Organizational Meeting of the University Senate May 25, 2005
Present:S. Brownmiller, , S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, N. Fuji, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, W. A. Marcus, P. Lu, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Nelson, J. Newton, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht
Excused:E. Chan, C. Cherry, A. Djiffack, D. Eisert, C. Ellis, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, L. Moses, V. Ostrik, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons, J. Stolet, K. Wagle
CALL TO ORDER
Approval of the Minutes
Approval of the minutes from May 11, 2005 senate meeting was deferred until the first senate meeting of the fall term.
Standing and Administrative Committee Reports
Report from the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC).IAC chairman Jim Isenberg, mathematics, made a brief report on the topics discussed in the IAC during the past year (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-2.html for recent legislation requiring this senate report). Mr. Isenberg noted that the IAC has had a productive year in responding to new policies recommended in the athletics task force report. Issues discussed by the committee included: offensive mascots (pink star), the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), new lines of communication between the Athletic Department and the rest of campus (the athletics director now reports directly to the president), Academic Services for Student Athletes, the new Academic Progress Report System, improving communication with faculty regarding athletics matters, the SOAR program (which integrates student athletes into the community for charitable events), the basketball arena project, and the new track and field coach. Mr. Isenberg commented positively on a developing mutual respect between the IAC and the athletics department, as well as more effective use of the IAC by the administration.
During a question and answer session a question regarding the status of the new basketball arena was asked. University President Dave Frohnmayer clarified that there is no arena project, currently. There is hope for a new arena and it is included in the comprehensive campaign. The president continued that MacArthur court must be replaced soon, but it would not be done by state funds; the UO will need substantial donations for it to happen. If such donor commitments were made, the UO would move quickly to take advantage of lower costs for construction. He noted that the Williams Bakery site has been purchased. If a decision on the arena needs to be made, the senate would be contacted, even during the summer months. He also remarked that there is neither benefit nor intent to hide any information regarding a new arena; he wants the senate to endorse this project.
Senate President Marcus pointed out that the Campus Planning Committee, which has two senate members, will be looking at any new construction projects, even those that are privately funded; so now there is a two-step process in place that had not been in place in the past. He also emphasized that this does not mean the Campus Planning Committee would have the authority to approve or disapprove a project, but it will provide two different stages of project awareness and input early on.
Presentation of the Wayne Westling Award for University Service and Leadership.Former Senate President Nathan Tublitz presented the Wayne Westling Award to this year’s recipient Jim Earl, English. He noted that the senate makes this award based on the recipient’s demonstrated outstanding and long-term commitment to the UO through service and leadership. Mr. Tublitz congratulated Mr. Earl, saying he embodied many of the same traits and attributes of former law professor and colleague Wayne Westling, for whom the award is named. Mr. Earl has served the university on numerous committees, as senate president, and as a national figure for reform in collegiate athletics. In accepting the award, Mr. Earl commented that university service can be viewed as a burden, but the minute he decided to do it, it became a pleasure. He thanked the senate for the honor of accepting the award. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more about the award.)
RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION DAN WILLIAMS.
Mr. Earl, English, recognized Vice President Dan Williams’ many years at the university, including being ASUO president while an undergraduate at the UO. In lauding Mr. Williams’ contributions and management style, Mr. Earl also commented that Dan Williams was “a fount of gentle wisdom.” Mr. Earl remarked about Mr. Williams spending some retirement time consulting for the Athletics Department, saying that his balanced view of athletics, as well as his ethical and self-confident modesty, embodies the perfect school spirit for our day. Mr. Earl thanked Mr. Williams for his many years of excellent service and congratulated him on his much deserved retirement.
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF ORIENTATION OF NEWLY ELECTED SENATORS-SENATE.
President Marcus asked the newly elected senators to rise as they were introduced and welcomed them all to the senate. The secretary provided a brief overview of the senate’s operational procedures as well as the various materials available through links to the senate’s web page. Additionally, she noted that senators are automatically members of a closed senate listserv. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen056/memsen056.html for full list of members.)
REMARKS FROM OUTGOING SENATE PRESIDENT W. ANDREW MARCUS
President Marcus began his final remarks by commenting on the past year. He thanked everyone who made this year a remarkable one, and acknowledged the contributions of the secretary, Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, members of the Senate Executive Committee, previous senate presidents, Ms. Linda Adkins who assists with the minutes, and the support of his wife, Lisa. He also commented on the tremendous amount of work done through the 27 standing committees of the university, and outlined the senate’s accomplishments for 2004-05, which included 9 legislative motions that were evaluated, modified, and passed during the year. He noted that the Oregon Transfer Module moved through the system very quickly due to the extraordinary efforts of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, lead by UO representative Peter Gilkey. In contrast, the development of guidelines for best practices and employment management regarding non-tenure-related instructional faculty has taken five years of hard work to reach present state, which is viewed by all as a great success although there is still work ahead. President Marcus praised the efficiency of the senate this year, noting that a large amount of the work on all motions is done in the early planning stages, as they are crafted and re-crafted, before they come before the senate for floor debate and action. The motion regarding the “Y” grade was a good example this kind of cooperative effort, as the various committees and councils, working with the registrar and the senate rules committee, formulated an acceptable motion that improved and clarified use of the Y grade. President Marcus also spoke about the controversy created by release of the draft Diversity Plan, suggesting that collaborative work with the senate, its ad hoc committee, and the diversity plan’s drafting and advisory members will yield a shared solution on this topic.
President Marcus reminded the new senators of their important role in shared governance, emphasizing the collaboration and cooperation necessary to achieve “buy in” from all concerned parties. He noted that there will be challenging issues ahead, and by working together solutions are possible. Lastly, he wished them well in the year ahead.
Nomination and election of the Senate Vice President for 2005-06. President Marcus noted that Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, had been nominated at the earlier May meeting, and asked if there were any other nominations from the floor. Hearing none, Jeanne Wagenknecht was elected vice president by unanimous voice vote.
Confirmation of 2005-2006 University Senate President Peter Keyes.President Marcus asked for and received a unanimous vote confirming Vice President Peter Keyes as the new incoming senate president for 2005-06. And as has been the custom, he handed President Keyes a gavel and a copy of Robert’s Rule of Order. President Keyes then called on University President Dave Frohnmayer, who made a few remarks praising Mr. Marcus for his service as senate president during the past year, and presented him with an Atlas of Oregonand a set of UO bookends. President Frohnmayer commented that our form of governance at the UO has endured for 128 years, and by its very mandate implores the “president and the professors” to work together in serving and governing the university. He alluded to a number of issues during the year that could have been especially explosive, but that have yielded to be dealt with sensibly through the guidance of President Marcus and the goodwill of those who serve the senate. He thanked President Marcus for his service to the university.
Newly elected Senate President Peter Keyes then made a few remarks, first thanking the senators for their support and for the mentorship that Mr. Marcus provided during the year. President Keyes briefly outlined several items that he foresees as on the agenda for the next year: upgrading the senate’s use of technology, moving forward with the diversity plan, the NTTIF recommended policy implementation, acting on Student Conduct Code revisions, issues that may arise with athletics, and perhaps the arena project if it gets on track. He noted that he hopes to improve communication of the senate with the various faculty and staff constituent groups in order for the senate to have an active agenda rather than be a purely responsive governing body. Thus, he asked the senators to talk with their colleagues about generating agenda items that concern them.
With no further ado, the new president invited everyone to the reception that followed and adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
It is customary for the outgoing Senate President to thank the people who have made the functioning of the Senate possible, summarize the events of the past year, and take a brief moment to philosophize on the meaning of life – or short of such a large goal - life as we know it in the confines of the Senate chambers and our university. I hope you will indulge me as I take some time to carry on this tradition.
The inclination in giving thanks is to simply read off the names of every Senator and University Committee member, all of whom have contributed to making the Senate function over the past year. But that would leave us here for another two hours. Several people have been absolutely critical and I want to make a special point of expressing my appreciation to them.
First and foremost, as any Senate President can tell you, the post consumes a great deal of time, much of which is taken notfrom the day job (which must be done to keep the pay check coming), but from family. In particular and in my case, the person who has taken the large brunt of that “lost” time is my wife, Lisa, who has been amazingly supportive of my late nights, my non-existent weekends, and my moments of irritable stress. As Lisa is here, I want to publicly acknowledge her support and thank her. With regard to future university service, she has also become the biggest advocate of that old Nancy Reagan saying “Just say No!” I will continue to rely on her to keep me unfettered and free of university service – for at least another six weeks.
In the university, Gwen Steigelman, Secretary of the Senate, is my heroine of the year. It is Gwen who understands the Senate procedures and keeps we novice presidents in line to the best of her ability, always with a sense of humor and a knack for understated correction – “Well, you could do that… if you don’t mind being investigated by the State Attorney General.” Above and beyond that, Gwen has become a good friend over the year, one of the wonderful and unexpected discoveries of my time on the Senate. Thank you Gwen for being there is such a supportive role.
During meetings, Paul Simonds has been my back bone, by which I mean that I do not think I would have had the confidence to stand up here without a parliamentarian to back me up. Remember our first Senate meeting of this year when we had a motion to amend a motion that amended an amended motion? No? Good, I try to forget it too. Without Paul, I would have been at a total loss.
Linda Atkins has assiduously taken copious minutes for the Senate. That her fingers on still on her hands is testament to some inner strength that I do not possess.
To the Senate Executive Committee of Sheryl Eyster, Jon Jablonski, Peter Keyes, Ann McLucas, Carla McNelly, Lou Moses, Gina Psaki, Gwen Steigelman, Stephanie Stoll, and Nathan Tublitz I extend my thanks. You have kept me from going astray more times than I care to reveal to the Senate.
There is also a loose coalition of past-Senate Presidents, a recovery support group if you will. Although there is no formal meeting or agenda, I have gained invaluably over the year from guidance provided by Lowell Bowditch, Jim Earl, Peter Gilkey, Jeff Hurwit, Greg McLauchlan, Paul Simonds, Ann Tedards and Nathan Tublitz. Thank you all.
Finally, I have formed a wonderful friendship with Vice President Peter Keyes, whom I have relied on for insight, humor, and a New York edge that cuts right through some of the Eugenian touchy feely gobbledy gook that we are sometimes inclined to get mired in. You are fortunate to have him leading you into the year ahead.
So what is it that these individuals have helped to bring about? In the past year the Senate has evaluated, modified, and passed nine motions, not including the standard boiler plate motions such as conferral of degrees and awards, votes to approve committee memberships, and the various votes to approve course changes. These motions include:
One on procedures for convening the University Assembly
Two related to grading procedures (the I grade and the Y grade)
Two related to enhancing the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee’s ability to carry out its mission of representing the academic standards of the university.
One to endorse the COIA best practice guidelines on academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics.
Two that significantly increase university community involvement in campus planning process, especially when outside funding is supporting new construction.
One that endorsed university involvement in the Oregon Transfer Module, which will improve students’ ability to move between community colleges and four year universities.
Depending on how one parses this out, we had four motions that related to athletics (if one remembers that the arena debate sparked the changes in the planning process), three related to curriculum and grading, and five that involved changes in the governance process on campus (the Assembly and all the IAC and planning motions).
This is more motions than have been dealt with by most Senates over the last ten years, but less than some. In other words, a slightly more busy than average, but a generally ordinary year. So why bother with this listing?
In part, I want to provide this list by way of saying thank you to the Senators from 2004-2005. While the consideration of these motions may not have always been the most exhilarating experience in the world, the work these motions represent lie at the heart of how the university functions. Your willingness to engage in reviewing, altering, and voting on these motions helps keep the university responsive to changing times and needs.
The list is also a simple way to alert new Senators joining us today to the kinds of business you will be involved in. Welcome to the “party.” Heads up!
Most important to me is the final number in the list: five. Five motions related to university governance – ranging from campus planning to intercollegiate athletics to procedures for convening the Assembly.
This number represents the profound commitment of this body, its committees, and the university to shared governance. We are at our best as an institution when the tenets of this concept are adhered to and carried out. A listing of notable examples from this year include:
The Oregon Transfer Module, championed by faculty and administrators at our university, required collaboration among all universities and community colleges and was instrumental in diverting legislation that would dictate curricular content.
The ability and willingness of the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Committee and Dean’s Council to work in concert has propelled initiation of concrete actions within the Office of the VP for Academic Affairs. New Senators – part of your charge for the year ahead will be to make sure that these efforts do not lose steam.
The collaboration of the Athletic Department, the President’s Task Force of Athletics, and the IAC to better integrate academics and athletic activities within the campus.
The remarkable transformation of the Long Range Campus Development Plan, which required community outreach and close collaboration of the Campus Planning Committee, the Senate Executive Committee, and the Campus Planning Office, to name just a few of the players.
And this doesn’t include the remarkable work of the Student Conduct Committee; the collaboration of the Library Committee, the Senate Budget Committee and the Provost’s Office to significantly increase the base budget for the library; or the extraordinary efforts by the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate to maintain a faculty voice in the governor’s push to improve higher education – all of which have received considerable air time in the Senate this year.
For those of you who are new Senators, and for some of you who are “passing on,” there are several notable aspects of all these successes:
First, successful collaboration takes time. The shortest of these efforts – the Oregon Transfer Module – moved at university governance warp speed, meaning it took about nine months from start to finish. In contrast, the development of guidelines and concrete management practices for NTTIF, has taken five years to reach its present state, is viewed by all involved to be a success story – and still has a long way to go.
Second,the large, large, VERY LARGE majority of work takes place before a motion ever reaches the Senate floor. It is in the pre-Senate stage that motion are crafted, recrafted, and recrafted again as input pours in from all the significant stake holders. As just one example of a motion that had a relatively easy process, the Y Grade motion of this year was initiated by the Scholastic Review Committee and then had to be reviewed and modified by the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Registar’s Office, and the Senate Rules Committee before coming to the Senate for a relatively innocuous discussion and vote. What the Senate sees on the Senate floor is just the tip of a very large process ice berg.
As an aside for those of you who are new Senators and are wondering what the Senate President does, a primary role of the Senate President is to make sure that the appropriate committees see and review a motion before it reaches the Senate. Often the Senate Executive Committee, which meets with the Senate President between Senate meetings, aids the President in routing motions and even in suggesting new wording for motions. Because the Senate Executive makes up approximately a fifth of the voting Senators, most initiators of motions are willing to accept suggestions from this body.
Third,it is my personal opinion that there is nothing more boring on earth than successful collaboration. I have felt on several occasions this year that have I attained some weird inverse of the Peter Principle, where instead of raising to my level of incompetence, I have risen to the level where my competence is perfect. For years I have wanted to be in a large lecture hall where students are engaged, upset, asking challenging questions, stomping out of the room fractiously debating the great intellectual questions of the age. For years I have railed at my inability to accomplish this level of intellectual engagement.
But this past year I have attained a strange state where I enter a lecture hall for a Senate meeting, inhabited by the people whose opinions I most care about – you - my university colleagues. Then, as I drone on, moderating the conversation, watching your eyes role up in your sockets, heads falling forward in snooze position, a light drone of pleasant snores filling the air, what do I think? Yes – this is perfect!!!! If you find yourself falling asleep in the Senate meeting, the collaborative process has worked!
I will soon be entering therapy to deal with my conflicted aspirations.
Of course, the inverse of these statements hold true. When a process is fast tracked, when it does notinclude key stakeholders in the university governance process, then it can be VERY exciting indeed – as I have learned over the last two weeks with the release of the Draft(I emphasize Draft) 5 Year Diversity Plan.
My assessment of all this? In the future, I choose boredom.
But I do not want to have my comments about the Diversity Plan end on that note. Once again the inclination to work collaboratively towards a shared solution has risen to the top at Oregon. The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, whose formation was announced at the last meeting, has played a key role in facilitating a process that will move the development of a diversity plan forward in an inclusive and expeditious manner. I want to emphasize that the committee does notsee its role as one of rewriting a diversity plan. Rather, it sees its mission as one of insuring inclusivity throughout the university as a new Executive Diversity Working Group develops the next version of a plan. I want to also acknowledge that President David Frohnmayer has played a central role in working with the ad hoc committee to insure that our commitment to diversity moves forward and to develop a process allows us to solicit input and guidance from throughout the university. Thank you President Frohnmayer. We all appreciate your commitment to working with the Senate on this critical issue.
Finally - my goal in reciting all these different experiences? It’s a simple message: As you look forward your careers as Senators, I hope you will remember the central and critical role of shared governance. This will not always be an easy thing to accomplish in the year ahead. You will be handed issues that do not have simple solutions or about which there is significant disagreement: can you spell ARENA? Not to mention the intricacies of the Student Conduct Code, salaries across campus, and future directions taken by the diversity initiative – all of which are likely to be on your agenda in the future.
I suspect the inclination of any of us in this frenzied and overcommitted world is to look for the quick solution to any issue that arises. At first blush, this gives the illusion of being more efficient and effective. I have learned over my time in the Senate, however, that in the long run, having buy in and cooperation is more critical than reaching an end point on paper. As Senators, it will be up to you to insure that our tradition of shared governance continues through the contribution of your time, of your intellect, and of your good will.
I wish you the best of luck on your tasks in the year ahead. Thank you.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting March 9, 2005
Present:C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, P. Scher, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, K. Sheehan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman,
Excused:G. Epps, L. Lindstrom, M. Pangburn, S. Simmons,
Absent:E. Chan, J. Hurwit, S. Wells, R. Yang
Call to order
Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 182 Lillis. President Marcus noted that the spring senate meetings will be held upstairs in 282 Lillis.
Approval of minutes
Minutes from the January 12, 2005 meeting and the February 9, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.
State of the University
Remarks from Senate President W. Andrew Marcus. President Marcus commented that it is time again for nominations for university committees and the Senate. Elections will held on-line late April and early May. He remarked that it is critical to recruit colleagues to engage in faculty governance activity.
President Marcus updated the senators regarding the progress on Student Conduct Code revisions, saying the committee would not be able to fully vet the proposed revisions by the end of the academic year. Instead, the committee will use next year for deliberations of the proposed revisions and will offer the final revision in a motion to the senate next academic year. Similarly, the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee will provide a progress report on its activities during the April or May senate meeting. It is working in conjunction with Vice Provost Russ Tomlin, academic affairs, to develop plans for implementing recommendations made in previous reports. Mr. Tomlin indicated that some recommendations would be implemented by the end of this academic year.
Remarks from University President David Frohnmayer.President Frohnmayer reported on topics related to the actions of the state legislature and the Ways and Means Committee, pending legislation, tuition issues, and possible salary increases. Regarding the Ways and Means Committee (the budgeting committee), the president said that because of the more positive March revenue forecast, the general expectation is that most of the additional $200 million will go toward to K-12 education, but it makes more secure a base budget for higher education. President Frohnmayer said there appears to be no general hostility to the direction of the OUS system, but the budget is limited by the total funds available.
President Frohnmayer commented briefly on the recent Oregon Supreme Court opinion concerning the PERS legislation. The court found two provisions unconstitutional, which affect both current and recently retired members of the system. These decisions will have no apparent fiscal impact on this biennium’s budget. President Frohnmayer stated the adjustments would be made out of existing reserves that are due to stock market gains. Turning to tuition issues, President Frohnmayer indicated that a tuition increase of 5% to 7% is proposed for the coming year, with another 5% increase proposed for the following year. He commented on a proposed tuition freeze legislation which would buy down the tuition amounts by the infusion of new general fund support. The president stated the full price for a tuition buy-down to zero is about $32 million, and there is no other apparent ready source to find that level of funding, other than from other state agencies budgets. If the $32 million were not forthcoming, and the tuition increase reduced to 0% by legislative action or agreement, this would result in a net budget cut to the UO. President Frohnmayer wanted to make clear the fiscal consequence of an underfunded tuition freeze -- he said the legislature could decide to buy back all or part of the proposed increases; then the question would be, From what source would the monies come? The Oregon Opportunity Grant program is one possible source. The president opined that the thought of a general tuition buy-down, which affects all students, regardless of income level, by reducing their costs at the expense of students who are beneficiaries of the Oregon Opportunity Grant, seems a perverse way of making higher education more accessible. He noted that such is one of the trade-offs currently discussed. He also mentioned a second tuition-related proposal to freeze tuition payments between the 12th and 15th credit hour. We have phased out the tuition plateau at the UO, and did so by keeping the tuition discount practice for students that are willing to take classes at non-peak hours. The president reported that the UO has seen a modest increase in number of course hours taken by our students on campus, and that there has been no detriment to students’ degree progress by removing the plateau. OSU had different results, and reinstated their plateau. It is clear legislation to re-establishing plateaus would have a very different impact on each of the OUS institutions depending on the composition of our student body in terms of proportion of full-time and part-time students. The president stated it is not in the best interest of the public or the UO to have a uniform policy throughout the OUS system to be regulated by the legislature.
President Frohnmayer spoke briefly on other legislative bills related to higher education, specifically, proposals for common course numberings among OUS universities and community colleges for similarly named courses. The UO has lobbied against these bills, saying that the courses are unique to the development by each university’s faculty, which is one aspect of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. President Frohnmayer said it is our belief that the merits are not in favor in the passage of these bills and the impulse behind them is the sense that when students transfer from one institution to another they are faced with needless credit transfer barriers or not receiving credit for course work they have already accomplished. The UO is monitoring these bills very closely, as is the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, and he reported that they are working together on these matters.
Regarding the issue of salary improvement and compensation for faculty at the UO, the president said there is positive indication that there will be no continuation of the wage and salary freeze, but until the budget is adopted, he cannot say that is for certain. The university is actively engaged in planning for an appropriate system of salary remuneration and increases. Expectations are that salary increases will probably involve a minimum of 2% across the board for cost of living and up to 2% for merit and other equity adjustments. The process will be guided by the principles of the Senate Budget Committee’s Whitepaper.
During a question and answer session, Senator Michael Raymer, physics, asked if the extra $200 million forecasted state revenue would be subject to the “kicker” provision. President Frohnmayer replied that it would not, and would be available revenue for funding budget items.
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) on OUS activities—IFS Senator Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, reported that things are going well and that the IFS would meet again in April.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Winter 2005 Preliminary Curriculum Report.Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, and chair of the Committee on Courses, noted several changes in the preliminary winter 2005 curriculum report. First, added to Other Curricular Matters is the renaming of the Multimedia Design Program, in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, to Digital Arts, effective summer term 2005. Second, Asia 350 What is Asia: Theoretical Debates is removed from the body of the report due to pending issues regarding more specific course prerequisite and will appear only in the pending section; course is approved pending resolution of the course prerequisite issue. Third, the line “Course still satisfies Category B: Identity, Pluralism and Tolerance Multicultural requirement” was added to ENG 4/588 Race and Representation in Film: [Topic], to make it clear the course still satisfies the multicultural requirement. Fourth, administrative changes were made to GEOL 311 Earth Materials (5) and GEOL 350 Structural Geology (3); prerequisites were changed per department memo. Lastly, a course was listed incorrectly in the denied section and will read PPPM 203 Sustainable Environments (4) instead of PPPM 202 Healthy Communities .
In addition to these changes, Mr. Engelking noted the new policy for the routing of minor changes (determining which curricular matters go before the Committee on Courses), and the updated undergraduate general education group-requirement policies. With no other additions or corrections, President Marcus asked for a vote to accept the curriculum report, as corrected. The 2005 Winter Term Curriculum Report was accepted by voice vote. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/CurRptW05Fin.html for final report.)
President Marcus reported on that the ad hoc committee to review experimental course offering policies has been tabled due to the upcoming legislative outcome regarding the standardizing of certain courses numbers through out the OUS system.
Report on proposed revisions to the Long Range Campus Development Plan.Chris Ramey, university architect, reported that his office is currently in the final draft of the plan, after a well attended, productive open house last week. Mr. Ramey continued by saying the next step is a review by the Campus Planning Committee during spring term followed by a public hearing. Finally, the plan will go to President Frohnmayer for review and adoption by the university. (See http://uoregon.edu~uplan/LRCDPDraftPlan1web.pdf for draft copy of the new plan.)
Mr. Ramey reminded everyone that campus planning provides a guide to make sure the campus is flexible, functional, and a beautiful place. The plan helps us to avoid mistakes that have happened in the past, while retaining the best qualities of the campus. It also prevents losing open spaces and the distinguishing features of the campus due to new construction. Since the plan was last updated 15 years ago, the university has added 1 million square feet of new space. The proposed changes make the document easier to use and it strengthens the most critical components, which are preservation of the open space framework. It clearly describes the review process and increases development capacity as possible ways to meet the needs of the UO in the future.
Mr. Ramey reviewed the proposed processes by which decisions are made using plan, depending on the type of project (see proposed Long-Range Campus Development Plan for decision making flow charts at http://uoregon.edu~uplan/LRCDPDraftPlan1web.pdf). A recent new project type includes funding through foundations, such as with the Chiles and Bowerman Family buildings. The Campus Planning Committee has a review role throughout the process, and does the review based on the appropriate project criteria. Mr. Ramey said that the various decision-making patterns afford flexibility while still retaining review and planning committee involvement.
During a question and answer session, questions focused on the process used with projects involving external private donors or foundations who provide funds for buildings. It was clarified that the planning committee is not the final decision maker – it is advisory committee to the president, who makes the final decision. However, the planning committee will now have input and make recommendations based on the overall campus plan and relevant policies and campus criteria. To a question from Senator Gordon Sayre, English, asking if the senate is directly involved with the planning committee, it was clarified that the Campus Planning Committee is a standing committee that reports to both the senate, annually, and to the administration. To follow-up on the issue of the senate’s involvement with the planning committee, President Marcus will ask Campus Planning Committee Chair Carole Daley, Chris Ramey, and Ed Singer to meet with the Senate executive Committee to further deliberate on the matter.
Announcement and Communications from the floor
Senator Anne Dhu-McLucas, music, complained about the excessive noise created by some EMU area activities occurring during class hours. She was referred to Scheduling and/or Student Life to make a formal complaint.
Motion US04/05-5— regarding the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA).Senate President Andrew Marcus provided some background to this motion by stating that the University Senate joined COIA last year, along with about 47 other university or faculty senates, that were concerned about the interactions of intercollegiate athletics and academic programs, and their effect on student athletes. President Marcus noted several considerations to take into account before acting on the motion. First, he made it clear that adopting the motion (to endorse the COIA Guidelines) would not commit the university to adhere to any of the regulations or practices outlined in the document – it is meant as guidelinesfor best practices, which admittedly, may not fit all institutions; the UO has the choice of whether, and which ones, to follow or not. Second, because the document is being presented for endorsement by all the COIA member senates, it is inappropriate to amend the document; the motion put forth is to endorse the COIA document. With no further comment, the motion was seconded and brought to the floor for discussion.
Whereas,the University of Oregon University Senate is a member of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), and;
Whereas,the COIA steering committee has requested that faculty leaders from member institutions vote on acceptance of a COIA document that details suggested best practice guidelines for Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics, and;
Whereas, the COIA document does not mandate practices at member schools, but rather, states that, “The object [of the best practices document] is not to prescribe what schools must do, but to suggest issues that schools need to consider and approaches that may with adaptation fit local needs and strengthen the way athletics supports the educational mission. Where other local practices already accomplish the goal of academic integrity, those may in fact constitute best practices for that institution.”
Therefore, be it resolved that the University of Oregon University Senate:
1.Endorses the COIA document on best practice guidelines for academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics, and;
2.Charges the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee with recommending to the University Senate and Administration which of the COIA guidelines should be implemented at the University of Oregon.
Mr. Jim Earl, English, who was instrumental in getting COIA organized and running, spoke in support of the motion. He indicated that much vetting had transpired in developing the guidelines, and that the leaderships of the NCAA, the academic advisors, and athletics directors were supportive of the principles stated in the guidelines. Further, he emphasized that the document reflected moderation, recognizing that there may be objections to some guidelines at the local level. He stressed it was intended as a functional document to act as oversight in addressing systemic problems in athletics. He concluded that it was a reasoned, non-binding proposal for best practices guidelines on academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics. The ideals that COIA embraces are very widely shared among university faculty and we are sensitive and alert to the many forces that have the potential to erode our faith in the institution. He stated that the guidelines present absolutely no danger to the UO since it is non-binding; he urged support for the motion.
Mr. Jim Isenberg, mathematics, and chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC), reported that the IAC reviewed the guideline and found three types of statements included: regulations, best practices, and statements of principles. Among the regulations were three specific regulations that are proposed for adoption by the NCAA. The first is that athletic scholarships be awarded on the presumption that they last 5 years or until graduation, and decisions to revoke a scholarship must be made under the jurisdiction of the university’s chief academic advisor, which in the case of the UO it is the provost. The second regulation proposes the collection of data on student athletes’ academic performance by course section. The data is to be reported to the senate and monitored for any preferential treatment. The third proposed NCAA regulation bans so-called divided competitive season; it outlaws intercollegiate competitions during a non-traditional playing season.
Mr. Isenberg continued by commenting that there are more than 50 proposals listed as best practices. The idea is to raise issues for schools to consider and to suggest approaches individual schools may wish to follow to resolve the issues. Included are proposals regarding admissions and closely monitoring academic performance of special student athlete admissions. Also among the best practices are proposals to reduce, and possibly phase out, athletic scholarships in favor of need based scholarships; to scrutinize courses offered by the athletic department; to reduce the season length; and to work to avoid competition during class time. In addition, the document contains a number of broad statements of principles concerning the value of inter-collegiate athletics and its relationship to the academic mission of the university, the role of the student athlete on campus, and the relation of the faculty to athletics.
Mr. Isenberg commented that the majority of the IAC members expressed support for the overall intention of COIA to raise awareness among university faculty members regarding issues related to intercollegiate athletics. Although there was broad support for many of the statements of principle, and for a number of the best practices, several IAC were not happy that the guidelines were offered as a single document for an “up or down” vote as a whole. There was some disagreement with several of the principles and uncertainty regarding what the UO was to do with the best practices on our own campus. He noted the committee was dismayed at the relatively small amount of time to examine the large number of proposals. Much of the IAC meeting time centered on one or two individual proposals that were problematic for some members, such as proposals for data gathering and tracking academic progress. In summary, one argument made was that the document, as a whole, is a positive step toward comprehensive discussion of athletics on campus, and thus one should vote for it. On the other hand, the point was made that since a vote for the document may necessarily be construed as support for allits provisions, anyone with severe reservations concerning one or more proposals should vote against it. The final IAC vote was four in favor and six opposed to the guidelines document. Mr. Isenberg commented that it would certainly be nice to have a lot more discussion, and emphasized that most of the members liked the idea of these questions coming up.
During a question and answer session, many of the issues that surfaced in the IAC discussions were raised y senators, too: are we bound by the document if we endorse it; must we adopt all the proposals; do we have latitudes to implement some proposals, but not all; and how does the IAC fit in with endorsing some the proposals for governance structure on campuses. Other senators raised the issue of what authority or “clout” this document would have on campus. To these concerns, the general response was that the document is meant to be best practices guidelines as how to improve the academic integrity on campuses. Because one size does not fit all, and because the proposals are guidelines, the general discussion seemed to flow toward endorsing the motion even though there was not total agreement with every proposal with in the document. Mr. Earl suggested that endorsing the guidelines was a way to create momentum for needed reform in intercollegiate athletics, with this document as a starting point.
Senator Kim Sheehan, advertising, re-stated her concerns about the three NCAA legislative proposals contained in the document, and that endorsement of this document would give tacit approval for those regulations to be put forward to the NCAA for approval. Other senators voiced similar concerns. Although there was some sentiment that the IAC could enact many of the guidelines proposed in the document without voting to endorse it, the majority of comments indicated it was important to support the spirit of reform expressed in the best practices COIA guidelines.
With the discussion drawing to a close, President Marcus called for a vote. Motion US04/05-5 regarding endorsing the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Guidelines on Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics passed by voice vote.
With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
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 activitiesIFS 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 Oregonsigned by members of the senate.
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Incomplete Grades Policy Implementation Process.Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, provided an overview of the that will be implemented to be certain the new policy of assigning undergraduate students an F grade for all course work not completed within one year of the incomplete grade is well understood by faculty and students (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 a 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 initialed in 2001, and after several years of concerted work, and after senators met in small groups with committee members to further refine the recommendations, 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 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 puts for the 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 in these reports and more importantly 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 meetingThe 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 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 to 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 it 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 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.
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.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 13, 2004
Present:� E. Chan, C. Cherry, D. Eisert, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, 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: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 universitythe 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.� In essence, 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:
(a)���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.
(b)���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.
(c)���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).
(d)���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.
(e)���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).
(f)�����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.
(g)���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.
(h)��� 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.
(i)�����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.
(j)�����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:
(k)���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).
(l)�����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 after a 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 sensor 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 Lisa Freinkel, English, 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, sensing the potential for hurried amending on the floor, interjected his concern that because there has been a significant amount of thoughtful contemplation and discussion of the motion that has generated a number of amendments to the motion under discussion, and because there to be a need for further amending, he asked that that debate on the motion be postponed to allow more time for thoughtful review of the motion, and amending, as needed.� He asked Senator Wagenknecht, Senator Psaki, and Mr. Stahl were asked to be involved in a group to study the motion.� 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 study group 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 the authority of the president should not be left unaddressed, one way or the other.� 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 with those previously mentioned as a study group, and that the secretary and general counsel also be included.� President Marcus agreed and appointed thus appointed the ad hoc committee.�Senator Gilkey then moved to postpone Motion US03/0410 until the November 10th senate meeting.� The motion to postpone US03/04-10 to a time certain (November 10th) 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.
Secretary of the Faculty
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.
a. Financial Picture.� State appropriations are approximately the same in absolute dollars now as ten years agoa 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.
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 November 12, 2003
Present: L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, K. Curtin, C. Ellis, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, A. Lindquist, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, P. Scher, K. Sheehan, M. Sherman, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Wilson
Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, M. Woollacott
Absent: L. Alpert, A. Berenstein, R. Graff, M. Holland, C. McNelly, M. Shirzadegan
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the senate to order at 3: 07 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the October 8, 2003 senate meeting were approved as distributed. (The secretarynotes two attendance corrections that have since been made: S. Haynes and P. Scher were present at the October 8th meeting.) NewStudent Senate representatives also were introduced: Ben Strawn, Mike Sherman, Alisha Linquist, Jessie Hardy, and Kevin Curtin.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Budget and enrollment update.Provost John Moseley reported that the UO budget suffered heavily in the last year of the previous biennium and continues to suffer for the current biennium: state funds --education and general -- will amount to less than one-third of last yearâ€™s state funds (not including grants, contracts, auxiliary funds and private gifts). The UO is scheduled to receive a little more than $60 million for each year of the 2003-2005 biennium, which means that the university will be receiving fewer total dollars and student dollars from the state than were received in 1989, with no inflation adjustment, resulting in serious increase in tuition. The tuition increase is making up for loss of state funds and increased expenditures driven by enrollment growth, not per-student expenditures. Expenditures have been a flat $11,000 per student since 1999; this year it will be $10,300 per student with no inflation correction.
Last yearâ€™s decision to increase UO entrance requirements for better enrollment management resulted in no enrollment growth for the first time in five years. The money is being made up in non-resident students and private gifts. Non-resident enrollment is down by a few hundred students. The loss of international students is due in part to post September 11, 2001 standards that make it difficult to obtain visas; and other countries are recognizing the value of bringing international students to their universities. The provost noted that international students are important culturally and educationally to the UO. The loss of their tuition dollars is also a reality. Total non-resident tuition (including international students) is $2.5 million less than expected. If the UO cannot continue the educational quality and access traditionally delivered, the result will be the loss of more non-resident students.
The provost noted that this yearâ€™s budget balanced after a 3% cut across all non-fixed budgets. Payments on bonds, rents, leases, and so forth, are fixed and cannot be reduced. He indicated that next yearâ€™s budget (2004-2005) is not balanced and is dependant on two additional issues: (1) the income tax surcharge that may be repealed causing a $2.5 million reduction to the University in a one-year period and increasing the possibility of additional tuition increases; and (2) the legislature passed a bill requiring the Oregon University System (OUS) to return $14 million of student tuition to the general fund by January 2005 (ostensibly to make up for the "savings" realized from changes to the retirement system [PERS]). The latter bill will be challenged, but either way the money can be re-appropriated by the Emergency Board. Because the UO receives the largest amount of state money, the loss of funds would be $4.7 million. Consequently, if the income tax surcharge is repealed, the general fund repayment happens, and next yearâ€™s enrollment projections are not met, a further budget cut will result. The good news is that enrollment has been maintained even with the tuition increases, the current freshman class meets the highest standards set to date, and access to classes has been maintained.
The provost opened the floor for questions. Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, asked about the source of negativity concerning higher education. Provost Moseley responded that the public likely does not hold higher education in high regard because the legislature implies its low regard by inadequately funding it. Senator Ben Strawn, ASUO, asked if next yearâ€™s projected enrollment is the same as this yearâ€™s, to which the provost responded that it is essentially the same. He remarked that the UO cannot increase the number of resident students until the legislature is willing to fund them; enrollment growth will have to come through non-resident students.
Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, asked how we could work together to face such an overwhelming deficit. Provost Moseley suggested that the faculty continue to provide classes and interactions that maintain high standards to prevent the quality of a UO education from deteriorating in the face of what he hopes is a short term crises. Senator Frances Cogan, honors college, asked if alternative ideas in teaching more cost effectively, such as E-teaching and computer courses, have been discussed. The provost answered yes, and that there are a few such classes happening now. Offering professional development in using the campus network for efficient teaching is being considered, but the general thinking is that most students would not thrive in a purely electronic environment. Some classes â€“ for example, 4-hour classes that meet twice a week â€“ may benefit from meeting once a week with the rest of the teaching conducted on-line. Actual meeting hours would be reduced, but learning would be increased. However, such new programs require money to develop.
Election of new Committee on Committees members.The Senate Nominating Committee nominated Ellen Scott, sociology, and Deb Merskin, journalism and communication, as candidates for two vacancies on the senateâ€™s Committee on Committees. Both were elected by acclamation.
Election of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative.Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, was elected unanimously to serve a three-year term (starting January 2004) as the UO representative to the IFS. President Bowditch noted that an alternate position (a one-year, renewable) on the IFS was still open; senators or faculty members should contact her if interested in serving as an alternate.
Notice of Motion regarding recent revisions to OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy).Senator Daniel Pope, history, stated his intention to make a motion during the December senate meeting that would call for rescinding the recently adopted revisions to the Student Records Policy and redrafting the policy with senate oversight and input. Senator Pope indicated the text of the motion would be available soon and posted on the web page (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-5.html).
Resolution US03/04-1 regarding the siting process for the University basketball and events arena.It was moved and passed that Resolution US03/04-1, which had been tabled during the October senate meeting be moved to the floor for debate, with revised (updated) text substituted for the original resolution. The resolution now reads:
Whereasa location for a basketball and events arena and associated facilities has been chosen by the University; and
Whereasthis siting process operated outside of usual and customary campus planning procedures; and
WhereasUniversity of Oregon Policy Statement 7.000 (Foundation Practices and Procedures) requires review of such projects by the Campus Planning Committee;
Be It Resolved that,the University of Oregon University Senate
Hereby expresses its strong opposition to the siting process for the arena and associated facilities that has taken place to date; and
Hereby urges and expects the University administration to submit its proposal to the Campus Planning Committee for review, and to follow other established campus planning procedures for the siting of the arena and associated facilities.
Senator Mike Russo, management, spoke first regarding the resolution that he sponsored, noting that his remarks in support of the resolution should not be interpreted as a lack of gratitude for the arena donorsâ€™ generosity. He spoke of the importance of following established procedures concerning campus planning, and that there was a sense the system is out of balance and needs to be addressed. Senator Russo suggested that planning documents exist to restrain the behavior of individuals and to move the campus in a consistent, forward direction. A unified campus plan, he continued, reinforces and enhances the campus beauty; if the campus plan becomes optional, the physical attributes of the campus may not be as attractive to students. Before relinquishing the floor to further discussion, Senator Russo invited Vice President Dan Williams to comment on handouts provided to the senators regarding campus planning policy and involvement of the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) from this point forward (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/Explaination10Nov03.pdf, and http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/Frohnmayer10Nov03.pdf and minutes of October 8, 2003.)
Vice President Williams reminded the senators of the reasons given during the October senate meeting rgarding the decision to site the new arena at Howe Field. He indicated that the administration felt that the university would realize the greatest benefit of the donorsâ€™ financing gifts (efficiencies in contract bidding and construction time frame) by setting up non-profit corporation subsidiary of the UO Foundation to handle the project in conjunction with the university. Mr. Williams then drew attention to the November 10, 2003 memo from President Frohnmayer to CPC Chairwoman Carole Daly that outlines a significant role for the planning committee in the arena project from this point forward. A question was asked how the resolution would affect President Frohnmayerâ€™s memo to the CPC and the long-range campus plan. Professor Russo responded that the resolution urges that the CPC be involved in the whole arena siting process, while President Frohnmayerâ€™s memo sees the committee being involved from this point forward.
Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, asked if the second part of the resolution suggests revisiting the arena site decision and possibly starting the process over. Professor Russo clarified that the goal of the resolution is to express opposition to the procedure used for siting the arena and to remedy the situation, that is, to have the UO conduct a review consistent with planning policy. Senator Hurwitz suggested that if there is opposition to the site selected, the resolution should state opposition and urge reconsideration of the site decision. Senator Russo responded that the purpose of the resolution is not to oppose the site, but for the CPC to review all of the site choices within the process, perhaps starting with the short list of sites, and moving forward.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, noted that the resolution was written prior to administrationâ€™s explanatory handout of the planning process stated in the UO Policy Statement 7.000 regarding UO Foundation Practices and Procedures. He again stated that the resolution is intended to take the process back to the CPC stage, as stated in the policy statement. He continued that because the administration has agreed the CPC should be involved, the resolution seems out of date now; nevertheless, the resolution stands as an adequate expression of the will of the Senate that the administration should adhere to its own expressed policies.
Senator Psaki observed that the November 10th Frohnmayer memo issued to the CPC contains instructions that appear circular. She noted (on page 2) the committee was to "immediately begin the process of amending the long range plan," and thus she wondered if the long-range campus development plan would remain permanently changed and would any new projects match the arena criteria or the policies. She also asked which established campus-planning procedures have been violated. Senator Russo, reading from UO policy 7.00, (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/ch7b.html), pointed out that advisory groups and the presidentâ€™s office can approve, reject, or modify recommendations of the CPC, but the process must go through CPC.
Senator Lars Skalnes, political science, questioned why the university did not follow policy in determining the arena site. Vice President Williams responded that the policy was written in 1983 at a time when most building was done through state funds more so than through private donor funds, and the policy has not been updated accordingly. And, since it initially appeared that siting the arena would be off campus rather than on campus, the circumstances did not seem to warrant following the policy.
Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, moved to amend the resolution by adding the words implications of to the last sentence, to read: â€¦"and to follow other established campus planning procedures for implications of the siting of the arena and associated facilities.Senator Gilkey explained the purpose of the amendment is to move the issue to the planning committee for discussion of the implications of the siting rather than the siting decision itself.
Discussion of the proposed wording change focused first on wordsmithing attempts to make the meaning more clear, and then on whether a resolution was necessary at all since the proposed amended language reflected action already delineated in President Frohnmayerâ€™s memo. Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, spoke in opposition to the amendment, saying that although she appreciated the spirit behind it she was not swayed by the suggestion that there is something wrong with the language of the original resolution; it objects to the process used and calls for backing up and following proper procedures.
Campus Planning Committee member and Senator Gene Luks, computer science, also spoke against the amendment. He indicated that the arena siting issue was brought to the CPC in a preliminary way in 2002, with the implication that the committee would be kept informed throughout the process, which has not happened. He said the 1983 planning policy is not a 20-year old, out-of-date process, and there is no reason to back away from the main resolutionâ€™s language.
The question to amend the resolution was called and the motion to amend the resolution by adding the words implications of failed by voice vote.
The main resolution was back on the floor for debate. Discussion focused on why the CPC was not part of the siting process. Vice President Williams said the project consultants were aware of criteria the CPC would have used in site selection recommendations. He noted the consultants talked with members of the CPC on at least two occasions. Senator Wilson countered Mr. Williamâ€™s explanation of CPC involvement and consultation by quoting CPC minutes from May 27, 2003, which noted, "If the decision is made to site the arena on campus, the plan will return to the Campus Planning Committee for review and approval." Mr. Williams replied that the decision to give the project to a non-profit subsidiary organization of the UO Foundation was made after the May meeting. The two considerations for moving forward at that time were addressing state facility statutes, which could save money, and timing the project so the building would be done by the start of the 2006 basketball season.
Senator Tublitz spoke in favor of the resolution, saying the most important issue not being addressed is that of shared governance. He noted that President Frohnmayer often quotes the UO charter and expresses pride that this university is run by the president and faculty. Thus, he continued, to make decisions outside the governance system goes against the rule of law on this campus, and for this reason, it was essential to vote in favor of the resolution.
Senator Garrett Epps, law, expressed concern that the UO is dividing into two processes, one for athletics and one for everyone else, but added he did not believe the administration will reconsider the site location. Speaking in support of the motion, Senate Vice President Andrew Marcus, geography, noted there have been several events in the last year that undercut the UOâ€™s shared governance. Now, it appears that the largest building project on campus has moved forward without faculty input, so it is important for the senate to make a stand for the future, particularly because a large portion of future buildings will be privately funded.
Senator Jessie Harding, ASUO, acknowledged that procedural steps were skipped, but there has been no contractual violation. He felt the issue is really about who is unhappy with the site selected rather than the process. If the issue is about shared governance, the resolution should be about shared governance. Senator Karen McPherson, romance languages, returned to concern expressed earlier about President Frohnmayerâ€™s memo charging the CPC to â€˜begin the process of amending the development plan to accommodate the new arenaâ€™. She opined that supporting the resolution would put the Senate on record in support of the CPC and maintaining UO policies. Provost Moseley then interjected that amending the campus plan is a common procedure that has happened during many projects. It is the CPCâ€™s job to look at each plan; the actions taken were not to change the general procedures.
Senator Wagenknecht reiterated Senator Russoâ€™s request not to interpret the debate on this issue as lack of gratitude or appreciation. The reality of a public institution is that private funding will have strings attached. She suggested the senate might consider a new committee to work with the administration to keep the senate informed about donorsâ€™ wants and needs and potential "attachments" to the donorâ€™s money. Senator Chris Ellis, economics, served on the CPC and provided context for the committeeâ€™s work by explaining that the long-range campus plan is a guideline for what development on campus should look like. The committee looks to see if a project fits or not into the overall campus plan. In this context, he suggested, it is a problem the committee was not involved with comparing all of the site choices, but notes nearly all the sites were off campus. He supported Senator Wagenknechtâ€™s comments.
Senator Anne Dhu McLucas, music, asked that if the original process did not go to the CPC because of legalities, would this resolution be ignored because of those same legal implications? Vice President Williams said that too many public processes could jeopardize the donation. If this resolution passes it is unknown whether or not it will be adhered to for this particular project.
Concerns were expressed regarding whether the process would be ignored even if the resolution were passed, how current and future donors' philanthropy might be impacted, what restrictions might be placed by donors in regard to university objectives, and the feelings of dissatisfaction and distrust between faculty and the administration. In general, views expressed the notion that a positive vote supports the principle of shared governance.
The question was called. Resolution US03/04-1 regarding the siting process for the University basketball and events arena passed unanimously by voice vote (1 abstention, Wagenknecht).
Notice of Resolution US03/04-3 regarding the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics and framework for athletics reform. Senator Jim Earl, English, gave notice of his intention to ask the senate, at a future meeting, to join the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorse a framework for athletics reform statement (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-3.html and related documents). He commented about the national debate regarding the future of college sports with a large number of issues catching attention of many commentators. Examples of national debating include the Knight Commission report, NCAA President Myles Brandâ€™s published views on college sports, commercialization of the university, and Bowenâ€™s book on intercollegiate athletics.
Senator Earl continued that the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) came into existence in 2002, and that he is a representative. Composed of Division I-A faculty senate leaders across the country, as well as bowl championship school representatives, and others, the COIA represents 140 schools. Each school is being asked to consider supporting the COIA and thus forging a faculty voice in this debate. Over the last month, Stanford, Indiana, Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi State, Duke, and other universities have endorsed the framework of the coalition. (seeFramework for Comprehensive Athletics Reform http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/dirUS034-3/Framework.html.)
The COIA advertises itself as a moderate athletics reform group. Senator Earl explained that there is no interest in eliminating or trimming sports; rather, the coalition is trying to arrive at consensus language with which faculty senates can agree. Working through NCAA and faculty governance procedures, the goal is for long-term moderate reform, addressing various issues such as academic integrity, commercialization, budget "arms races", and so forth. The framework statement was written to develop appropriately flexible strategies for implementation, recognizing differences among schools while looking for general principles. The goal of reform is to bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics.
Senator Earl briefly outlined five general areas of reform concern: academic integrity, athlete welfare, shared governance, finances, and over-commercialization. Faculty have the greatest control in the area of academic integrity. Limiting athletic participation in non-academic activities to 20 hours per week, although hard to enforce, is a reform goal. Shared oversight of athletics among governing boards, administration, and faculty should involve clear communication and complementary responsibilities. The framework suggests the link between winning and financial solvency should have broader revenue sharing and limits on budgets and capital expenditures. Over commercialization and excessive marketing should be tempered with cost cutting and clear set standards. The coalition is the affirmation of the growing need for national standards in approaching the link between athletics and academics, thus several "best practices" statements are being designed for national standards that can be adapted locally.
When the floor was opened for questions senate representative on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) Kim Sheehan, journalism, relayed several concerns from the IAC. Regarding the the framework document and the COIA, she suggesting that the framework statement contained a number of points which may affect the UO; more information is needed to understand the consequences of adherence to the framework as well as joining the COIA. Senator Sheehan listed a number of questions that needed clarification. She noted that the committee would continue to review the framework.
Senator Earl provided some other background information about the coalition. He explained that the organization was formed with 10 former faculty senate presidents on the steering committee. Periodic meetings occurred in Chicago and Indianapolis. Membership is not defined and there is no budget or legal structure; however, the NCAA and the AAUP have consulted with the group and a leadership role is developing. Senator Earl said that the faculty voice is increased with each school that endorses the framework, and there are currently 40 schools that consider themselves members. Stanford had already endorsed the framework and Rutgers is at the same stage as the UO. Senator Earl noted that real reform takes time, so using several senate meetings to come to a decision is acceptable with him. The goal is to have a majority of Division 1-A schools affirming this framework by the end of the 2003/2004 academic-year.
Senator Cogan asked what actual result would come from endorsing the framework. Senator Earl responded there seems to be momentum to standardize and develop guidelines from faculty perspectives. In the case of the coalition, workshops with as many as 60 schools represented, have talked about the structure of athletic committees and the need for a national faculty standard. He noted that the University of Oregon is almost a best practices school having already achieved perhaps 99% of the frameworkâ€™s ideal. The UO has a clean athletic department with high standards and responsible faculty oversight. In terms of the reforms the coalition is proposing, the UO is very close. Senator Psaki concluded the discussion with a question wondering what the UO would lose (financially) if it does not support the framework.
With the hour growing later and the business concluded, Senate President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:57 p.m.
Minutes of the Organizational Meeting of the University Senate May 26, 2004
Present:C. Cherry, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, S. `Gary, P. Gilkey, L. Huaxin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, E. Singer
Excused: E. Chan, D. Eisert, G. Epps, S. Haynes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, A. Mathas, M. Pangburn, M. Raymer, D. Sinha, P. Swangard,
Absent: S. Eyster, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, D. Pope, G. Psaki, P. Scher, S. Simmons, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the organizational meeting for the 2004-05 senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in 110 Law.
President Bowditch introduced the newly elected senators for the 2004-05 academic year: for Natural Sciences Huaxin Lin, Mathematics, and Louis Moses, Psychology; for Social Sciences:John McCole, History; Leonard Feldman, Political Science; Lise Nelson, Geography; and Ellen Scott, Sociology; for Humanities Lisa Freinkel, English; Alexander Mathas, Germanic Languages; for Architecture and Allied Arts Elizabeth Chan, Landscape Architecture, and Sherwin Simons, Art History; for Education Debra Eisert, CHD; for Journalism and Communication Scott Maier, News Editorial; for Law Susan Gary; for Library System John Jablonski, Science Library; for Lundquist College of Business Mike Pangburn, Decision Sciences; Jeanne Wagenknecht, Finance; and Ali Emami, Finance; for School of Music Christian Cherry, Dance; for Officers of Administration Paul Swangard, LCB Warsaw Center; and for Classified Staff Participants (non-voting) Ed Singer, Registrar Office, and Carla McNelly, Multicultural Affairs.
ORIENTATION TO SENATE OPERATIONS
The secretary discussed general operating procedures for the senate, noting the required sign-in sheet for attendance records and the need to notify her if meetings are missed. She provided a quick visual tour of the senateÃs web page, citing it as the on-line repository of current and archival senate-related materials such as agendas, motions, minutes, committee information, correspondence, and links to other governance matters and entities.
REMARKS FROM OUTGOING SENATE PRESIDENT LOWELL BOWDITCH
Senate President Bowditch began her remarks by thanking the senate as a whole, and a number of people who were especially instrumental in contributing to a success year: members of the senate executive committee, Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, FAC chairman Nathan Tublitz, IFS President (and senate webmaster) Peter Gilkey, Secretary Gwen Steigelman, Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, and staff members Jennifer Burton and Beth Sprague, who assisted with the minutes.
President Bowditch commented on the importance of faculty and other university community members staying alert to coming challenges that affect their academic efforts, such as the OUS movement to take a Ã¬more, better, fasterÃ® approach to higher education.She noted that faculty should rightly be wary of initiatives that employ the lexicon of the business world, treating education exclusively as a market product and students as potentially fickle consumers.Further, she opined that faculty should and must become familiar with these approaches to higher education and their implications, and demand to be the deliberative voice in any process that may seek to change the fundamental nature of how higher education is conducted.
Lastly, alluding to her duel role as senate president and as a new, first time mother, President Bowditch observed that dealing with senate issues is not unlike tending to a newborn: just as one thinks one has successfully calmed all immediate demands, put issues to sleep, and can tiptoe quietly out of the room, it cries out for attention to be picked up again.She concluded her remarks assuring everyone that incoming Senate President W. Andrew Marcus will do a superb job.
Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley thanked President Bowditch for her leadership the past year on behalf of the university and President Frohnmayer, who was out of town.The provost reaffirmed that the University Senate is a critical part of the governance and of the administration at the University of Oregon.Speaking to members of the senate in general, he noted that the university is in their debt for the time that they spend in university governance, particularly those members who take on leadership rolls of officers.Provost Moseley commented that although sometimes members of the senate and administration find themselves at odds on various issues, that is a part of academic discourse and it is a part of how the university continues to grow and improve ? it is how we try to understand issues in depth, which often are not simple issues.The provost concluded by saying that he personally appreciated the job that President Bowditch has done in directing this senate the past year.
Election of new Committee on Committees members.Senate Nominating Committee Chairman Gordon Sayre, English, presented the slate of recommended new members of the senateÃs Committee on Committees as follows: Julie Hessler, Philip Serve, Jeanne Wagenknecht, Michael Helman, Jean Lux, Gordon Sayre.Senate members voted unanimously to approve the new committee members.
Election of senate vice president for 2004-2005.Nominating Committee Chairman Sayre indicated that the committee nominated Senator Peter Keyes, architecture, to serve as senate vice president for the coming academic year.Asking if there were any others nominations from the floor, and hearing none, President Bowditch pronounced Senator Keyes elected by acclamation.
Confirmation and remarks from incoming Senate President W. Andrew Marcus.President Bowditch introduced the new Senate President, W. Andrew Marcus, geography, and turned over the traditional mantles of power: a gavel and a copy of RobertÃs Rules of Order. President Marcus accepted the gavel and rules, and offered a few brief remarks after thanking Ms. Bowditch for her leadership the past year.He commented on his appreciation for what takes place behind the scenes in leading the senate, that is, multiple meetings, contacting many constituencies, and the many other different activities that occur before motions come to the senate floor for a vote.
President Marcus began by thanking everyone who as served on committees or worked on putting motions forward, noting that initial skepticism concerning how much and what would be achieved by the senate was happily proven incorrect.He praised the efforts of many senators in effecting significant change in policy (the subpoenas issue) and procedures (siting of the basketball arena).He noted the coming year will be busy, and that several motions are ready to come forward in the fall concerning the assembly quorum issue, incomplete grades, membership on committees, and recommendations from the task force on athletics.In addition, the senate will launch several new processes next year.One new process would open up the Student Conduct Code Committee to the university and seek both input and, hopefully, endorsements after proposed revisions are vetted.Proposed revisions eventually would come before the Senate for a vote, but only after much wider and more collaboration among the University community.Second, there are a number of recommendations from the Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee would be opened up to a broader consulting process.Finally, there may be textbook issues that come forward.
The president alluded to an issue of paramount importance in the coming year: dealing with the fact that our resources are disappearing and there are strenuous pressures to move forward in many different ways with different models of education.One such pressure is likely the OUS subcommittee group often referred to as Ã¬more, better, fasterÃ®.In context of a liberal arts university ? where, among our goals is a slow, contemplative approach to learning where students are engaged on a one-on-one basis and are taught how to think rather than what to think ? the Ã¬more, better, fasterÃ® philosophy is potentially at odds.Saying that the state currently is mistaking efficiency for quality, he noted that educators must step forward to help people understand that quality can include efficiency, but it is not one and the same.President Marcus asked senate members to be prepared for involvement starting in October when the issues of general education requirements within the OUS and with community colleges and high schools is addressed; and, for a broader discussion on how we can make a difference in how the public views a liberal arts education, as well as how we view it ourselves.The difficult question for the senate, he suggested, is how it can guide this process.President Marcus ended his remarks saying that the UO, with its system of faculty governance, staff involvement in that governance, and the creative collaboration we exhibit, is well positioned and more than capable to guide such processes.
Presentation of the Wayne Westling Award for University Service and Leadership.President Marcus introduced Professor Dennis Hyatt, director of the law library, as the 2004 recipient of the Wayne T. Westling Award for University Leadership and Service.The president reminded everyone that the Westling Award was established by the University Senate in 2001 to honor faculty or staff who have provided long-term leadership and service to the university community.The award was named after faculty member Wayne T. Westling who embodied the award criteria: exemplary service to the university over a period of years through participation in committees, advisory bodies, or faculty elective positions; and inspired leadership and commitment to the principles of faculty governance, participatory decision making, and fostering a campus climate of inclusiveness and respect.In presenting the award, President Marcus acknowledged and remembered the remarkable contributions that Wayne Westling made to the university.The president noted that Wayne was a member of the law faculty, so it was especially meaningful that the award was made to the law librarian and during a meeting in the law school facilities.(For information, see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/WestlingAward.html.)
President Marcus lauded Mr. Hyatt, and librarians in general, for the central role they play in the life of a university ? libraries represent the centerpiece of a liberal arts education, being the special place on campus where scholarship, teaching, and service merge into a seamless whole.He continued that the Westling Award represents the senateÃs appreciation of those leaders who have committed their intellect, skills, passion, and considerable time to the betterment of the university, and cited some of Mr. HyattÃs many accomplishments as examples.
Mr. Hyatt joined the University of Oregon as Associate Law Librarian in 1976, and became its director in 1981.In 1986-1988 he served on the University Senate and was that body's Parliamentarian for the 1987-1988 term.Critical to the library faculty, Mr. Hyatt serviced as a four-time elected member and as chair on the Library Faculty Personnel Committee.His knowledge of university governance procedures and his unfailingly fair and thoughtful comments landed him on the Library Faculty Standards Review Committee, which revisited and modified the promotion process and standards for all library faculty throughout the university.In addition, Mr. Hyatt served and/or lead law school committees dealing grants and awards, graduate teaching fellows, policies, building user groups, and facilities improvement.He was a member of the Museum of Natural HistoryÃs Governing Board and served as co-chair of development and fundraising for the Eugene Concert Choir.Of particular note during the last decade are Mr. Hyatt's efforts and successes in bringing the Law School into the Internet age, creating shared governance on matters relating to information resources and research.
Numerous nominators describe DennisÃ leadership style and contributions in words such as ``compassion,'' `` kindness,'' `` caring,'' and `` true commitment to well being of others.''His mentoring role extended to students, faculty, and staff through guiding undergraduates to law careers, helping library personnel develop professional portfolios, and providing in-depth editing of a faculty members' draft manuscripts for books.One faculty member described Mr. HyattÃs contributions to the Law School as helping to Ã¬build the loom, design the patterns, and weave the threadsÃ®, to which President Marcus added that there is no service contribution more fundamental, more profound, and more useful, than this.(Full text of President MarcusÃ award remarks can be viewed at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirArchive/WestlingAwardMay04.html.)
In accepting, Mr. Hyatt said that he was humbled to receive the award.He thanked his deans, the library staff, colleagues in the Law School, and his wife Patricia for their patience and kindnesses throughout his career.He remarked how he knew Wayne Westling from the first year he came to the University of Oregon and is doubly honored to receive an award established in his memory.He noted that Professor Westling was a citizen of the world who brought his wit and charm, his clear thinking, and his prodigious advocacy skills to the work of the University Senate.He commented that all in the university community are beneficiaries of Mr. WestlingÃs example and accomplishments.In closing, Mr. Hyatt thanked the University Senate members for honoring him so.(Full text of Mr. Hyatt's remarks can be viewed at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirArchive/DennisHyatt7Jun04.html.)
The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m. with a reminder of the welcome and congratulatory reception following immediately in the Morse Commons area.
Addendum A -- Remarks from Senate President P. Lowell Bowditch (2003-04)
Well, this is the time for me to make my valedictorian comments before I ritually pass my gavel and copy of Roberts Rules of Order on to Andrew Marcus.As I look at my copy here, I cannot help but comment on the cover which Greg McLauchlan last year slipped beneath the plastic dust jacket and which reads Ã¬Roberts Rules of Order, Birth to Three.Ã®Needless to say, last year, seven months pregnant, I stared uncomprehendingly at what I knew was a joke, but which I didnÃt really get, since, being childless, I was even more clueless about that venerable Eugene institution for new families than I was about the complexities of motions, amendments, deferrals to committees, and other fine and less fine points of parliamentary order.The coming year, I surmised, was going to be a challenge.And indeed, in many ways, it has been; but of course not only have the rewards far outweighed the stress, but there have been several staunch pillars of support to whom I have been able to turn for sage advice along the way.So, before I make some final comments, I would like extend my heartfelt thanks to a few people without whom this job would have been near impossible and surely less fun:Gwen Steigelman is not only the power that keeps the Senate machinery running so smoothly, but she has also been an inestimable source of balanced wisdom on a host of matters from proper procedure to understanding the nuanced implications of motions; Nathan Tublitz, outgoing chair of this yearÃs FAC, has been unstintingly generous with his time, advice, and advocacy for faculty and staffÃ³and I have taken full advantage of his tireless commitment to campus governance by asking him to weigh in on countless matters; and Andrew Marcus who comes to the job of Senate President with the seasoned experience of one who, as Vice-President, committed substantial time to governance issues both officially on committees, and with his always ready and sound advice.I am also very grateful to Peter Gilkey not only for all his masterful maintenance of the Senate website, but more importantly for his tireless work as IFS President and head of the Eugene chapter of the AAUP with which the Senate collaborated on several panel discussions. Finally, Paul Simonds, as Senate Parliamentarian, has kept me honest in the sometimes daunting and Byzantine complexities of Senate procedure.My profuse thank you goes to all these individuals.
As I stand back and survey the issues that the Senate confronted this year, I think that the dominant theme running through them all is the importance of wide consultation, open discussion, and the canvassing of several perspectives before important decisions affecting the campus community are made.It is precisely this atmosphere of inclusiveness, open debate, and critical thinking that we encourage in our classrooms, and that we emphasize to our students as the hallmark of healthy political systems.And yet, too easily in what is increasingly a culture of specialization, a culture particularly pronounced in academe, it happens that major decisions affecting many can be made by just a few, without the benefits of a deliberative process, simply because it may save time, expense, and the anxiety stirred by critical voices. But that polyphony of opinions is precisely what can provide the strongest context for positive action; indeed, we all recognize that it is the unexpected angle, the neglected data, the surprising and enlightening arrangement of the pieces of a particularly thorny problem that often opens up new vistas in our research.What is also true is that paying attention to many different voices in a governance context provides exactly that benefit of the unexpected perspective, the novel approach, and the fresh vision, to the running of a university.Of course I concentrate here on the benefits and practical wisdom of wide consultation and open deliberation; it is also a political responsibility that all those who participate in the institution of the university should have some kind of voice in how affairs are run.
This academic year began with two issues that are rooted in economic and ideological conditions that run much more deeply than the university itself.The role of intercollegiate athletics and its dependence on private donation and market forces was one of those issues; the other was the universityÃs relationship to federal policy in regard to civic liberties and the right to privacy, an issue which came to a head over revisions to the Student Records Policy.In both these areas the academic year began with members of the university community feeling that the appropriate political processes of wide consultation and open deliberation had not sufficiently taken place; but such was the strong commitment to the principle of those processes that we now have, in the case of the Student Records Policy, not only a much stronger document that attends as far as possible to the privacy rights of students, but also an official university policy statement that articulates that respect for the civic liberties of all members of the university community.And what I wish to stress here is that this was the collaborative work of many different voicesÃ³students, administrators, and facultyÃ³who committed to the process of critical inquiry and open deliberation in order to craft the strongest possible document and statement on the critical issue of privacy and federal subpoenas.
On the issue of athletics, it has of course been a rollercoaster year for the entire university. But here, too, after a demoralizing fall quarter in which the appropriate process for campus planning had not been fully pursued in the case of the basketball arena, the principle of consultation and deliberation did return in the SenateÃs involvement with the PresidentÃs Task Force on Athletics and the Ã¬focus-groupsÃ® organized around concepts of athletic reform and best practices as outlined in the Coalition on Intercollegiate AthleticsÃ Framework document. Not only did the Senate vote to join COIA, a significant endorsement of and commitment to this grass roots effort toward moderate national reform, but also the results from the focus-group discussions were transformed into explicit recommendations for action by the President and the University Senate.Here, again, by allowing for, and most crucially, listening to, a wide spectrum of opinions in a deliberative framework committed to moving forward on these issues, members of the Task Force achieved a very strong set of commonly endorsed goals.One of the most significant recommendations was for the Athletic department to make voluntary contributions to student scholarships; at a time when academics at the university is suffering from ever decreasing support from the state and an increased reliance on tuition dollars that fluctuate with enrollments, such a contribution makes not only a significant symbolic statement about the commitment of athletics to the educational mission, but it also makes a real difference to needy students.
Another issue that the Senate focused on this year in conjunction with the AAUP is the effects of the Patriot Act and other federal legislation on the treasured concept of academic freedom. At a co-sponsored panel discussion in March, panelists from the university, from the ACLU, and from the federal (local?) district attorneyÃs office gave their differing perspectives on such concerns as subpoenas of library records, the difficult status of international students, the changes in SEVIS-the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, and the elusive implications of the Patriot Act itself.Again, the principle of open discussion allowed for greater clarity about an area that is obscured by myth, anxiety, and the very real mystifications of complex laws.At a time when some organizations are encouraging students to maintain websites listing professors whose teaching is branded as Ã«left-wing,Ã or when legislation is considered in Congress to curtail Title VI funding to Ã¬areaÃ® or postcolonial studies programs that teach courses critical of American international policy, or when the federal government seeks the names and other information about participants in an anti-war conference, as occurred at Drake University, it is clear that the principle of academic freedom must not only be protected but that it must assert itself in the process of ensuring that protection:the liberty to discuss, debate, critique, and deliberate across the entire ideological spectrum is precisely what must be deployed to ensure that such freedom continues.Thus, such panel discussions as we had in March, and the resolution petitioning our Congressional delegation to seek revision of the Patriot Act and related orders, are only a start in what ought to be an on-going effort to rigorously defend the university as a sacred place for open, unfettered inquiry.
Indeed, faculty and university community members should not take what they do and enjoy for granted.To move back from the national to the local, or perhaps I should say state, level, most of you are probably aware that there are significant potential changes for the OUS system currently being discussed in Salem.As the head of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, Peter Gilkey, and IFS representatives Nathan Tublitz and Jim Earl, have reported in previous Senate meetings, there is an effort to promote a Ã¬more efficient delivery of education for a greater number of students.Ã®The working group on Ã¬Excellence in Delivery and ProductivityÃ® backs this effort with a series of recommendations that may become legislative concepts or policy packages.While this effort is on the surface something that no one would argue withÃ³more students getting educatedÃ³there are components to it that faculty should become familiar with so that their input can provide the necessary oversight to what could transpire as curricular changes being mandated from the top-down.Faculty should rightly be wary of initiatives that employ the lexicon of the business world, treating education exclusively as a market product and students as potentially fickle consumers, where the intent is to do more with less, a concept that increases profits for corporations and dividends for stockholders, but a very problematic concept in the abstract field of knowledge.Of course, in our current climate of scarce money for public education, we may not have the luxury to disregard some of these financially savvy business approaches.But what faculty should and must do is become familiar with these approaches and their implications, and demand to be the deliberative voice in any process that may seek to change the fundamental nature of how higher education is conducted.And, finally, if it is the responsibility of faculty to find the time for such service amidst their busy schedules devoted to research and teaching, it is equally the responsibility of administrators not only to recognize that a consultative approach makes for sound decisions, but also to recognize that the service devoted to such open discussion and deliberation takes considerable time and thought and needs to be acknowledgedÃ³and rewardedÃ³along with teaching and research as indispensable to the environment of higher education.
No doubt many of the issues that came up this year will continue to need attention.To indulge in one last reflection on having taken up this job as a new mother, I soon realized in the fall, that there were some similarities between being Senate President and taking care of a newborn:there were some issues which, as soon as I thought that I had successfully put them to sleep in the nursery and was tiptoeing out of the room, began to cry to be picked up again.So it goes.Thank you all for a great year.Andrew Marcus, who will step into the presidential shoes momentarily, will do a terrific job.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Present: , A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, , F. Cogan, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, P. Gilkey, S. Haynes, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, B. Larson, S. Lockfield, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, P. Scher, K. Sheehan, B. Shively, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , L. Wellman, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott
Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis
Absent: L. Alpert, F. Gearhart, R. Graff, J. Harding, M. Holland, J. Hurwit, L. Lindstrom, A. McLucas, L. Skalnes, J. Wagenknecht
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:15 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the December 3, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed. President Bowditch reminded senators to sign up for the small group discussions hosted by the President's Task Force on Athletics if they have not already done so. The purpose of the small group discussions it to provide a form of focus group in order to survey faculty perceptions and opinions about collegiate athletics.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
President Bowditch reported that Governor Kulongoski was on campus and visited with UO faculty leadership earlier in the day and talked about his plans for reinvesting in higher education. The governor is convinced that the best way to convince the public to reinvest in higher education is to put more emphasis on the success and future opportunities higher education offers individuals and the state rather than painting a gloomy picture of how past legislatures' disinvestments haves impacted higher education.
Remarks from President Dave Frohnmayer and Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley. President Frohnmayer began his remarks by introducing and welcoming Gregory Vincent as the new Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity. Mr. Vincent comes to the UO after a distinguished career in similar positions at Louisiana State University and the University of Wisconsin. A former law professor, he will teach an occasional class in the law school and is just completing a doctorate in educational management and administration.
The president went on to mention the upcoming important vote on Measure 30 (a temporary income tax increase), noting that the senate membership is already well aware of the financial issues and consequences of this measure with respect to the UO, the Oregon University System, and the state budget in general. He reported that the governor has indicated that he would not call a special legislative session to deal with budget shortfalls if Measure 30 fails. Consequently, if the measure fails, the plan for budget evolution designed by the legislature last session would be implemented according to law rather than by new legislative intervention.
President Frohnmayer noted, too, that he met briefly with the governor and discussed several issues including the abysmal nature of our faculty salaries and difficulties that higher education faces, especially regarding salary increases. Although President Frohnmayer could make no promises, he assured the senators that salary issues have been broached at the highest levels and included conversation regarding the competitive nature of higher education both nationally and internationally. The president also mentioned that a significant number of new members have been appointed to the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, including UO chemistry professor Geraldine Richmond. He noted his pleasure with the appointment of former Governor Goldschmidt to the board, and said that Ms. Richmond already is active in planning for the new board's activities. The first meeting of the new board will be on the UO campus on February 19-20, 2004. President Frohnmayer will address the new board with a reprised presentation about the UO and which will included his comments made at a November meeting outlining eight items that "keep the university president awake at night".
Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley reported that the Senate Budget Committee, in light of the pending concerns about budget reductions and salary freezes, would provide an interim report to the university community (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/ dirsen034/SBC-14Jan04.html). Provost Moseley highlighted two or three particular items of interest, beginning with the startling information that the University of Oregon's biennial state appropriation, without any correction for inflation, has declined in actual dollars from $139 million to $121 million in the past biennium, and is now at a level $5 million less than it was in the 1989-1991 biennium. Importantly, tuition increases, high as they have been, have not made up for state appropriation decreases: on an inflation adjusted basis, the UO's educational expenditure per student is actually 11% less this year in available funds (this is a gross number averaged over all students) than it was in 1998. Although tuition increases have made up some of the differences, they have not made up all of the differences, even though the proportion of the UO budget spent on instruction and educational activities versus administration costs, has grown. That is not to say the dollar amount has grown, but rather the proportion of the budget has grown, meaning that the UO has protected, as we are committed to do, classes and instructional programs at the expense of other parts of the university.
Provost Moseley also pointed out the difficulty created if Measure 30 fails on February 3, 2004; the university would loses an additional $2.5 million (approximately), based on the governor's proportion of the total of $800 million that would be lost if the measure fails. Of that, he continued, about $540 million is subject to the immediate disappropriation in the bill, and the governor is left to deal with the rest. The governor is hopeful that with the rise of the economy and the ending budget balance, he will be able to deal with the budget differences without further disappropriation, which would change the $2.5 million budget loss to about $1.7 million. If such a scenario happens, the Senate Budget Committee believes the alternatives facing the UO are (a) to reduce the number of classes and programs available to students -- which in turn would create problems for students to get necessary classes, be able to graduate on time, and avoid the very large additional cost of paying for another term, and (b) further tuition increases. Neither is a good situation; the provost felt that the result may be some combination of these alternatives.
Compounding the budget problems is the current legislative requirement is for OUS to return $14 million dollars in tuition income to the general fund because of a 'suspect' calculation and understanding of how the PERS cutbacks affect us. Such a "give back" represents an unprecedented tax on tuition, but he added that there is hope the situation can be worked out. The UO's share of that $14 million is a fairly large proportion because our proportionately larger number of nonresident students contributes more tuition dollars than other campuses, which would mean a $4.5 to $4.7 million reduction in our budget.
During a question and answer period, Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked about the decrease in the employer contributions to the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) in which many UO faculty are enrolled (instead of PERS). He wondered if the matter is going to be resolved in any way satisfactory to the faculty. Provost Moseley responded that there have been meetings regarding the issue, but that he had no new information. The provost explained that the problem was an unexpected consequence of a previous legislative action designed originally to protect members of the ORP plan so that they would not receive a lower employer retirement contribution than that made to members in PERS. Over a number of years this worked very well because the PERS contributions were high, and the ORP contributions were equally high. However, because of recent PERS reforms, which had lowered the contribution to PERS, and the $2 billion loan, which was way of reducing the PERS obligation, the loan monies that went into the PERS fund were not viewed as legally available for the ORP contributions. (The monies are not direct contributions to PERS member accounts but rather a gross contribution to the PERS fund as a whole.) The UO belief initially was that the different funding sources somehow would be taken into account, and that the effective rate of contribution into the ORP accounts would be the same as what was effectively being done with PERS accounts. That has not happened, and so far the legal interpretation is that we cannot make equal contributions.
Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis added that there are currently both short term and long-term initiatives related to the ORP situation. In the short term, an OAR has been repealed so that PERS is no longer setting the rates for ORP for Tier One and Tier Two employees. That change allows a redefinition of the components that will be used to calculate the ORP rate; the Department of Justice is involved actively in those discussions. There is hope there will be some information regarding these discussions by the end of the month for the short-term issue, but in the long term, it is a legislative issue that involves the decoupling PERS from the ORP. And, there is controversy about whether decoupling is the best choice, although that probably will be the recommendation from most parties. She emphasized that it is certainly not a dead issue, and there is regular activity related to how we might make some short-term adjustments.
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Representative Nathan Tublitz. Senator Tublitz, biology, noted that most of his comments had been covered earlier in the remarks by Provost Moseley. IFS President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, then distributed copies of correspondence he had with OUS benefits administrator Denise Yunker. His handout explained the legal issues surrounding the ORP issue, and OUS strategies regarding the ORP issue, including decoupling. Mr. Gilkey commented that it was not obvious to the IFS that it is in the best interest of the ORP faculty members to decouple PERS from ORP. (See http://uoregon.edu~ifs/ifs.html and http://uoregon.edu~ifs/ORP.html for more information about the IFS and for ORP information).
Senator Keyes, architecture, asked how such unintended consequences with the ORP contributions had happened, suggesting that it made him nervous that no one in state government foresaw such an unfair result. Provost Moseley responded that he did not know that this situation was coming nor did he know of anyone who did -- it was not an intention. Senator Gilkey added that only OUS employees are affected (because they are the only state employees who have the ORP retirement option). At the UO there are approximately 400 employees affected by the lower ORP contributions.
Provost Moseley concluded with the sentiment that he felt that this situation will eventually be solved in some fair way, though there may be some small loss to the ORP employees. He added that everyone who is in the ORP benefited from the PERS connection over a number of years when the contributions to PERS were high; there a balance, and now those who are in PERS are seeing retirement benefits essentially flat lined for some period of time.
Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Revisions to the Student Records Policy. Senator Daniel Pope, history, reported on the ad hoc committee's work since December. The committee was charged with discussing and recommending language (a) to amend the current OAR 571-20, (b) to include relevant language in the faculty handbook, and (c) to look into a possible policy statement on the topic. One outcome of the committee's meeting was that a subcommittee drafted language for publicizing concerns about subpoenas and how to respond to them. Consequently, a substitute motion for the previous tabled US03/04-5 has been drafted. He noted, in particular, the first two bulleted items dealing with responses to subpoenas. Senator Pope indicated that the committee meets later in January and encouraged attendance and comments from interested persons.
Senator Francie Cogan, honors college, asked for clarification concerning whether or not one can inform students if a subpoena was received that involved them. Senator Pope responded that some subpoenas specifically instruct that the person whose records are subpoenaed is not to be informed, which, he opined, raises obvious concerns. However, General Counsel Grier has made it clear that her office is available to review all subpoenas received to determine their validity. Of concern, too, is what might happen if someone who receives a subpoena refuses to comply with it on grounds of conscience, even if it is confirmed as a legal and valid subpoena. This topic will be discussed further by the committee.
Mattie Melton, ASUO president, announced that the ASUO executives are currently educating the students about ballot Measure 30. Nonpartisan presentations are being given in classrooms and invitations to speak at other classes are welcome. The five-minute presentations let the students know what a yes or a no vote means regarding Measure 30.
President Bowditch opened the floor for other announcements and communications. Senator Tublitz, following up on earlier remarks regarding the ORP situation commented that he felt that not much was being done in a profitable way to solve the problem. He said the issue was not a priority for many legislators, but it represents an 8% cut (in retirement benefits) for people who are in this group. He further suggested that there are two ways to deal with the ORP situation: one is to have the Department of Justice make a ruling that allows change, and the second, more likely possibility, would be a legislative "fix". Senator Tublitz encouraged those in the ORP program to write letters and contact legislators with their concerns.
With no other business at hand, President Bowditch adjourned the senate meeting at 3:40 p.m.
Present: A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, G. Epps, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, M. Holland, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Lockfield, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, G. Psaki, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan, B. Shively, E. Singer, D. Sinha, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott
Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, D. Pope, M. Raymer, P. Scher,
Absent: L. Alpert, S. Eyster, R. Graff, B. Larson, M. Shirzadegan, L. Skalnes,
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 14TH MEETING.
Minutes from the January 14, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Update on Basketball Arena. President Frohnmayer reported that the basketball arena project has been placed on indefinite hold. He noted that donor solicitation and receipt of private gift dollars were needed at a level unprecedented for any project in the university's history. The president expressed gratitude for the many people who stepped forward to assist the university in the project. He felt that unless the university could be certain that funds would be available from whatever sources, and within reasonable bounds that would not otherwise jeopardize the university or the confidence of private donors, the project would not be moved forward. Consequently, after extensive review of the project, its scope, complexity, timing and financing, it became clear that the university is not able to move forward at this point.
President Frohnmayer cited several recent building projects that were evidence of the prudence and careful stewardship the university exercises as it prepares to undertake such large financial responsibilities: the Lillis business complex, the law school building, the soon-to-be completed Art Museum building, and the Autzen Stadium expansion. The president commented that the decision not to proceed with the basketball arena was reached after full consultation and agreement with the donors involved in the project. He also noted that a basketball facility is needed, and it is unlikely that we will be able to build a new arena at so low a cost as could have been done with the donors' generosity. He indicated that the university remains committed to the common goal of creating a premier facility for generations to come but for now the project is on indefinite hold.
Measure 30 update. President Frohnmayer explained that the failure of Measure 30 (the proposed temporary income tax increase measure) resulted in a $7.5 million reduction in the Oregon University System (OUS) budget. Preliminary figures prior to Measure 30's failure placed the UO's share of the financial obligation at approximately $2.5 million. But because of decisions made by the governor and reductions in statewide expenditures, our campus preliminary estimate was reduced to $1.8 million. Recently, however, the State Board of Higher Education indicated that the chancellor's office would bear the brunt of the Measure 30 reductions in order to protect the campuses in their essential instruction and research functions. Thus the amount of budget reductions for OUS campuses will be * of the total liability of OUS, which translates into a budget reduction for the UO of about $881, 000 fro the remainder of the biennium (Note: this reduction is in addition to budget reductions resulting from the 2003 legislative session.)
It is the governor's and board's intention not to have a tuition increase, and the university will not recommend instituting any kind of tuition surcharge for the balance of this year. Whether there will be tuition increases for next year is unknown at this point and is subject to the board's direction.
Ending his remarks, the president opened the floor for questions. Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked if financial considerations were the only reason for postponing building an arena, and what shape might the project take in the future. The president responded that there were always worries about the funding stream as the estimated costs escalated. Bonds of $50 million were considered too steep and risky for the athletics department to undertake. He said that he did not know what shape the project might take in the future, but acknowledged that issues raised through the current experience would be re-visited, citing that a plethora of valuable insight and information was gleaned from the arena building process.
Comprehensive Campaign update and remarks on the development process. Vice President for Advancement Allan Price provided a brief status report on the Comprehensive Campaign, the priority setting process, current activities, and what we can expect to see moving forward in the next few months. The theme of the campaign is "Campaign Oregon -- Transforming Lives", which talks about how philanthropy, translated into investment in the university, helps transform lives. The goals of the campaign focus on campaign outcomes and monetary goals. First, one goal is to double the number of endowed faculty positions from the current 75 positions to 150 positions across the institution. The minimum endowment level for a professorship is $600,000 and for a named chair, $1.2 million. Second, a campaign goal is to create a significant new revenue source to fund scholarships and fellowships, with focus on undergraduate scholarship. A commitment has been made to raise $100 million toward this goal, which reiterates the Oregon Promise that states no otherwise qualified student will be turned away from the university because of an inability to afford it. He said that we want to be able to continue to recruit the best and brightest students by continuing to use Presidential and Dean's scholarships. A third goal is to provide significant new revenue to support academic programs, such as research programs, academic centers, outreach programs, and so forth. Lastly, the campaign will focus on building several new facilities that will be important in terms of programs reaching their potential and maintaining their standard of excellence.
Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis added that one of the challenges in the campaign is to disseminate information about campaign status in a manner that will help build much needed momentum. She noted that information about gifts received would be announced at various times throughout the campaign. Vice President Price said with the overall campaign goal of $600 million, the UO is 1/3 of the way there, which is right in line with the trend predictions made at the campaign onset. The public kickoff for the campaign is scheduled for October 28th, 2004; by that time, the university should be at 40% of the campaign goal. He indicated that the campaign is approximately 1/3 of the way toward meeting the scholarship goal; athletics accounts for about 20% of the total dollars raised, and the remaining percentage is attributed towards academics.
Vice President Price remarked that the campaign approach is to engage donors who have passions about specific projects. With this in mind, 90% of the money raised will be "designated" money, that is, dependent on the donor base. An extraordinary number of special gifts have come in which will be announced in the next few months. Vice President Davis concluded the report by noting that the approximately 700 proposals submitted from faculty, representing $2 billion in ideas, will be available on the web for potential donors to review. Many proposals are contained in the university's Case Statement, as well as in each funding unit's individual Case Statement, containing particular proposals that have been highlighted. These proposals have been developed into a "tool kit" for development officers to be able to match up university needs with donors' interests.
Comments from the floor were complimentary about the progress made so far.
COMMITTEE AND OTHER REPORTS
Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Student Records. In the interest of efficiency, Peter Gilkey, committee chair, passed out a written report and noted that the committee was drafting a policy statement regarding student records, especially regarding privacy issues. A policy statement will likely come before the senate at a future meeting (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dircom/DraftPolicy1a.html).
Update on legal action against OUS concerning the Optional Retirement Program (ORP). Bill Linden, Association of Oregon Faculties (AOF), began with a brief chronology of the dispute. In September 2003, Measure 29 passed which authorized the state to sell $2 billion worth of bonds to prepay Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) liabilities. Shortly afterward, the actuary that PERS retains issued a report recalculating contribution rates based on the $2 billion prepayment made. In November 2003, all members of the ORP received letters from OUS in which the contribution rates were reduced, for Tier 1 members, from 11.71% to 3.71%, and for Tier 2 members from 11.71% to 4.27%.
AOF began immediate correspondence with OUS Chancellor Jarvis to correct the rate reduction, and retained the Bennett Hartman law firm. In mid January 2004, an analysis was received from Bennett Hartman concluding that OUS acted incorrectly in reducing the ORP contribution by virtue of the passage and sale of the bonds. There is an administrative rule providing that those types of PERS payments shall be treated as "pre-funded contributions and additional assets for the payment of obligations of the employer rather than as a reduction in those obligations."
Mr Linden continued that an attempt was made to informally engage OUS in discussions, after which a demand letter was served to OUS Chancellor Jarvis requesting a response. A response was received from Ben Rawlins, OUS General Counsel, indicating that he was working on a resolution. The most recent information says a few more weeks will be needed to prepare a proposal the faculty will be able to assess. AOF's position is the rate should be fully restored to its November 1, 2003 level. He added that if OUS offers a rate reduced from the November 2003 level, their methodology would need to be very convincing.
A side issue is the chancellor's office proposing that legislation be introduced to uncouple the ORP contribution rate from the PERS contribution rate. The AOF does not support uncoupling of rates because they do not want to trade the calculation method used by PERS for an undefined process that would be under the auspices of the state board. The basis for the AOF's legal challenge involves statutes and OARs relating to PERS that provide the basis for rate reductions. Mr. Linden added that while AOF is awaiting the OUS response, a wage claim lawsuit is being prepared. If are any faculty interested in being a plaintiff, contact can be made through the AOF website http://www.oregonfaculties.org.
Peter Gilkey, mathematics, who also is president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), advised that the IFS is very involved in the ORP issue and process, and that he met with chancellor office personnel on the issue (Denise Yunker). Additionally, the UO administration is also working hard to address these issues on behalf of the faculty.
Several comments were made regarding the source of the uncoupling effort and its impact. Mr. Linden opined that there are a number of ways the rates may be determined and at this point nothing is certain.
The University Senate recommends to the President that the Oregon Administrative Rules containing the Student Records Policy be amended to read as given below [underlined portions would be added to the current rules]. Furthermore that Faculty, staff and students will all be notified of the university's policies on responding to subpoenas. The Faculty Handbook will be revised to inform faculty that any subpoenas received should be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel so that legal counsel can assess their validity and advise the recipient how to respond. Faculty and staff should be reminded periodically of this policy through means such as articles in Inside Oregon, memos distributed in campus mail, and posting of the policy on relevant websites that exist or may be developed.
The University shall publish and distribute on an annual basis to students notice of their rights under the Student Records Policy. This information for students should include the fact that student records may be the subject of law enforcement subpoenas which forbid notification to the student whose records are subpoenaed. Students should also be informed that it is university policy to submit subpoenas to the Office of the General Counsel for evaluation of their validity. Such measures as discussion within the Student Handbook, advertisements in the Oregon Daily Emerald and postings on the Office of the Student Advocate and other relevant websites should be employed to keep students informed.
Further, that the following text be added to the end of OAR 571-020-0120 -- Location and Custody of Student Records:
If the University or a University employee is served with a law enforcement subpoena, whether or not that subpoena orders that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed to the student, a copy shall be sent immediately to the Office of the General Counsel. No documents shall be released or information disclosed until University legal counsel determines that the subpoena is valid.
And the underlined text below added to OAR 571-020-0180 -- When Prior Consent Is Not Required for the Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information from Education Records, under section 1. (c): The disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena and the University makes a reasonable effort to notify the student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance so that the student may seek protective action. The following sentence is adopted effective December 10, 2003: If the disclosure is to comply with a federal grand jury subpoena or any other subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose and the court or other issuing agency has ordered that the existence or the contents of the subpoena or the information furnished in response to the subpoena not be disclosed and University legal counsel has determined that the subpoena is valid, then the University shall not notify the student.
During the discussion, Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, asked if the amended OAR included a provision that secret subpoenas, which may be issued under the USA Patriot Act, would come to the attention of the president of the university. Mr. Gilkey responded that the committee considered this point at length and decided against inclusion of such wording. He noted that faculty members served with a subpoena have a right to legal counsel. It is not clear, however, that if served with a subpoena with a "gag" order, you would be permitted legally to contact the university president. Senator Garrett Epps, law, clarified by stating that there is nothing in the motion's language that would prevent the university president from being notified if that agrees with the requirements in the subpoena. Hearing no further discussion, Senate President Lowell Bowditch put the question to a vote. Substitute Motion US03/04-5 to amend the OARs on Student Records passed unanimously by voice vote. Senator Ben Strawn, ASUO, expressed his appreciation to the senate for the action taken and for their active concern for students in this matter.
Resolution US03/04-3 regarding athletics reform and the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA). Senate President Bowditch advised that the resolution before the senate contains a statement saying that the UO senate would join the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorses its framework for athletics reform document. She alluded to a January 2004 panel discussion, which discussed many of the reform areas suggested by the framework document, saying there had already been some discussion on this resolution. Resolution US03/04-3 reads as follows:
Moved that the University of Oregon University Senate join Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorse its "Framework for Comprehensive Athletic Reform".
Senator Jim Earl, English, spoke to the resolution and confirmed that the discussion and vote on this resolution is part of a national process in which faculty senates across the country are participating in the debate on athletics reform. He reassured the senators that the resolution was not an attempt to cut, eliminate, or trim back college sports; rather it represents a movement which hopes to slow the rapid expansion of the budgets that drive intercollegiate athletics, and which would guarantee the future health of the intercollegiate athletic system. He continued that the resolution contains nothing that could be interpreted as obligatory for the university to change its practices. In fact, Senator Earl stated that the UO policies in intercollegiate athletics are exemplary and represent "best case" for the rest of the country.
Senator Earl explained that the framework document was created by faculty at 12 schools from 6 conferences and was vetted with every constituency that has a stake in intercollegiate athletics, including the NCAA, Association of Governing Boards, NAUCT, Association of Faculty Athletic Representatives, the National Association of Athletic Advisors, the Knight Commission, and leaders of the Athletic Director's Association. He stated that the COIA Resolution is an attempt to allow the UO and other schools around the country to express their concern and their support for a continuing healthy system of intercollegiate athletics.
Senator Kim Sheehan, member of the UO Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) was recognized to share viewpoints of the IAC about the resolution. The IAC supports the idea of athletic reform and, as a faculty committee, also supports the need to have a faculty voice in discussions with the NCAA. They believe that the athletics department and the academic units of the university share common goals, that is, the desire to bring best practices to all that we do, achieving excellence in all facets of work, and finding resources to support endeavors. However, although the overriding goals of athletics reform are valuable, important, and necessary, the IAC does not recommend the faculty join COIA at this time, and thus does not support the resolution.
Senator Sheehan enumerated several issues of concern to the IAC. First, there is a questionable organizational structure within COIA ? no legislative authority ? that could have long-term negative impact on the university. There is an unclear distinction between the COIA's goals and its tactics for achieving the goals. The IAC is hesitant to support an organization that recommends numerous tactics that would be (a) impossible to implement, or (b) in violation of current NCAA regulations, or (c) unfair to schools on the quarter system. Thus, a lack of understanding of the long-term repercussions of the framework document makes it difficult to support.
Second, there is significant duplication of efforts between the Athletics Governance Committee recommended by the COIA document and the other similar governance bodies on campus. It is unclear how this committee would be selected, what the term would be, and what types of mechanisms are in place that would make sure this committee truly represents the voice of all faculty members at the UO. Third, the COIA provides no definition of commercialization or over-commercialization, and it does not adequately acknowledge what the benefits and risks of commercialization of sports are on campus today.
Senator Sheehan concluded her comments saying that the IAC agrees the athletics department should follow best practices; and they recognize that Senator Earl and other COIA member believe we are a best practices organization. Nevertheless, two additional questions remain before the IAC would consider supporting COIA. First, will some of the COIA tactics address the larger concerns about athletics reform, or will they fracture the situation even more? And second, will joining the COIA help alleviate the frustrations Senator Earl expressed about recent practices of the university, or is there a way the senate can work together with the IAC to address individual concerns about today's athletics campus environment?
Senate President Lowell Bowditch opened the floor to further debate. Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, commented that he does not see either "tactics" or concrete proposals in the framework document; rather, there appears to be items of concern and discussion. In response, Senator Sheehan identified several examples of specific recommendations for universities to follow. Senator Earl clarified that the adoption of this framework does not oblige the UO to do anything. Further, commercialization and over-commercialization are not defined in the framework because the COIA wants to work together with various groups to define these concepts. Another senator suggested that the senate also should consider the repercussions of leaving themselves out of this national discussion.
Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics and chair of the IAC, remarked that the IAC's recommendation was based on the framework document, which contains specific items that the IAC believes may be damaging to the university. For example, it specifically recommended that the IAC look into personnel athletic issues, which can only be interpreted as the IAC vetting the hiring and firing of coaches. The document also suggests the elimination of spring football. There should be consideration of the repercussions to the rest of the athletic department if spring football were to be eliminated. Mr. Shelton said the basic goals of the framework are very good, but it is the specific statements outlined in the framework, such as the examples given, that concern the IAC.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, reminded the faculty they are not voting on legislation per se, but are voting on whether to join an organization that is asking for our faculty voice to discuss and become part of a national conversation on athletics reform. He noted that the "national conversation" began with the UO senate two years ago under then senate president Jim Earl's leadership.
Other opinions about the resolution were expressed by the co-president of the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, who noted concern with the framework's suggestion of eliminating the spring season of some sports. She believes athletics is a vehicle that brings academics to the community. And lastly, Senator Christine Sundt, library system, read a letter received from a student athlete that commented on how the student's academic career had suffered due to participation in athletics.
At this point, there was a successful motion to call the question. Resolution US03/04-3 regarding athletics reform and joining the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) was passed by voice vote. (For full text of the framework document see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-3.html.)
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting May 12, 2004
Present: H. Alley, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, K. Day, S. Eyster, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Lockfield, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, P. Scher, K. Sheehan, B. Shively, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott Excused: L. Freinkel, R. Graff, M. Shirzadegan Absent: L. Alpert, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, G. Epps, M. Holland, B. Larson
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 pm in 182 Lillis by Senate President Lowell Bowditch.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
Senate President Lowell Bowditch commented on the meeting agenda before proceeding saying that action on revisions to the Student Conduct Code presented at the April senate meeting was not included on the agenda in order to provide a longer period of time for multiple opportunities for campus discussion and input into the proposed code revisions. When that process is completed and the revisions reviewed, the proposed revision will come before the senate for debate and a vote next year.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the April 14th, 2004 minutes were approved as distributed. (The secretary notes corrections to meeting minutes for December, January, March, and April to indicate that Anne Dhu McLucas was present for those meetings.)
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Comments from Interistitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Representatives. IFS President and UO Representative Peter Gilkey, mathematics, briefed the senate on the IFS meeting held April 8-9th. Senator Gilkey said the IFS has asked UO Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis and State Board member Gretchen Schuettte, president of Chemetka Community College, to work with the IFS in discussions concerning a transfer general education certificate. This transfer general education certificate will assist with articulation between the community colleges and 4-year institutions. Currently, an Associate of Arts Transfer Degree is being used which does not transfer among all community colleges and OUS institutions. The IFS feels strongly it is important to remove all unnecessary barriers to the transfer of students to OUS schools, and this certificate will be a positive change. (See http://uoregon.edu~ifs/dir04/MinutesIFS09-10-04.html for IFS meeting minutes).
Senator Gilkey noted that he will attend the May meeting of the State Board and will give a summary of the meeting to the IFS. He proposed inviting institution provosts and other administrators to a meeting to discuss details of the general education transfer certificate. The certificate proposal would then be taken back to campus curricular bodies for discussion and a vote. Senator Gilkey encouraged senate members to contact their IFS representatives (Senators Nathan Tublitz and Jim Earl) in support of this certificate. Board member Schutte has been supportive of this initiative and has encouraged it to be faculty driven.
IFS Representative and Senator Jim Earl, English, said he was at a number of meetings in which the new general education transfer certificate was discussed, and commented that the certificate has the potential to be a powerful impetus for curricular reform. He reiterated the importance of the initiative being a faculty driven process, and said this will assist in what is proving to be a major top-down reform of the higher education system.
President's Task Force on Athletics. Committee Co-Chairwoman Suzanne Clark, English, reminded the senators that the Task Force on Athletic was jointly appointed by the University and Senate Presidents in 2001. With this final report, the Task Force concludes its work by summarizing its activities and offering a number of proposals that include recommendations for change, some of which will come before the senate during the next academic year. (For full text of the report and proposals, see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/ finalreportATF04.pdf.)
The report provides 12 proposals in response to the committee's three major charges, and is, in part, a product of small faculty and student group meetings in which concerns, ideas, and discussions were held regarding athletics and academics. The overarching goal of the Task Force is to increase mutuality between athletics and academics. A summary of Task Force proposals is as follows:
1. The Task Force and the Athletic Department recommend a voluntary financial contribution by athletics to the Presidential Scholarship fund. This voluntary contribution will help symbolize the mutuality of the relationship between athletics and academics.
2. We specify reforms in the review process of the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR). These reforms will help make the position more accountable to faculty and staff concerns while not diminishing the President's role in choosing and evaluating the FAR.
3. We specify clarification of the educative standard of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). This clarification will help guide IAC decisions to reflect the University mission and values.
4. We specify items requiring the Athletic Department to consult with the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). These reforms will help to keep the IAC informed and involved in significant athletic decisions.
5. We recommend that an Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) member be part of any open search for head coaches, or its chair consulted. This participation in the selection of head coaches will allow the IAC to represent the interests of the University Senate.
6. The Faculty Athletics Representative shall report at the beginning of each fall term to the University Senate on specified topics. These reports will keep the University Senate regularly informed on local and national changes in athletics.
7. The Athletic Director shall provide a "State of the Athletic Department" report to the University Senate at the beginning of each winter term. These reports will ensure that the University Senate hears regularly about the concerns and plans of the Athletic Director.
8. The Chair of the IAC shall provide an annual report to the University Senate during the spring term. These reports will improve communication by providing the Senate with a summary of the committee's work and conveying its views of athletic planning and decisions.
9. We recommend a regular gathering of leadership organized by the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee and sponsored by the President's office. These opportunities for personal contact, conversation, and exchange will improve the mutual understanding of athletics and academics.
10. We suggest that the President, the Vice President for University Advancement, and the leadership of the Senate explore the creation of a Committee on Advancement. This will help address the many questions surrounding athletics in regards to philanthropy, relationships with donors, and communication about the university's values and activities.
11. We recommend additional measures to improve advising about majors and to ensure that student athletes are treated like other students. While advising is already very good, we suggest a few improvements.
12. We recommend specific efforts to inform the University and community public about the promotion of academic excellence and community service among student athletes. This will help to communicate information about the excellent academic and service records of our athletes.
The Task Force is hopeful the enactment of these proposals will help address the issue of faculty governance of athletics, improve communication, and address national concerns involving commercialization and financial issues.
President Bowditch thanked the task force for their report and opened the floor to questions. A question was posed regarding the ethical considerations on testing sports related prototypes on players without the knowledge of the campus community. The Task Force replied while this specific issue was not addressed.
Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee. Committee Co-Chairman Greg McLauchlan, sociology, provided a summary of the NTTIF's actions over the past year. He noted that NTTIF represent approximately half of the university instructional faculty and teach about 40% of undergraduate student credit hours. This former ad hoc, and now standing committee was created adjacent to a growing national discussion and debate regarding NTTIF. Issues being addressed include NTTIF roles, status, reforms, job security, compensation, benefits, professional development opportunities, and the trend toward a 2- tier faculty system, where tenure-related faculty are responsible for research and graduate instruction, and NTTIF responsible for undergraduate instruction.
Over the past several years the committee compiled an archive of reference information on this topic and has interviewed department heads and administrative assistants to determine current policies. Relative few of the departments contacted had written policies for NTTIF. In addition, an NTTIF survey was conducted in spring 2003 which provided UO specific information encompassing many areas of NTTIF concerns. Currently, the committee has drafted a report with 20 specific proposals for faculty review and discussion. Mr. McLauchlan encouraged senators to review the report in preparation for a Town Hall Meeting on the topic of NTTIF to be held Thursday, May 20th, 2004 from 3:30 : 5:00 pm in 150 Columbia. The committee will work to further refine these proposals with feedback from faculty, and plans to present recommendations to the senate beginning next fall term. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dircom/NTTIF-report15May04.html for full text of the draft report.).
Senate Budget Committee (SBC). SBC member Larry Dann, finance, stood in for committee chair Lynn Kahle for this report. Mr. Dann explained the SBC was charged with the primary responsibility of addressing the long-standing compensation issues at the UO in comparison with peer institutions. The SBC White Paper of 2000 set forth a faculty compensation goal of 95% parity with peer institutions and plans for achieving the goal over 5-7 years. The initial implementation plan called for a yearly average compensation increase of 2.5% over the cost of living to reach this goal. Of course the current legislatively mandated salary freeze has impaired the university's ability to make progress on this issue.
Mr. Dann explained that this year's report is Year 4 since the White Paper was adopted. Over the past year, despite the salary freeze in place, there has been slight progress. In 2003, the overall average comparative compensation was 87.9%, most recently it is 88.1%. This increase primarily reflects the effects of salary increases for promotions, new hires, changes in duties or responsibilities, and the increases in the benefits cost portion of total compensation. The data show a 1.5% salary increase, presumably due to new hires and rank promotions. The degree of parity among ranks remains about the same.
Data for faculty at the rank of instructor is relatively crude because the definition of instructor is not well defined across the group of peer comparator institutionas. The SBC has begun working with a subcommittee of the NTTIF to start addressing such concerns. Mr. Dann concluded his report by commenting that notwithstanding the legislative salary freeze, if the state is to make any progress toward the governor's stated goals for higher education, the state must reinvest in its basic resource : the faculty. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/dirSBC034/SBC03-4Report.html ).
During a brief discussion period Senator Gilkey asked if the salary increase received in 2003 was reflected in the data presented. Mr. Dann replied the data was extracted from national data available in March 2003, some of which was tabulated prior to that time. Senator Christine Sundt, AAA library, asked if the term "faculty" refers to administrative faculty or only instructional faculty, to which Mr. Dann replied that only instructional faculty were included in the data of this report.
Senator Daniel Pope, history, commented that the data for continuing faculty in 2003-04 show an increase in a range higher than actually received. He asked how reliable the data are, wondering how advances could have been made when benefits such as PERS have been reduced significantly. Mr. Dann said he could not answer that question with specific data, but conjectured that it may be, in part, due to the way the benefits package is computed and that the UO covered the increased costs of benefits (i.e., health insurance, etc.) The Office of Resource Management provides assistance with such computations, and suggested that SBC chair Kahle be contacted for a more in-depth answer.
Preliminary Spring 2004 Curriculum Report. Committee on Courses Chairman Paul Engelking, chemistry, noted the following changes to the preliminary curriculum report that was circulated:
Rpt Page 2. The Inter College General Education Committee will begin meeting at the commencement of the review period and all group satisfying courses will be forwarded to them.
Rpt Page 3. CIS 170 was approved for group 3 science status.
Rpt Page 4. ENVS 345 was approved for group 1 arts and letters status.
Rpt Page 6. LING 162 was approved for group 1 arts and letters status.
Rpt Page 8. LA 375 was approved for group 1 arts and letters
Rpt Page 11. PPPM 203 was denied group 2 social science status
Rpt Page 11. PPPM 202 was denied group 2 social science status
Rpt Page 11. PPPM 280 was approved for group 2 social science status
Rpt Page 11. MUS 379 was approved for group 1 arts and letters status
Rpt Page 14. CIS 513 was approved for reinstatement. IN addition to 413, after the differential for undergraduate and graduate instruction the course will read CIS 413/513.
Rpt Page 14. SOC 450 was approved for reinstatement. In addition, after differential for undergraduate and graduate instruction the course will ready SOC 450/550.
Mr. Engelking explained that a Student Engagement Inventory is expected to be completed for each course. The engagement inventory has been changed to read, "Graduate Students are expected to perform work of higher quality and quantity typically with an additional 20- 25% effort expected". The wording "per credit" has been eliminated. Asking if there were other corrections or comments, President Bowditch opened the floor for discussion.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked for clarification: if a graduate student was completing a 4 credit course, would the student be expected to do 20% more work per credit in the course. Mr. Engelking responded it should not say per credit, but rather per class. Senator Pope stated that he disagreed with the concept of a Student Engagement Inventory and could not support any motion (to accept the curriculum report) that puts forth a measurement of student effort. Mr. Engelking agreed that there is wide disparity in the amount of time students typically would be required to put into a class to perform at the same level. However, the numbers offered in the engagement inventory are only planning estimates for design of the courses.
Senator Anne McLucas, music, asked how the time was calculated in terms of student load; are 48 hours of effort per week required for a 16 credit hour course load? Mr. Engelking noted that the number of effort hours includes actual in-class time.
Motion to Confer Degrees. Senator Gordon Sayre, English, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee moved the following: 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 2003-2004 and Summer Session 2004, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.
With no discussion or comments forthcoming, the motion to confer degrees for 2003 - 04 and Summer Session 2004 was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Recommendations for 2004-2005 Committee Appointments. Senate Vice President W. Andrew Marcus, who is also chair of the Committee on Committees, presented a list of people who have agreed to serve on the various appointed university standing committees. The committee followed past practice by attempting to honor responses to the committee cards circulated earlier in the year and requests for specific members made by committee chairs. A conscious attempt was made to be aware of the services demands of various committees, especially for newer faculty members and those already involved in service activities. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen045/com045.html for complete listing.) Acceptance of the committee appointment recommendations was moved, put to a voice vote, and passed unanimously.
Wayne Westling Award. Vice President Marcus continued that one charge of the Committee on Committees is to review nominations for the Wayne Westling Award and make a recommendation to the senate. This year, the committee unanimously endorsed Mr. Dennis Hyatt, director of the Law Library, as the 2004 recipient of the Westling award. Mr. Hyatt's record of service is remarkable for his extensive faculty mentoring, leadership on numerous ad hoc and formal committees in the Library and the Law School, and past service as senate parliamentarian. Multiple members of the academic community supported his nomination. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/WestlingAward.html for more information.) The recommendation of Mr. Hyatt as Westling Award recipient for 2004 met with unanimous approval from the members of the senate.
Motion US03/04-8 Amend Criteria for General Education Group Satisfying Course Status. Ms. Deborah Baumgold, chair of the Undergraduate Council, noted that the motion is the result of the council's two-year review of course proposals, which represents the only extensive review of group satisfying courses to date. As a result of the review, the Undergraduate Council developed a series of amendments and extensions to existing group satisfying legislation intended to supplement and extend current legislation. Text of the motion is as follows:
The Undergraduate Council moves to amend the existing criteria for status as a Group-satisfying course by adding the following guidelines: #1-3 to apply to all Group-satisfying courses, and guideline #4 to apply to 300-level, Group-satisfying courses, in particular.
Together with existing legislation, these guidelines are intended to be used in the review of new courses by existing curriculum committees, as well as to guide cyclical reviews of existing courses (as called for by US99/00-2). Departmental responsibilities as specified in numbers one and three will be monitored by the Registrar's office.
1. For all Group-satisfying courses to be offered during a particular term, faculty or departments are asked to post electronically, in the Schedule of Classes, course descriptions that are substantially expanded over those provided in the catalog. The posted course information should be understandable to someone unfamiliar with the field and should emphasize the questions or issues that reveal, by their breadth and significance, why the course has earned Group status. Examples of such descriptions are included in the Addendum to the Motion. To help students make informed choices of courses, the web postings should be made prior to the start of the registration period for the term in question, and should be directly accessible from the Schedule of Classes. Links to the Schedule of Classes are easily established, and departments may choose to give this responsibility to office staff or to individual faculty, as is locally appropriate. In cases where course descriptions are not yet available, electronic syllabi that provide this information will suffice.
2. The syllabus for each Group-satisfying course should state the fundamental question(s) addressed by the course, and indicate how the course meets the criteria for Group status. The instructor may accomplish this either by including the course description posted on the web or by creating another one.
3. All Group-satisfying courses should be offered in time periods that are standard for regular academic terms, and in no case may be offered for a period shorter than three weeks.
4. 300-level Group-satisfying courses are expected to serve as broad introductions to fields with which students are unfamiliar, but they must also provide depth and rigor beyond that of a typical lower-division course. To achieve this dual purpose, such courses should do the following.
a. Introduce students to the perspectives of a discipline and engage them in substantial application of its fundamental ideas. Courses may be focused on a single text or period, but should use the examples provided by that focus to illuminate the larger discipline.
b. Educate students about the way knowledge is created in a discipline by identifying its significant questions and showing how those questions can be answered. For instance, a course might analyze the design of particular experiments, show how modeling is done and when it is informative, or introduce specific kinds of data analysis. The use of primary sources is encouraged where appropriate : that is, in fields where this information is accessible to a non-specialist.
c. Encourage integration of perspectives, as well as specific application of general principles, through synthesis and analysis of course material, including concepts from other courses. These courses should also employ evaluation methods that measure this high level of understanding.
d. Assume that students are capable of advanced university-level intellectual engagement as a result of having completed substantial lower-division work, although not necessarily in the subject of the course. Some upper-division Group-satisfying courses may also have specific prerequisites in the form of other courses whose content provides an essential foundation in the subject.
Ms. Baumgold quickly reviewed several key points about the proposed changes. First, regarding the call for posting of electronic course descriptions for all group-satisfying courses, she noted that examples have been provided to show how these descriptions would differ from the catalog copy. This recommendation results from student suggestions. Second, each syllabus should state the fundamental questions addressed by the course and indicate how the course meets the group criteria it satisfies. Third, each course should be offered in periods standard for regular terms, and not less than 3 weeks (this minimal number of weeks was chosen as a result of the council's desire to maintain the academic integrity of the group satisfying courses). She noted this last change may have a financial impact, although an estimate is not available at this time. Finally, 1999 senate legislation required 300-level courses to be of "greater depth and rigor". The course review reveled a need to better clarify this statement. Accordingly, a 300-level course should introduce students to a discipline, educate students in the way that knowledge is produced in a discipline, and encourage integration of perspectives and material. Students enrolled in a 300-level course are expected to have a background in university level courses.
President Bowditch asked for questions about the motion. Senator Frances Cogan, honors college, asked how advanced placement (AP) course work was handled in this proposal, to which Ms. Baumgold replied that AP courses were not addressed by the council specifically, but would be handled as usual with transfer credits. Senator Wilson, a former Undergraduate Council member, spoke in strong support of the motion. He further asked if the proposed recommendations would help address criticisms made of our current undergraduate curriculum.
Vice President Davis answered that the Undergraduate Council's review and recommendations stemmed from an accreditation review that criticized group satisfying courses and what was seen by the accreditation team as a smorgasbord approach to course offerings. She indicated that several of the motion's recommendations would assist in addressing the issues raised during the last accreditation review and would provide students with a better understanding of group-satisfying course.
Senator Pope asked if requiring substantial lower division work would mean formal prerequisites would be required for 300 level courses (see 4. d.). Ms. Baumgold replied that no prerequisites are being required as a result of this motion. Senator Pope commented that although he is sympathetic to the reasoning behind item 4.d., he has concerns regarding eliminating September experiences courses without a review of how successful these courses are. Ms. Baumgold said the September courses were not reviewed and the council was not targeting specific courses. Rather, to protect academic integrity, it seems the September experience could focus on something rather than group satisfying courses.
Associate Dean Priscilla Southwell, political science, stated that although she supports the majority of the motion, she disagrees with item 3 because there are courses during "zero week" that have the same number of contact hours as when they are offered during the academic year. She continued that the coursework is the same for these courses regardless of when they are offered, and thus she encouraged the removal of item 3. In response, Ms. Baumgold explained that prior to formulating the third item, the affected courses were reviewed. The council took the position that not all courses less than 3 weeks long would be less substantive than their longer running equivalents; nevertheless, the council felt that accepting courses shorter than a 3 week period as a group satisfying course may open the door for less substantive courses to be offered and counted as group satisfying.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, agreed with Dean Southwell and noted that the larger issue is whether the criteria listed are to be treated as policies or guidelines. If they are policies, there is a large increase in work for faculty in order to meet these requirements. Ms. Baumgold replied that the criteria are intended as guides. It would be the primary responsibility of faculty to initiate and complete these tasks. She said that items 1 and 3 would be overseen by the registrar's office; she agreed that the motion's criteria would require more work, but the result would be an improved group-satisfying curriculum.
Senator McLucas suggested item 3 might be returned to the council for further discussion rather than excluded entirely. Mr. Engelking, to provide some context of student time commitment, pointed out that all group-satisfying courses are 4 credits. With the current course work standards, a 4-credit course taught in 2 weeks is equivalent to a 60-hour work week; a 4-credit course taught in 3 weeks is equivalent to a 40-hour work week. Senator Henry Alley, honors college, commented that it is appropriate to consider the time frame in which a course is taught, and that a 3-week course does not seem unreasonable.
Senator Gilkey then called for the question, which passed by voice vote. Motion US03/04-8 to amend the criteria for group satisfying course was put to a hand vote and passed (16 in favor; 13 opposed). Further, it was moved, at Vice President Davis' request, that Motion US03/04-8 not go into effect until Fall 2004 due to contractual obligations regarding Summer Session and the September Experience. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Motion US03/04-11 Add Classified Staff to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee : Andrew Marcus, Senate Vice President. Senate Vice President Marcus put the following motion on the floor for discussion:
Moved to amend the Revised Enabling Legislation for University Standing Committees (passed by the University Senate May 9, 2001) to include two (2) classified staff representatives on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.
The vice president noted that classified staff comprise 35% of the university community. He suggested that since the senate values shared governance, it is important to acknowledge the expertise that could be brought to this committee by classified staff, including issues related to scheduling, academic advising of students, and facilities management. He further added that members of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee support the motion.
During the discussion period, a question was asked whether the two classified positions would be elected since the committee was a faculty elected committee, and if so, when and how the election would take pace. Vice President Marcus replied that the positions would be elected during the regular faculty elections in spring 2005 for academic year 2005-06, and using the regular election cycle thereafter.
With no further discussion, the motion was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Motion US03/04-12 : Add Classified Staff to the Library Committee. As was done in the previous motion, Vice President Marcus put the following motion on the floor:
Moved to amend the Revised Enabling Legislation for University Standing Committees (passed by the University Senate May 9, 2001) to include one (1) classified staff representative on the University Library Committee.
The vice president explained that the Library Committee is involved in all functions of the library including collections, policies, issues related to technology, technology transfer, public safety, and hours of operation. He noted that classified staff input would be valuable to this committee because they have expertise in these areas. Further, the library staff supports the motion.
Again, the question was raised concerning the time frame for implementation and who would make the classified staff appointment to the committee. The vice president clarified that the Committee on Committees would make the classified staff appointment recommendation as part of their regular committee recommendation process culminating in spring 2005 for academic year 2005-06 appointments, using the same Committee on Committee procedures thereafter.
Senator Wilson asked the vice president for a more vigorous defense of adding classified staff involvement on the Library Committee, questioning what the classified staff member could bring to the committee that other members cannot. The vice president said the committee has 10 (instructional) faculty member appointments currently and several officers of administration. If a goal of the library is to have it run by the best practices possible, it is reasonable to request input from representatives that work directly with the operation of the library. Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, speaking in support commented that the library provides a service to campus and that the classified staff specialize in service. Senator Marjorie Woolacott, exercise and movement science, asked what happens in small departments if the classified staff office person is a Library Committee member and has to attend a meeting? Does the department close for that time period?
Senate Classified Staff Participant Carla McNelly, multicultural affairs, stated that there are various ways departments have chosen to address this issue. Often there are other staff members willing to relieve the classified staff person for the committee meeting. In some departments, administrators are able to support such service by taking over small duties such as answering the phones themselves for the limited time period. Regardless of how the department chooses to handle the absence, all committee service by classified staff members must be approved by their supervisor, which addresses this issue prior to attending any meetings.
With discussion concluded, Motion US03/03-12 to add one classified staff member to the Library Committee was put to a voice vote and passed unanimously.
Noting the lateness of the hour, Senate President Bowditch asked the senators whether they would like to continue past the stated adjournment time and bring the motion to the floor, or postpone discussion of the motion until the first meeting of the next academic year. Senator Gilkey moved that the motion be postponed to the first regular meeting of the senate in the next academic year (October 13, 2004), and that it be the first (unfinished) business item on the agenda. Feeling that there was general agreement on the matter, the motion to delay action on motion US03/04-10 was brought to a voice vote and carried unanimously. (See http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-10.html for full text of the motion US03/04-10).
Senate President Lowell Bowditch thanked the Senate for their time and energies throughout the year. The last regular meeting of the University Senate for academic year 2003-04 was adjourned at 4:58pm.