized the following points. (1) The progress of the UO seen on a national scale has increased in visibility and stature over the past 10 years. (2) The UO athletics department has had financial stability and self-support over past 4 to 5 years, which is good, but is dependent on upon football and television revenue. The UO should try to be less dependent on a single source of revenue. (3) We need to maintain parity in the league and should proceed with plans to build a new arena to replace Mac Court. (4) He recommends our program continue to maintain close ties with other major sports programs and with NIKE, and (5) recommends senior leadership be addressed given the departure and retirements of certain people related to fundraising. And last, (6) the president noted the positive, caring atmosphere in the athletics department, with an overt engagement and dedication to the academic mission of the University. President Frohnmayer indicated that he may be looking for an interim position for 2 years or may find someone to be visionary over a longer, 10 year period.

 

President Frohnmayer remarked that although there has been a proposal for an academic learning center, there is no present commitment to build. He noted that the current academic learning center on campus in Esslinger is one of the worst facilities among the 120 Division I universities. The substandard conditions of the building have needed to be replaced for a long time, and it was planned to be part of a new arena. The president indicated the university has a commitment in 6 figures for a new academic learning center (ALC). The ALC envisioned would have a multiple use component, such as a 160 seat auditorium and well as other amenities and gathering places for alumni and the general student population. A possible location would be at Agate near Oregon Hall. It could be part of a larger set of considerations of a “neighborhood” development of student service in close proximity to and including Oregon Hall. Close to an alumni center already have a commitment to. This raises the possibility of having a variety of services located in that Oregon Hall neighborhood.

 

Remarks from Provost Brady. The provost began her remarks by reinforcing President Frohnmayer's comments about the positive Campaign Leadership Council meeting and she reaffirmed the positive outlook for the governor’s budget. She commented that it appears we will have an opportunity to move forward to redress the cuts that have occurred over the past decade; it’s a good first step. The provost, like the president, stated her support for the work of the Senate Budget Committee on improving faculty salaries. She also expressed recognition that research infrastructure is equally important in attracting and retaining the best faculty.

 

Provost Brady then noted the importance of turning our attention to issues of access and student success as part of her agenda for academic quality. She cited recent reports examining the record of flagship universities regarding the extent to which they serve the needs of minorities and low income students. The reports indicate that a wide range of institutions, including premier universities, receive grades of “D” or “F” in these areas. The changing demographics and nature of the future population that will be seeking admission to the UO have lead the provost to begin conversations about the feasibility of a program to enable the UO to ensure that any well qualified student who wants to attend the UO has an offer to attend, regardless of ability to pay. The provost will be talking about such a program over the next month or so, and believes a program of this type that supports strong students would reinforce our commitment to academic excellence.

 

The provost commented that a second element of the focus on academic excellence relates to student success, and how we might enhance it. She spoke highly of the new opened living learning center. Thinking about residence life and the kinds of environments in which students learn presents and opportunity to redefine what it means to be a residential campus. As the university pursues the long range student housing plans, the intent is to explore how a range of living environments for students impacts on learning. A strategic housing planning committee formed from an array of constituent groups -- faculty, students, administrators, members of the community – will be developing such a plan winter and spring terms.

 

Lastly, the Provost Brady commented on the possible academic learning center and its potential to be the first step in an effort to create a “neighborhood” related to academic learning and student success. She said that the university has a commitment to and appreciation of student athletes’ successes on the playing fields, and is also committee to providing the kind of academic support that enables them to be successful academically. The provost remarked that she has expanded her thinking on how the university might look at the Agate/Oregon Hall area to establish a gateway to the university dedicated to academic learning and student success. An alumni center and career services center might also be located in this neighborhood area, as well as some other academic learning services groups from across campus, all with a focus of advising, mentoring, and supporting students and student athletes academically. She expressed interest in thinking creatively about how the university might incorporate the residence halls on the East part of campus with this idea. She concluded her remarks by saying the she was supportive of this concept, and I looks forward to working faculty to find ways to better serve the academic excellence agenda for our students.

 

During a question and answer period, Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, asked President Frohnmayer why there was no written report from the paid consultant who was brought in to assess the athletics department. President Frohnmayer replied that he had an oral report and thorough debriefing with the consultant, the content of which the president reported on earlier in the meeting. The president said that a written report would be superfluous since the oral report and debriefing provide the major contours of the program and confirmed needed action.

 

The president then clarified, in a question from Vice President Gordon Sayre, English, that recent new academic buildings on campus have been paid for by a combination of private and state funding, citing the examples of the Law School (half from private donors), the Lillis Complex ($39 of $42 million from private funding), and the proposed Music School building (half from private funding sources).

 

Mr. Andrew Marcus, geography, raised a question related to the neighborhood concept of academic learning services, and the appearance that the proposed ACL project would be for student athletes primarily, and not for all students. The provost responded that the neighborhood concept was trigger by concerns to develop the entire area as a residential campus with support services for both student athletes and general students; the plans for such are at a very early stage. She plans to work with the FAC, students, and senate to develop the concept further, but it has just emerged in the past few weeks.

 

Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, pursued the question of whether the proposed ACL would be opened to all students, or only student athletes. Provost Brady answered that the neighborhood concept would capture footage in a number of buildings in the Agate Street/ Oregon Hall buildings to serve a broad range of students -- international students, student athletes, students of color, freshmen new to campus in residential hall, and other diverse populations on campus with distinctive needs. She does not envision that any one particular building could serve all those needs, and thus is exploring co-location of a number of buildings providing a range of student services. President Frohnmayer added that the current facility for student athletes services is in dire need of upgrading; the philanthropic opportunity presented in building a new ALC would meet those needs plus provide numerous other amenities -- a small library, a lecture hall, a small café – for the campus as a whole.

 

Senator Tublitz also expressed his disappointment that the proposed ACL would be for student athletes only, citing the relatively small number of student athletes compared with the rest of the student population, and that it is not consistent with our mission to educate all our students. He noted, too, that the search committee for the new athletics director had only two faculty members and was chaired by the vice president for advancement. He suggested that the plans for the new ACL be revisited to include all students, and that the AD search team have more faculty members added to it. Senate President Clark advised the senators that both she and FAC chairman Michael Moffitt serve on the AD search team and would welcome senators’ thoughts and opinions regarding the AD search in order to represent them on the committee.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

Joint Senate/Academic Affairs Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty and Course Evaluation. President Clark announced the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty and Course Evaluation, appointed jointly by the Senate President and Vice Provost Russ Tomlin in Academic Affairs to examine the content of on-line course evaluation forms and faculty evaluations. The committee is asked to report no later than the final meeting of senate in May 2007.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US06/07-7 -- to establish time periods for students to complete on-line course evaluations. Brad Shelton, mathematics, put the following motion on the floor:

 

Moved that,

 

At such time as the University of Oregon implements an on-line course evaluation system, the window of opportunity for students to fill out course evaluations will be Monday of Dead Week through the Monday following finals week.

 

Provisos:

 

1. This rule does not apply to the School of Law. The faculty of the School of Law will establish a similar window of opportunity that suits the needs of their academic calendar.

 

2. This rule does not apply to summer session. The rules for summer session courses will be established after a course evaluation instrument has been chosen.

 

After being seconded, the motion was open for discussion. Mr. Shelton reminded the senators that the motion deals only with the administration of the on-line course evaluation instrument under development, not the content of the evaluation instrument. The basic change being proposed is that evaluations could be done during both dead week and finals week. In other words, with the proposed change, students will have the opportunity to do evaluations after having taken the final exam, but before receiving their grades. Mr. Shelton also stated that his committee has discussed this proposal at great length and knows it is not without some controversy.

 

Mr. Jared Axelrod, ASUO president, was recognized to speak. He asked who the software vendor would be. Mr. Shelton said the vendor was not firm yet, but that he has seen one product demonstration being used at Stanford University that appeared very good; it was easy to use and administer, and was very flexible, two important criteria. Because the content of the evaluations is likely to change over time, it is important to be able to do so easily. Also, there is a desire to have better student access to evaluation information.

 

Senator Emami asked if there would be a trial period, and if we could revert to the old system if this was unsatisfactory. Mr. Shelton said yes, as long as the ability to process paper forms is available. Senator Tublitz brought up the issue of some faculty members posting grades prior to the final exams week. If students want final grades prior to the end of finals week, can they get them? Mr. Shelton responded that he hoped faculty didn’t post grades until after the end of exam week. He noted there are two different ways to post grades: one is to turn in grades to registrar, those grades are posted and students can access through DuckWeb; another way is to post in hard copy on one’s office (using random numbers for identification. Mr. Shelton said he preferred that faculty not use the latter means (faculty are not supposed to be doing this type of posting). He said that students could access their grade after they have finished the evaluation process at the earliest (assuming the faculty member has posted them electronically with the Registrar). Filling out the evaluation form is the incentive for getting grades as early as possible, but it would still be possible for a student to opt out of doing evaluations and then getting his the grades.

 

Senator Gulley asked if universities using online evaluation systems hold grades until evaluations are filled out. Mr. Shelton replied that the standard incentive for filling out evaluations is to have grades as soon as grades are posted; if the system has no incentive, then completing evaluations rate is 35%. If there is a good incentive, the response rate has been as high as 80%. Mr. Shelton indicated that setting dates for the availability of grades is not really the issue of the motion in question; rather, the issue is whether students would be able to fill out course evaluations after they have taken their final exam. For example, a faculty member might have less incentive to give a particularly hard final exam if the student will be filling out an evaluation form after the exam. On the other hand, one could argue that the final exam is part of the course experience and students ought to have an opportunity to evaluate the entire course, including the final exam experience, prior to completing an evaluation form. By extending the window of opportunity to complete evaluations after the final exam we are changing the system currently in place. Mr. Shelton and his committee feel that in the long run it is in the faculty’s and students’ best interest to do evaluations after final exams, and consequently, the is the motion on the floor.

 

President Clark called for a hand vote on the motion which resulted in 13 voting in favor of the motion, 8 opposed to the motion, and 2 abstentions. Thus motion US06/07-7 carries.

 

Motion US06/07-8 concerning changes in the mechanisms to create a pool of candidates for Distinguished Service Awards and honorary degrees. Mr. Dave Hubin moved to replace the awarding of honorary degrees legislation from Senate meeting May 22, 1991 with the following:

 

The University of Oregon shall offer the following criteria for the awarding of Honorary Degrees.

 

a. To an individual or individuals who has/have shown outstanding scholarship or artistic achievement in their lifetime;

 

b. To an individual or individuals who has/have performed extra-ordinary public service or distinguished service in their lifetime.

 

No honorary degree shall be granted by the University of Oregon to any person(s) who is/are currently employed by the Oregon State System of Higher Education, or to any person(s) currently holding elective office within the United States.

 

PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECTION AND GRANTING OF AN HONORARY DEGREE

 

1. The Distinguished Service Award Committee shall include the following:

 

The President of the University of Oregon or his/her designee

Chairperson of the Faculty Advisory Council

President of the University Senate

Chairperson of the Graduate Council

Chairperson of the Undergraduate Council

Representative of the Vice President for Advancement

Director of the University of Oregon Alumni Association

Five (5) members of the teaching faculty

President of the Student Senate

President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon

 

2. This Committee shall in early October commence the eliciting of applications from the University community as well as from the broader community of the State of Oregon the names of individuals who have met the criteria given in a. & b. above.

 

a. The Committee shall screen applications, ask for more information about the nominees, and investigate, to their satisfaction that the nominee(s) meet the criteria given above.

 

b. It is the responsibility of the Committee to judge each nominee and to determine whether it is appropriate to send the name to the University Senate

 

c. The Committee shall do all of its work on honorary degrees in the strictest of confidence.

 

d. The University Senate, in Executive Session, shall discuss the candidates presented by the Committee. Members of the Committee shall make the presentations in support of the nominee(s) separately.

 

e. The University Senators shall discuss, ask questions of the presenters from the Committee if necessary, and shall vote separately on each nominee. A vote of two-thirds is necessary for the nomination to be approved. Approval of a nomination will place a name into a pool of approved nominees.

 

f. The President of the University Senate shall formally inform the President of the University of Oregon of positive votes of the Senate only. Nominees failing to get the two-thirds vote shall not be forwarded to the University President. All documentation on successful nominees shall be turned over to the University President by the President of the University Senate.

 

g. The Distinguished Service Award Committee will review, on at least an annual basis, the pool of approved nominees to ensure that it remains appropriate.

 

h. From among the group of candidates approved by the University Senate for an Honorary Degree, the President will forward up to two nominees to the Oregon State Board of Higher Education. When the State Board of Higher Education has approved of name(s) submitted by the University of Oregon for this honor the President of the University shall formally notify the candidate(s) and invite them to take part in the honoring ceremony. Names of successful candidates must be forwarded to the State Board of Higher Education at least 90 days prior to the awarding of the degree(s).

 

Mr. Hubin explained that motion changes the procedures for awarding service awards and honorary degrees by creating a pool of eligible candidates, rather specific candidates for a particular graduate ceremony. The pool of worthy candidates for these awards would be brought to the senate for approval, and then the timing of the award worked out in deference to the awardees’ calendar. In the past, the timing of the award with graduation has been a problem with high profile individuals who have extremely full calendars. The new procedures would serve to mitigate this problem. With no further questions being advance from the senators, the senate voted unanimously by voice vote to pass Motion US06/07-8. (See http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen067/US067-8comp.html for a comparison with previous legislation.)

 

Notices of motion. Mr. Andrew Marcus gave notice of a motion to change the criteria for persons who would be eligible to run for vice president and president of the University Senate. Rules Committee member Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, noted that there was some question regarding the appropriateness of the senate acting on the motion, rather than the University Assembly (when convened with full legislative authority) since the proposed change involves the Enabling Legislation Section of the governance legislation. Mr. Frank Stahl gave notice of two motions, one to align the University Senate’s Enabling Legislation with prevailing practice concerning the University Assembly, and the other to amend previous senate legislation to enable University Assembly members who serve off the Eugene campus to attend an assembly meeting called by petition to convene with full legislative power. Because these motions in part involve changes to the Enabling Legislation, the university general counsel will be contacted for a clarification of whether the governance legislation can be changed by senate action on these motions.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 8, 2006

 

 

Present: C. Bengston, H. Briston, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, S. Cohen, A. Coles-Bjerre, M. Dennis, C. Ellis, A. Emami, N. Gulley, S. Holmberg*, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, L. Karim, P. Lambert, L. LaTour, P. Lu, B. Malle, Corlea (Sue) Martinez*, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, T. Minner, C. Minson, K. Mourfy, J. Newton, D. Olson, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, G. Sayre, A. Schulz, J. Sneirson, J. Wagenknecht

 

Excused: J. Daniels, N. Fujii, P. Gilkey, A. Papiliou, G. Psaki, A. Sherrick, J. Stolet, N. Tublitz,

 

Absent: C.A. Bassett, G. Berk, A. Djiffack, S. Gary, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, K. Wagle

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

University Senate President Jeanne Wagenknecht called the first regular meeting of the academic year to order in 150 Columbia at 3:04 p.m.

 

RESIGNATION OF SENATE PRESIDENT

 

President Wagenknecht welcomed everyone to the start of the academic year. She indicated that she spent a good amount of the summer months dealing with a personal health issue, and as part of her treatment regime she had been advised to reduce sources of stress. After giving much consideration and in consultation with members of the Senate Executive Committee, President Wagenknecht determined it was in the senate’s and her best interest to resign her position as president. Because a vice president had not been elected at the previous May organizational meeting (and thus was not available to step in as president), some members of the senate executive suggested tapping the expertise of former senate presidents and campus leaders to serve as president for the 2006-07 academic year. Accordingly, President Wagenknecht asked if there were any nominations for president of the senate. Senate Executive member Matthew Dennis said he was sorry for the circumstances that gave rise to President Wagenknecht’s resignation and wished her the very best of health. He then put forth a slate of three nominees to share serving as president through the year: former senate president Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, to serve Fall term 2006; AAUP Vice President Suzanne Clark, English, to serve Winter term 2007; and former senate president W. Andrew Marcus, geography, to serve Spring term 2007. The slate of candidates was elected unanimously by hand vote.

 

Newly elected Fall Term Senate President Jeffrey Hurwit thanked senate executive member Nathan Tublitz and Provost Linda Brady for their work in crafting a smooth transitional solution to the unforeseen circumstances that required a change in senate leadership. He also thanked the senators for their confidence in each of the new elected presidents. President Hurwit explained that the first order of business was to elect a vice president for 2006-07. Senator Dennis, on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee, nominated Gordon Sayre, English, who was elected unanimously.

 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the extra May 24, 2006 senate meeting, and the May 31, 2006 organizational meeting were approved as distributed.

 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from President Dave Frohnmayer. University President Dave Frohnmayer expressed appreciation to the newly elected presidents as well as the senators for volunteering their time and energies to engage in university governance. He began his remarks noting that with an election nearly upon us it was extremely important for everyone to become informed regarding the various measures on the ballot and how they might impact the university. The measure will help to determine future funding for the university system. The president said he and others have been working with the state board which has determined that incrementalism is no longer a useful budgeting strategy, and consequently, the board will be asking the legislature for an increase of approximately 26%. The needs of faculty, students and staff have been foremost in considering the proposed budget request. The president said he is optimistic regarding the budget request and reported that we are on target with the Campaign Oregon fundraising progress to date (scheduled to end in 2008).

 

The president next commented on some of the successes the university has realized regarding external research funding. Funds received competitively reached nearly $96.5 million in 2005-06, which represents a 67% increase since 2000-01, and is a direct testament on the quality of our faculty. Similarly, technology transfer income has increased 11-fold in the last 5 years, and there have been 226 new inventions in the last 6 years. On a per capita faculty basis, the UO is among the nation’s very top universities by these measures. He noted too, that we have begun work on the Integrated Science Center.

 

President Frohnmayer reported he has just returned from celebrating the Chinese scholarship and language program in which we are partnered with the Portland public schools. The program is the first of its kind in the nation. The program will have enormous impact on the teaching of Chinese language and culture. The president also reported that for the first time in 40 years, the UO opened the doors on a new undergraduate residence hall, the Living Learning Center. In addition, President Frohnmayer said he was pleased to see so many people at Convocation at which former US Poet Laureate Billy Collins spoke and read his poetry. Lastly, the president noted that enrollment projections appear to be slight less than robust but happily, full. A near record freshman class has arrived, with non-resident enrollments healthy, foreign student enrollment up, and slightly greater diversity among the students. He concluded his brief remarks by saying that the enrollment reports indicates that the university is on the right track.

 

Remarks from Provost Linda Brady. Provost Linda Brady expressed her regrets at not being able to work with former president Wagenknecht this year, but was pleased to see her here at the meeting and in good spirit. The provost said she was pleased to be able to work three senate presidents with extensive experience and knowledge of the university, and was confident in the new leadership group. She confirmed her desire to work together collaboratively, and to move forward in the best interests of the university community.

 

The provost commented that in recent weeks she has spoken with a number of groups about the challenges faced and the opportunities that lie before us. She emphasized that academic quality is the cornerstone of our identity as a public, research university, and further that the commitment to quality is defined in the university’s mission, “a community of scholars dedicated to the highest standards of academic inquiry, learning, and service.” She indicated that in the coming weeks and months, she plans for us to engage in conversations across our community that will define a renewed commitment to academic excellence in all that we do, and in all quarters of the university. The provost explained that in the next weeks she will be consulting with deans, department heads, Senate leadership and others about how best to structure these conversations. She remarked that it is essential for outstanding faculty from across this university to be actively involved in these conversations. The provost went on to say that a commitment to enhancing and sustaining academic quality at the University of Oregon is her top priority. Further, she stated her belief that we define ourselves as a quality institution by setting clear educational goals, focusing on learning outcomes for our students, making strategic investments, including the recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty, and holding ourselves accountable.

 

Provost Brady focused on two elements of the quality agenda: (1) student success, and (2) the scholarship, creative activity, and support of faculty. Regarding student success, we are committed to educating the next generation of leaders and citizens, graduates who are intellectually curious, knowledgeable of themselves and the world, and committed to engaging in the life of their communities. The UO’s modest size among research universities opens up many possibilities for students, as undergraduates, to be involved in research, working with top faculty. Moreover, as a public institution, we have a responsibility to provide access as well as a high quality education for students who are prepared to succeed at the university. And, in addition, we have a responsibility to ensure that all of our students, under-represented students, as well as those who are not from traditionally underrepresented groups, are prepared to live and work in an increasingly global and diverse environment.

 

The second element of the quality agenda relates to research, scholarship, creative activity, and the support of faculty. She noted that 50% of our faculty will reach retirement age in the next decade and the competition in recruitment of the very best faculty will be fierce. She acknowledged the below average status of faculty salaries and stated that the university is committed to a sustained focus on improving faculty salaries, which we must to do recruit and retain the best and the brightest – she supports the recommendations of the University Senate Budget Committee’s white paper on faculty salaries, and is committed to working with the senate to develop a strategy for addressing the issue over the next several years. Provost Brady said she was encouraged by the OUS budget request which includes $29 million in additional funding for faculty salaries across system universities. Along similar lines, she commented that the university is pursuing external funding to faculty work. One initiative is the creation of a Fund for Faculty Excellence, supported by a $5.2 million endowment (from an anonymous donor) which will enable additional support for our best faculty who are at risk of being recruited by other top institutions. The provost noted that to date, the university has raised nearly $50 million in support of faculty, and it will continue to be a priority of advancement efforts. Beyond issues of salaries and benefits, the provost remarked that we also must focus on issues related to start-up and research support. Lastly, the provost expressed her commitment to engage these and other issues in an active and transparent way, and looks forward to visiting throughout the year for further discussion of these and many other issues.

 

Update on Campaign Oregon. Vice President Allan Price began his remarks by first giving a brief overview of the mission and objectives of the advancement office. He commented that the mission is to build relationships that are designed to strengthen the university. One objective is to strategically position the UO in the mindset of constituent groups, and secondly to acquire resources, both publicly and privately. He noted that there are four divisions in the advancement office: public and governmental affairs, which deals with state and local funding as well as how to get the message out; Alumni Association, which works to create lifelong connections between the UO and alums; Institutional Affairs, which addresses local and community relations; and University Development, which shares some funding raising with the schools and colleges, and which also partners with the UO Foundation.

 

Regarding the Oregon Campaign itself, Vice President Price said the goal of the campaign is to raise $600 million and spend it well. Within the goal, the aims are to raise $100 million for student scholarships and opportunity initiatives, double the endowment, increase alumni to mean of UO peers, and increase support for academic programs and faculty research. As of the end of September, we have raised $440.9 million. He commented that athletic giving in comparison to academic giving represents about one third of the money raised (and includes the $50 million Autzen restoration, which was part of the 125th year celebration begun just before the campaign was launched). In the last two years, athletics accounts for approximately 17% of overall fundraising. Non-athletic fundraising has been “ramped up” over the past two years especially. The vice president continued by saying that the endowment goal was about $160 to $170 million at the start of the campaign and approximately $116 has been raised so far. Similarly, about $65 million has been raised toward the $100 million goal for student scholarships – on track but we have not received enough large lead gifts yet. Nevertheless, 184 student scholarships have been created.

 

Regarding the faculty support goal, the vice president said the goal was to double the number of endowed chairs from 75 to 150. So far, 30 new chairs/professorships have been created. Almost $42 million has been raised in support of faculty (in the form of new endowments) and about $48 million all together for faculty support, which includes the Fund for Faculty announced earlier in the meeting. For non-athletic program support, $90 million has been raised. And, the vice president noted there has been tremendous support in capital buildings started or completed during the campaign, such as phase two of the Lillis complex, groundbreaking for the music school improvements, and the Integrated Science Center to name a few. Lastly, Vice President Price said that he is focusing efforts to meet specific unit goals. Ultimately, the goal is to sustain fundraising at the $90 to $100 million level for each year.

 

Update on the Diversity Plan Implementation. Vice Provost Charles Martinez informed the senators that he and Provost Brady had just sent out a memo to the campus addressing topics on strategic planning for implementing the Diversity Plan. He noted that we are at a critical juncture in that each unit is making plans on how it will implement the campus Diversity Plan. He emphasized that the plan is a set of guiding principles and that continuing discussions from all sides are needed as implementation proceeds. The memo intended to provide a basic template for strategic planners in each unit to move forward and to assure them that there is support for them in such planning.

 

The vice provost outlined the three organizing elements of the plan: first, each unit’s plan will include an environmental analysis of what it is doing well and where there are gaps. Second, target specific strategies aimed at weaknesses identified. And third, each unit’s plan must include measurable markers of progress. The plan should be based around the six content areas of developing an inclusive responsive community, building a pipeline, creating a critical mass, reinforcing infrastructure, building community linkages, and creating a better campus climate. He commented too, that plans from different units will not all look the same.

 

The vice provost mentioned that considerable time at the dean’s retreat had been given to determining timelines for implementation. This fall and winter term is for engagement in the basic work of strategic planning, with the aim to submit the plan to the provost and institutional equity and diversity offices as well as the Diversity Advisory Committee for review. The review process is designed to be collaborative with consulting support as needed. Feedback from the review will be provided, with revision and refinement occurring during spring term. The vice provost reminded everyone that discretion for the content of the plan lies with each unit, not the central administration, and that the goal is for plans to be adopted by the end of the academic year. Vice Provost Martinez indicated that several work sessions are scheduled and in progress to help provide organizing templates for plans’ contents. Additionally, resource material will be provided electronically. Mr. Martinez said he expects many ongoing discussions throughout the planning and implementation process.

 

The vice provost then answered a question from Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, who asked if there were provisions for student input in each of the schools and colleges. Mr. Martinez replied that he has met with the ASUO leadership for their diversity plans, and that students have been included in the formation of strategic planning committees in the various units.

 

 

REPORTS

 

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. President Hurwit indicated that there were two vacant IFS representative positions, and noted that Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, was willing to stand for one of the positions. The president asked senators if they or anyone else were interested in serving as an IFS representative, to let either him or the secretary know as soon as possible. Senator Gilkey was then elected to a three year term (January 2007 through December 2009) by unanimous acclamation to fill one of the two vacancies. President Hurwit then recognized IFS representative John Nicols, history, to report on the recent IFS meeting. Mr. Nicols reported that Chancellor Pernsteiner discussed Ballot Measures 41 and 48 regarding the fiscal impact on the university system, saying that if both the measures passed the system would have to give serious consideration to moving to a public corporation setup similar to that of Oregon Health Sciences University. The major difficulties lies with spending limits imposed, especially on auxiliary units, such as building maintenance and athletics. Mr. Nicols also reported that PERS is solvent, and that the 6% rollover put onto the separate IAP accounts were still being calculated. He noted, too, that PEBB is likely headed toward major changes, but that nothing was actually on the table yet, but it is coming. Mr. Nicols also reported on an idea that was floating about to have the various campus vice presidents for research report directly to the campus presidents. IFS uniformly felt that this was a bad idea. Lastly, Mr. Nicols spoke of concerns about the College Now program in which high school students take college classes in their high schools taught by high school instructors. Many of these students are arriving on campus with levels of proficiency that does not pass the college entrance placement tests. He indicated that the issues are how to identify just how extensive the problem is, and how to find out what and where the courses are given and how they are monitored. Mr. Nicols said the IFS has asked the Provosts’ Council to find out what the realities are with this disturbing, unmonitored trend, and identify a means for addressing the issues it raises.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US06/07-1 to amend wording in the Diversity Plan. Senator Peng Lu, mathematics, introduced the following motion to revise wording of the University of Oregon Diversity Plan adopted May 14, 2006 as follows:

 

Moved that,

 

The University Senate recommends that the word "underrepresented", which appears three times on page 33 of the University of Oregon Diversity Plan adopted May 14, 2006, be replaced with the word "all".

 

[Note: The relevant page 33 currently reads as follows (affected text highlighted in bold): OFFICERS OF ADMINISTRATION AND CLASSIFIED STAFF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION. 1. Strategic Action Plans Developed by Colleges, Schools, and Administrative Units. The Strategic Action Plans developed by each school, college, and administrative unit should address the hiring and retention of high-quality persons from underrepresented groups as officers of administration and classified staff. Job announcements. Job announcements should indicate that persons from diverse backgrounds are strongly encouraged to apply, with language framed as broadly as possible to indicate the University’s interest in attracting candidates from underrepresented groups. The Office of Affirmative Action has developed specific language for use in job announcements, but in addition units should consider consulting with the Office of Affirmative Action or with OIED to write job announcements that express a commitment to diversity in a way that will attract persons from underrepresented groups. Job announcements should be circulated as widely as possible, using means likely to reach candidates from diverse backgrounds. Units should not merely seek to comply with the affirmative action rules but should attempt to develop as diverse a pool of applicants as possible for each search.]

 

Senator Lu yielded the floor to Mr. Huaxin Lin, mathematics. Mr. Lin stated that the proposed change in wording was very important because by encouraging underrepresented individuals to apply for positions, the language implicitly discourages others to apply. He felt this was especially true in discouraging Asians to apply for jobs or feel welcomed on campus, because in his experience, as an Asian professor, some people on campus have said that they believe that Asians are overrepresented. Mr. Lin stated that by changing the word “underrepresented” to “all,” the language would be even-handed and not discouraging to certain groups. Senator Lu also spoke in support of Mr. Lin’s reasoning.

 

Senator Gulley spoke in opposition to the motion, saying that the wording was fundamental to the Diversity Plan. Senator Dennis also spoke in opposition to the motion, saying that there a number of places in the plan where individuals might like different wording, but that the plan was adopted as a compromise document that was the will of the majority as a means to improve diversity on campus. The spirit of the plan is to be inclusive and welcoming, thus it is not at odds with welcoming all individual to campus. Senator Lamia Karim, anthropology, opposed the motion, saying that the term underrepresented has a long history and speaks to the notion of minority groups. People reading the plan are generally familiar with the term and understand its meaning is to encourage, and not discourage job applicants. Mr. Lin spoke again to say that the term underrepresented was offensive to him as identifying him as “different”. Mr. Martinez commented that Mr. Lin’s position had been heard by the Diversity Committee, but that the term underrepresented was used to identify gaps in representation; there is no intention to ask people to leave if they belong to overrepresented groups. He also suggested that making wording changes in a document arrived at after a number of compromises would be an unworkable precedent.

 

With the discussion winding down, Motion US06/07 – 1 to change the word “underrepresented” (on page 33 of the Diversity Plan) to “all” was put to a vote and defeated by hand vote.

 

Notices of motions. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology, gave notice of a motion to make available to qualified assembly meeting petitioners a paper copy of the faculty voting list organized by departments. He said such a change to current legislation would facilitate the calling of assembly meeting by petitions. Also, Senator Ali Emani, business, gave notice of a motion help change possible military action of the US against Iran. He believes such action was imminent.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With the business of the meeting concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 13, 2004

Present:  E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, R. Moreno-Villamar, L. Moses, L. Nelson, G. Psaki, L. Robare, G. Sayre, P. Scher, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons, E. Singer, D. Sinha, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman

Excused: L. Freinkel, J. Hurwit, M. Raymer

Absent: G. Epps, C. Lachman, M. Pangburn

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 207 Chapman.  President Marcus welcomed all to the first senate meeting of the year and commented that he looks forward to hearing thoughts from senate members on how we all can contribute to maintaining and improving the academic environment and excellence of the UO campus.  

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the May 12, 2004 regular senate meeting and the May 26, 2004 organizational senate meeting were approved as distributed.

Remarks and plans for the year.  President Marcus began his welcoming remarks by introducing new senators as well as recently appointed Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Gregory Vincent.  The president provided a brief overview of the senate’s operation and structure, its committees, and the procedures for bringing motions before the senate.  In describing the work of the senate, he noted that it is a formal and deliberative body intended to address and establish broad policies related to university governance and function.  He also outlined various reports and action items that likely will come before the senate this academic year, such as the proposed General Education Transfer Module, salary issues, library cutbacks, the diversity action plan, student conduct code revisions, the campus planning process, as well as maintaining and improving academic excellence.  Many of these topics were discussed during the annual Faculty Leadership Caucus held in late September. President Marcus concluded his opening remarks with comments about the general spirit of the institution, saying that the sense of shared governance, community, and mission unique to the UO comes with a very real price of obligation, participation and engagement in the dynamics of the university.

Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer.  President Frohnmayer provided highlights regarding the general topics of budget, enrollment, and the fundraising campaign before outlining plans for the year ahead.  Financially, state appropriations are approximately the same in absolute dollars now as ten years ago, evidence of public disinvestments.  Tuition and fees now provide more than 2/3 of the UO’s instructional budget.  Overall, the UO will have an education and general operating budget that is close to being balanced for the FY 2003-2005 biennium.  He noted that expectations from the governor for proposals in the upcoming legislative session are positive and hopeful, and the university is comfortable with the direction of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.

With regard to salary increases for the next biennium, the president said that the governor is on record as supporting a salary increase in the next biennial budget.  This will cover all employees, although there is no detailed information available at this time, and the results of the collective bargaining process will determine the amount for employees covered by these agreements.  Similarly, following the governor’s request, the board has agreed that there will be no additional cost to employees for health insurance coverage through calendar year 2005.

President Frohnmayer noted that enrollment is a crucial issue for the UO, given our financial dependence on tuition dollars.  Enrollment at the University of Oregon is expected to increase to more than 20,200 students this fall, which are nearly 200 more than last year.  Both resident and non-resident numbers are up.  He explained that careful planning and strategic course management are enabling the university to provide access to classes and to services for students at the anticipated level of enrollment despite funding limitations, and he thanked all faculty and staff for their efforts to meet the academic and service needs of our students.

Moving on to the current fundraising campaign, the president remarked that ten years ago we completed the largest capital campaign in the history of the University of Oregon, raising $255 million.  Now we are in the silent phase of Campaign Oregon: Transforming Lives, with a goal of raising $600 million.  The public phase of the campaign will open with a gala event on January 29, 2005.  He noted that the need for the campaign should be self-evident, but provided several raw facts to underscore the campaign’s importance.  In 1990 the state provided 32% of the UO's total budget, and tuition accounted for 23%.  In the current year the state portion was 13%, and tuition accounted for 33%.  The remainder is made up of grants and contracts, as well as auxiliary funds, which have both increased significantly.

Over a ten-year span (1994-1995 to 2004-2005), overall full-time undergraduate tuition and fees have increased more than 160%.

The president reflected on his investiture at the UO ten years earlier.  In remarks made at that time, he stated that we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the development of a better university—the same remains true now, ten years later.  The president cited a number of changes and accomplishments that have transpired over the ten years to make the university a better one.  Specifically, he commented on: the nearly completed renovation of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, the new Law School building and Lillis Business Complex and their concomitant increase in program quality, the doubling of federal grant contracts to $90.2 million in 2003-04, undergraduate programs that safeguard small class freshman experiences with First Year Interest Groups and Freshman Seminars, new affordable housing created for student family living, established a better, robust partnership with OSU, and attracting and hiring 396 top quality tenure-related faculty members over the last 10 years to help ensure quality of the institution, which remains foremost among our goals.  The president concluded that he looks forward to working with the new Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity as he works to develop a diversity plan for the campus.  (See Addendum A for full text of President Frohnmayer’s address.) 

Report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS).  IFS representative Nathan Tublitz, biology, reported that the IFS has started to communicate with the state board and its working group subcommittee members on a regular basis.  Recent budget cuts and resulting reorganization of the Chancellor’s Office moved many of that offices’ responsibilities the Board.  A number of issues are under current consideration: the General Education Transfer Module, which will have faculty input from all the OUS campuses; the initiative to fund all new student enrollment growth; moderating tuition increases; faculty retention and recruitment, which includes retaining the best faculty and also money for increasing average salaries for everybody; and retention of the top students in Oregon via a plan to increase the number of honors colleges throughout the state.  These initiatives represent a budget request of $105 million for the upcoming legislative session.  Mr. Tublitz also mentioned that the state is predicting a shortfall of $800 million to over $1 billion this next biennium.  Although the governor already has asked for a 10% cut from every state agency, he is trying to insulate higher education from these cuts.  Mr. Tublitz reminded everyone that OUS is gearing up to work diligently to try and help our legislators think more positively about higher education and its contribution to our society and our state; consequently, IFS representatives may be asking faculty to begin contacting legislators to support that positive message.

IFS President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, added that OUS will have a meeting on the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) on Friday, October 22, 2004.  One proposal is a technical proposal that puts into law the current “fix” now being used, and the other is a more ambitious proposal that decouples ORP from PERS. 

General Counsel Melinda Grier spoke about the USA Patriot Act and how it has affected the university.  She said during the past year she worked with a senate appointed committee to make certain the General Counsel’s Office was notified and involved whenever the university received any subpoenas under the Patriot Act or similar acts.  She noted that updates in OARs and UO policy statements on this topic became effective May 17, 2004.  Ms. Grier reported that no subpoenas have been received from the Patriot Act or similar acts.  The only law enforcement subpoenas that have been received from governmental agencies are for criminal matters.  She also noted that all new faculty members have been made aware of the policy requirements surrounding subpoenas during new faculty orientation, that is, the General Counsel’s office must be notified of all subpoenas received so that the subpoenas can be properly reviewed and validated.

Senator Jon Jablonski, library system, brought to the senators’ attention the current period of public comment with the National Institute on Health (NIH) regarding a proposal that any NIH funded research is published online for free.  NIH would like comments about the proposal especially from faculty members.  Senator Jablonski noted that the librarians support this proposal and it is endorsed officially by the Association for Research Libraries and the American Association of Universities.  He noted that there are a variety of options and plans out there to help ease the burden of journal subscription costs, and this is probably the most encompassing one.  Nevertheless, he has heard some negative comments from the National Chemical Society, who likened the proposal to socialized science.  Senator Jablonski noted that the proposal is not solely for the scientific community, but ranges to social sciences and the humanities as well.  He encouraged faculty members to review the proposal and comment.

President Marcus asked for a resumption of the discussion begun during the regular May senate meeting about Motion US03/04 – 10, which concerns convening the University Assembly with full legislative authority when petitioned to do so by 33% of the Voting Faculty.  Mr. Frank Stahl, biology emeritus, who sponsored the motion, spoke in support of the need to create legislation to regulate the petitioning, notification, and meeting time process in order to facilitate the likelihood of garnering the required quorum (half the assembly membership plus one) necessary for the assembly to act with full legislative authority.  He noted that when an attempt was made to convene such a meeting in January 2003 (concerning a resolution opposing the war in Iraq), a quorum was not met.  Mr. Stahl went on to say that the proposed motion was divided into sections to facilitate understanding and discussion regarding regulating the petition process, setting a meeting time that will facilitate attendance, ensuring assembly members are well notified of the meeting and their responsibilities to attend, identifying those from whom petition signatures can be obtained, providing contact information that will facilitate petitioners’ quest for signatures, having timely meeting notices, and ensuring the appropriate web links are established to the relevant legislation.  Full text of the Motion US03/04-10 follows:

WHEREAS: Section 6.6 of the Enabling Legislation of the UO governance document requires that a UO Assembly with full legislative power shall be convened after a petition to do so has been signed by 33% of the "Voting Faculty", and

 

WHEREAS: convening the Assembly with "full legislative power" requires the attendance of a majority of the Assembly members as prescribed by the Oregon Public Meetings Law, and

WHEREAS: in the absence of explicit provisions, this quorum cannot be met, be it

MOVED THAT: The University adopt the following procedures to enable an Assembly to convene with full legislative power:

• Prior to circulating a petition to convene the Assembly with full legislative power, Petitioners will submit the text of their petition to the University Secretary who will forthwith give notification of the petition to those Members of the Assembly who have e-mail. The announcement shall include the text of the petition and item (b) of this motion.
• Deans, directors and department heads will adopt practices, appropriate for their administrative units, that promote the face-to-face accessibility of their Assembly Members to petitioners.
• In order for the petition to go into effect, petitioners must submit sufficient valid signatures to the Secretary within 100 days of the announcement described in item (a).
• A meeting of the UO Assembly called by petition of 33% of the Voting Faculty shall be held at 3:30 PM, on a Wednesday, not less than 10 nor more than 25 days from the time of submission of the petition, except that no meeting shall be scheduled for exam week, between quarters or during the summer quarter.
• The University shall send notification of the meeting time and place to all members of the Assembly by mail. The notification shall remind recipients that they are Members of the Assembly, that their attendance at the Assembly meeting is expected, and that attendance at the Assembly Meeting takes priority over routine obligations. This first notice shall be timely, permitting Assembly Members to make the best possible arrangements. The mailed and e-mailed notices (section f) shall include the text of the WHEREAS section of this Motion plus items (d) - (g).
• Assembly Members shall be further notified of the meeting by notices in the Daily Emerald and on the University Calendar, Senate, and Assembly Web sites. On the Monday immediately prior to the meeting, Audix and/or email will be used to remind members to attend.
• A list of Assembly Members (without phone numbers or e-mail addresses), organized alphabetically, shall be maintained and posted on the UO Assembly Web site. The list shall be updated annually, as early in the Fall Quarter as is feasible. Faculty on sabbatical leave who are not in residence are not Assembly members during their leave.
• An annually updated list of the Voting Faculty with office addresses and phone numbers, organized by department, shall be maintained and posted on the UO Assembly Web site. Faculty on sabbatical leave who are not in residence are not Voting Faculty during their leave.
• The UO Secretary shall maintain an annually updated list of Assembly Members with phone numbers and e-mail addresses. The list shall be used only to forward communications, from the University President, the University Secretary, or the UO Senate President, that are relevant to the business of the Assembly.
• A link to the text of this Motion, entitled "Assembly with Legislative Power" shall be maintained as a discrete item on the UO Assembly Web site. A secondary link to the "Charter, Enabling Legislation and Bylaws" shall be found there.

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, proposed amending the motion by adding sections (k) and (l) as follows:

• The UO Faculty Handbook shall include the following sentence: "The Assembly also shall be convened, with full legislative power, after a petition to do so has been signed by 33 percent of the voting faculty (those faculty who are eligible to vote for the election of non-student university senators).”
• In the event that an Assembly called by petition fails to gain a quorum, the Assembly will be adjourned with instruction to meet one week later at the same time.  In the interim, the University President shall take all steps in his/her power to ensure that a quorum will be realized.   This legislated adjournment to gain a quorum is applicable to only the first meeting called by a given petition.

Speaking in support of the proposed amendment, Senator Psaki said that section (k) reflected the precise language of the enabling legislation and makes it clears that a meeting must be convened if petition requirements are met.  Section (l) was added as a follow-up attempt to reconvene the assembly with a quorum if unsuccessful in the initial effort.

President Marcus opened the discussion on the proposed amendment.  Senator Gilkey began by asking a technical question, asserting that the University Senate does not have legislative authority to legislate what the University Assembly would or should do if an Assembly meeting called by petition fails to gain a quorum.  He opined that only the Assembly could make such determinations, not the Senate.  Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, anthropology emeritus, responded by saying if the Assembly meeting quorum was not met, adjournment of the Assembly would be automatic, and thus was not needed in the amendment.  Further, he concurred with Senator Gilkey’s point that the Senate cannot legislate actions for Assembly, only the Assembly can do that.  Given the ruling by the parliamentarian, President Marcus ruled section (l) out of order, and it was removed from the proposed amendment. 

President Marcus indicated that section (k) was still on the floor and asked for any further discussion on it.  Mr. Stahl commented that versions of the Faculty Handbook that have appeared since the reorganization of the Senate in 1995-96 have omitted the statement found in the enabling legislative charter that gives the Assembly full legislative authority if called by petition of 33% of the voting faculty.  When he brought the omission to the attention of the Provost’s Office, the on-line version of the handbook was updated to correct the omission and include the relevant text, but was the language was not cited exactly as stated in the enabling legislation.  Mr. Stahl reasoned the only way to assure that the exact legislation is included in the handbook is to legislate how it is to appear there. 

The secretary commented that once the omitted text was brought to the attention of the administration, a correction was made that followed the general writing style of the handbook.  She noted that typically, the handbook highlights policies and practices rather than citing verbatim policies that are found elsewhere in their full text.  She disagreed with Mr. Stahl’s suggestion that the text in question was purposefully omitted, and said that as near as she could determine, it was a genuine oversight that was promptly corrected once identified.  She thanked Mr. Stahl for bringing the oversight to the attention of Academic Affairs, and noted that she had written the recent handbook update, using the word “may” instead of “shall” in the sentence in question. 

President Marcus asked if there were any further comments on the floor.  Hearing none, the motion to amend US03/04-10 by adding section (k) was put to a voice vote and passed.  Section (k) was added to the main motion, and the floor was opened for further discussion on the main motion. 

Senator Gilkey, speaking as the Assembly webmaster, spoke of his concerns about posting a list of Assembly members, voting faculty members and their offices and phone numbers on a website (section g and h), saying that it might encourage harvesting of faculty information and unscrupulous “spamming” the members listed.  He questioned why the information had to be posted publicly rather than simply complied and available from the secretary by request.  Senator Gilkey acknowledged that he could understand that senators’ names are posted, since they are elected by the faculty to serve on the University Senate; but assembly members and voting faculty are not elected to serve in legislative positions.  Mr. Stahl replied that the University Assembly is a legislative body under certain conditions (when called by petition of 33% of the voting faculty) and thus its membership should be public knowledge.  He added that the voting faculty, too, is a body that is empowered by university legislation to take certain actions, and its membership should be public knowledge.  He commented that when there was interest in calling an Assembly meeting with full legislative authority in January 2003, it took the secretary some time to compile the list of assembly members and voting faculty, and he had some questions about its complete accuracy.  If the lists were on the Assembly Website, he went on to say, the names could be read and challenged to make certain they accurately reflect the membership of the Assembly and the voting faculty.  Senator Gilkey disagreed that having huge lists of names, office locations and phone numbers on the web would be a valuable use of the space. 

Senator Gilkey also asked for clarity regarding the inconsistent use of the notification methods in section (a) using “email” and later in sections (e) and (f) which talks about mail, Audix ,and/or email used to remind members to attend.  Is campus mail or US mail meant by the term “mail”?  Senator McPherson commented that all sections regarding notification methods should read the same.  The secretary noted that in the January 2003 notifications, campus mail was used primarily, and because some Assembly members were not on campus regularly, she used US mail when those members’ home addresses were known.  To help satisfy the intent of the motion, President Marcus suggested amending the sections dealing with notification to read that “all methods of communication be utilized” in all relevant sections of Motion03/04-10.  The motion to approve the change in notification of the Assembly and voting faculty passed.

President Marcus then asked if there were any other comments in regards to the main motion.  Senator Susan Gary, law, shared her concerns about having phone numbers on the Assembly Website.  Mr. Stahl suggested phone numbers be deleted from Section (h).  Senator Gary moved to amend the motion to remove phone numbers from Section (h); the amendment was put to a voice vote and passed. 

Returning again to the main motion, the secretary voiced concerns regarding section (a) requiring her to give notice to all assembly members that a petition was being circulated before the petition had been signed by anyone other than the petitioner.  Her reservations were first, that notification prior to a petition’s circulation was a new procedure, and second, the motion as currently written opens the door for possible abuse by frivolous petitioners in that it requires the secretary to send out notification to all assembly members on the simple request of anyone who says he or she is going to circulate a petition.  There is no screening safeguard or vetting the legitimacy of the petition or its appropriateness as an assembly topic.  Previously, notification of meetings was made aftera petition had been circulated with the reason for calling the assembly stated and signed by 33% of the voting faculty.  The present motion has no vetting system in place, thus the secretary would have no choice but to send out notification messages regardless of whether the petition is legitimate, frivolous, or gains the necessary signatures to convene a meeting.  Some kind of screening mechanism should be in place that functions in a way similar to a priori signature gathering. 

Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, expressed concern regarding who screens the topics on which the assembly legislates, that is, who decides whether the topic is one about which the assembly has legislative authority.  Mr. Stahl replied that the Chair of the Assembly (the president of the university) could answer that.  In response, President Frohnmayer said the problem, as he sees it, is that he would not be chairing the Assembly at the time that the petition in question was presented for circulation to the faculty by the secretary’s notification.  His authority to make a ruling on the topic of the petition comes by virtue that there is a quorum present and business pending before the Assembly.  Since, by definition, there is no Assembly meeting at the time the petition is being circulated to convene a meeting, the President would then be asked to effectively censor or to make a determination without people present and without a process for appeal (which is available during an assembly meeting).  President Frohnmayer remarked that it strikes him that this is a power the senate many not wish to give to the president; in fact, he was uncertain if he possesses such power of a chair before there is an Assembly constituent of which he is then the presiding officer. 

Mr. Stahl commented that the purpose of the email notification is to alert the community that petition gatherers will be canvassing to gather signatures on the petition.  He noted that when he and others tried to gather signatures to convene an assembly meeting in January 2003, there were a number of people that did not want to talk to them because they did not know who they were or their purpose.  Senator Psaki suggested that the email notification must only say that a petition was being circulated, to which the secretary clarified that the rules of convening an Assembly (with legislative power) are such that the topic of proposed legislation must be part of the petition.  And, there remains the problem of not vetting the petition before notification is given of petition circulation.  If required to send out notification prior to petition signature gathering, the secretary should be able to supply the Assembly members with the appropriate reason for convening a meeting.  Senator Gilkey suggested that the president of the University Senate would be a more appropriate person to act as a clearinghouse before instructing the secretary to give petition circulation notification.  Senator Lise Nelson, geography, suggested that instead of the senate president, perhaps there should be a number of faculty signatures already gathered that shows there is some consensus of the voting faculty for the issue.  In response, Mr. Stahl suggested that 20 voting faculty signatures would be an appropriate number.  Senator Wagenknecht again voiced concerns that assembly members may receive petitions for where it has no legal or appropriate reason for convening to discuss topics beyond the legislative authority of the assembly.

President Marcus asked that that debate on the motion be postponed to allow more time for thoughtful review of the motion and amending, as needed.  Senator Gilkey requested that an Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Motion be created, chaired by the senate president, to discuss the issues raised regarding the assembly motion.  Further, he volunteered to serve on the committee along with the motion’s submitters, and suggested that the secretary and general counsel also be included.  President Marcus asked Senator Gilkey, Senator Psaki, Secretary Steigelman, and Mr. Stahl to meet as a senate ad hoc committee to make recommendations on the motion.  University President Frohnmayer added that if there were any question about the role or appropriateness of the university president making a ruling, he would like the ad hoc committee to discuss it before it is brought back to the senate floor.  He also felt that legal counsel should be contacted on the legal aspects of the issue and that the authority of the president should not be left unaddressed, one way or the other.  President Marcus agreed and appointed the ad hoc committee.  Senator Gilkey then moved to postpone Motion US03/04—10 until the November 10^th senate meeting.  The motion to postpone US03/04-10 to a time certain (November 10^th) was put to a voice vote and passed.

Senator Gilkey, on the behalf of the Undergraduate Council, gave notice of Motion US04/05-1 concerning a proposal to university policy governing the mark of Incomplete for undergraduate students.  He asked that the motion come before the senate at its regular November meeting.

With no other new business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

ADDENDUM A

State of the University

University of Oregon Senate

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

3:00 p.m., 207 Chapman

Dave Frohnmayer, President

University of Oregon

 

President Marcus, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate and guests. Welcome on this bucolic autumn day. Thank you for your allegiance to faculty governance demonstrated by your attendance here today under these circumstances of distraction [vice presidential candidate Edwards at campus rally].

REPORT TO THE SENATE

There are specific areas I have been asked to address at this gathering of the University Senate, which I would like to do at this time.

I.  Budget

a. Financial Picture.  State appropriations are approximately the same in absolute dollars now as ten years ago—a striking comment on public disinvestments.  More than two thirds of the UO’s instructional budget is now provided by tuition and fees.  Overall, the UO will have an education and general operating budget that is close to being balanced for the FY 2003-2005 biennium.  Student numbers are expected to be slightly higher than last year.  Expectations from the governor for proposals in the upcoming legislative session are positive and hopeful.  We are comfortable with the direction of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and the energy and intelligence of its new members.  We extend our appreciation for the level of commitment to higher education from the governor — as recently as last Friday when he gave his valedictory comments as temporary chairman of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education.

b. Salary Increases for next biennium.  The governor is on record as supporting a salary increase in the next biennial budget.  This will cover all employees although there is no detailed information available at this time, and the results of the collective bargaining process will determine the amount for employees covered by these agreements.  The governor has requested that all state agencies cover the increased costs of health insurance benefits through calendar year 2005.  The State Board has agreed to cover this per the governor’s request and there will be no additional cost to the employees for health insurance coverage through calendar year 2005.

II.  Enrollment.Enrollment is a crucial issue for us given our financial dependence on tuition dollars.  Our immediate prospects here are positive.  Enrollment at the University of Oregon is expected to increase to more than 20,200 this fall, according to preliminary projections.  This is nearly 200 more than last year and includes a robust number of transfers.  Both resident and non-resident numbers are up, demonstrating that we increasingly are a magnet for quality students.  The final student profile will be available in early November.  SAT scores for newly enrolled freshmen are predicted to be the highest in UO history.  Enrollment will show a slight increase compared to last fall’s 20,033 students.  Careful planning and strategic course management are allowing the university to provide access to classes and to services for students at the anticipated level of enrollment despite funding limitations.  I thank all faculty and staff for their efforts in making last minute adjustments to meet the academic and service needs of our students.

III.  The Campaign.  Ten years ago we completed the largest capital campaign in the history of the University of Oregon at $255 million.  We are now in the silent phase of Campaign Oregon: Transforming Lives with a goal of $600 million.  We are opening the public phase of the campaign with a gala event on January 29, 2005.  The cornerstones — and categories for which funds are being raised — are: (1) inspiration (teaching and learning), (2) discovery (research and scholarship), (3) connections (to our various communities), and (4) opportunity (financial support for students).  The need for the campaign should be self-evident, but a few raw facts underscore its importance:  In 1990 the state provided 32% of the UO's total budget, and tuition accounted for 23%.  In the current year the state portion was 13 percent, and tuition accounted for 33%.  The remainder is made up of grants and contracts, as well as auxiliary funds, which have both increased significantly.  When we compare 1994-1995 to 2004-2005 (a ten year span): overall full-time undergraduate tuition and fees have increased more than 160%.  This makes it all the more vital that, as part of our capital campaign, we intend to raise $100 million for scholarships.

IV.  Ten Years Ago.  I have been president of the University of Oregon for just more than 10 years now, my appointment effective July 1, 1994.  At my official investiture two years later, I made remarks that I believe are appropriate to repeat today.  I said:

Some may think that on occasions such as today’s, the president-to-be should appear unshaven and unkempt, descending from a high mountain peak bearing freshly inscribed tablets, or emerging red-eyed from a vast desert in flowing robes . . . proclaiming in the gravelly cry of the prophet that we have lost our path, and must be guided by an exalted new vision.

This might seem, I said, especially important now, when critics of higher education have sharpened their knives, thrusting and cutting at the efficiency, relevancy and values of our academy.

But today, I added, I offer no Utopian vision of a vastly different university. I do not think we need one.  Ours is an ancient enterprise, refined and proven through the tests of two millennia.  The worth of our great modern research universities like this is reckoned over and again in the currency of great teaching, invaluable research, and outstanding public service.

We do not need, I stated then, a different university. But we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the development of a better one.

I say the same thing today.  We do not need a different university. But we must constantly dedicate ourselves to the development of a better one.  I believe, in the past ten years we have done that.  It has not been easy.  It has not been simple.  It has not been everything we wanted.  But I believe, in that time, we have brought about some incredible transformations — transformations that have changed us — and that reach out to change the world. And when I say we, I mean we . . .

V.  A Lot Can Happen.  A lot can happen — and a lot has happened — in this past 10 years.  Let me recite some benchmarks. And, lest there be any confusion, I want to make clear that I do not intend these remarks as my tombstone epitaph — rather, they serve as more of a mileage check to see just how far we have come — and also how far we have to go. Ten years ago we lived in a different world.  The word “Monica” had not entered our vocabulary.  “e-Bay” was just a place to dock your boat.  No one had ever been asked “is that your final answer?”  More seriously:  We had just ended a war with Iraq.  The economy was taking off.   With the recent fall of the Soviet Union, it was declared by some that “history was at an end.”  The Twin Towers stood in New York City.  In many ways it truly was a different world.

Ten years ago on this campus:  Different faces — many somewhat younger-looking than today — greeted me as I walked our tree-lined walks and paths or met some of you for the first time.  Our Museum of Art was small, overcrowded and lacked environmental controls that would allow major works to be shown here.  Attendance was sparse and hopes for improvement seemed bleak.  Our Law School was facing accreditation challenges, mostly based on lack of space.  Federal grant figures were not that impressive.  Our Business School was crammed in unsightly and unfriendly Gilbert Hall, along with more than 20 percent of the other classes taught on campus.  Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs), while established, had not reached the vitality they now exhibit.  In the wake of Measure 5, we had just cut one-and-one-half colleges.  The College of Education was a shadow of its former self — some even thought it was dead.  We were deciding — amid controversy and hostile city counselors — to tear down the “temporary” Amazon housing that had been in place for nearly half a century.  Our relationship with our sister university Oregon State was to become shaky — and to get worse.  Our efforts at becoming a truly multicultural campus were just beginning to take shape, but had far to go.  We had not yet published one of the truly landmark books of the decade, the Second Edition of the Atlas of Oregon.  And — lest I give short shrift to athletics — we had not gone to a Rose Bowl game for nearly half a century — and we had not yet been able to turn Autzen Stadium into the venue that today enables us to gain a large part of the external visibility we now enjoy.

In the last 10 years the world we know has changed dramatically.  I don’t have to spell out to any thinking person the changes and the challenges. But in the face of these changes and challenges we — and I emphasize WE — have accomplished much.

VI.  Ten Years of Accomplishment.  To return to the points I just mentioned.  In the past 10 years, 396 new tenure-track faculty members have been hired.  The Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art will open soon as one of the best designed and most eagerly anticipated museums of art on the West Coast.  Our Law School has moved far beyond any accreditation questions to become a leader in the nation, one of the country’s most technologically advanced law centers, and one that is recognized world-wide for academic excellence and extensive public service.  Our federal grant figures are becoming impressive, having doubled in the past decade, with researchers earning a record $90.2 million in contracts, grants and other competitive funding in 2003-04, a 16 percent increase over the previous year and a 56% jump in just three years.  The Business School, now the Charles H. Lundquist College of Business, is housed in the spectacular Lillis Business Complex and offers nationally recognized programs in all its departments, as well as such innovative programs as the Lundquist Center for Entrepreneurship and the James H. Warsaw Sports Marketing Center.  For our freshmen, we now offer First Year Interest Groups and Freshman Seminars, providing small class settings to our first year students that focus on specific majors or career interests, or introduce them to new areas of interest.  In addition, Pathways links students with faculty in innovative and creative ways of pursuing their general education courses.  Unlike many sister universities, our undergraduate lower division program has intellectual coherence, a product of the “Process for Change” led several years ago by Provost John Moseley.  Our colleges are growing.  The College of Education has brought itself back from what seemed to many to be the precipice — and it continues to garner external support at an extraordinary level.  It is the nation’s leader in education research, both per capita and often in absolute dollars.  We have replaced what was substandard, unsafe and unattractive housing with comfortable and affordable family housing.  The relationship we now have with Oregon State University is a robust partnership that strengthens both institutions and gives increasing opportunity to Oregonians.  For the first time in 50 years the University of Oregon last year hosted the annual meeting of the Association of American Universities, the most prestigious university organization in the world.  In our efforts to create a truly more multicultural university — one that reflects our world and its peoples and cultures, we have worked diligently to come to where we are.

VII.  A Magnet.  Quality is a magnet . . . and probably our lifeline . . . there is no success without our belief in that quality . . . and this faculty is the heart and soul of that quality . . . It was my pleasure to meet so many of the new faculty at the McMorran House at the beginning of the new academic year.  They bring new vitality to a warm and accepting faculty culture.

VIII.  What is to be done?  Now our job is to get the legislature to heed the governor’s call to reinvest in higher education . . . We must continue and conclude our Campaign – everyone has a responsibility.  We must work with new Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, Dr. Gregory Vincent, as he works this year to develop a diversity plan for campus.

IX.  CONCLUSION.  At the time of my investiture, I closed with the following remarks:

 . . . this university has been an enduring source of inspiration and renewal in my life, and in the lives of my loved ones. I love not only the beauty of these emerald acres, not merely the stones and bricks of its architecture, but the memories, dreams and hopes that give life to our vibrant and eternal spirit. I pledge that this great university and those people who give it sustenance and meaning will continue to have my most profound and continuing affection.

Having so pledged, it remains only for me to ask you all now to join me in continuing to build, in continuing to nurture, and in continuing to celebrate this great enterprise, this heritage, and this promise, our University of Oregon.

I do the same today . . . this is our University of Oregon.

 

 

 

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting April 13, 2005

 

 

Present: E. Chan, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, P. Scher, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, S. Wells, R. Yang

 

Excused: C. Cherry, L. Feldman, P. Gilkey, C. McNelly,

 

Absent: D. Eisert, G. Epps, A. McLucas, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons

 

 

 

Call to Order

 

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 282 Lillis. The president noted that the May 25^th organizational senate meeting will be in the Browsing Room in the Knight Library.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the March 9, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

State of the University

 

Remarks from Senate President W. Andrew Marcus. President Marcus gave a brief overview of the activities for the remainder of the academic year. Processes for the NTTIF Committee recommendations and implementation are under way, with a report due at the next senate meeting. The Student Conduct Code Committee has made laborious progress on revising the code, but it is not yet ready for Senate action; instead, the senate will pick up work on the code in the fall. The president also noted that the Diversity Working Groups have made substantial progress. It is their hope to have a senate ad hoc diversity committee to help bring eventual recommendations to fruition. Lastly, President Marcus asked senators to think about the upcoming elections, noting that a numbers of positions remain open with no nominees, including several senate positions. Nominations close April 22^nd.

 

Remarks from Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley began his remarks with budget news, saying there is roughly a $150 million difference between the Senate and House budget versions concerning K-12 funding, but it appears that higher education will receive what was in the governor’s initial budget. In addition, $32.5 million is proposed to “buy-down” tuition in order to keep it at current levels. Provost Moseley said the proposed tuition buy-down does not help the UO with additional funding needed for enrollment growth, faculty salaries, and so forth. Budget negotiations still are proceeding, and the provost remains optimistic that the UO will receive the governor’s budget amount plus some other incremental funding.

 

Turning to other topics, Provost Moseley commented that the legislature has had serious discussions about how to better interface lower division courses within OUS and community colleges to have a smoother transition from one institution to another. Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies Karen Sprague is spear-heading the university’s interests on this front. Further, the provost report that a common course numbering system (as proposed in one legislative bill), is not likely. The provost indicated that administration is preparing for the anticipated salary increases to begin next academic year. Lastly, the provost indicated the search for a new Vice President for Finance and Administration is reaching its conclusion with good candidates having been interviewed. Searches for the Associate Vice President for Information Services and Dean of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts are moving forward as well.

 

Distinguished Service Award Report from Executive Assistant President Dave Hubin The Senate moved into Executive Session from 3:23 p.m. to 3:36 regarding Distinguished Service Awards.

 

 

Announcements and Communications from the floor

 

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, commented that the IFS was concerned to make certain that the quality of the curriculum would not be compromised by proposed legislative changes in articulation among OUS and community colleges. She noted that in response to a request from the governor that universities review sexual harassment policies, the UO’s policies are clear and well-articulated. Lastly, she reported that the IFS also was asked to look into codes of ethics and conduct on the OUS campuses, which will be up for discussion at future IFS meetings.

 

New Business

 

Notice of Motion US04/05-6 regarding Elimination of the Y Grade. . Herb Chereck, Registrar, gave notice of a motion from the Scholastic Review Committee proposing to modify the use of Y grade. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-6.html.)

 

Motion US04/05-7 regarding Administration Reports to the University Senate on Proposed Major Capital Construction Projects. Senate President Andrew Marcus indicated he had received the following motion:

Whereas proposed major projects affecting the entire campus are more likely to gain broad support with timely notification and broad consultation; and 

Whereas consensus on proposed major projects promotes both their successful realization and campus-wide morale; 

Therefore, be it resolved that the University Senate requests the provost to report to the University Senate on major intended project(s) at the earliest date that is reasonable and always prior to seeking authorization for funding of capital construction projects. When funding approval must move forward during the summer period, the Provost will report to the Executive Committee of the senate. Projects on which the provost will report include those that:

(1) require authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request;

(2) require authorization from the legislature via the Emergency Board.

Senate Vice President Peter Keyes, architecture, reported that this motion and Motion US 04/05-8 were brought forward by the Senate Executive Committee and evolved from discussions over the past year about the revisions to the campus planning process. The first motion concerns the administration’s reports to the senate on proposed major capital construction projects. Currently, the campus planning committee becomes engaged in a project after the project is fairly well along. The typical process is that a dean or head of a unit makes a proposal for a building or facility, talks with administration about it, and figures out how funding will arise. Donors may be brought on board, and when the package is put together, the specifics of the project are brought forward to the Campus Planning Committee for discussion regarding the logistics of the project and its compliance with the Campus Long Range Development Plan. Many projects may be on the horizon, but they may not reach the Campus Planning Committee part of the process for a few years.

 

In the past, some UO building projects have moved rather far along before the faculty as a whole became aware of them. It is felt that the academic community should know about these types of projects much earlier in the process. Consequently, the motion is a request to the provost to report to the University Senate on intended major projects at the earliest state that is reasonable, and always prior to seeking authorization for funding of capital funding projects. Vice President Keyes added that when funding approval must move forward during the summer months, the provost would report to the Senate Executive Committee. Major projects are defined, but not limited to, those requiring authorization from the legislature, including the capital construction budget and others that would require authorization by the Emergency Board.

 

During a question and answer session, Senator Mike Raymer, physics, asked whether there were any down sides to the proposed motion. Vice President Keyes said that he felt the planning committee and the administration had worked through several questions and issues raised through earlier versions of the proposal, and had arrived at the current proposal as a workable balance between the need for broad discussion and the need to sometimes move quickly on a project.

 

With discussion ended, President Marcus brought the question to a vote. Motion US04/05-7 passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Motion US04/05-8 regarding Revisions to the Membership and Reporting Clauses of the Charge to the Campus Planning Committee. President Marcus again asked Vice President Keyes to present Motion US04/05-8 on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee. Text of the motion follows:

Whereas transformations of the campus benefit from a fully inclusive process of consultation and consideration;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Campus Planning Committee charge be amended to include the following provisions:

            (1) As part of its reporting duties to the University Senate, the Campus Planning Committee will provide an oral report to the Senate in the autumn on progress on major projects over the previous year and a look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration.  Major projects are defined as those projects requiring authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request or the Emergency Board;

(2) A faculty member of the University Senate will be appointed by the Senate President to a two year term as a voting member to the Campus Planning Committee.  This member will inform the Senate of projects that do not meet the threshold of appearing on the Capital Construction Budget Request, but which might be of interest to the university community.

(3) The Senate will receive announcements regarding Campus Planning Committee meetings and public forums where major projects are being reviewed.

These provisions will be implemented by changing the membership and reporting clauses of the Charge to the Campus Planning Committee to read (additions in italics, no materials have been deleted);

MEMBERSHIP:

Membership of the Campus Planning Committee is not fixed. Typically it shall consist of 8-10 faculty (minimum 5 teaching faculty), 5 students, 1 classified staff member selected from the university at large.  It will also include 1 faculty member who is appointed for a two year term by the Senate President and is in the University Senate at the time of appointment.  In addition, the committee will include the following ex-officio members: a representative of the College of Arts and Sciences; the Dean of Architecture and Allied Arts; a representative of Disability Services; the Director of Facilities Services or designee; the Director of University Planning; and each Vice President or designee. 

REPORTING:

The Campus Planning Committee shall report to the Administration. The Committee shall also provide reports to the University Senate. At a minimum these reports shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Secretary of the University Senate no later than the University Senate meeting in October. As part of its reporting duties to the University Senate, the Campus Planning Committee will provide an oral report to the Senate in the autumn on progress on major projects over the previous year and a look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration. Major projects are defined as those projects requiring authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request or the Emergency Board. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary. In particular, the Senate will receive announcements regarding Campus Planning Committee meetings reviewing the design for major projects and public forums on major projects.

 

Vice President Keyes stated the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) has a dual role: it is a committee of the senate, an thus reports to it, and it advises the university president regarding how projects should move forward and whether the projects are in compliance with the Long Range Campus Plan. As with all advisory committees, its recommendations are not binding; the president is the final authority and decision-maker. That said, Vice President Keyes noted that the intent of the motion is to have the senate be aware of issues confronting the CPC in order to have discussion and input as early in the project stage as possible. The vice president pointed out that there are a few noteworthy changes proposed for CPC reporting and membership. First, in addition to the regular written report all standing committees make to the senate at year end, the CPC would be required to make an oral report fall term to the senate regarding major projects over the previous year, and to look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration. The CPC would involved in the discussions between planning staff and the administration, and thus would inform the senate of important projects moving forward or perhaps under consideration. Second, changing the membership of the CPC to add one more member, appointed by the senate president for a two-year term, provides the senate with a liaison to the CPC.

 

During a brief discussion period Senator Lisa Freinkel spoke in support of the motion as a means for better communication. No one spoke in opposition. With no other discussion, President Marcus brought the motion to a vote. Motion US04/05-8 amending the reporting requirements and membership of the CPC passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

 

Adjournment

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 4:05.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting February 9, 2005

 

Present: E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, JA. McLucas, C. McNelly, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, S. Wells, R. Yang

 

Excused: McCole, P. Scher, K. Sheehan

 

Absent: G. Epps, K. McPherson, S. Simmons

 

 

 

 

Remarks from University President David Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer commented on the success of the recent gala to kick-off the public phase of the UO’s Campaign Oregon $600 million fundraising drive. With $316 million in committed gifts, the UO is past the halfway mark and on track for successful completion of the campaign. President Frohnmayer also expressed concerns about the budget in the current legislative session. He noted that although the governor’s proposed budget was lean, it reflected a priority for higher education. Even within the context of the state’s difficult fiscal circumstances, the president was hopeful for a favorable outcome. The president also reported that the university completed negotiations for the purchase of the Williams Bakery site for future university development. He said there is not a commitment or decision at this point concerning the use of the property for an arena or any other building, but that the property is strategically located and it was in the best interest of the university to make the purchase.

 

President Frohnmayer continued his remarks by noting the upcoming retirements of several senior administrators -- vice presidents John Moseley, Lorraine Davis, and Dan Williams -- this June and next year. The search is well underway for a new vice president for administration whose job duties will add budget and finance responsibilities to the portfolio, but will remove intercollegiate athletics, which instead will report directly to the president. The president said that he intends his relationship with Athletics Director Bill Moos to be a personal one that involves regular consultation and updating by the athletics director. President Frohnmayer continued that the general counsel will have an enhanced role in dealing with matters of athletics compliance regarding rules of eligibility, sanctions, and other issues involved with the NCAA. In addition, the president felt that it was in the best interest of the university to have a part-time special assistant to the president for intercollegiate athletics, and that he has asked Dan Williams to fill the position. The special assistant will report to the president, but will be physically housed with the athletics department.

 

The president spoke next about the administrative transition of the provost’s office. He remarked how much this university will miss the services provided by both John Moseley and Lorraine Davis, whose length of tenure has been accompanied by unusually strong talent, judgment, and integrity over a very long period of time. The search for a new provost will begin later this spring. During the course of the next year, vice presidents Moseley and Davis will continue a job share arrangement so that one or both are on campus on a continuing basis to ensure a seamless transition from their positions.

 

During a question and answer session Senate President Marcus asked the president if he saw the new reporting structure for the athletics director as one that might become codified in the future. President Frohnmayer responded that Athletics Director Moos has been with the UO for 10 years and has earned the trust and confidence of the academic community. He noted that there is likely no organizational chart that would survive the transition of a new president, but that he is very comfortable with the new reporting relationship and the structure will remain indefinitely while he occupies his position at the UO.

 

In a similar vein, President Frohnmayer also commented briefly on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) resolution now due to come before the senate in March. He noted that the proposed guidelines encourage the development of “best practices” in intercollegiate athletics, making suggestions how to achieve best practices rather than requiring universal guideline implementation. However, the president voiced concern with wording in the proposed motion that it would charge the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) with determining which of the COIA guidelines should be implemented at the University of Oregon. He wanted to be clear, for purposed of future senate debate, that some decisions regarding athletics governance and compliance are made in governance structures other than the IAC. For example, the Athletics Governance Committee is the chief policy setting committee for Oregon athletics on reviewing admissions and personnel decisions, and he would not be comfortable endorsing the IAC for that particular mandate. Further, COIA guidelines reccommend “uniform reporting of athletics budgets.” President Frohnmayer pointed out the difficulty universities across the country have in finding any sense of budget uniformity because debt structures are carried in different ways. He continued by saying that expenditures, indirect costs, operations, maintenance, and depreciation are handled through different accounting systems, which was one of the vexing problems he encountered while serving on the NCAA Board of Directors when trying to make comparisons of the athletics budgets among the universities. He stated that he did not know if uniform reporting was possible; nor did he feel it is appropriate to delegate such reporting to a university committee. The president wanted to be clear that these two particular concerns were known prior to moving forward on the proposed motion.

 

Senate President Marcus followed-up with a question regarding the status of a task force recommendation that a university committee on advancement be formed to provide consultation and guidance on how to deal with issues of commercialization and the many types of stresses that go with the development process. President Frohnmayer replied that the issue was under active consideration and debate by the administration to determine the best way to accommodate the suggestion, preferably within the existing advisory structures.

 

State of the Athletics Department Address. Athletics Director Bill Moos began his report by acknowledging the stability that the UO’s athletics program has achieved due in part to the leadership and administrative guidance provided by President Frohnmayer and Vice President Williams. Moos concentrated his remarks to topics in the topical areas of accomplishments, budget, facilities, and NCAA reforms. He noted that during the last ten years the UO has won ten Pac10 championships, countless honors for both teams and individuals, and is ranked very high within the PAC-10 conference regarding All-Conference Academic Honorees and Academic All-Americans. He continued saying the number one goal of intercollegiate athletics is the education and graduation of the student athletes. This year, of the 402 total student athletes at the UO, 303 student athletes are benefiting from some level of athletic scholarships, with the total value of the scholarships or grants exceeding $5.2 million self-generated dollars. Further, in most years, student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the general UO student population (63% compared to 60% last academic year). He remarked that currently 27% of student athletes are minority students compared with 13% in the general UO student population. The UO is now in compliance with Title IX (gender equity legislation) and, over the past 12 years, has added women’s golf, soccer, and most recently, lacrosse. He also remarked about the nationally acclaimed SOAR program at the UO which works with students to develop life skills.

 

Regarding budget issues, Mr. Moos reported that the UO athletics department is one of only 17 departments in the country that is 100% self-sufficient (i.e., operated without state general fund money). The additional revenue stream realized by the Autzen Stadium expansion enabled the athletics department to reduce its level of institutional support to zero, and thus redirect that support to other academic programs. Successful athletic teams accelerated the plan by three years, thus the current year is the second year of self-sufficiency. Mr. Moos noted that during this fiscal year the athletics department operates on a $37.5 million budget. The budget reflects income of approximately $11 million from ticket sales, $11 million from fundraising, $8.5 million from television and PAC-10 game revenues, and $7 million from sponsorships, rentals, fees and other miscellaneous areas. Expenditures included approximately $11.5 million for payroll, $11 million for sport-related expenses (e.g., recruiting, team equipment, training tables, etc.), $10.2 million in administrative, faculty, and support expenses, and $4.8 million for UO payments (e.g., student tuition, housing, administrative assessments, etc.). In all, about $6.8 million of the athletics department self-generated budget goes back to the UO in various forms of support which includes salaries, tuition, bookstore text book fee reduction (10%), intramural and club sport support ($43,000) and other miscellaneous areas.

 

Mr. Moos continued by comparing budget growth over the past 10 years as follows: total budget from $18.5 to $37.5 million; from 11,000 to 33,000 full price football tickets sales; from $400,000 to $1.5 million revenues for one football game; from $2 million to $5 million for women’s sports budget; donors gifts from $1.1 million in ’94-95 to $11 million in ’04-05. Mr. Moos cited a recent study that indicated that the combined impact of UO sports and hosted sporting events (such as OSAA football, high school basketball championships USA Junior Olympics Track and Field this past summer) generated an estimated $23.7 million for the Eugene/Springfield area. He noted that such hosted competitions bring from 300 to 400 high school student athletes to the UO campus, many with parents looking on, which provides an excellent recruiting tool for the university’s admissions office.

 

In the area of facilities, Mr. Moos said the athletics department has been very aggressive in facility enhancements in order to attract the best student athletes. During the last 10 years the department has spent $160 million on facilities, with the majority of the funds self-generated (only $30 million of the $160 million is in bonds). Lastly, Mr. Moos reported that the three areas of highest priority for NCAA reforms are recruiting, academic standards, and cost containment. Some of the reforms are already in place, lead by former UO president Miles Brand who now heads the NCAA. The athletics department supports reforms such as standards for initial eligibility, making satisfactory degree progress and graduation rates. He noted, too, that there are efforts underway to look at the athletics “arms race” and ways to legally control it without being unfairly disadvantaged. We are competing well with a group of the top 30 schools in the nation and want to be able to maintain high levels of competition.

 

During a question and answer session ASUO senator Stephanie Stoll asked about some dual use issues between club sports and athletics. Mr. Moos replied he was aware of space conflicts and was working with Dennis Munroe in the PARS program to find some workable solution. Senator Dev Sinha, mathematics, asked Mr. Moos to elaborate on the new NCAA reforms regarding graduation rates. Mr. Moos responded the under the new rules each student athlete’s progress will be calculated by how many academic units they are passing, and unsatisfactory progress would result in loss of scholarships in that program. So it behooves coaches to recruit qualified students and make sure they are applying themselves in their degree programs. When asked how the UO would fare if the rules were in place currently, Mr. Moos replied that because some exceptional athletes leave school early to begin professional careers, the graduation rates might work against us in football, for example. Mr. Moos said he is supporting legislation within the PAC-10 that would require football student athletes to have passed a set number of academic credits in order to be eligible for a bowl game. (Some student athletes take a month off from school mid term to try out for a professional team rather than staying focused on their academic requirements.) Mr. Moos noted that UO athletes rely heavily on summer school classes to help them meet their academic progress requirements and graduate in a timely manner.

 

President Marcus asked about the task force recommendation that the athletics department contribute to academic scholarships. Mr. Moos replied the that the athletics department will implement the recommendation with the actual amount of funding support determined each year, dependent on the revenue stream. The department is in the process of completing the budget for next year and determining the scholarship contribution amount, which will go toward funding presidential scholarships. In a similar vein, President Marcus asked about the task force recommendation for earlier academic advising of student athletes, to which Mr. Moos replied they are in the beginning stages of implementing advising improvements. President Marcus commented that unlike most universities, academic advising of UO student athletes reports through the vice president of academic affairs.

 

Mr. Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked how sports and athletics will fit into the overall mission of the university over the next ten years. Mr. Moos said athletics will continue to be in sync with the academic mission of the university, and that the young people recruited need to see the commitment the athletics department has not only to their good experience in athletics, but to fulfilling their requirements academically. He said this has always been the number one priority in the programs of which he has been in charge. He predicted many more regulation from the NCAA with regard to recruiting, academic reform, and the cost continuum, and felt that the UO is an example of the right way to do things. He stated that as long as he is director he will strive to meet the goals and objectives of the UO; having a positive, clean intercollegiate athletic program can do a great deal overall to showcase the UO on a national stage. He noted that when you buy a USA Today newspaper, 25% of the paper concerns sports because many people are interested in sports. Our solid intercollegiate athletics program can be used to highlight the other great accomplishments of this university. For example, during national and regionally televised football and basketball games viewers see promotions for our academic accomplishments. The promotion of Heisman Award nominee Joey Harrington in downtown Manhattan received attention from The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, USA Today, and several magazines who sent reporters to the UO for the first time, and brought attention and promotion to the entire campus and its standing as a comprehensive research institution.

 

Progress on the Diversity Action Plan. -Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Greg Vincent reported that work on the diversity plan is progressing well, and that he has been actively engaged in a series of community conversations about developing the plan. In order to help with construction of the diversity plan he encouraged dialog and feedback for the plan’s five main strategic directions: to develop cultural competence/proficiency; build critical mass; expand and fill the student and faculty “pipeline”; strengthen and increase community linkages, both internal and external; and develop and reinforce the diversity infrastructure.

 

Mr. Vincent gave examples of some diversity building efforts already underway. The Center on Diversity and Community (CODAC) is piloting a cultural competency project in which student affairs directors participate in a cultural competency curriculum to help improve cultural competency skills, cross-cultural communications, and the ability to work diverse learning and work environments. Mr. Vincent noted that building critical mass speaks to our efforts to retain and recruit faculty, staff, and students to our campus from underrepresented groups. He remarked specifically that the Latino population is the fastest growing minority population, yet it is the group that is least served by the UO and the OUS system. Mr. Vincent continued that it is important to make efforts at pre-college level to make sure that students from underrepresented minority groups, especially those from low socio-economic backgrounds, are prepared to move into college, and that at the undergraduate level, we are preparing these students to move into academia – the professoriate, doctoral, and other graduate programs. Mr. Vincent commented, too, about a young scholars program, funding by the OUS through a federal grant, to work with 25 eighth grade students to help them get prepared for college. The fourth strategic direction is particularly important, although perhaps the most difficult. The UO is part of a larger community (city, county, state) in which recent events such as alleged racial profiling by police and distribution of hate literature have made a number of our students and community members feel unsafe. He said the UO is looking to partner with community organizations to create an environment that is welcoming to all. Lastly, Mr. Vincent said that although there are quite a number of diversity activities going on, there are gaps that need to be filled. By analyzing our diversity infrastructure we can leverage the resources that we are currently using in our diversity efforts to make sure we are getting the most for our dollars and efforts.

 

Mr. Vincent concluded his remarks indicating that the advisory diversity working group he has put together is working on these strategic directions and will return to the senate with a set of preliminary recommendations on how each the five strategic initiatives would be put to work. It is the working group’s hope to be back on the senate agenda in the near future for additional feedback and reaction.

 

During a question and answer session Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, asked how the University Senate and the various university committees are involved in development of these recommendations and initiatives. Mr. Vincent replied that he has checked in earlier this academic year to make sure he was on the right track, and that recommendations were being developed by the diversity work group, to be brought to the senate for additional feedback. Mr. Gilkey clarified his question by asking how specific university committees (those reporting to the senate) were involved in developing the recommendations, stating concerns that there should be a pro-active engagement with the senate rather than a top-down presentation. Mr. Vincent replied that the work group is comprised of students, faculty, and officers of administration, and there have been numerous opportunities for anyone to become involved in the process. He stated that no one “owned” the process, other than being charged as the point person on a particular initiative.

 

Discussion ensued concerning the role that standing committees might play in developing the diversity plan recommendations, or the need to develop a new standing committee on diversity. There was some disagreement about how best to cover all the many aspects involved with diversity issues that include cultural, curricular, and access issues to name only a few. Further discuss was framed by Mr. Vincent giving more detail on the structure of his diversity working group (having a point person for each of the five strategic directions). Present Marcus suggested that members of relevant standing committees might serve as liaisons between the senate and the relevant working groups, and that perhaps one or two senators might also serve with the Oversight Group. Mr. Vincent replied that the working group would be certain it connected with the relevant standing committees. The discussion concluded with Mr. Vincent saying he would request that a senate group, whether ad hoc or a standing committee, be created to integrate with his diversity working group.

 

On another topic, Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked about the cultural competency project. Mr. Vincent replied that it is planned as a set of modules that the participants would move through. Currently, the working group is looking for the appropriate academic department and administrative division for the project. He said the goal is to get it operational and running, then open it up for broader use.

 

Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate(IFS). IFS Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, reported on the recent IFS meeting held on the OSU campus. Senator Wagenknecht noted topics of discussion included the DARS computer linked degree audit system, politics of lobbying for the higher education budget, codes of ethics for faculty members, the foreign language entrance requirement, and common course numbering throughout the OUS. Senator Ms. Wagenknecht said OUS is considering using DARS (currently in used by the UO) to streamline the process of tracking courses, transferring between universities, and auditing degree requirement for students. It has the potential to be a very useful tool for advisors, students, and universities by linking student information among higher educational institutions.

 

Ms. Wagenknecht continued by saying there was much discussion concerning the politics of funding support from the state. The recurring theme was that we need to be active in Salem, advocating for our students and education if we want a favorable outcome. On another topic, OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner asked the IFS for information regarding faculty codes of ethics, especially as it relates to relationships between faculty members and students. Senator Wagenknecht said she is chairing a committee to identify such codes throughout the system. (The UO’s policy on consensual relationships was developed by the senate in 1996.)

 

Vice President Lorraine Davis clarified Senator Wagenknecht's comments regarding circulating rumors that the foreign language requirement was threatened by potential discontinuance. Ms. Davis stated that there was no movement to reduce or weaken the foreign language requirement. She said the issue had come up because many of the small schools in eastern Oregon are eliminating foreign languages on the basis that a student can be admitted into a university without the requirement, which is waived sometimes if it is the only missing requirement, but which it is expected to be made up before graduation. She said the intent of the proposal was not as interpreted (in the emails), and that there is no change in the foreign language requirement. Senator Gilkey added that the Undergraduate Council is considering some of the issues related to admitting students with deficiencies, such as should the process have academic oversight; should all deficiencies or some of them be made up, and who should oversee the make-up process.

 

Lastly, Senator Wagenknecht noted that two bills have been drafted to require a common course numbering system throughout the university system. Vice President Davis Lorraine commented that the bills call for common course numbers, content, and credits as well as some issues related to expectations and requirements related to transfer credits. She stated that the bills are in draft form, and reminded everyone that 30-40%of the bills that are drafted never come out of committee. Nevertheless, should the bills make it through the committees, we have to be ready to use the hearing opportunities to respond. In the meantime, she indicated that the administration will work with our legislative representatives and the chair of those involved legislative committees.

 

Senator Gilkey added a final comment that he had received a memo from OUS which he believes indicated progress concerning the ORP. However, he noted the document was not easy to understand, and thus he requested a more transparent statement.

 

Announcements and Communications from the floor

 

There were no additional comments or communications from the floor.

 

New Business

 

As noted at the beginning of the meeting, Motion US04/05-5-regarding the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics was postponed until the March 9, 2004 meeting.

 

Adjournment

 

With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

 

Minutes of the University Senate May 11, 2005

 

 

Present: C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, J. Hurwit, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, K. Sheehan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, R. Yang

 

Excused: P. Gilkey, P. Scher, S. Simmons, P. Swangard,

 

Absent: E. Chan, G. Epps, N. Hudson, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, S. Maier, S. Wells,

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 282 Lillis. President Marcus reminded the senate members of the organizational senate meeting on May 25^th for the 2005-06 senate members. He added that retiring Vice President for Administration Dan Williams will be honored during the meeting in addition to the Westling Award presentation.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the April 13, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

New Business

 

Motion to Confer Degrees for 2004-05. Amalia Gladhart, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, read the motion to confer degrees:

 

The Senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2004-2005 and Summer Session 2005, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

 

The motion passed unanimously without debate.

 

Recommendations for 2005-06 university committee appointments. Senate Vice President Peter Keyes, chair of the Committee on Committees, asked that the senate approve the list of recommended committee appointments for 2005-06 to be forwarded to President Frohnmayer for final approval and appointment. With no additions or corrections, the list of recommended appointments was approved.

 

Election of new Committee on Committees members. Senator Michael Raymer, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee presented a slate of five new members to serve on the Committee on Committees replacing members whose term had expired. The senate voted unanimously in electing the new committee members for a two-yesr term: Margie Paris, Deb Carver, David Frank, William Ayers, and Laura Vandenburgh.

 

Nomination of senate vice president for 2005-06. The floor was opened for nominations for senate vice president for 2005-06. Nominations may be received any time prior to the senate’s vote which takes place at the May 25^th organizational meeting. Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, business school, was put forth as a candidate.

 

Motion US04/05-6 regarding modification of the Y grade. Shelly Kerr, chair of the Scholastic Review Committee (SRC), brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of her committee:

Moved that,

Requests for any grade changes involving the “Y” mark must include a letter of explanation to the University Registrar who approves, denies, or determines alternative appropriate action for the request.

 

Ms. Kerr explained that the SRC noticed a growing number of “Y” grades appearing on transcripts of students who were petitioning and appealing grades for a variety of reasons. A discussion of the history, purpose, and implementation of the Y grade revealed that the University of Oregon faculty approved a grading scheme that eliminated the grades of D and F and in 1970 substituted the mark of Y, meaning no basis for grade. Since that time, the D and F grades have been reinstated, but the Y grade remained.  Over time, the Y has been used to indicate that the student registered incorrectly and did not attend class, thus there was no basis for evaluation.  The UO is one of the few campuses in the country that use this mark, so there is not a ready understanding of the mark’s meaning by transcript readers.  In an effort to alleviate the confusion, a proposal was first made to eliminate the Y grade and institute a more commonly found mark of NC, meaning “no credit.”  Both the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council discussed the proposed elimination of the Y grade and new NC mark. The Graduate Council was in favor of eliminating the Y mark, but the Undergraduate Council felt use of NC had too negative a connotation on a transcript.  The Undergraduate Council therefore recommended retaining the Y mark, but requiring that any subsequent changes to the Y grade go through the Registrar for review and approval.  An example of an approved request would involve processing a retroactive drop/add petition, switching the student to the correct class section, and subsequent submission of an earned grade. 

 

Both councils were in agreement that the Y mark, if used, should only mean that there is no basis for a grade. Any change to the Y mark after grades have been recorded should be unusual and/or rare, which is not always current practice. In addition, both councils felt that it would be appropriate for an instructor to change the Y to a letter grade at a later time, but that such a change needed to be reviewed and approved by the Registrar. Thus the intent of the motion on the floor is to make certain the Y grade is used appropriately.

 

During a question and answer period, Registrar Herb Chereck clarified that faculty are permitted to award a grade of Y with no explanation; the motion only concerns changes to the Y grade after the grades have been recorded. Mr. Chereck continued by giving an example of a misuse of a Y grade when it was later changed to a C, B, or A grade because the faculty member agreed to let the student to attend the class another term and earn a grade. In such a case, the student would need to register for the class and pay for it. Senator Anne McLucas, music, asked about the difference between the Y and “I” (incomplete) grades, to which Mr. Chereck stated that the Y mark should be given only when there is no basis for a grade, whereas the I grade is a negotiated process between the faculty and student for work not completed. When an I is assigned there is a negotiated contract to complete work for the class in a timely manner. Ms. Kerr pointed out the Graduate Council was in favor of eliminating the Y mark, but the Undergraduate Council wanted to keep it because faculty with very large classes may be reluctant to give an F grade in case they had made a mistake. Senator Lise Nelson, geography, commented that if a student does not show up for class, the student should be given an F and then, if there were extenuating circumstances, the student could petition the Registrar’s office.

 

With discussion coming to a close, Motion US04/05-6 requiring the registrar’s review when changing the Y grade was put to a vote and passed by voice vote.

 

Notice of motion to allow emeriti faculty to participate in senate meetings. Senate President Marcus indicated he had received notice to bring a motion before the senate fall term that would permit emeriti faculty members to participate in senate meetings. Currently, emeriti faculty are not members of the University Assembly or the University Senate. The intent of the motion is to enable emeriti faculty to participate in university governance.

 

STANDING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Spring 2005 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, began his report by pointing out a change in policy regarding dropping courses not taught for the past three years. Previously, the list of dropped courses would appear in the Fall Curriculum Report, but from now on would appear in the Spring Curriculum Report. The change in policy enables a discussion with departments and faculty regarding dropped courses during spring term rather than waiting through the summer. Notice of the new policy appears on page 1 of the Spring 2005 Curriculum Report.

 

Mr. Engelking continued his report by outlining corrections or additions to the report. Added to Other Curricular Matters on page 11 was information that the Oregon University System has approved a Master of Arts (M.A.) or Master of Science (M.S.) program in Conflict and Dispute Resolution, School of Law, effective summer term 2005. In addition, on page 3 the course description for COLT 101 Introduction to Comparative Literature has been changed to “Introduction to the Comparative Study of Literature”, world literature, emphasis on literary genre, historical period

 

During a question and answer session Senator Mike Raymer, physics, asked if any departments objected to the change in dropped course listing policy. Mr. Engelking replied that he had a letter of concern from someone in the history department. Mr. Engelking continued that the Committee on Courses requires that to retain a course, the committee must know when the course will be taught within the current or next academic year, which term it will be taught, and who will be teaching the course. Even in the event that a course is dropped erroneously, it can be reinstated easily through an administrative action by contacting the Registrar’s office within three years of the dropped course listing. Mr. Engelking emphasized that the committee has no interest in rushing the course dropping process; rather, their intention is to eliminate from the catalog those courses no longer being offered and taught in order to provide students with accurate information when scheduling. With no further discussion, the motion to accept the Spring 2005 Curriculum Report with noted changes passed unanimously. (Full text of the report may be seen at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/S05CurRptFin.htm)

 

Presentation of draft Student Conduct Code and formation of the Senate Ad Hoc Senate Committee on the Student Conduct Code (SCC). Mr. William Daley, chair of the SCC, reported the committee’s work to revise the SCC, indicating a draft of the revisions will be vetted during the coming academic year. He noted the suggested revisions are the culmination of years of works and are an attempt to update the code from an educational perspective. (The current SCC, modeled after the criminal justice system, is very legalistic and somewhat adversarial.) Mr. Daley said the new code is written in plain language and is geared toward fact finding, having people accepting responsibility for their actions, having an educational consequence. The suggested revisions are consistent with national best practices regarding student conduct codes.

 

President Marcus thanked Mr. Daley and other SCC members for their hard work and announced the formation of a senate ad hoc Committee on the Student Conduct Code chaired by Senator Lisa Frienkel, English. This committee will be responsible for editing and preparing the new student conduct code for senate review after it has been reviewed by the General Counsel for compliance with current law. President Marcus indicated there would be opportunity for public review and comment with the goal for the senate to act on the code’s revision by the end of fall term.

 

Report from the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Committee (NTTIF). Kassia Dellabough, committee chair, reported that the committee’s task this year was to move forward the implementation of policies recommended the previous year. Recommendations were distilled into basic principles. Academic Affairs, with leadership from Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, is working in partnership with the NTTIF to begin the implementation procedure. Ms. Dellabough noted that several schools and colleges have developed their own internal groups to address issues germane to non-tenure related instructional faculty; she felt confident there would be improvements in the working environment of these faculty members. Ms. Dellabough indicated the committee is working to improve communications among NTTIF and is developing “best practices” guidelines and models for schools and colleges to implement. She added that next year the committees focus will be on continuing to work with Academic Affairs and increasing communication across campus, along with continuing the dialogue regarding salary and compensation issues.

 

Vice Provost Tomlin commented that during the academic deans’ retreat last summer they were made aware that the NTTIF issues needed to be addressed. The implementation working group includes deans, NTTIF, and tenure related faculty who have identified policies that are straightforward and relatively easy to implement right away, as well as those that are more difficult to implement. Mr. Tomlin continued saying that the working group will be creating an information site on the Academic Affairs website to enhance communications about NTTIF issues. In addition, the group will create paths to regularize appointment and evaluation procedures and review policy about promotion. Lastly, he noted that they are making changes to provide a more effective orientation for new NTTIF who may not have started working fall term during the regular new faculty orientation. And, part of the Department Heads Retreat program at the start of fall term will address upgrading procedures regarding appointments and working conditions for NTTIF.

 

During a question and answer session, Ms. Dellabough commented that because NTTIF was such a diverse employee group, the initial efforts were focused on non tenure related instructional faculty members with at least a .50 FTE appointment who had worked at the UO for 3 years or more. Over time, policies relating to this sub group will better address appointments of faculty who teach for shorter time periods, such as one term. When asked how the efforts of the working group interfaced with policies already established in schools and colleges, Mr. Tomlin indicated there was work toward developing a template of baseline policies on which the various schools and colleges could build policies and procedures that best fit their own situation.

 

 

Report from the Senate Budget Committee. Steve Hsu, chair of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) reported on the year’s data for average faculty salaries and compensation, stating that the UO’s numbers are bad overall and have gotten slightly worse during the past year because of the salary freeze. He noted that the picture was slightly better when looking at total compensation (salary plus benefits) when compared to salary only, however, there are caveats with these data. Mr. Hsu said in general we are not compensated nearly as well as at other peer institutions. UO salaries as a percentage of peer institutions were 77.3% for full professors, 80.3% for associate professors, 85.6% for assistant professors, and 80.0% for instructors. When total compensation across all ranks is compared with peer comparators, the UO is at 86.2%. He reminded everyone that the White Paper on salaries had 95% parity with comparators as its goal. In year 5 of the plan, the average salary was $66,600 compared with $66,200 the previous year, mostly as a result of small increases due to promotions. The UO total compensation, salary plus benefits, decreased by 1.9%.

 

Mr. Hsu pointed out that an important consideration is in how one values the benefits component for faculty compensation; the value of the benefits component needs to stay equal to the dollar expenditure of our institution to purchase those benefits. Whether that accurately represents the value provided by those benefits for individual faculty members raises real questions. For example, in 2000-01 the cost to the UO for faculty benefits ranged from about 28 to 32% of salary for the three professor ranks. Roughly speaking, the UO is paying 30% of salary to purchase PERS and PEBB, and so on. Those expenses were about 6% higher than our comparators, so in the long-term when comparing compensation for UO faculty salary with the salary of faculty at other institutions we are compensated about 6% more than the salary figure represents. Mr. Hsu continued by saying in 2004-05 the benefits purchase costs for the UO ranged from 32 to 37% of salary; it went up significantly and is now roughly10% higher than our comparators. Consequently, the UO spends 10% more on average for our benefits that the average of our comparators. If the relative increase in the cost of benefits is due to some problems with PERS and is not going to be reflected in payouts in the future that would benefits faculty, then perhaps it is questionable to count that in our total compensation. This is a very important caveat in determining whether we made forward progress or regressed regarding the White Paper goal for the last 5 years. Mr. Hsu said if you take the pessimistic view the best comparative measure would probably be salary plus some normalized benefits value that lies somewhere between the figures of our reported given salaries and figures for compensation. Salary compression stayed relatively the same because of the salary freeze; it was slightly worse because professors were hired at higher salaries.

 

Regarding instructors salaries, accurate compensation data both for tenure related and non-tenured related instructors are not currently available for all our comparator institutions. Using data from several but not all our comparators, UO instructors are compensated at 91.7% of comparator levels (using data available from Michigan, Virginia, Colorado, and Washington). That is comparable to relative compensation of assistant professors and is superior to that of associate professors here at the UO. If salary alone is used as a comparator, the ratio to instructor’s salaries is about 80%, and that is comparable to ratios from comparator institutions. Mr. Hsu indicated that the SBC believes that not only are the senior faculty underpaid, it is getting difficult to hire new assistant professors at the current levels. Although deans and the provost may respond that funds are available to offer new assistant professors salaries at AAU average levels, many department heads are justifiably unwilling to distort their department salary structure by paying beginning assistant professors more than associate professors. Further, prospective faculty may well look forward and understand the difficult salary future that awaits them.

 

In short, the salary problem has to be addressed in all ranks in order to maintain morale and competitiveness. Mr. Hsu indicated that a rough estimate of the cost of improving the currently salary situation and increasing average total faculty compensation of $10,000 per year would bring us closer to our goal of 95% parity. Assuming there are 600 total UO faculty members, this would require an additional $6 million per year. A combination of funds from increased state support and endowment income, and possibly reallocation of resources from other programs, could be used to cover this cost. As an example, an endowment of $150 million would provide the necessary income, based on the assumption of a 4% investment return after inflation. Mr. Hsu stated that faculty members should ask whether resources from the ongoing comprehensive campaign, which has already raised half of the targeted $600 million, will be used to improve the salary situation. He closed his remarks by saying the high quality of our research and teaching programs is jeopardized by the dramatic salary gap between the UO and the comparator institutions. Our identity as a leading research institution is at stake; improving faculty salaries and restoring UO competitiveness is the single and highest priority of our institution.

 

During a question and answer session Senator Raymer asked how the list of comparators was chosen and how the UO compares with national rankings. Mr. Hsu commented that when developing a list of comparators one usually wants to aim high, so they select from top universities. In further discussion, Mr. Hsu suggested that if the UO chooses not to use endowment monies to better fund faculty salaries, it is hollow to say that salaries are a top priority. Provost Moseley interrupted to say that he would love it if donors were able to give endowment funds for faculty salaries. The UO has never used endowment funds for faculty salaries and has never heard of any other institutions that have done this, either. The endowment funds that the UO has raised are all designated for specific purposes. It is a misstatement to say that the administration could make a decision to direct $150 million of endowment funds or even $10 million to faculty salaries. He noted, too, that the UO has raised over $50 million towards endowed professorships that goes into faculty salaries and helps with some of the competitive salary issues. In fact, there is no endowment at the UO that can simply be converted to faculty salaries. Rather, this administration has quadrupled in number and size the amount of money available to endow chairs. The provost continued that he absolutely places faculty salaries as a top priority and is very concerned about the warnings that Mr. Hsu gave based on these data.

 

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, remarked that no one in her department makes the average faculty wage that is in the report. She also had concerns about the comparator schools and felt they may not be equal to the UO, thus skewing the results of the report. Provost Moseley replied that as you break down data into smaller and smaller units you can get into problems of statistics of small numbers. He stated that he looks at those data on a regular basis, literally down to the departmental level, and has larger groups of comparators by schools, colleges, and rank. The provost suggested he could involve the SBC in looking at the more detailed data and report back to the Senate. There are substantial differences among disciplines and those disciplines are driven by international markets. He noted that some comparators have medical schools, for example, and all comparators are AAU institutions.

 

 

Report on the diversity working group recommendation. A draft of the university’s 5-year Diversity Plan that was circulated prior to the senate meeting generated a number of negative responses from individual faculty members as well as a member of the diversity Advisory Council. Complaints were that not all committee and council members had reviewed the draft before it was released, thus it was not a product of the committee and council members who were named on the title page of the draft plan. Other complaints voiced referred to terms within the plan (such as “cultural competency”) that were not appropriately nor adequately defined, especially as linked to decisions regarding promotion and tenure. Provost Moseley then commented that the Deans’ Council had an extensive discussion with Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Greg Vincent about the existing draft of the Diversity Plan. The consensus of the deans was that the university has had a long term commitment to develop a diversity plan; that it is very important to move forward to finalize and institute a diversity plan; that the six basic points of the plan have been discussed and redefined as goals for the diversity plan; and that some of the detailed proposals for accomplishing the six goals clearly require further discussion, modification, and/or approval by appropriate university communities and appropriate administrative bodies. To suggestions that faculty governance bodies had been circumvented or that faculty listed in the plan did not participate in or sign off on the plan, Provost Moseley stated that the draft plan did include work by most of the people listed, and that all people listed were invited to work and comment on the draft. Further, the provost said the intention was to make it clear that we need the diversity plan; areas that need further discussion are areas that the university has deemed as important, but clearly there is need for more. He added that there was never any intention in this draft plan to circumvent the usual university approval process within the UO governance system.

 

Vice Provost Vincent began his report by addressing the issue of faculty participation in the drafting and reviewing of the plan. He noted the Diversity Working Group is made up of faculty, students, officers of administration, and staff who were asked and accepted the assignment to work on and develop a set of recommendations that is now the draft Diversity Action Plan. In addition, deans, directors, and vice presidents were asked to nominate faculty, officers of administration, students and staff from all over campus. A listserv of participants was created and materials were sent out to them. The Diversity Advisory Council had monthly meetings and the draft plan was presented at the March 31^st meeting, at which a majority of council members were present. Vice Provost Vincent said that members on the emailing list had numerous opportunities to review and to comment on the draft plan.

 

President Marcus asked Vice Provost Vincent to discuss the process of moving forward with the draft. Mr. Vincent commented that he appreciated that the senate was creating an ad hoc committee with the intention of vetting the plan to the entire campus community for comment and input. He anticipated that the draft would be subject to major revisions and input from the campus community.

 

During a question and answer session several senators raised the issue of using cultural competency in tenure and promotion/performance appraisal, saying release of the draft was premature, and that further discussion on this and other points is needed. Vice Provost Vincent agreed that the issue needs additional attention. President Marcus indicated that to receive faculty and campus community input, he was appointing an ad hoc senate Committee on Diversity consisting of past senate presidents Bowditch, Earl, Hurwitz, Tedards, and Tublitz along with current senate Vice President Keyes, with perhaps some others to be named later. The committee would work over the summer and through next academic year and is charged to be responsible for: (1) advising the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity on the development of diversity action programs at the University of Oregon; (2) insuring that the University Senate and its committees are included in the development of diversity action plans; (3) coordinating activities among university committees and administrative working groups involved in diversity activities; and (4) recommending to the senate appropriate processes for continued senate involvement in developing and sustaining diversity programs on campus.  Recommended actions may include establishing a permanent University Committee on Diversity. In addition, the ad hoc committee will report to the senate in the form of a written report submitted by the chair to the secretary of the senate no later than the final University Senate meeting in May 2006. The committee may make additional written or oral reports to the senate as appropriate. (For full text and charge, see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/SenAdHocComDivCharge17May05.htm).

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

Minutes of the University Senate Meeting January 12, 2005

 

 

Present: C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, L. Moses, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, K. Sheehan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, R. Yang

 

Excused: C. Lachman, K. McPherson, P. Swangard

 

Absent: E. Chan, L. Nelson, P. Scher, S. Simmons, S. Wells

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remarks on the Senate Agenda for the remainder of the academic year. Senate

President W. Andrew Marcus welcomed guest OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner to the meeting and briefly outlined several agenda items for the remaining winter and spring meetings. There will be reports on restructuring of the administration, the administrative response on the recommendations of the Task Force on Athletics, and a state of athletics report from Athletics Director Bill Moos. In addition, Greg Vincent, vice provost for institutional equity and diversity, will speak about the process for improving the diversity climate of the university. In March, he anticipates a panel discussion framed by the work of the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) committee, and in spring term, possibly a report from the Student Conduct Code Committee regarding progress made toward revising the conduct code.

 

Remarks for Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley commented briefly about Winter term enrollment, saying it has held-up strongly, slightly exceeding original predictions. Overall, such enrollment strength makes the budget situation look a little better. He added that the university has received approval from the Emergency Board for the bonding to purchase the Williams Bakery Site, with hopes to finalize that agreement in February. Also, the UO Foundation has made an offer to purchase the old Romania Chevrolet site on Franklin Boulevard, which also figures into the campus long-range plans. If it goes through, the UO Foundation would purchase it now, and when the university needs the site it would be able to acquire it from the foundation.

 

The provost commented that further analysis of the governor’s proposed budget indicated that higher education was treated very well compared to other agencies, and even other sectors of education. He indicated that higher education will be a target in the legislature, but that we will protect our position within the budget as best we can. Further, if the UO can get the governor’s budget and the tuition increases that are implied, we should be able to manage next year without any budget cuts, which was not the case for the last two years. Adequate budget increases are not likely, but the goal is to be able to fund a modest salary increase along with increases in PEBB and PERS.

 

In a similar vein, the provost said he met with the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) and commented that they had discussed all of these issues in more detail. The budget committee also discussed the library budget and determined that it was somewhat disadvantaged to the sum of approximately $200,000 to $300,000. The SBC is working on adjustments to the library’s budget to see what improvements can be made.

 

During a question and answer session Mr. Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked if the arena purchase and construction would have the same process for review as the upgrading of Autzen Stadium. Provost Moseley replied that he expected it to be the same process, that is, the Senate Budget Committee will do an analysis and report to the Senate.

 

Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) on OUS activities – IFS Senator

Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, reported that the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM) was passed by IFS and has been endorsed by at least three OUS campuses at this point. When asked if the campus votes were unanimous, Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, said it was unanimous with one abstention at Portland State University, and unanimous at both Southern Oregon University and Oregon Institute of Technology.

 

 

Announcements and Communications from the floor

 

A member of the community suggested that students, faculty, and staff become involved with fund raising from outside university sources, to help with tsunami relief in Southeast Asia.

 

President Marcus took a moment to recognize and commend Senator Gilkey, who is just finishing his term as president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, for outstanding efforts and accomplishments in creating a process for faculty voices throughout the Oregon University System to be heard, especially in reference to the Oregon Transfer Module this past year. He remarked that the UO owes him a debt of gratitude for going far beyond his expected duties, and presented him with a copy of Atlas of Oregon signed by members of the senate.

 

 

Unfinished Business

 

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Incomplete Grades Policy Implementation Process. Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, provided an overview of the procedures that will be implemented to make sure faculty and students understand the new policy of assigning undergraduate students an “F” grade for course work not completed within one year of the incomplete (See US04/05-1 and implementation http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/ dirsen045/IncompleteGradesPolicy.html).

 

During the fifth week of this term, there will be an email sent to all teaching faculty informing them of the definition for incompletes. There will be a reminder sent out that if not the course is not completed within the year, the grade will be converted to an “F.” In week ten, faculty will receive another email regarding the new policy. Faculty will be encouraged to develop contracts with the students who have incomplete grades and keep the contracts on file in the departmental office in the event the faculty member leaves or is on sabbatical, so there is record of what needs to be done.

 

Mr. Chereck explained that students will be apprised of the new incomplete grade policy via an email notice the second week of the term after they received an incomplete grade. Also, students applying for graduation will be notified of the new incomplete policy if they have incomplete grades. The new policy begins with incompletes awarded winter 2005. Registrar Chereck said his office will work with departments to generate reports (using the Banner system) to monitor incomplete grades. Finally, if a student’s incomplete is converted to an “F”, a notice will be sent to the student to let them know of the changed grade. The registrar’s office will continue these procedures for the next calendar year.

 

During a question and answer session Senator Michael Raymer, physics, asked if faculty are required to sign the grade completion contracts with students. Mr. Chereck replied there was some discussion, but there was not overwhelming consensus to require a signed contract. When questioned whether a convert to “F” grade means a student would be ineligible for a degree, Mr. Chereck said certain students whose G.P.A. may drop below 2.0 may need to be reviewed. Thirty days following graduation the registrar’s office seals the transcripts and no further changes are made. Students are not officially awarded their diplomas until thirty days after commencement. Mr. Chereck noted that incomplete grades prior to Winter 2005 would remain as incomplete grades.

 

 

 

Nominations and election of a senator and alternate representative for Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)—President Marcus asked if there were any nominations from the floor to replace Peter Gilkey who has resigned from the IFS. Senator Gilkey nominated Paul Engelking, chemistry, for the IFS replacement position. Mr. Engelking was elected by acclamation. No nominations were put forward for the IFS alternate representative.

 

Motion US 04/05 –4 Oregon Transfer Module. Senator Gilkey reported that the Undergraduate Council voted in support of the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM) at its December meeting. Thus, on behalf of the council, he stated that:

 

The University of Oregon Undergraduate Council (a) approves the Oregon Transfer Module, as endorsed by the Joint Boards Articulation Commission on November 19, 2004, and (b) moves that the University of Oregon University Senate approve the Oregon Transfer Module, as endorsed by the Joint Boards Articulation Commission on November 19, 2004, pending final approval by the Joint Boards of Education.

 

President Marcus reminded Senators about the October town hall meeting on the issue and wealth of materials already provided to senators regarding the transfer module. The president also noted that representatives from various universities in the system, have agreed to the text of the module, and consequently the motion at hand is either to endorse or not endorse the transfer module.

 

Senator Gilkey commented this motion gives credit to a student to take courses for one year at a community college and then be able to transfer the general education credits. It specifically reserves each one of the individual universities the right to “top-up” their general education requirement. He continued by stating that passing the motion would improve standards (currently a “D” grade or better is acceptable; the new module requires a grade of “C-“ or better). Senator Gilkey suggested the module would be especially helpful for a community college student who is unfocussed or unclear of what academic avenue to pursue – it provides focus for the first year of course work. He noted that good advising is the key element and is an enormous benefit for students. Lastly, Senator Gilkey that the motion has a political dimension because the Oregon legislature and governor are looking at higher education issues regarding student transfer and articulation simplicity.

 

President Marcus opened the floor for discussion. Several questions were raised regarding how the module differs from the current practice, how other schools’ course compare to ours, and whether all the module courses count toward the university’s general education requirement. Senator Gilkey explained that the module is only 1 year of course work whereas the current AA/OT transfer degree is two years of course work, and we have not had problems with the quality of course work from students transferring in with that degree. Further, the module course all count toward the UO’s general education requirement but we can add to the requirement as appropriate.

 

With the discussion completed Motion US 04/05-4 to endorse the Oregon Transfer Module pending final approval by the Board of Education was brought to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

 

Motion US 04/05 – 2 Communications between University Athletics and the University Senate. President Marcus stated both of following motions arise from recommendations from the President’s Task Force on Athletics initialized in 2001 and from small group meetings between the task force and senators. The task force released its final report and recommendations in May 2004. Two of recommendations are especially relevant to the senate: one relates to reporting activities, the other to the charge of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC).

 

IAC Senate Representative, Kim Sheehan, journalism, introduced the motion on reporting activities by saying that one of the key findings of the task force was that ongoing dialog is essential in order for all parts of the UO to work together in a common cause in pursuit of excellence in both academic and athletics. The IAC supports Motion US04/05-2 as a means for enhanced communication between the Athletics Department, the IAC, the faculty athletics representative, and the university community. It specifically requires three reports during an academic year: (1) from the athletics representative in the fall, (2) from the director of athletics during winter term, and (3) from the IAC chair during spring term. The text of the motion provides a range of topics that can be covered. These reports are designed to provide information from the report giver to the senate, but also allows senate members and the university committee the opportunity to ask questions of the person giving the report with the purpose of further deepening understanding. Text of the motion follows.

Whereas, the President’s Special Task Force on Athletics has made several recommendations regarding the relationship between the UO athletics department and academic programs, and;

Whereas, they have made recommendations to the President about steps that could be taken to further enhance that relationship;

Therefore, be it resolved by the University of Oregon University Senate that the university athletics director, the chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), and the faculty athletics representative should be invited annually to report to the University Senate.

(1) The athletics director shall provide a “State of the Athletics Department” report at the beginning of each winter term. This report should include information on:

a) issues related to student athlete welfare;

b) priorities for the athletics department (and the relation of these priorities to the university mission);

c) the financial status of the athletics department;

d) planned expansion, remodeling or removal of athletics facilities;

e) changes in the status of sports teams;

f) changes in facilities management that might affect the university community;

g) any major violations by the athletics department, and their resolutions;

h) possible roles for faculty governing bodies to assure that academic policies and practices are consistent with supporting the intellectual growth and academic success of student athletes and the viability of athletics as an integral part of campus life;

i) any others topics the athletics director deems relevant to the university community.

(2) The chair of the IAC shall provide an annual report to the University Senate during spring term.  This report should cover IAC involvement on the issues stated above and an assessment of the consistency of athletic policies and practices with the academic mission of the university.

(3) The faculty athletics representative shall report to the University Senate during fall term.  This report should serve to keep the senate informed on local and national changes in athletics and should also discuss key topics identified by the faculty athletics representative, the senate president, and the IAC chair.

(4) Each report should be followed by an open question and answer session.

(5) Additionally, all reports should be posted at the Senate website and made available to all interested members of the university community.

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, suggested that these types of reports be made available a few days before the senate meetings so that senators could come to the meeting better informed to engage in dialog about the report contents. She moved to amend item (5) to insert the words after web site to say “48 hours prior to the senate meeting” The amendment to the motion reads as follows, “Additionally, all reports should be posted at the senate website 48 hours prior to a senate meeting and made available to all interested members of the university community.”

 

Discussion on the amendment to the motion ranged on whether oral reports were sufficient, whether reports should be finalized after their presentation on the senate, and how detailed the written report (posted ahead of the meeting) would need to be, and that perhaps an outline of the report might suffice. Mr. Jim Isenberg, chair, IAC said he preferred to give the report orally, take questions, then have the chance to include thoughtful answers to those questions in written report. Senator Psaki responded that although the thoughtful answers would be incorporated into the record of the report, she felt there would be more informative input from the senators if there was at least a preview of what the report contains. Other senators agreed. It was pointed out that these reports come once a year from three different sources, thus the extra burden of a written report prior to the meeting did not seem excessive, and the purpose of the reporting was to give rise to informed discussion.

 

The question to amend item (5) was called and passed by voice vote. Item (5) was amended to read:

 

(5) Additionally, all reports should be posted at the Senate website 48 hours prior to the senate meeting and made available to all interested members of the university community.

 

The main motion was again on the floor, as amended. With no further discussion, Motion US04/05-2 regarding communications between the senate and athletics department passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Motion US 04/05 – 3- Revision of Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) Charge and Responsibilities. Mr. Jim Isenberg, chair of the IAC, commented that his committee found that the athletics department is doing a very good job at the UO, and that the recommendations suggested by this motion are to monitor and help athletics continue to do a good job. The key feature of the revised charge and responsibilities is to provide faculty consultation to the athletic department in a number of areas, for example, whether to add or subtract sports, develop new facilities, hire new coaches, and revisions of the games schedules. He noted much of this consultation is already occurring and seems to be working. The motion simply puts ongoing activities in writing; he urged the senate to vote in favor of this motion. Text of Motion US04/05-3 follows:

 

Whereas, the President’s Special Task Force on Athletics has made several recommendations on the role of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), the University Senate adopts the following as the charge and responsibilities of the IAC to replace in its entirety the previous charge and responsibilities (all additions to the previous charge and responsibilities are in italics; there are no deletions). 

 

CHARGE & RESPONSIBILITIES

 

The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee shall:

 

1.  Represent the academic standards of the university as embodied in the University of Oregon Mission Statement in all decisions;

 

2.  Advise the administration, the senate, and the athletics director on any athletics department policy or program, including the athletics department budget;

 

3.  Promote and safeguard opportunities for student athletes to excel in academics and protect and ensure the academic integrity of student athletes; and,

 

4.  Promote greater understanding, for the university community, of intercollegiate athletics and the relationship between academics and athletics.

 

As part of its function and in order to carry out its governance function, the IAC shall be consulted by:

 

1.  The athletics department on:

a. any proposed changes in departmental recruiting policies, academic advising, expectations regarding student schedules, or any other practice that could affect the academic or financial standing of students who are athletes. The IAC need not to be informed of all changes mandated by the NCAA for student athletes, which fall under the purview of the faculty athletics representative, although the IAC should be notified of any major changes.

 

b. any decisions, large donations, or commercial offers that potentially change the financial landscape of athletics or might influence university finances outside the athletics department;

 

c. any decisions that potentially affect the campus environment, including construction, removal, or remodeling of facilities, changes in the timing of facilities use, or changes in permitted uses of facilities;

 

d. scheduling of athletic events, including scheduling changes made to accommodate other universities or the media except for Saturday football start times;

 

e. addition or termination of sport teams, or changes in the status of sport teams;

 

f. the appointment of head coaches for all intercollegiate athletics teams.  In cases where an open search process is conducted for head coaching positions, an Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) faculty member shall be included on the search committee.  When the search is abbreviated, the athletics director shall consult with the chair of the IAC.

 

2.  The athletics director, or designee, via the chair of the IAC to determine if changes in athletics department procedures, policies, or activities reach a threshold deserving of attention by the full committee.

 

3.  The faculty athletics representative about all ongoing investigations and major violations.

 

The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee shall have one subcommittee, an executive committee, consisting of the committee chair, one faculty member, one student and the faculty athletics representative. The executive committee shall be charged with maintaining close and timely communications with the athletics department, through the athletics director or designee. The executive committee shall set the agenda and venue for IAC meetings. The executive committee shall be empowered to call extraordinary meetings of the IAC. The chair of the IAC shall be elected at the final regularly scheduled spring meeting and must be a returning member. The chair of the IAC shall be responsible for forming the executive committee. It is expected that the executive committee shall have regular contact with the athletics department during the summer.

 

To better educate its committee members to the complexities of university athletics, the IAC shall hold a once yearly retreat prior to the academic year. The retreat shall provide a forum for new members to learn about the role of the IAC in supporting the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon, to learn about administration of campus athletics, and to be informed on issues potentially requiring IAC attention in the year ahead.

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Membership of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee is fixed and consists of eighteen (18) voting members, eleven (11) teaching faculty, two (2) classified staff, and five (5) students. Eight (8) teaching faculty members -- four (4) from the College of Arts and Sciences and four (4) from other areas -- and two (2) classified staff shall be elected to the committee by the teaching faculty, and classified staff, respectively.  Faculty and staff committee members may serve up to three consecutive two-year terms.  After three terms, faculty and staff members must be off the committee for two years before being eligible for re-election or re-appointment. The University Senate shall appoint two (2) faculty members to the IAC for two-year terms. The faculty athletics representative shall be an ex-officio member of the committee with full membership privileges.  The five students shall be appointed through the ASUO and the president's office. At least one student member shall be a varsity student athlete.  Students shall serve one-year terms and may serve up to three consecutive terms.  The athletics director and his designees on the IAC shall be ex-officio non-voting members.  No member of the IAC may receive benefits from the Department of Athletics beyond what she or he would otherwise be entitled to if she or he were not a member of the IAC.

 

REPORTING

 

The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee shall report to the University Senate.  At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the committee chair to the secretary of the University Senate no later than the final University Senate meeting in May. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the senate as necessary. The IAC executive committee shall maintain communication with the senate through the IAC's senate appointees (who are eligible to serve on the executive committee). The executive committee shall meet with the senate president and the vice president for academic affairs at the beginning of the academic year.

 

During a question and answer session Senator Jon Jablonski, library asked about the consulting function of the IAC. Mr. Isenberg used a search for a new coach as an consulting example; IAC member is included on the search committee. There was a question to clarify the necessity of a yearly retreat, to which Mr. Isenberg said that it simply was a yearly meeting usually lasting two to four hours. Such meetings are for new members of the committee to become familiar with the athletics department and its operation. He felt this type of meeting was very useful. Hearing no further discussion, President brought Motion US04/05-3 to revise the charge of the IAC to a voice vote, which passed unanimously.

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 4:25 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty