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.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Present: H. Alley, L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, K. Day, C. Ellis, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, L. Robare, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Woollacott
Excused: K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, M. Russo
Absent: L. Alpert, A. Berenstein, C. Bybee, R. Graff, M. Holland, J. Hurwit, B. Larson, S. Lockfield, A. McLucas, M. Raymer, P. Scher, B. Shively, B. Strawn, M. Wilson
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in 182 Lillis by Senate President Lowell Bowditch.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from March 10, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Update on Events at the State Board Meeting. John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost, explained that changes in the State Board of Higher Education membership and activities are moving it in a positive direction. The board is now speaking directly with university presidents and leadership to solicit information. They are committed to the concept of a state supported higher education system and, in turn, agree universities must be given more flexibility to handle their internal operations.
The board structure has changed significantly with the resignation of the chancellor. In the interim, Jon Yunker has been appointed Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer. Provost Moseley gave a brief update on each of the newly formed State Board Committees.
The Budget Redesign Committee has made decisions regarding how the budget will be constructed, built and presented. Each institution will be presenting and defending their budget based on outcomes, peer comparisons, and cost based budgeting. In addition, the new methodology used will enable universities to compare their budgets more specifically with peer institutions. The new methodology is more specific to each institution and is data driven.
The President's Council is addressing possible monies designated for salaries increases. There may be an OUS fighting fund available for a limited number of faculty. This is only a first step into addressing faculty retention issues.
The More Better Faster Committee, chaired by Gretchen Schutte, president of Chemeketa Community College, is addressing increased articulation between institutions that should lead to easier transferability and a better understanding of common core curriculum. There is discussion of additional credit programs available in high school, shortened time to degree, and an increase in the numbers of programs used for student retention.
The Excellence and Economic Development Committee is developing three to five major initiatives that are economic development related such. The ultimate goal is to obtain as much money as possible to use toward basic educational services. This committee has also discussed new capital projects and so far, all UO projects planned are moving forward. This committee also held an in-depth discussion regarding tuition, which included student input. Although students opposed plateau elimination, there was a strong argument to move away from it.
Lastly, the Access and Affordability Task Force is focused on obtaining more money for student scholarships from non-general fund sources.
Update on the PERS Benefits Situation. Helen Stoop, Human Resources Benefits Administrator, reported that currently there are several legal challenges to the changes in the PERS Benefit System. Issues being challenged include:
The scaled back 8% annual growth guaranteed; the employers' 6% contribution will be invested in the Individual Account Program (IAP) instead of PERS accounts as it had been previously;
Updated life expectancy tables; and
Suspended cost of living adjustments (COLA) for retirees.
Ms. Stoop commented that local and state governments feel reforms are needed to rein in costs of the program. On the other hand, representatives of state workers and retirees impacted adversely by the legislated changes believe they are unconstitutional violations of employee contract rights. These challenges are currently on the "fast track" to the Oregon Supreme Court. The specifics are included in a special masters written report which was released April 8, 2004. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for July 30, 2004 and a decision is expected by the end of 2004 or early 2005.
The challenges are directly related to the Judge Lipscomb decision in which the PERS board adopted a settlement agreement in a Eugene case. The original Lipscomb ruling was that the contingency reserve was not adequate, and the employer should not match the variable contribution. In addition, the decision noted that implementation of new mortality tables was necessary and it reversed the PERS decision to allocate the bulk of the 1999 earnings.
In the final settlement, the legislature passed reforms that corrected each issue with the exception of the variable match. Instead, PERS adopted a new temporary rule at the April 12, 2004 meeting, which included a different calculation of the variable match. By June 10, 2004 PERS may choose to adopt this as a permanent rule; if so, it will become effective July 1, 2004.
Ms. Stoop provided the following overview of the PERS changes:
Individual Account Program (IAP):
IAP for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members began January 1, 2004.
The UO will pay 6% into an IAP instead of a PERS account.
The Oregon Investment Council will invest the IAP.
Employees will be immediately vested in their IAP account.
Upon retirement, employees have the option of choosing a lump sum settlement or equal installments.
In addition to an IAP, employees continue to have their Oregon PERS accounts with no new contributions added.
No additional earnings will be credited to Tier 1 member accounts while a deficit exists.
Monies in variable accounts will continue to earn at the variable rate with no new contributions allowed for both Tier 1 and Tier 2.
A one-time variable transfer is still available for those eligible.
After the deficit is eliminated, an 8% cap of earnings will remain for Tier 1 members until the reserve account is fully funded for three years.
New actuarial factors were implemented July 1, 2003 with employee benefits guaranteed as of that date.
Retirement age for Tier 1 is 58 or within 30 years of service
Retirement age for Tier 2 is 60 or within 30 years of services.
Early retirement is at age 55.
Upon retirement employees will receive their IAP and a retirement benefit using the highest method of calculation: either full formula, money match, or formula plus annuity. Employees can voluntarily contribute to their own tax-deferred money plans to supplement the retirement program. New employees hired after August 29, 2003 are eligible for the OPSRP which is a hybrid retirement plan consisting of the IAP and a pension program. Any break in service will move an employee to the new OPSRP plan (though some exceptions apply).
Ms. Stoop added that two meetings will be held to discuss the PERS benefits changes: Friday, May 7th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room, and Monday, May 10th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Student Conduct Committee and Notice of Motion. Chris Loschiavo, chair of the Student Conduct Committee reported that the committee has been working to update the conduct code to bring it in line with current trends and best practices. He gave notice that such changes were being vetted and motions would come to the senate through fall, winter, and spring terms for academic year 2004-05. Jessie Harding, ASUO and the student chair of the committee, advised that the mission statement has been changed to reflect the current institutional outlook concerning conduct and community concerns. In addition, jurisdictional issues have been addressed especially regarding jurisdiction of off-campus incidents. The committee reviewed peer institutional practices and other states' legislation. The conclusion reached was the Student Conduct Code would apply: if the conduct adversely affects the environment conducive to learning, and the conduct would violate code if it occurred on campus, and the conduct was violent or produced fear for harm, and the victim is a member of the campus community, its effects, documents, or any other items owned by the university. In addition, the committee will recommend that students be appointed for two-year terms and faculty terms be extended to three years. All changes are provided in a working document available from the Office of Student Judicial Affairs.
The floor was opened for discussion. Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked how sexual assault jurisdiction falls in the proposed changes. Mr. Loschiavo replied that the intent was to make it parallel with laws now in place regarding sexual assault, eventually leading to an overall, "umbrella" code. Responding to a question from Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, regarding the legality of extending jurisdiction beyond campus, Mr. Loschiavo explained there is no legal precedent or case law that says this is not permissible.
Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, asked how the Student Conduct Code interlinks with regular law enforcement and criminal prosecution. Mr. Loschiavo said it is a supplement to the community criminal process. The code's focus is not solely to punish offenders, but also to help those for whom it applies to learn from their mistakes. The rights of the accused are treated similarly to the rights afforded individuals in a criminal proceeding. He noted that this issue is currently being reviewed.
Senate President thanked the committee for their work and asked that any additional questions be forwarded to Mr. Lochiavo for response.
Distinguished Service Award. The senate moved into Executive Session to hear this report from Mr. Dave Hubin, committee chair.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
The secretary reminded members of the senate that nominations for university elected committees and the senate are due on Friday, April 16th. She encouraged senators to personally contact individuals they wished to nominate for various positions. Nominations are posted at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/nominate034.html. President Bowitch also encourage faculty to take the call for nominations seriously. Voting will be held on-line via DuckWeb from April 26th - May 7th.
Senator and IFS President Peter Gilkey announced that a meeting concerning the Optional Retirement Program (ORP) will be held April 28th from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in 182 Lillis.
Notice of Motions. Several Notice of Motions were given. Deborah Baumgold, chair of the Undergraduate Council gave notice for a motion to amend existing senate legislation concerning criteria governing group-satisfying courses in the general education requirement. The proposed motion is the result of the Undergraduate Council review reported to the senate in 2003. (See (http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-8.html.)
President Bowditch also noted she had received notice of motion submitted by Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, to help enable the University Assembly to achieve a quorum and convene with legislative authority (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034- 10.html).
Motion US03/04-9 on the UO policy statement regarding subpoenas of student records. Speaking as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Records, Senator Gilkey, mathematics, explained that the committee crafted a policy statement indicating the University of Oregon regards the privacy of student records as essential (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-9.html). The proposed policy statement instructs that when served with a subpoena requesting student records, faculty members, staff, and students should seek the opinion of general counsel before responding. The policy language was drafted with great care; the committee feels it is clear. Members of the Faculty Advisory Council reviewed and endorsed the policy as well.
The floor was opened for comment and debate. However, having been well vetted by the committee with input and comments from interested faculty and students beyond the committee, the motion received no other comments or further debate. Motion US03/04-9 was put to a vote and was passed unanimously by voice vote. The policy statement will be forwarded to the president of the university with a request to promulgate the policy.
Motion US03/04-7 on the reduction of credit hours needed to fulfill group requirements. Undergraduate Council chair Deborah Baumgold brought the following motion to the floor on behalf of the council: Moved to, Allow students to fulfill a UO group requirement for the B.A. and B.S. degrees with coursework totaling 15 instead of 16 credits, given that their coursework fulfills the UO's breadth and depth requirements within Groups. Ms. Baumgold explained that, as stated in the motion, the number of credits needed to fulfill group requirements is proposed to be reduced from 16 credit hours to 15 credit hours, provided that the relevant coursework fulfills the UO's breadth and depth requirements within the group. She commented on the difficulty of transfer-in credit requirements for transfer students. This issue has generated a substantial workload of appeals to the Academic Requirement Committee and has raised issues of fairness. The motion will help increase articulation between the UO and community colleges transfer students. She noted further that the change would have no impact on students who spend their entire academic career at the UO, as they would continue to fulfill the requirements with four 4-credit courses.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, expressed strong support for the motion, drawing from his experience during two years of service on the Academic Requirements Committee. He said he observed inconsistent treatment of transfer students credit and this led to difficulty and confusion on the part of staff and students when interpreting what is expected.
When asked when the proposed change would be implemented and if it would apply to past students, Ms. Baumgold replied that the change would be effective immediately with students being grandfathered into the new requirements. Senator Christine Sundt, AAA library, questioned the need to require exactly 15 credits instead of a range of credits, such as 15 to 16 credits. Ms. Baumgold responded that the council had discussed the issue at some length and felt it would be dealt with via implementation. Senator Tublitz suggested adding "transfer" in front of "students" in the motion's first line, but Ms. Baumgold countered that the council did not want to include language specific only to transfer students. University Registrar Herb Chereck confirmed that there are no group satisfying courses that would allow students enrolled at the UO for their entire academic experience to take 15 instead of 16 credits and still satisfy the group requirements. Although there may be special circumstances, they would be an exception to the rule.
With no further discussion, Motion US03/04 -7 was put to a vote and passed unanimously by voice vote.
Motion US03/04-6 to petition the Oregon Congressional Delegation to seek relief from the USA Patriot Act. The motion, sponsored by Mr. Gordon Lafer, LERC, was moved and brought to the floor as follows: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the University of Oregon University Senate calls upon the Oregon Congressional Delegation to promote the first amendment rights, privacy rights, and traditional civil, intellectual, academic and political liberties of the University Community by seeking appropriate revision of those sections of the PATRIOT Act and other related Orders or provisions of law that impose unjustifiable burdens on these rights and liberties. Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, spoke in support of the motion saying that following the events September 11, 2001 much legislation was passed hastily that is now regreted. The USA Patriot Act contains sweeping provisions which rely on the public to trust the Justice Department not to abuse. Our political system is predicated on a system of checks and balances for accountability of our government, and the Patriot Act overlooks such a system. Senator Psaki recalled much of the discussion during the recent informational panel discussion on the Patriot Act, referring particularly to the effects of the Patriot Act on faculty in the Office of International Programs. She noted that one faculty member indicated that her function in working with international students and faculty members had changed from an advocate and facilitator to a watchdog and government enforcer. The result of this change was a chilling effect on the visa process and collaborative working relationships with international scholars and students.
Senator Psaki concluded her comments saying that the resolution asked the Oregon Congressional Delegation to work toward revising the Patriot Act; by passing the motion, the senate would be taking a stand for academic freedom.
With no further comment or debate from the floor, Motion US03/04-6 was put to a vote passed by voice vote.
With no other business at hand, Senate President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman Secretary
Title: Statement on the University's Response to law enforcement subpoenas of Student Records.
Purpose: To provide the context and procedures by which University Employees respond to law enforcement subpoenas for Student Records.
The University of Oregon community regards the privacy of student records as a central and serious part of its academic mission. While privacy issues are governed by both state and federal law, the University's interest in privacy goes far beyond its commitment to comply with law. Privacy is an integral part of the academic freedom that is at the heart of the function of the modern University. Students, faculty and staff should be aware that the University supports their freedom to inquire, discuss and experiment with ideas without fear of improper government intrusion or public exposure. Though the University is supported by taxpayer funds, the mission of the University, as set out by the legal charter, centers on its autonomy as an academic institution governed by academic norms; that mission includes educating the larger community in the importance of academic freedom. Governmental initiatives may threaten some aspects of educational privacy. As a community, therefore, the University expresses its concern that, even during times of emergency, cooperation with law enforcement and political oversight of the University, while essential in a free society, should not go beyond the legitimate needs of outside bodies requesting information about University students, faculty and staff. Members of the faculty and the staff, in particular, should be aware that non-disclosure of confidential student information in response to outside inquiry by law enforcement or investigative agencies, except consistent with legal requirements, is the norm on this campus, and that the University will support all its members in their efforts to ensure that any request for records or information is submitted with proper authority and is no broader than is required by applicable law. Faculty and staff confronted with outside demands for information by law enforcement or investigative agencies must consult with the General Counsel's Office. Faculty and staff should in no case make any disclosure that has not been authorized by General Counsel's Office after examination of the justification for the demand. The General Counsel's Office will involve the President, to the extent permitted by law, in evaluating law enforcement subpoenas that impinge on traditional academic freedoms. Furthermore, the University recognizes that requests for information by outside agencies can raise difficult questions of conscience for those who have custody of confidential records. In no case will a specific member of the staff be required personally by the University to provide information in response to such inquiries when such personal compliance is not required by law. Compliance with information requests will be overseen by the office of the general counsel in accordance both with the law and with the norms of academic freedom, and the University will make every effort to provide information and support to the staff on the proper scope of their duties in this regard.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting December 3, 2003
Present: A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, M. Sherman, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Woollacott
Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, M. Raymer, P. Scher,
Absent: L. Alpert, F. Cogan, K. Curtin, R. Graff, M. Holland, A. Lindquist, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. Sheehan, M. Shirzadegan, M. Wilson
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
One correction was noted in the minutes from the November 12, 2003 meeting, changing a preposition from "in" to "by" in the paragraph before the motion concerning the arena. The correction has to do with restrictions being placed, or not being placed, on donors. With no other corrections, the minutes were approved as amended.
President Bowditch announced that the second half of the January 2004 Senate meeting would include a panel, jointly sponsored by the senate and the AAUP, to discuss issues concerning athletics reform and the future of intercollegiate athletics such as those raised in the framework document presented at the November 2003 senate meeting. The panel will not be debating specific points of the document; rather, the aim is to provide information and a discussion about the broad issues involved with intercollegiate athletics. Debate on the framework document will occur at the February senate meeting.
President Bowditch also announced that university President Dave Frohnmayer has asked the ad hoc Task Force on Athletics to continue its work. In 2002-2003, the task force investigated issues regarding student athletes (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/RptAthCom15Feb03.pdf). In addition, the task force held an independent forum to provide commentary from faculty, staff, and students at the UO and established a website with the report, informational documents, and a place to submit further comments. This year the task force has been charged with three main items: (a) to advise President Frohnmayer on significant national issues related to intercollegiate athletics, particularly those involving the fiscal impact of increasing competitiveness among institutions (the commercialization of athletics) and post season competition; (b) to examine the current relationship between the UO Athletic Department and the university and make recommendations to the president about steps that can be taken to further enhance that relationship, including examination of current faculty governance structures; and (c) to continue to examine issues related to academic integrity for student athletes.
In order to carry out these charges, the task force will host small discussion sessions with members of the senate, interviewing senators in a focus group format to get an informed sense of faculty perceptions about athletics. These small discussions groups will take pace after the January 14, 2004 panel discussion. President Bowditch encouraged senators to sign up for the discussion and to talk to colleagues and get a sense of their perception of the relationship between athletics and an institution of higher education, what it should be, and what it is here at the UO. Senators wishing to sign up for a discussion group can contact Suzanne Clark or Wendy Larson, who are organizing these seminars.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
University President Dave Frohnmayer thanked the Senate President Bowditch for an opportunity to address the body and began his remarks by responding to the basketball arena issue discussed at the previous Senate meeting. President Frohnmayer said the arena matter was considered carefully by the senate and, in response to the senate resolution, read the following formal reply:
TO: Lowell Bowditch
University Senate President
FROM: Dave Frohnmayer
RE: Senate Resolution US03/04-1 regarding the siting process for the University basketball and events arena
I acknowledge receipt of and have given thoughtful consideration to the motion passed by voice vote by the University Senate urging and expecting “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.”
I have already written to the Campus Planning Committee describing my expectations for its involvement in the arena project now that the preferred site has been selected. A copy of my memorandum is attached. Let me now comment on the decision to site the arena. Over the five months of the site selection process, I received comments from many individuals both off and on campus as well as the report from our consultants. The consultants met with the Campus Planning Committee, even though site selection is not an automatic consideration of the Committee, most notably, for example, in the case of the Science Complex and the School of Law. The process that was followed and the choice of Howe Field as the site for the new arena seem reasonable, appropriate, and well informed and I, therefore, respectfully decline your advice in so far as it would require a site review ab initio.
President Frohnmayer next reported he had an opportunity to comment about the state of the university to the OUS Board on Friday, November 21, 2003. The circumstances were unusual in that a number of board members had just submitted their resignations. The president noted that it was important to make a public case for the University of Oregon, that is, to have the board validate the goals and objectives of the university, to have an idea of our comprehensive planning process, and to hear what the board’s loan request had been. His comments also included issues affecting the UO, the Oregon University System, and the state of public universities around the country. He noted that the precipitous withdrawal of state funding support comes at a time when enrollment is increasing and the needs for its products and processes (most notably the advancement of knowledge and fundamental research) are more necessary, yet more debased by the lack of funding. President Frohnmayer’s presentation to the board concluded with the following eight concerns.
How can the UO continue to provide our students and the state of Oregon quality instruction, research, and services that are comparable to our peer universities when they have an average of 50% more revenue per student? The average per student FTE expenditure for our peer universities (included in the RAM model) is $17,000 per year, per student. The UO’s average is $11,000 per year, per student. The UO’s average revenue per student has declined by $800 per student since the year 2000. Even thought tuitions have increased at rates protested by students as being too high for them to afford, the overall support per student is directly traceable to the withdrawal of state support.
How can the UO continue to attract and retain quality faculty? The state of Oregon is very fortunate to have such quality faculty at the University of Oregon and it is extraordinary to have an AAU university in the northwest. There are only two AAU universities in the entire greater northwest states including Nevada and Utah, and there are likely to remain only two. To have faculty come from AAU universities (80% of recent hires) and remain with the UO is a tribute to the loyalty of our faculty. The UO is likely to be at a salary level of 80% of our peers by the year 2004-2005 if dramatic steps are not taken. Given the unfortunate salary decrees dictated by the legislative and administrative branches of government, these steps are not likely anytime soon.
How can the UO continue to provide graduate programs to meet the states needs? The university is a graduate, doctoral institution – criteria by which an AAU institution is judged. The UO has no real state funding anymore for graduate students, and yet the students, the laboratories, the teaching environment and culture of which they are a part are critical to the state’s economy, research, and quality and effectiveness of teaching.
How can the UO maintain the size and quality of its research programs? State supported research has been reduced by 20% in recent years. Thanks to the collective efforts of UO senators and constituencies represented, the funded research from the federal government is at an all time high and has grown 30% over the last two years. This is a striking example of what quality faculty members can do, not withstanding the absence of the state infrastructure support that should be part of the seed money for the research enterprise as it is carried out for the state university.
How can we continue to attract non-resident students, including international students, if we cannot maintain the quality of academic programs? The UO generates more money in tuition dollars from non-resident and international students than it receives in tax dollars from the state of Oregon. Those dollars are possible because of the international attractiveness of the University of Oregon for international students. Although domestic security issues such as visa and immigration restrictions have cost us 100 to 200 students this year, students have attended because of the over all quality of the university. If the quality of a UO education begins to erode, the university becomes vulnerable regarding the diversity of our student body, international flair, and revenue issues.
With increasing tuition how can the UO maintain the economic diversity of our student body? The University of Oregon has a public mission. The Oregon admissions act from February 14, 1859 contains two promises. The first is a grant of land to establish a system of common and conformed schools; the second is a grant of land to establish a public university. It was an unusual promise at a time when only one quarter of one percent of the population possessed a college degree and most of them from the elite private or religious institutions of the East. The conception of education that is accessible to a much larger population is part of what it means to help develop a territory into a state of citizens. The promise has been broken. The promise of maintaining public universities is one we have seen erode to the notion that public education is somehow a private good rather than a public good. President Frohnmayer also informed the board that student financial aid is a top priority in our comprehensive campaign. The goal is $100 million in endowed scholarships. The $30 million dollar level has been reached in the second phase of this campaign. There is much hope, but the university is assuming a burden the state should have.
How can the UO protect the state’s investment in campus facilities, let alone construct the new ones we need, given the lack of state support? The university has relied (in our construction, over the last ten years) on private fund-raising dollars with a few exceptions, which are almost exclusively bonding. Those dollars are not as readily available as they should be in some areas of greatest need, such as music, education, and the humanities. Funds are lacking for maintenance, although facilities staffing has been beyond heroic in their maintenance work. The UO’s deferred maintenance bill now exceeds $100 million dollars, and the legislative measure that would have improved the situation did not make it out of the last legislature.
How can we convince private donors to invest in the university while the state is withdrawing its investment? Donors do not want to replace state funds. Donors want to help achieve new levels of excellence. Gift dollars cannot be set-aside on a one-to-one ratio because endowments pay out at a rate of 4% in order for them to be sustainable over an area of generational quality. The intention is for endowments to be worth the same amount of money and generate the equivalent amount of support 50 years from now as they do today. The story of the private institutions is the spending of their endowments in the late 1990s and early 2000s before the "dot.com" bubble burst. The UO will not do so. For every million dollars of endowment, there is an annual payoff of only $40,000. The amount of endowment required to replace state funds is daunting. For the University of Oregon to generate funds equivalent to those the state currently provides, an endowment in the excess of $3 billion dollars is needed as estimated by Provost Moseley and President Frohmayer.
The president spoke of the governor’s recent actions to change board membership as decisive and deliberately intended to call attention to the plight of higher education in the state. In past 30 there has not been another governor that has made such a statement and accompanied it with dramatic action. The governor repeated his statement in a surprise visit to the OUS Board and again at the second annual economic summit in Portland (to 1,300 business and government leaders from around Oregon). The governor has made a public commitment to stop the disinvestment in higher education. His reasoning almost precisely mirrors the UO’s strategic directions, including the need to have access by students, with or without means, to all the educational opportunities that this university can offer. The governor has made the statement that research is essential for the future of the world, the state, and the region. Although the emphasis on research is on applied research, the kinds of things the UO does including the work in our Brain, Biology and Machine initiative as well as our MMD initiative, and basic sciences have received explicit note and executive approval. President Frohnmayer predicted an era of higher visibility and more specific priority for higher education, and believes the governor’s higher education agenda is not fully fleshed out. The first job of the governor, if the upcoming tax measure vote fails, will be to cut budgets. Any gains made in the legislative session can only be marginal if not in the governor’s original budget.
President Frohnmayer concluded his remarks with two final comments. The opening of the new Lillis building provides 20% more classroom space at the university and offers the world's most modern classrooms economically, ergonomically, and environmentally. It is a source of pride for the university and it is unfortunate that public dollars could not do what the philanthropy of the university's friends has done. Also, the American Association of Universities (AAU) during October 25–27, 2003, recently visited the university. The weather was spectacular and the campus looked beautiful. The president indicated that he continues to get letters from the presidents and chancellors of peer institutions who expressed delight at the hospitality and amazement at the quality of this institution as an AAU brother/sister. He thanked the senate for their contributions. With no questions from the floor, President Frohnmayer concluded with an invitation to email him with any future concerns or questions.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Fall 2003 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Paul Engelking, Committee on Courses chair, noted one change to the Fall 2003 Preliminary Curriculum Report. In the “dropped courses” list, Folk Art and Material Culture (on page 18 -- FLR413/513) will be retained and not dropped. There were no other errors or changes noted. Technical corrections can be emailed to Linda White firstname.lastname@example.org, Gail Freeman email@example.com, or Paul Engelking firstname.lastname@example.org. The report goes to press on December 15, 2003. With no objections, the final version for fall 2003 was approved unanimously (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/CurRptF03Fin.html).
Remarks and discussion concerning revisions to OARs. Melinda Grier, General Counsel, began her remarks saying that the student records policy was adopted in the 1970s under the guidance of the former legal counsel (Dave Frohnmayer) and soon after the Family Educational Rights and Family Privacy Act (FERPA) was adopted. There have been some minor revisions and no major revisions over the last 15 years. Ms. Grier noticed upon her arrival 5 years ago that the policy was due for an overhaul but workload issues prevented it. The overhaul was needed for two main reasons. First, there had been changes to FERPA which were not incorporated into the rule and that meant complying with FERPA did not always comply with the rule. We are required to comply with federal law. Second, the incorporated policies in the rule, such as student policies and university procedures for handling student records, were out of date and did not meet current criteria. The university had evolved a lot in that 30-year period and the rules had become hard to understand and people could not make sense of them.
The purpose of the records policy is to make sure students know how their records will be handled. In 2002 Randy Geller was hired as director of policy and legal affairs, and was assigned to redo the student records policy. Because the registrar’s office has become a central location for student records, Registrar Herb Chereck assisted with the changes. Previously, records were handled in individual areas and students had to go from place to place for particular information. Over the years a centralized system has been recognized as a more efficient way to handle records and better protect the privacy of students. Having an out-of-date policy made it difficult to inform students of the best way to get records. People from outside the university requesting records were not informed of the most efficient way to obtain them, and it was harder to ensure adequate protection of student records.
Mr. Geller and Registrar Chereck, along with other contributors, worked on a draft of rule revisions and began obtaining feedback from many people. The draft revisions were ready last spring (2003). The timing was such that if notice is given on the 15th of the month, the first time something can be published is the 1st of the next month. The way the process played out meant that a hearing on the rule revisions could not be held until after school had adjourned for the summer. The rules needed to be in place before the start of the next academic year because there is a lot of publicity at the start of the year in order for students to know about their records. Also, an agreement with the graduate teaching fellows involved changes in the student records policy. An additional hearing was scheduled. Vice President for Student Affairs Ann Leavitt, Registrar Herb Chereck, General Counselor Grier, and Mr. Geller met with many campus groups, including ASPAC, both administrations of the ASUO Executive, the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Faculty Advisory Council, the Student Affairs Counsel, the Dean’s Council, the Student Senate, the Residence Hall Association, the National Programs, and the EMU Board. Consequently, many people had an opportunity to see and comment on the drafted rule.
An unofficial hearing was scheduled on June 3, 2003, before school adjourned, and the official hearing was on June 20, 2003. At that time, concern was raised about whether the rule and the timing of its adoption had been done in order to allow the UO to comply with the USA Patriot Act. Counselor Grier said there were changes in the student records policy pertaining to subpoena rules that allowed the university to disclose, without prior notice, student records in response to a lawfully issued, law enforcement subpoena that expressly instructs the university not to disclose the existence of a subpoena. These subpoena-related changes stemmed from the 1994 change to FERPA, and not from the USA Patriot Act. Occasionally, the university has received such a subpoena, but not relating to the USA Patriot Act. The university is obligated to follow the federal government’s authority and the change in the student records policy gives students notice concerning how responses are handled regarding subpoenas. Changing the rule could not change how the UO responds to a law enforcement subpoena that specifically instructs not to give prior notice to the student. In general, when the university receives a civil subpoena or a law enforcement subpoena, notice is given and the student has an opportunity to try to quash the subpoena – to object to the subpoena; however, changing rules does not change the university’s legal obligation to comply with federal law. Because people had voiced concern regarding the subpoena issues, and because the rules needed to be in place for the start of the school year, the deadline for time to comment was extended and the rules were adopted with the understanding that the sentence in the rules acknowledging response to law enforcement proceedings would not be in effect until December 10, 2003. That provided an opportunity for discussion of the provision.
Concerning the role of committees in rule making, Ms. Grier noted that the state’s Administrative Procedures Act sets up the procedures for rule making, that is, how rules should be adopted and the use of a committee. The procedure is set up for use by all state agencies. Most state agencies are adopting rules in a different environment than that of the UO and are not getting input from the community around them. There is no requirement for a hearing, but it is important for people to have notice and opportunity to comment. The university schedules hearings on every rule even though it is not required. Part of the purpose of the committee process is for use by those agencies that regularly adopt rules without a hearing or any kind of additional input. The UO gives notice on and off campus, and to the media, Senate Executive Committee, legislators, and so forth. There is a different view of rulemaking, and although a committee could be established, it is optional. Many times a committee is not the best way to adopt a rule and public comment is more important; that is what is being strived for in this process.
Ms. Grier continued that the motion to come before the senate later in the meeting was to repeal the rules that are currently in place. She was concerned that the motion requires that the old rules be put back in place, which would make the UO out of compliance with FERPA, and that students would not be notified how their records actually are going to be handled. In meeting with people who had some concerns, Ms. Grier said an amendment was discussed that would make it clear that all law enforcement subpoenas would come to the general counsel’s office and would be reviewed by legal counsel to make certain that they are valid before any records are disclosed. If a subpoena comes, it is not taken lightly and it is refused if not valid. It is true that subpoenas can show up around campus, and it is important through the rule and in other ways to give notice to the recipients so they know how to handle the subpoenas to make sure they get full legal review. Ms. Grier expressed appreciation for the willingness of those concerned to work towards compromised solutions and reiterated that the purpose of the rule is to make sure students privacy and records are protected. It is important for the community to understand that the General Counsel is available to help students with legal issues and to assist them if they receive a subpoena. She reiterated that no information is given out unless there is a valid, legal obligation to do so. (See email correspondence #6 and #7 between F. Stahl and R. Geller for background information at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/letters034.html.)
During a follow-up question session Senator Jeffery Hurwit, art history, asked how many subpoenas the UO receives in a year and how many of those are valid? Ms. Grier replied that the registrar receives the most subpoenas and the general counsel’s office receives about 40 or 50 a year, with an estimated 25% being not valid. Most invalid subpoenas are from out of state. In California, any practicing lawyer can issue a subpoena and the state has a system of subpoena processing companies that the UO does not validate. Under Oregon state rules, records for a deposition need to allow 14 days for response or are treated as invalid. Many subpoenas are for divorces or are regarding former students.
Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked Ms. Grier to explain what changes happened as a result of the Patriot Act. Ms. Grier responded that the USA Patriot Act did not change FERPA. The US Attorney General always had authority to issue exparte subpoenas. The effect of the USA Patriot Act was to extend that authority without amending FERPA. Senate Vice President Andrew Marcus, geography, asked if any federal subpoenas have been received. Ms. Grier replied “yes”, but pointed out that many federal subpoenas are actually local issues that are simply going through a process. Occasionally the UO receives law enforcement subpoenas, such as a few years ago when the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was on campus. That particular subpoena was related to the UO itself. If the general counsel determines a subpoena is not valid, the response reflects that; the issuer of the subpoena must then go through a process with the Oregon Department of Justice if the party wishes to pursue the matter. The general counsel’s office strives to support students with legal issues they may encounter.
Senator Karen Kennedy, academic advising, expressed concern about not notifying students when a subpoena is issued and asked if students would be contacted at all. Ms. Grier reiterated that if a subpoena is valid and specifically restricts informing the student, giving notice to said student would be criminal and could result in sanctions against the university. This rule was established under FERPA in 1994 and has not changed because of the USA Patriot Act. The difference is that more subpoenas specifying confidentiality may result from the USA Patriot Act.
Senator Fritz Gearhardt, music, requested a fictitious example of a subpoena that might be issued with instructions not to notify the student. Ms. Grier replied that the most common subpoenas restricting notification of students pertain to financial aid fraud. Often auditors want to make comparisons without alerting anyone. Another example would be subpoenas requesting information for authorities that want to contact a student without the student being alerted they are trying to do so. A final example would be a subpoena requesting directory information that the student may have requested suppressed.
Senator Christine Sundt, library system, asked if a student is automatically contacted if the subpoena is not restrictive. Ms. Grier replied that students are likely to be notified, but if the student has legal representation, it is the lawyers who are notified. If a subpoena is invalid, it is possible the student would not be notified at all, as no action was taken. Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, questioned the hurried timing in changing policy. Ms. Grier said the process was delayed until the end of summer, but the following reasons necessitated the change: bargaining with the GTF needed to progress, the UO was out of compliance, and student communications involving email addresses required consideration before fall 2003 term deadlines. Ms. Grier concluded her remarks with a reminder that the portion of the revised OAR of greatest concern was delayed in implementation in order for further dialogue to take place.
Motion US03/04-5 -- to repeal recently revised OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy) and restore to its previous version. The first item of new business concerned the motion regarding revisions to the student records policy. Prior to formal debate, the sponsor of the motion, Senator Daniel Pope, history, distributed copies of the motion and Ms. Grier’s document regarding the referral of subpoenas to the Office of the General Counsel. Senator Pope endorsed Ms. Grier’s assessment of their meeting and reiterated that the conversation was positive and constructive, and that he appreciated the language used in Ms. Grier’s draft. As an historian, Senator Pope said he is inclined to look to the past and therefore has a different perspective than Ms. Grier. He believes the reasons for amending the OAR were inadequate and flawed and resulted in a procedure that did not take into enough account important concerns regarding privacy, civil liberties, and academic freedom. He referred to the context of these concerns in a document distributed by Frank Stahl at the October 2003 senate meeting that provided a chronology from last March to the end of September. Senator Pope read a quote from Academe’s special report on academic freedom after the events of 9/11 which said, “Sections of 507 of the USA Patriot Act amends FERPA by creating a procedure in which a senior official in the US Department of Justice may seek a court order to collect educational records deemed relevant to an investigation or prosecution of terrorism as an exception to the requirements of confidentiality.” The article also pointed out that after the passage of the Patriot Act in October of 2001, record keeping requirements were waived concerning the existence of these “gag rule” subpoenas.
Senator Pope went on to say he believes amending the OAR without consideration that the university may receive USA Patriot Act related requests is insufficient. The procedure for student records policy revision was done as administrative housekeeping and a way to rectify anomalies and errors of fact to a 20-year old rule; but to carry out the process without consideration of the new category of exparte subpoenas that do not permit disclosing information to the person whose records are being requested is not an adequate response, and thus the basis of the motion he wishes to bring to the floor. Discussion with colleagues led to the conclusion that starting over in drafting revisions may be the best solution. The meeting with Ms. Grier resulted in wording that helps to make clear that a subpoena is not automatically valid and that the recipient does not need to immediately hand over information, and it establishes a procedure for examining the validity of the subpoenas. Further, Senator Pope said the provision for publicity is a good step. Notification of students through an article or supplement in the Daily Emerald was suggested, as well as information in relevant handbooks. He indicated that notifying involved parties that they do not have to comply with a subpoena without first requesting legal counsel’s review is most important. The possibility of a public policy statement from the UO was discussed regarding the UO’s reluctance to turn over information readily, and that such action is a matter of considerable concern that requires examining the legalities in each case.
Senator Pope stated his concern that an individual office worker, faculty member, or administrator may be asked to turn over records as a result of a terrorism investigation and that the person might feel morally obligated to resist the subpoena as an act of civil disobedience, either by not complying with the request for information, or by notifying the subject of the request. In such an instance he hoped the university would not punish the individual for acting on one’s conscience for that type of situation, but he was unsure how the university could make a policy supporting that position. In terms of the motion he proposes to bring forward, Senator Pope said that if the university is moving in the direction of meeting some of the afore mentioned concerns, with language drafted by Ms. Grier, further publicity arrangements, a commitment to a policy statement, and an understanding that the university is not going to discipline someone acting in conscience in resisting an exparte subpoena, he felt the broader purposes of this motion would be met, and left the direction of the motion up to the senate members.
Several comments came from the floor. Senator Dev Sinha, mathematics, asked for clarification on what Ms. Grier’s document meat in relationship to the motion and to the original OAR. Senator Peter Gilkey, in response, noted that in order to save paper, copies of the motion (all of its versions) and all relevant documents could be found on the senate’s web page. The handout is a draft by Ms. Grier suggesting additional procedures for processing subpoenas that could be used in conjunction with the current OAR.
President Bowditch then read aloud Motion US03/04-5 and, hearing a second to the motion, opened the floor for debate. The motion reads as follows:
Motion US03/04-5 – Repeal OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy) as adopted September 5, 2003 and restore prior text
(1) The Senate calls upon the UO Administration to undertake immediately all steps necessary to restore OAR 571-20 to the text as it existed prior to September 5, 2003, and to declare null and void the Permanent Administrative Rule OAR 571-20 that was adopted on September 5, 2003.
(2) Pursuant to ORS 183.025(2), the Senate calls upon the University to involve the public in the drafting of a revision of Student Records Policy by, among other measures, appointing the UO Senate as an advisory committee to represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the revision.
Senator Garrett Epps, law, began the debate by remarking that he was encouraged by the information presented, but said that he opposed the motion at this time. Senator Epps suggested the senate form a committee to work out some of the concerns mentioned, and moved to delay the vote until the January 14, 2004 senate meeting. President Bowditch indicated that during the term break interim a committee could be appointed to further improve the records policy. Senator Gilkey, as a point of information, asked if the postponement of this vote would affect the rule scheduled to become valid on December 10, 2003.
President Frohnmayer entered the discussion saying that he is familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act and helped write some of the procedures being discussed. He noted that whichever way the vote goes on Senator Pope’s motion, there would be further rulemaking required by the UO. If the senate wishes to restore the status quo, the repeal would require the UO to give notice to the secretary of state, and to all of the constituencies. To repeal the rule would put into effect the old rule that does not inform students of what the law is and does not protect them further and allows the UO to adopt a policy that is no longer in effect and may prohibit students from using their email or an instructor from using the blackboard system. Restoring the status quo would not only create all of the issues that left the adoption of a rule in its non-controversial purposes in the first instances, but would also be publishing a rule about a law that does not exist and that is problematic. To adopt the language, or a version of the language Senator Pope and others have developed with Ms. Grier, would required rulemaking. President Frohnmayer asked the Senate not to adopt a request to repeal a rule that restores a law that no longer exists in its present form and would have the capacity to mislead UO students and faculty about what the law is.
Noting that the impending holidays and finals schedules made it beneficial to postpone Senator Pope’s motion until the February senate meeting, and hearing agreement from Senator Epps, the motion to delay voting on Motion US03/04-5 until the February 2004 senate meeting was brought to a voice vote and was passed. In the interim, the requested committee would be appointed.
Senator Pope requested that the senate discuss his motion to give the proposed committee a better idea of how to pursue this issue. In response, Senator Epps suggested that a discussion be added to the January senate meeting agenda since the committee’s presentation is scheduled for the February meeting. The suggestion met with approval.
As the discussion wound down, several additional comments were made. Senator Psaki noted that Ms. Grier spoke clearly about the content of the revised OAR, and supported the notion of a senate subcommittee formed to hone the language for a new OAR, saying it would involve the senate in an area of student records with which it should be involved. Mr. Frank Stahl suggested that when a difficult subpoena comes as a result of the USA Patriot Act, one has hesitancy in responding and should recognize the ethical and moral issues involved. He pointed out President Frohnmayer’s offer to examine any such subpoena. Lastly, Senator Gearhart expressed appreciation for Ms. Grier’s explanation regarding OAR revisions and rule making.
Senate President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:55p.m.
(The secretary gratefully acknowledges the valued contributions of Ms. Jennifer Burton in drafting the minutes of the meeting.)
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 8, 2003
Present: A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, F. Cogan, K. Curtin, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, M. Holland, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, A. Lindquist, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, M. Russo, G. Sayre, P. Scher, K. Sheehan, M. Sherman, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Wilson
Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, C. McNelly, M. Raymer, L. Robare, M. Woollacott
Absent: L. Alpert, R. Graff
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:08 p.m. in 115 Lawrence. She welcomed all to the first meeting of the year and reviewed briefly general operational procedures such as wearing nametags, signing into meetings, and informing the secretary of absences for illness or other university business.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the May 28, 2003 senate organizational meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATION FROM THE FLOOR
Faculty Leadership Caucus. President Bowditch commented about the Faculty Leadership Caucus held in mid September, saying that this is a crucial year for governance and participation. She highlighted four broad issues the senate would be facing: (1) declining state funding for higher education, (2) the changing face of the campus built environment, (3) ongoing evaluation of the roll of athletics in relation to academics; and (4) maintaining access to and quality of the teaching and research environment with fewer resources.
President Bowditch noted that the current fiscal situation prompted discussion of how to do more with less and not sacrifice academic quality. A White Paper on policy guidelines for maintaining academic excellence drafted by former senate president Greg McLauchlan is under review. Another goal suggested at the caucus is to set a figure for donations raised for academics during the Comprehensive Campaign that would not be compromised by donations raised for athletics. In a similar vein, President Bowditch noted that the charge of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee will be reviewed to possibly incorporate some of the functions of the Presidential Task Force on Athletics in order for the evaluation of the relationship between athletics and academics to continue. Also discussed was the importance of establishing venues for faculty input to key decisions being made about the direction of the university and the importance of including faculty in long range planning. Lastly, the president anticipates working with the Committee on Student Conduct to assist in revising key aspects of the student conduct code.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks regarding the university budget, enrollment, campus growth and plans for the coming year : Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis and President Dave Frohnmayer. Vice President Davis referred senate members to the September 19, 2003 Office of Governmental Affairs update for a summary of the year's legislative session, a year that set records for being the longest legislative session ever, with the five special sessions held. She noted that the Higher Education Efficiency Act, Senate Bill 437, passed with modifications, which was a positive action in terms of allowing more autonomy for the operation of OUS within the state. Most items with fiscal impact were not approved and were removed from the final bill. There was good legislative news related to signature research center funds, which the university will have access to, and other bonds related to capital projects.
Ms. Davis then outlined the current budget circumstances. The state appropriation for the University of Oregon for 2001-2003 was $139 million. At the close of this legislative session, after the $11 million add back, our budget was $121.5 million, and that is our current estimate of the operating budget from state general funds for the 2003-2005 biennium. This is $5 million less than the 1989-1991 biennium. It is important to put into perspective the shift in the percentage of money that comes from general funds and other limited funds, such as tuition and resources raised. In 1999-2001, the percentage was 51% from state funds and 49% from other limited funds. For 2003, the relative percentages are 36% (state funds) and 64% (other funds). The UO currently receives state funding for about 80% of resident students. Other students are supported with tuition dollars. This equates to the Resource Allocation Model (RAM) budget education model that puts us at 72% of the average for our peer institutions in terms of receiving state funding.
Ms. Davis added that enrollment is holding close to expectations and it is anticipated to be at 20,400 students by the end of the 4th week of the term. The mix of nonresidents, international, and resident students will affect the budget's bottom line. There are uncertainties regarding the current ballot measure to rescind the income tax surcharge that could mean another $2.5 million reduction to the university's budget. The university's portion of the $14 million cash payment for other funds limited referred to in the recent Oregonian article is between $4.5 and $4.7 million. Projections for increases in health care costs have been calculated for the two years of this biennium, but remain uncertain. In addition to budget approvals from the legislature, the governor mandated salary freezes on all state employees from all funds private, grant, or otherwise for the duration of the biennium. Depending on enrollments and these uncertainties, the UO could face a deficit between $11 and $17 million for this biennium. The initial adjustments made this year include reducing all operating budgets by 2.5%. These adjustments have been indicated to the deans and vice presidents, and discussions related to dealing with the potential impacts will continue. The Senate Budget Committee, Faculty Advisory Committee, deans, and vice presidents will all be involved in those discussions.
University President Dave Frohnmayer reiterated that issues Vice President Davis spoke of have been shared with the Senate Budget Committee, and the process will continue so that budgetary strategies developed are broadly inclusive and dealt with as early as possible in the biennium. The worse case scenario mentioned by Ms. Davis depends on issues directly influenced by the voters in February 2004 (concerning a tax referendum). The president continued that the maintenance of enrollment, the mix of resident and nonresident students, retention of students from year to year, and the numbers of incoming and outgoing transfer students are all factors the university can influence. He noted that the budget picture has been replicated in our past. In each case, the UO managed to survive and emerge as a better institution. Many institutions are more deeply affected than the UO because their shares of state appropriations had been a greater percentage of their operating budgets. He suggested there is an increasingly tragic, unfortunate, and unnecessary change in view that public higher education is seen less as a public good than as a private good. Everything done externally to various audiences and stakeholders is to encourage the view that one of the truly transformative inventions of American democracy is accessible and available public higher education.
President Frohnmayer noted four strategies used to deal with the fiscal difficulties: (1) increasing revenues through tuition and fees, (2) cost cutting by substituting lower cost operations and technology where possible, (3) increasing productivity by making sure resources are spread more broadly and used more effectively, and (4) cutting services. The administration will engage the faculty and staff of the university as fully as possible in the development of strategies and how to best engage that involvement in a positive way. Finally, the president noted that the UO is the only OUS institution that has not engaged in reductions of force or eliminations of vital programs.
Remarks regarding university plans for the arena site: Vice-President for Administration Dan Williams. The vice president highlighted five points of information concerning the decision to build an arena and where to site it: (1) why the university is building an arena; (2) how the site was selected; (3) how the arena decisions coincide with the UO's long-range campus development plan, (4) the method by which construction will be managed, and (5) plans addressing issues of relocation and traffic. Mr. Williams said the current idea is for a two building complex with approximately 400,000 square feet. Many decisions have not yet been made and many questions will remain unanswered until the process moves forward, establishing more precise information regarding size, activity, and location. Architects and contractors will present a more precise picture about what the arena could cost and what the UO can afford, somewhere from $90 to $130 million.
There are two main reasons the UO is building a new arena. The current building was built in 1927 and is worn out. The cost to maintain it grows disproportionately to the value of the building in terms of its internal systems. Any significant investment in this building gives a diminishing return. Building a new arena is also a business decision regarding economics of intercollegiate athletics with reasons similar to those that led to the expansion of Autzen Stadium. Regarding academic enterprise or athletics, the university's costs are increasing on an annual basis. It is important that the athletic department maintains the financial self sufficiency it reached a couple of years ago when it became no longer dependent on any source of income from the university other than those self generated. Football and men's basketball are the two activities that generate revenue for the UO beyond what they cost. These two activities can generate additional revenue to deal with increased costs by either increasing ticket prices or increasing capacity. The university chose to increase capacity in football and is making essentially the same choice for the basketball program.
After a study determined it was feasible to build a new arena of the size being discussed, President Frohnmayer decided last April that he was confident enough with the financial commitments to build the facility and to hire a consultant to help evaluate and review the sites that would be available. Twenty sites were originally considered in and around the university, Springfield, and Eugene and then were narrowed down to 7 sites. Using basic criteria of proximity to the campus and student population, affordability and ease of acquisition, and appropriate use of the land, four sites emerged as distinct possibilities needing further study.
The downtown federal courthouse site was favored by city of Eugene for economic value to the downtown business community. However, in addition to the city property, this site would require purchasing property from 10 to 12 private owners at an estimated cost between $15 and $20 million plus the expense of rerouting 8th Avenue. The Williams Bakery site on Franklin Boulevard is the most desirable site but would require land acquisition all the way to Villard Street. A legitimate effort was made to acquire it, but the current owners are not interested in selling the site. Autzen Stadium did not have all of the advantages of Howe Field, and Howe Field provides opportunity to take advantage of Mac Court as an auxiliary practice gym and provide dual use for additional parking being planned. Consequently, Howe Field emerged as the most attractive site.
Mr. Williams continued that the downsides of the Howe Field site were considered. The two major problems: managing the traffic and congestion that would come with an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars on the 12 or 13 nights when basketball games sell out to capacity, and the UO being a good neighbor: were found to have a high probability of successful management. Further, the UO planning office has identified surface parking areas on the west and north sides of campus as prime sites for structured parking. The plan can be implemented to create parking for faculty, staff, and students during the regular workday and address the Howe site parking concerns for arena visitors on evenings and weekends. This plan requires a careful review relative to what circumstances were when it originated in 1998.
Mr. Williams addressed criticism that the selection of the Howe Field site is in violation of long range campus planning and relevant Oregon statutes by stating that legal counsel had determined the Howe Field plan is consistent with statewide land use goals and local comprehensive plans as well as Oregon University System Board policies. The university has a suggestive process for making campus land use decisions. The process is not regulatory and is intended to provide guidance based on the concept that land use decisions should reflect the university's long-standing goals and interests. Howe field is currently dedicated to athletic and recreational activity and will therefore remain consistent with long standing goals and interests of the university for that site, in addition to offering the opportunity to implement the long term parking plan.
The vice president went on to note that the approach for design and construction of the project will not be the UO's traditional method for building facilities, but will be similar to the approach taken to build the Chiles Center and the Bowman Family Building. A non- profit subsidiary of the UO Foundation will be established to manage the design and construction of the project. This will create an opportunity to maximize the value of the donor's contribution by allowing negotiation of contracted work rather than submitting to the state mandated and often burdensome bidding processes, and by increasing the likelihood of completing this project in a timely manner. A development agreement with this private entity requires that they abide by the prevailing wages and laws in the state of Oregon and the federal government, as well as consult with UO administration regarding elements that will ensure an outcome in harmony and compatible with the outcome that would have been achieved by traditional methods.
Lastly, when completed, the capacity of the arena will be 14,000 with the ability to be increased up to 16, 000 at a later date. That increase is 5,000 more than McArthur Court's current capacity of 9,000, and can increase parking demands by an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars. It is the university's intention to implement the 1998 plan for structured parking to eradicate the traffic impact on the neighborhood and additionally bring relief to long overdo campus parking problems.
Precise plans for siting the arena have yet to be developed, but there is reasonable certainty there will be no material impact on the track and field facilities or student recreation center. It is likely the softball field, outdoor programs barn, and indoor tennis courts will be relocated, and provision may be needed for outdoor open recreational space requirements for a new facility on 18th street. In order to maintain effective communications internally and externally, a group will be established, similar to the Campus Planning Committee.
Vice President Williams then open the floor for questions. Faculty member Linda Kintz, English, indicated her opposition to the Howe Field site, citing the loss of some facilities used by state track high school meets, intramural soccer games, and various summer camp activities. Mr. Williams replied there is a possibility that some of that space noted by Ms. Kintz may be impacted. Opportunities will be provided for activities that cannot displace, and the vice president noted that there are two major all weather fields available. Ms. Kintz then asked if there will be an impact on union workers. Mr. Williams answered that the prevailing wage, which the UO usually pays will be required, but he was not sure whether we are required to use only contractors who have union help. He assured that union workers would not be prohibited.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, referred to a statement made by Christine Thompson of the Campus Planning Committee, indicating that if the university decides to build an arena on campus, the proposed site would come back to the Campus Planning Committee for review and approval. Senator Wilson asked if that was going to happen or if she is mistaken. Mr. Williams responded that she was mistaken; the concern was managing this construction in a timely manner.
Senator Garrett Epps, law, asked if the new parking structures would be financed by the athletic department. Vice President Williams answered that the project will carry all direct and indirect costs. The project budget will carry a parking bill to cover the additional access expense. If the UO chooses to build more parking than the project requires in order to address other university parking issues, the additional cost would be figured proportionately. The current UO parking situation is self-sufficient.
Senator Gordon Sayre, English, expressed his concern about relocating facilities such as tennis, softball, and the outdoor program barn, wondering where they will they be moved, when this will this be done, and who will cover the cost. Mr. Williams replied that the process is still in its beginning stages; however, the intention is these expenses will be included in the plan. Senator Sayre reiterated his dissatisfaction in tearing down tennis courts that are only 2 to 3 years old. Acknowledging that the revenue producing sports pay for tennis, must they displace them in the process?
Senator Christine Sundt, library system, asked why Autzen was not considered more strongly since there is parking, students already go there, and commuters would not be impacted. President Frohnmayer responded to this question saying that one reason is the structured parking consideration, because the UO is at parking capacity and duel purpose parking can be served at Howe Field. The second reason concerns a major infrastructure problem at Autzen: a major utility pipe runs through the site where the arena would be built. The distance to Autzen is also significant for students on wet, rainy nights, although no single one of these reasons was all determining.
Senate Vice President Andrew Marcus, geography, asked how many other events will be held at the arena each year in addition to the anticipated at 13 times a year. Mr. Williams answered that many suggestions were listed in the consultant's report but the plan, financial and otherwise, is not dependent on any significant number of other events. Senator Peter Keyes, architecture stated his concern that the UO is not setting a good example for its students regarding long term planning with our buildings. He suggested that the UO's track record for building in this manner did not give him much confidence.
Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, asked what consideration has been given to the effect on music events, to which Mr. Williams replied that Dean Foley (School of Music) had contacted him and indicated that he sees building at Howe Field as an opportunity for the music school. Senator Ben Strawn, ASUO, asked which of the relocated facilities would be considered part of the direct and indirect costs. Mr. Williams replied that an evaluation is being done and he will keep Mr. Strawn informed.
The discussion concluded with a question from emeritus professor of biology Frank Stahl who commented that President Frohnmayer had pointed out the important advantages of private funding, but Mr. Stahl wondered if any of that funding would be affected if the University of Oregon Senate were to pass a resolution regarding American Foreign policy. The president responded that he did not know, but said that he doubted it.
Report on Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS): IFS Vice President Peter Gilkey. IFS Representative Gilkey reported that 2001-2003 was not a great period for Oregon in that funding support is down $62.7 million. Biennial OUS enrollments are up to 147,000 students; the general fund provides for 17,000 fewer students, while tuition is funding 26,000 more. Over the past couple of years, student enrollments show a rapid gain. OUS believes they are going to make up one-third of the drop in funding with tuition increases; consequently, the share of the education and general funding for students that is accounted for by tuition has grown dramatically. Mr. Gilkey concurred with comments made earlier by Vice President Davis regarding the major funding uncertainties: possible revoking of the income tax surcharge in February 2004 and the PERS funding problems, in particular. He noted that the IFS meets five times a year and that as president of IFS in January 2004, he has an opportunity for input with the state board members at their meetings. He encouraged faculty members to communication what message he will deliver at board meetings.
Senator Anne McLucas, music, asked about the power of the IFS. Senator Gilkey replied that the IFS is fairly effective, and communicating is a large part of what the IFS does. He said he brings information to you and in turn gets information from you to bring to the IFS. The state board has always indicated a willingness to listen to faculty. And the current chancellor has been supportive in attending IFS meetings. Similarly, key legislators occasionally attend IFS meetings to share information and concerns, so the IFS can assist in effectively communicating faculty concerns.
Report on university policies and procedures regarding the USA Patriot Act: Randy Geller, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs. Mr. Geller reported that as of October 6, 2003, the university has not been served with any subpoenas or court orders or any similar documents pursuant to the USA Patriot Act. He explained that the UO procedure is that court orders and subpoenas under the Patriot Act should be served on the General Counsel's office or the Registrar's office, if they are seeking student records. The policy is to review the court order and make a determination as to its validity and lawfulness, and to respond as appropriate. For example, if there is a basis for objecting to the subpoena, the university would consider doing that, as we do in many cases when we receive non law enforcement subpoenas. If the subpoena is valid and lawfully served or a court order appears to be valid, our policy is to comply with the federal subpoena or court order.
Senator Karen Kennedy, academic advising, asked if a student would be notified if a subpoena is received asking for student records or information. Mr. Geller replied that if the subpoena is a typical subpoena that does not contain language that prohibits the university from notifying a student, then the student will be notified. If the subpoena or court order contains language that prohibits the university from notifying the students, and is valid and lawfully issued, we will not notify the student.
Professor John Bonine, law school, wondered whether the UO will seek advice from the Attorney General, or only seek in-house advice. Mr. Geller answered that it is the General Counsel to the university, Melinda Grier, who ultimately makes that decision. He noted that he has no concerns about consulting with the Oregon Department of Justice, as appropriate.
Mr. Stahl then pointed out that the entire revised OAR (regarding student records policy) has been adopted, with some provisions not becoming effective until the end of the fall quarter.
Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, pursued an example of a subpoena asking the library for a list of books that were checked out. Assuming it is a legal subpoena, would the university comply? Mr. Geller said he would have to look at it, and have Ms. Grier and the Department of Justice, review the particular court order or subpoena. Our policy is to comply with valid court orders. If there is some basis for objecting to the court order, then we would consider objecting.
President Frohnmayer joined the discussion by returning to Mr. Bonine's question, and stating that Melinda Grier is a special assistant attorney general. She does report, for official purposes, to the Attorney General's office and routinely seeks advice from that office. The president suggested that perhaps there is some confusion in this discussion about the adoption of the conforming rules of our records policy. Those conforming rules were adopted, but have nothing to do with the USA Patriot Act. The rules have to do with legislation passed by the federal government in 1994 with which we have been under a legal obligation to comply and to conform our policies for the last six or seven years. Because of the concerns raised about whether or not the Patriot Act was implicated, and the specific issue with respect to subpoenas which are served and which ask for information without the notification of the person who is the subject of the subpoena, the effective date of that particular part of the OAR rule was postponed in deference to the senate and the discussion of this issue which you wished to have at this meeting. The registrar, who believes he has the right and obligation to obey the law, was put in the impossible position, as these revisions dragged on, of being unable to allow students' names and information to be shared with each other in common class exercises such as the use of the software Blackboard. Changes were made not just to bring our rules and our practices into conformity with the federal laws, but also for purposes of facilitating professor/student and student/student communication. It has nothing to do with the most recent actions of the United States Congress in passing the USA Patriot Act.
Remarks regarding recent revisions to the Student Records Policy: Registrar Herb Chereck. Mr. Chereck stated that changing the student record policy was an issue of concern for him for many years in terms of the policy itself. He acknowledged that the timing was less than ideal, but he wanted to have revisions in place for the fall semester law students. He and Vice President for Student Affairs Anne Leavitt contacted a broad range of faculty groups, as well as student groups, to apprise them of the policy and the suggested revisions; in doing that, they originally delayed the actual filing of the petition in order to take additional comments and concerns that were raised by faculty. Mr. Chereck believes all of those concerns had been addressed before the petition was submitted to the Secretary of State.
Senator Daniel Pope, history, commented that Melinda Grier submitted the notice of proposed student records rule changes to the Secretary of State the day before she participated in the senate discussion of the Patriot Act and of our compliance or response to it. She made no mention of the proposed OAR record policy revisions at all at that time, and arguably, this is something that is colored by the Patriot Act. Certainly people who are concerned about the Patriot Act would likely be concerned about this kind of student record rule change. Mr. Pope indicated he is quite disturbed that there was no attempt to inform the senate that this was underway as the academic year was coming to an end. He found the whole procedure that took place over the summer flawed.
President Frohnmayer responded to Mr. Pope saying that the students record policy changes have been under discussion by this campus, not merely during the course of the summer but over the last several years. The Faculty Advisory Council was informed last spring. It may be that the full significance of these changes was not fully understood at the time, but this issue has not lacked for airing with concerned groups in the campus, not merely for a few months, but actually for a period of several years as we attempted to come into conformity with a federal law that has required these changes since 1994.
Senator Ben Strawn, ASUO, remarked that he was asked his opinion as a student senator and what other students on the Presidents Advisory Council thought about the proposed changes. Mr. Strawn believed that the changes presented involved names, email addresses and phone numbers that may be made available on request, but not that other student records would be available or that students would be unaware of the fact that people unknown to them might have access to those records. Mr. Strawn was fully in favor of the UO complying with federal law, but does not believe the students present in those conversations grasped the whole picture of the revisions.
Mr. Chereck said that his main agenda was to expand the directory information items to include email addresses and the definition of enrollment. He added that of the sessions he attended, it was stated that the intent was also to update the policy as it applied to changes in federal regulations. He specifically talked about the UO's need to comply with subpoenas in what has been referred to as the "gag" order. Senator Psaki asked why the senate was not one of the groups notified or consulted during the revision process. Mr. Chereck said that other than OAR revisions to the Student Conduct Code, OAR revisions have not routinely come before the senate. Vice President Davis noted that the senate president sits on the FAC, which often handles OARs. Senate President Bowditch added that the senate president is on the Notification List. However, the notification of the changes to this particular OAR went out as senate leadership was changing, and as a result, may have fallen through the cracks.
r. Stahl voiced his disagreement with the notion that revisions to the student records policy were made independent of compliance with the Patriot Act. He stated that as he read the law books, until 2001, if a student record was released, a record of that release was kept with the student's record in the registrar's office. In 2001 FERPA, in compliance with the Patriot Act, removed that requirement. The revised OAR-571-20 (student records policy) under discussion contains the language inserted in FERPA in 2001 by the Patriot Act. Mr. Stahl said he thinks the president is mistaken when he says this OAR, in no way, was written to put the university in compliance with the Patriot Act. Mr. Geller responded that he did not believe that what Mr. Stahl had stated was true, but that he would go back and review it and respond to Mr. Stahl.
Another question was asked whether federal legislation requires the university to adopt regulations. Mr. Geller replied that federal law requires compliance, but he was not certain that it requires university regulations. He noted that even without the regulation, such a subpoena would be automatically elevated to the president's office as an unusual event. A second question asked if it would be possible to include in the revisions, the university's permission to seek constitutional advice on the issue. President Frohnmayer explained that Oregon rulemaking provisions are interpretive rules. Their purpose is for giving people maximum notice as to what the law is rather than hiding it in a federal statute. He assured the senate that if a subpoena were received by any university official, under the circumstances described here, the president, personally would be informed and that it would be treated as a matter of the utmost gravity and importance. The president stated his commitment, as president of the university, that it would not be treated as a routine matter in any respect.
Senator Psaki asked why was there such haste to bring these rules into compliance with FERPA or even into compliance with UO practices when they had been incompliant for so many years. What was the hurry that this process did not get put off as requested until fall of '03 or early in '04?
Mr. Geller responded that, as a general proposition, there is no time like the present for compliance with federal law. There was a very sincere and strong desire on the part of the registrar, vice president for student affairs, and others that the rules be in place by the start of fall term so that information such as email addresses could be added as directory information and could make full use of our courseware, such as Blackboard.
Senator Kennedy asked what ground does the university have to stand on to say no to the US government if the subpoena request violates conscience. President Frohnmayer said he did not know how it is possible to answer such a question without seeing the facts of the situation to speak specifically rather than abstractly. You are talking about an issue of civil disobedience that has been considered by philosophers, lawyers, and courts for generations. If there were some issue of such significance that presented those issues of conscience as opposed to requirements of the law, they would be treated with the utmost seriousness. But, the president said that to speak abstractly about under what circumstances that occasion might arise would be a disservice to this body as to the general public.
President Frohnmayer further noted that he knew of no institution so far, that has been presented with one of these subpoena issues or of a single subpoena on an institution of higher education asking for this kind of information. If it does arise in the future, he suggested it would be the subject of the most intense discussion amongst us. But it has not happened in our institutional experience. He indicated that the administration will continue to make these reports and you will hear of them when they know of them.
ResolutionUS03/04-1 in opposition to siting the new basketball and events arena at or near the Howe Field area: Mike Russo, management. Senator Mike Russo, management, moved the following resolution:
Whereas, a basketball and events arena is being planned for a location at or adjacent to Howe Field, and
Whereas, this arena would eliminate open space in direct violation of the Campus Long Range Plan, and
Whereas, this arena would be completely out of scale with surrounding buildings, and
Whereas, this arena would result in the elimination or relocation of a number of student facilities including but not limited to intramural fields, the three-year old indoor tennis courts, the Outdoor Recreation Center, and Howe Field itself, and
Whereas, a parking structure for the arena may require the relocation of important track and field facilities, and
Whereas, LTD would need to quadruple the number of buses to serve game nights, and
Whereas, congestion around the arena on game and event nights would overwhelm the capacity of nearby streets, and the parking structures built along with the arena would create very significant traffic in the surrounding neighborhood not only for events but every working day, and
Whereas, many of the University's faculty, staff, and students live in these surrounding arenas and would be detrimentally affected,
Be It Resolved, that the University of Oregon University Senate hereby expresses its opposition to the construction of a basketball and events arena at or near the Howe Field site and urges the University to reconsider its decision and to take the requisite time to find a more suitable place for such a large facility.
Mr. Russo began the debate on the resolution by expressing concern about how rushed the decision to site the basketball arena on Howe Field has been. He indicated that the resolution was not about being against the arena, but rather that Howe Field is a terrible site for it. He said that although claims are made that the process has been going on since April, the report from the consultant was only released the last day of August, which provided the first tangible knowledge about what the project was going to look like. He continued that consultative conversations with report writers were somewhat incidental rather than established, two-way dialogue. Mr. Russo countered claims that speed was necessary to allay construction inflation, saying that since the university uses zero percent inflation in its estimates, if the expected rate of inflation is zero there is as much chance that it would be better to wait than to build. Mr. Russo also noted the differing estimates for the number of parking spaces needed, from 1,500 to as high as 3,200 estimated by the consultant, which would be a huge increase in parking. He questioned whether the area streets could handle the increased traffic.
Mr. Russo said he preferred that the university settle on two or three sites and proceed with planning for those two or three in mind, with an eye toward picking one of them. He then suggested that the Howe site was not a good choice, quoting from the campus long-range plan. The large open spaces situated within this area are required to meet the demands of instructional programs and recreational needs of students. These open spaces are regarded as a central University resource to be managed in a way that maximized their benefit to the University community as a whole and it ought not be considered as available building sites simply because they are open.
Mr. Russo pointed to other drawbacks of the Howe site: the building would be out of scale with the area; the "soft" edge between the campus and the neighborhood would be gone; a number of student facilities would be elimination or relocated, such as the $3 million, 3 year old indoor tennis courts, intramural fields, perhaps some track facilities, the outdoor program barn, and the Howe Field softball facility. He also spoke of the difficult of getting an increased number of buses in and out of the site, and of the negative impact on the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Additional traffic to the parking structure will add to street congestion.
For these reasons, Mr. Russo asked that the senate express some opposition to construction of a basketball and events arena on Howe Field, and that the site decision be reconsidered. Saying that the new building will be around for 75 to 100 years, the university should involve more people and take the requisite time to do the site selection and project right.
Senator Lars Skalnes, political science, indicated he was confused because Mr. Russo initially said that his objection was related to the speed with which the decision was made and not to the decision itself. However, the resolution basically expresses an opposition to the decision.
Mr. Russo explained that the inconsistency was in part a result of the resolution having been written before the site decision was made. This resolution has to do with the Howe Field site, but he suggested he would accept an amendment that the speed with which the decision was made was not in favor.
Mr. Skalnes replied that some decision has to be made. He wondered if Mr. Russo had considered the pros and cons of the other sites, because if he argues why this is a bad decision, he should show there are better alternatives. Mr. Russo explained that he wanted to keep the resolution manageable. But he suggested parking along the north side of campus and Franklin Boulevard was close to three other sites: the new courthouse site, the old Coke bottling plant, and Williams Bakery. Mr. Skalnes noted that the Williams bakery site was not available.
Senator Wilson turned the discussion to why the decision to build and site the arena was not a faculty issue from the beginning. He suggested that the senators should ask themselves if that is okay. Mr. Wilson spoke of a sense of mission drift, in that perhaps the largest building project to be undertaken by the university has only the most incidental connection with our core institutional mission.
Senator Epps noted that he shares the siting process concerns that have been voiced. However, because the resolution does not center on the process, he would vote no. At this point, there was discussion about amending the resolution. Senator Pope suggested an amendment striking the words, 'more suitable' so as not to prejudge whether it was a satisfactory process. Senator Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, pointed to problems with the amendment in that the first part of the resolution states opposition; the original wording could also be seen as prejudgment.
Senator Wilson then moved to amend the amendment with text that read, "Be it resolved that the University of Oregon Senate hereby expresses its opposition to the decision to construct a basketball arena at Howe field and urges the University to reconsider its decision and refer the matter to the Campus Planning Committee and take the requisite time to find the most suitable place for such a large facility." However, it was pointed out that the Pope amendment was not officially on the floor for debate.
Before the Wilson motion was seconded, Senator Gilkey opined that the recent attempted amendment actions illustrated the danger of writing legislation under pressure. In view of the lateness of the hour, he suggested delaying action on the resolution until the next meeting to allow time for due reflection on the right words. He reminded all of the law of unintended consequences when writing resolutions without having a chance to think about exactly what the words are. He moved to table the motion until the next meeting. The motion to table Resolution US03/04-1 until the November meeting was seconded and passed by hand vote (16 votes in the affirmative; 9 votes against; 1 abstention).
MotionUS03/04-2 regarding notification of senators of intended action on OARs: Gina Psaki, romance languages. Senator Psaki moved the following motion:
Be it MOVED that:
(a) Upon passage of this motion by the Senate, the Secretary shall submit to the Rules Coordinator the names and addresses (email and campus mail) of all members of the Senate, requesting that those names be added to the Notification List of persons to receive notices of changes in OARs as defined in ORS 183.330.
(b) Each year, within 48 hours of election of new Senators, the Secretary of the Senate shall submit the names and addresses of all members of the Senate for inclusion on the List defined in (a)
(c) Following Senate elections, the Secretary will notify each departing Senator by e-mail that his/her name will be dropped from the List unless he/she responds to the e-mail letter, requesting to have his/her name remain on the List.
(d) Should the Rules Coordinator use e-mail to notify of OAR changes, and should an e-mail letter be returned as undeliverable, the Rules Coordinator will repeat the notification by means of campus mail.
Ms. Psaki referred to the earlier discussion surrounding the revisions to the student records policy, saying that it is clear why this motion is needed. Although the University Senate is the sole governing body of the UO, it was bypassed in the process of revising rules in which it had expressed an explicit and active interest. However those revisions came about, she stated that shared governance did not happen here. Further, requiring that all current members of the UO senate receive timely notification of rule changes in progress, or of changes contemplated for UO policy OARs, will guarantee that the senate will have the chance to intervene in such substantive changes before they are hurried into fixed form. The motion entails little additional staff effort and has no fiscal impact.
Senator Gilkey spoke against the motion saying that the senate president is already on the Notification List and that it was Mr. Gilkey's belief that we can trust the senate president to inform the Senate Executive Committee and, if necessary, the full senate membership of any pending changes of the OARs. He said he did not see the necessity for the motion and that it was likely to produce an enormous amount of additional paperwork. He added that a mechanism already is in place by which anyone, a senator or other, may be added to the list simply by requesting it.
Mr. Stahl spoke in favor of the motion noting that notification was given this summer to the outgoing senate president after he had gone out of office, and the incoming president was not notified of these changes at the time the notification went out; therefore, as presently practiced, the senate can be left completely uninformed. It is a very simple resolution and it need involve very little paperwork. He saw no reason why the motion should not be passed.
The question was called. Motion US03/04-2 adding current senators to the OAR Notification List passed by hand vote (15 in the affirmative; 7 opposed).
President Bowditch indicated that with the lateness of the hour, the Notice of Motion on OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy) and election of new Committee on Committees members would be carried over to the November meeting.
President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting March 10, 2004
Present: L. Bowditch, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Lockfield, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, K. McPherson, G. Psaki, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer, D. Sinha, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, S. Haynes, C. McNelly, D. Pope, M. Raymer, K. Sheehan, C. Sundt Absent: L. Alpert, A. Berenstein, F. Cogan, C. Ellis, R. Graff, M. Holland, B. Larson, P. Scher, B. Shively, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order in room 100 Willamette at 3:05 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the February 11, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis began her remarks with a progress report on the university's Comprehensive Campaign. A $10 million dollar lead gift was formally announced that will be used to build a new HEDCO College of Education building. In addition, gifts have been donated ($1 million dollars or more) for an endowed professorship in Shakespeare and for a student scholarship in Art History. She extended her thanks to the donors for their generosity in providing these exciting gifts.
Report on State Board of Higher Education ?Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs. Along with the recent major reappointments to the State Board of Higher Education a revamping process has occurred. She noted that professor Geri Richmond, chemistry, was reappointed and is the board's vice chairwoman. (For information on current board members, see http://www.ous.edu/sb_board.htm.) This new board is acting quickly in keeping with the governor's expressed intention of a re-emphasis on higher education throughout the state. A series of board working groups have been developed and are charged with preparing a report for state board review by the June meeting. The working groups are as follows:
(1) Executive Chancellor's Office Review Committee. This committee reviews the overall functions of the Oregon University System and the Chancellor's office. A charge to the State Board was to make budget reductions first at the administrative level in order to protect campus funding.
(2) Finance, Budget, Audit, Personnel and Real Estate Committee. This committee's charge is self-explanatory.
(3) Academic Excellence/Economic Development Working Group. This group's mission is to identify and gain support for approximately two to five economic development initiatives that build on academic excellence within post-secondary institutions (including community colleges).
(4) Access and Affordability Working Group. To adhere to the governor's priorities related to higher education access, this working group is focusing on how the state of Oregon can be sure that every otherwise qualified Oregonian has the opportunity to attend a college or university.
(5) Excellence in Delivery and Productivity. This group is looking at education's transferability and the core curriculum, sometimes referred to as the "more, better, faster" committee. There is worry among some administrators that the focus will be on "faster" without regard to the quality of education.
Each working group is fully staffed and up and running. UO faculty are involved in each group at some level and status reports of each working group are given at the weekly meetings of the President's Small Executive Staff. Vice President Davis noted that at some point it may be necessary to request representation and/or participation from faculty groups in this process.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Preliminary Winter 2004 Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, noted there were a number of changes to the preliminary curriculum report as distributed prior to the meeting. Accordingly, those changes are noted as follows:
1. On first page second paragraph the dates were changed from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006.
2. Paragraphs were added to the Looking Ahead section of the report and will appear on the 2nd page.
The minimal requirements for general education status of a course are regarded as necessary, but not always sufficient, for inclusion of a course as part of a comprehensive general education program at the University.
Group satisfying courses are intended to provide students with a cohesive general-education program. Proposals for group satisfying status of a course should explain how the course enhances general education at the University, explicitly stating how the course would compliment other group satisfying courses, and which other courses would be especially suitable for students to take in accompaniment. Approved on March 10, 2004.
The minimal requirements for multicultural status of a course are regarded as sufficient for inclusion of a course as part of the multicultural course requirements.
Any course that might appear to satisfy the university multicultural requirements, either by title, description, or content, is carefully examined to see if it should be listed as a multicultural course. If a course might appear on its face eligible for multicultural status, the committee needs clear explanation of why the course does,--or does not--, satisfy multicultural course guidelines. Arbitrary exclusion of courses from the list of multicultural satisfying courses can engender student confusion, or cynicism. Approved on March 10, 2004.
The UO Committee on Courses has established the policy that the phrase "or instructor's consent" will no longer be stated along with any other course prerequisites. The prerequisites of any course can be overridden by instructor's consent, and need not be stated explicitly for individual courses. Academic departments are able to override any prerequisite requirements in Banner should a student qualify to enroll.
"Instructor's consent" is reserved for use alone as a sole prerequisite to allow departments to monitor suitability of enrollment in courses for individual students, preventing enrollment without prior approval. Academic departments should be aware they need to assume enrollment management, and must enroll each student individually, with this option. Approved on March 10, 2004.
3. The following three courses were moved from the denied section of the report back into the body of the report because they received approval for new course numbers. They were given new 600 level course numbers; the description was added, and "prereq: instructor consent" was added. (CAS) Chemistry courses.
Formerly listed in denied section with course numbers CH 434/534 (Subject previously taught as CH 410/510 in Summer 2003) CH 657 Organometallics in Organic Synthesis (4) Graded only. Fundamental concepts in organometallic structure and bonding. Organometallic reaction mechanisms. Organometallic reactions in organic synthesis. Prereq: instructors consent.
Formerly listed in denied section with course numbers CH 435/535 (Subject previously taught as CH 410/510 in Summer 2003) CH 658 Synthetic Organic Reactions (4) Graded only. Each day starts with lecture followed by a structured laboratory exercise to perform examples of the reaction. Different reaction each day. Prereq: instructors consent.
Formerly listed in denied section with course numbers CH 436/536 (Subject previously taught as CH 410/510 in Summer 2003) CH 659 Advanced Synthesis Laboratory (4) Graded only. Multi-step syntheses of diverse target molecules. Prereq: instructors consent.
4. The following six courses had "Prereq: instructors consent" added back to the end of the description. (CAS) Chemistry courses.
CH 678 Semiconductor Processing and Characterization Techniques (4) Graded only.
CH 679 Device Processing and Characterization Laboratory (4) Graded only.
5. The word "College" was added to the title of the three following courses. (CAS) Dean's Office courses.
CAS 210 Humanities College Scholars Circle (1R) P/NP only
CAS 220 Sciences College Scholars Circle (1R) P/NP only.
CAS 230 Social Sciences College Scholars Circle (1R) P/NP only
6. The following course had "Course approved. Pending request to satisfy American Cultures multi-cultural requirement." added to the end of the description. (CAS) Geography course.
GEOG 208 Geography of U.S. and Canada (4)
7. There was a typo in the course number for this course. It read LT 456/546 and should read LT 446/546. (CAS) Linguistics course.
(Previously taught at LING 456/556)
LT 446/546 Language Teaching Practice (4)
8. LT prefix was added to prerequisite description to the following courses. Previously it appeared all prereqs had a LING prefix. (CAS) Linguistics courses.
LT 448/548 Curriculum and Materials Development (4) [Graded only for majors] Introduction to the elements of curriculum design and related materials development. Rational basis for the development and implementation of language curriculum. Practical application. Prerequisite: LING 440/540, LT 445/545, LT 446/546
LT 449/549 Testing and Assessment (4) [Graded only for majors] Principles and types of language testing, particularly classroom testing. Test design and integration into curriculum. Test planning for purpose, age group and teaching situation. Prerequisite: LING 4/540, LT 4/545, LT 4/546, LT 4/548 or equivalent.
9. The statement "Approved to satisfy Group 1, Arts & Letters requirements" was changed to the following (in italics below) School of Architecture and Allied Arts & Landscape Architecture course.
(Subject previously taught as LA 4/585) LA 375 Contemporary American Landscapes (4) Evolution of the Contemporary American Landscape as an expression of American culture. Course approved. Pending Group 1, Arts & Letters requirements.
Lexy Wellman, CAS-Dean's office, asked if the "LT" prefix was new, to which Mr. Engelking replied that it was. With no further discussion, the Winter 2004 Currirulum Report was put to a vote and passed unanimously. (See Final Version of the Winter 2004 Curriculum Report at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/CurRptW04Fin.html.)
Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Student Records. Senator Peter Gilkey, committee chairman, reported that a draft policy statement regarding the privacy of Student Records has been distributed. The committee will be meeting March 11, 2004 in Johnson Hall to discuss the draft. Senator Gilkey gave notice of motion advising that the intention is to have the policy statement finalized by the April senate meeting. Senate President Bowditch followed Senator Gilkey's comments by thanking the committee members, and noting in particular Senator Epps, law, for drafting the changes to the student records policy.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Senator Jesse Harding, ASUO and co-chair of the Student Conduct Code Committee, advised that revised portions of the Student Conduct Code will be submitted for senate action at the April meeting. The proposed changes include a revised mission statement, jurisdiction statement, and power of authority section. A question and answer period will be set up during the first two weeks of spring term. Please refer any questions or comments to Jesse Harding. Senator Gilkey, mathematics, who also serves as president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), announced that the IFS has been attending the "more, better, faster" working group referred to earlier in the meeting; meeting summaries for review are posted on the web at http://uoregon.edu~ifs/dir04/dirMBF/MBF.html.
Senator Gilkey further announced that Denise Yunker, benefits officer in the OUS chancellor's office, met with the IFS last week regarding Measure 29 retirement contribution rate corrections. This issue is currently in the Attorney General's office for solution. In addition, a letter to Chancellor Jarvis regarding the ORSRP rate is posted on the IFS website (see http://uoregon.edu~ifs/ORP.html). Senator Gilkey noted that the rates information affects new faculty members at the university. And lastly, Senator Gilkey informed the senate that there is an issue relating to unpaid leave, which is being addressed with a lawsuit filed against OUS by the Association of Oregon Faculties.
With a final announcement, the secretary reminded senators that University Senate meetings for spring term will be held in 182 Lillis.
Notice of Motion on Reduction of Credit Hours Needed to Fulfill Group requirements. President Bowditch indicated that she had received a notice of motion, submitted on behalf of the Undergraduate Council, whose purpose is to reduce credit hours needed to fulfill undergraduate group satisfying requirement from 16 credits to 15 credits for each undergraduate requirement group. This motion speaks to the problem of articulation between the community colleges and the University of Oregon. Currently, transfer students are arriving with five 3-credit courses, totaling 15 of the 16 credits the UO requires to satisfy group requirements, and thus must take a sixth course to meet the requirements met by UO undergraduates taking four UO courses. Questions regarding this motion can be referred to the Undergraduate Council for response. (For full text of the motion and background information, see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-7.html.)
Notice of Motion to Petition the Oregon Congressional Delegation about the USA Patriot Act. President Bowditch also reported that she received notice of a resolution from Gordon Lafer, LERC, for the University Senate to petition the Oregon Congressional Delegation to seek relief, through revisions of the USA Patriot Act and other related laws, from the invasive and chilling effect such provisions have imposed on the university community. See final text of the resolution at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-6a.html.
With no other business at hand, President Bowditch reminded everyone that following adjournment of the senate meeting, a panel discussion titled Academic Freedom and the Patriot Act was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. in the same room. The meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate February 12, 2003
Present: H. Alley, L. Alpert, E. Bailey, J. Bennett, L. Bowditch, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, J. Earl, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, D. Herrick, M. Holland, R. Horner, P. Keyes, D. Leubke, M. Linman, G. Luks, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly (nvp), S. Midkiff, A. Morrogh, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, M. Russo, E. Singer (nvp), L. Skalnes, D. Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman
Excused: K. Aoki, L. Freinkel, M. Partch, J. Wasko
Absent: A. Berenstein, B. Blonigen, C. Bybee, A. Elliott, R. Graff, W.A. Marcus, K. Merrell, M. Myagkov, M. Shirzadegan, C. Smith (nvp), F. Tepfer,
Senate President McLauchlan called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in 123 Pacific.
Minutes from the January 15, 2003 Senate meeting were approved as distributed.
Remarks from Senior Vice President & Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley reported that the state's budget woes continue. The most recent projected shortfall is another 5%, which means $100 million added to shortages originally estimated, and translates to $2 million in additional cuts for the UO. If the May forecasted revenues are down another $200 million as predicted, the UO's $6 million shortage could be increased by an additional $4 million. If additional shortages occur, the tuition surcharge will have to be increased an additional $3 to raise $5 million in order to avoid eliminating classes. The Spring Term charge will be $13 rather than $10. The provost also noted the governor's recent edict regarding rolling back the recent 3% salary increase. It is likely that it will not affect faculty, but may affect officers of administration (the governor's management category). In addition, there are three OUS campuses with union contracts that influence the criteria for the rollbacks.
Tuition receipts, including the surcharge, have netted more income than originally predicted, and the university has made a few other savings. Consequently, with the additional surcharge and with a 1% budgeting cut from all university departments, the year's budget will balance. However, if shortages for the UO increase to $3 million, next year will begin with no reserves. In the February, the deans will discuss whether or not the UO should act preemptively regarding a salary freeze for next year, which is very rigid at this time regardless of the source of funds. The provost indicated he was asked to present best and worse case tuition proposals. The best case would mean a tuition increase of 8 or 9% that would reduce the governor's budget projections by the 4% currently needed. The worse case scenario was a 12% tuition increase that still would leave a $6 to $8 million shortfall. According to projections, it is unlikely the UO will have a tuition increase less than 12% in the next biennium. Even at this level, the UO proposals for tuition hikes reflect some of the lowest increases of the OUS institutions. Increased tuition cost will limit student access, but financial aid will help.
Provost Moseley reaffirmed that the UO is obligated to provide quality education, and said that the key to future UO success is to become less dependent on the state. He emphasized that the university cannot educate more students than its funding will allow. The New Partnership with Oregon document which is now in the legislature as the Higher Education Efficiency Act was written to aid in explaining this dilemma to legislators. The bill will enable the university to operate more efficiently by (a) indexing students to a reasonable number according to the Resource Allocation Model (RAM), (b) accepting more nonresident students, and (c) working to enroll a reasonably sized freshman class (smoothly over a number of years). The Higher Education Efficiency Act is doing well and, if passed, will assist the UO with regard to efficiency and income. One example of such income assistance would be to allow the UO to keep interest earned on the tens of millions of dollars flowing through the university.
The provost opened the floor for questions. Senator Michael Linman, ASUO, asked if the 12% tuition increase would be across the board regarding in-state, out-of-state, and international students. Provost Moseley replied that out-of-state and international students currently pay their full tuition, thus Oregon resident students will pay the increase.
Senator Linda Fuller, sociology, asked if the Dean's Council discussed the wisdom of across-the-board budget cuts versus targeted cuts for specific units. The provost said the general information would be discussed although the council's ability to make changes will be limited. He noted that it is late in the biennium for making such cuts, so rationalization will continue. Senator Chris Ellis, economics, asked if there is any sense of a time frame for acting on the Higher Education Efficiency Act. Provost Moseley responded that issues with revenue implications go through the Ways and Means Committee, usually in late March, and could possibly be voted on prior to the budget. Senator Jack Bennett, academic advising, asked if a letter would be sent to Officers of Administration regarding the salary rollback. Provost Moseley said it is too soon to know what the content of such a letter would be.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked what the approximate percentage of state contribution to the UO budget has been over the last 10 years. The provost responded that prior to Measure 5 (a measure that capped property taxes), the state contribution was approximately 32%; it is currently about 16% to 17%. State funds for instruction amount to a little less than $70 million. Tuition and other funds provide a little over $100 million. Any cut is diluted by this relative funding ratio.
Changing the topic, Senator Maury Holland, law, asked about the bad publicity the UO was victim to last week regarding poor behavior at an off campus party that a prospective football recruit attended. He asked if the UO plans to respond to the allegations. The provost replied that NCAA recruiting rules prevents coaches and athletes from commenting on potential recruits. Whether further comment will come forth is unknown at this time. The provost opined further that there is no way the athletics department or a particular coach can be responsible for an individual's behavior. However, the provost said he has participated in many recruiting events and has been very impressed with the general atmosphere at the events; the focus has always been on getting an education.
Senator Stephanie Midkiff asked how the plan for discounted tuitions for other than prime time classes is working. Provost Moseley reported that afternoon classes are now full and more popular. Students like the afternoon class tuition discounting as a strategy for dealing with increasing tuition and providing greater choice and options. In a similar vein, Senate Vice President Lowell Bowditch, classics, asked if financial aid would be increased. Provost Moseley said financial aid packages are based on need, and the UO will continue to meet the standard practice of offering all resident students a financial aid package, including loans, to be able to attend. He noted that the average student graduates with $16,000 in loans, but the difference in average salary between an AA degree and a BA degree is $16,000. Senator Dave Soper asked how the UO's out-of-state tuition compares with other schools in the region. The provost indicated that the UO is a bargain, comparatively speaking. UO tuition rates are below those CO, CA and WA and above AZ, ID and UT. Senator Robert Ponto, music, ended the discussion by stating his appreciation for the arduous work the provost has done, and continues to do, in addressing the budget situation.
Survey of Public Attitudes about the UO. Associate Dean Friestad reported on a recent telephone survey to determine public attitudes about the university. Data were collected in January 2002 from a random sampling of 300 donors, 300 alumni, and 500 registered voters. The three most frequent positive compliments about the UO regarded the quality and breadth of education, athletics (less than 50% related to football), and campus appearance. More than 50% of those polled had nothing negative to say about the university; for donors and alumni, negative comments focused on the weather, parking, and under-funding issues. The survey asked a number questions, including, how important is it for the UO to have faculty who care about teaching, do you agree or disagree that UO faculty care about teaching, are we meeting expectations, and so forth. Salient findings were that only 3% of those surveyed disagreed that the UO has a faculty that cares about teaching. Faculty who care about teaching was very important among those surveyed. Also of importance was for the UO to teach student to solve problems and think analytically. Those surveyed felt it was important for the UO to provide a broad education that includes the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences. Another issue that surfaced was keeping tuition low enough to allow most parents in Oregon to send their children to college. Survey respondents did not necessarily think a UO education is too expensive, but they generally did not know the cost of tuition. Sixty-five percent of those polled believe that a resident undergraduate student would pay over $5,000 for one year's tuition and fees. Only 20% of polled registered voters accurately knew tuition costs. Once informed, the voter respondents felt that a UO education is a good value but more than the average family can afford.
Dean Friestad remarked that to counter misperceptions it is important to get the correct information to the public. She also noted that registered voters have broader expectations than donors and alumni. Of the registered voters polled, 18% had postgraduate degrees, 22% undergraduate degrees, and 60% did not have a college degree. Key findings were that (a) there are many soft perceptions of the UO not backed up with facts, (b) the public is vulnerable to negative information, (c) there are large gaps in performance of the UO versus public perception, (d) the UO faculty cares about teaching, (e) there is a knowledge gap on a number of issues raise and questions asked, and (f) three quarters of those polled did not know that the UO brings more money into the state than it gets in its budget from the state. The dean closed her remarks by indicating that the poll was for internal use only and results are housed in Vice President for Advancement Allan Price's office.
Senator Ellis warned of being careful in how perceptions are cleared up, for example, in the voters' perception of the funds the university attracts. He suggested that if voters think we bring in too much money, they might not understand our budget shortages and campaign needs. Provost Moseley agreed that it is essential for voters to be made aware of the benefit the state receives from the UO and the amount of money that is spent and stays instate.
When asked if the UO being affordable to students and continuing a $600 million Comprehensive Campaign is reasonable in light of the state's budget and financial problems, Dean Friestad said these are essential issues and are expected by the UO donors. Concern was raised that advertising the UO as a moneymaker may hinder the efforts of the Comprehensive Campaign. Senator Linman felt it was troublesome that donors are not too worried about the affordability of the UO, to which Dean Friestad replied that we must educate donors about the importance of providing financial aid (in part through their donations) for students.
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). IFS representative Peter Gilkey, mathematics, provided a handout (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/IFS78Feb03.html) summarizing the February IFS meeting. During that meeting, the state senate president Peter Courtney (D) painted a continuing grim picture of the financial crisis in the state, which will undoubtedly affect planning for the 2003-05 biennium. Mr. Gilkey indicated that the IFS would meet with most of the legislative leadership this April in Salem and then a meeting jointly sponsored by the IFS, AOF, and AAUP will be held with the legislative leadership on May 3, 2003 (a Saturday morning meeting) in Corvallis to which UO senate members are encouraged to attend.
Senator Julie Novkov, political science asked if the UO has a voice in discussions regarding the PERS situation. President McLauchlan answered that former University Senator Margaret Hallock is on leave from the university to be a senior advisor for Governor Kulongoski, and can represent the interest and needs of the UO quite strongly. The three faculty organizations previously mentioned have different roles and are at every open meeting regarding the PERS situation, so the university has representation.
Interim Report from President's Task Force on Athletics. Athletics Task Force members Margie Paris, Suzanne Clark, and Jenny Kenyon (student member) provided highlights from the first of three task force interim reports (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/RptAthCom15Feb03.pdf for full text). This first report addressed three issues: (1) Do we fulfill our educational mission with respect to UO student athletes, (2) Do student athletes receive inappropriate preferential benefits, and (3) Are student athletes exploited. After extensive discussion with coaches, student athletes, and the Student Athletic Advisory Council, Ms. Paris reported that the task force is confident the UO does fulfill its educational obligations and mission with respect to student athletes. When asked how football and basketball programs fared in the report, Ms. Paris said there were no identifiable problems with these Ã«money' sports. Most data cannot be disclosed for individual sports or student groups because of privacy laws, however it was noted that the UO has an 83% graduation rate for athletes compared with a 59% graduation rate for the entire university.
Looking at the issue of whether student athletes receive preferential benefits, the task force considered the levels of financial and academic support, registration, and enrollment benefits. They concluded that there are preferential benefits, particularly in the area of advising, but not inappropriate benefits. For example, two-thirds of the student advising services are paid for by the athletic department but are rendered through the university's academic support services, not the athletic department itself. Ms. Paris said there is integrity in these services and that they are available to all students, not just student athletes. Similarly with regard to class admissions and registration, the athletic department uses some preferences available to them and is more aggressive in their use than other departments. With sport training schedules limiting the athlete's availability for classes, preferential treatment is necessary to meet the academic goals for the athletes and to comply with the NCAA time-to-degree requirements. Ms. Kenyon stated that the majority of athletes take academics seriously, and any preferential benefits are to assist them with academic performance, not sports.
The last issue addressed in the report concerned whether or not student athletes are exploited by the university and used to increase revenue. The task force reported that academic standards and graduation rates reflect that UO athletes are not exploited. The task force was generally pleased with the ethos of the athletics department, noting their emphasis on academics, which is not the case at many other Division I institutions. The athletic department is under extraordinary pressure regarding these issues and the task force felt it was important that faculty have weighed in on the issues. Ms. Paris announced that a forum would be held to further discuss the findings of the task force on March 5, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Senator Eugene Luks, computer and information science, asked if preferential treatment for athletes in registration affects the non-athletes registration. Ms. Paris replied that the task force did not know, but said other students have voiced concerns regarding this issue. The registration preference is only used during the sport season of a particular athlete and statistically speaking the percentages should not be enough to make a difference for the non-athlete students. It was suggested that Registrar Herb Cherek might be a resource for this question.
Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, asked if there were any major dissentions among committee members to which Ms. Paris replied that surprisingly, there were not. She remarked that the next two reports address the major issues of revenues, admissions, the high cost of athletics, and athletics' role in the Comprehensive Campaign, which are likely to be more conflicting and contentious issues.
With time running late, President McLauchlan noted he had received notice of motion regarding establishing a quorum for the University Assembly. Also, it was noted that over 500 signatures have been gathered on a petition calling for a meeting of the University Assembly, with legislative authority, to consider a resolution against war with Iraq. After petition signature verification by the secretary, President Frohnmayer will announce a meeting time for the assembly in the near future.
Present: H. Alley, L. Alpert, K. Aoki, E. Bailey, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, J. Earl, A. Elliott, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, D. Herrick, M. Holland, M. Linman, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly*, K. Merrell, S. Midkiff, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer*, L. Skalnes, C. Smith*, D. Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, J. Wasko, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman.Â *(non-voting participant)
Absent: B. Blonigen, R. Graff, M. Myagkov
Excused: M. Hallock, R. Horner, P. Keyes, D. Leubke, A. Morrogh, M. Partch
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order December 4, 2002 at 3:07 p.m. in the EMU Fir Room.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes from the November 13, 2002 meeting were approved as distributed.Â
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Fall 2002 Preliminary Curriculum Report.Â Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, reviewed changes made to the curriculum report and responded to Mr. Daniel Popeâ€™s question challenging some of the course listed on the â€œdropped coursesâ€ list.Â A motion to accept the report with changes as noted was made and accepted by unanimous voice vote.Â The final report is posted on the web at: http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/CurRptF02.html.Â
Mr. Engelking also announced that the Intercollege General Education Committee now approves general education requests.Â This committee was previously a College of Arts and Sciences committee.Â Senate President McLauchlan recognized and thanked the Committee on Courses for their hard work in completing the report.
Election of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative and alternate.Â President McLauchlan advised the new senators that IFS representatives from the university meet bi-monthly with other representatives from each of the seven OUS campuses during which ideas are exchanged and policies are developed to further higher education.Â Robert Zimmerman, physics, was elected unanimously as IFS representative serving for a one-year (Jan. â€“ Dec. 2003) term as a replacement for current IFS representative Mr. Peter Gilkey, mathematics, who was elected to a new 3-year term (Jan. 2003 â€“ Dec. 2005).Â Mr. Gilkey will serve as president elect of the IFS this year.Â President McLauchlan noted that there were no candidates for the IFS alternate position and asked for interested persons to contact him.
RESOLUTION US02/03-1 â€“ Support for a peaceful means of resolving the conflict with Iraq.Â Senate President McLauchlan preceded discussion of this issue by reporting that the Senate Executive Committee had discussed at length whether the proposed resolution was within the purview of the senate.Â A significant majority of the Senate Executive Committee determined that the resolution was beyond the purview of the senate although a majority of the committee was in support of the substance of the resolution.Â Consequently, President McLauchlan determined he would refer the question of the resolution being within the purview of the senate for full senate consideration.Â Thus, the president noted, the initial debate will decide whether the substance of the resolution falls within the purview of the senate; if the outcome of that debate is affirmative, the resolution will be moved to the floor for debate and a vote.Â Text of the resolution follows (see also http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/US023-1.html):
Whereas,war leads to a transfer of society's resources away from civilian needs, and Whereas, war threatens democracy by restricting civil liberties, curtailing travel and international interchange, and erecting additional barriers to the unfettered pursuit of knowledge and cross-cultural understanding,
Be it resolved that, the University of Oregon University Senate hereby expresses its opposition to military action against the nation of Iraq, and hereby urges the United States government and the governments of all members of the United Nations to encourage democracy and respect for human rights in Iraq..
President McLauchlan outlined the parameters for the debate indicating a 1-hour time period was allotted.Â During this time, members of the University Senate and University Assembly were encouraged to speak using a 2-minute time limit.Â After the members had an opportunity to speak, if time was not exhausted, a vote would be taken to suspend rules of order to permit non members access to the floor to speak, again, adhering to a 2-minute limit.Â Further, regardless of the debateâ€™s outcome, the Senate Executive Committee announced sponsorship of an Open Mike Session, December 05, 2002 from 4:30 â€“ 6:00 pm for all interested parties to speak on this issue.Â Also, a university and community forum on the Iraq issue will be sponsored in January.
Professor Frank Stahl, biology, was recognized to briefly introduce the substance of his resolution and why he believed it was within the purview of the university to debate and vote on such a resolution.Â Professor Stahl spoke about the mission of the university as acquisition and dissemination of knowledge and understanding.Â He expressed concern that our countryâ€™s elected representatives may have failed the public.Â Further, Mr. Stahl opined that the resolution speaks out in protections of our rights, and thus is the business of the senate.Â He stated his belief that a vote by the senate in support of this resolution would be heard.
Comments from senators and assembly members opposed.Â A number of senators and other faculty members spoke from the position that the resolution was not within the purview of the senate, including: Maury Holland, law, Chris Ellis, economics, Stephanie Midkiff, library, Priscilla Southwell, political science, Dave Soper, physics, Andy Elliot, ASUO, Lowell Bowditch, classics, Ben Strawn, ASUO, Maram Epstein, East Asian languages, Frances Cogan, Honorâ€™s College, Andrew Marcus, geography, Tim Gleason, journalism and communications, Michael Lindman, student senator, Lisa Freinkel, English, Fred Tepfer, university planning, and Carl Bybee, journalism and communications.
Although there was some general consensus in agreement with the underlying premise of the resolution, there was concern about the inappropriateness of the senate, purporting to speak officially as the voice of the university, in expressing opinions representing matters of national political policy.Â Several senators spoke against consideration of the resolution saying that the senateâ€™s charter does not include matters such as those framed in the resolution.Â Another senator advised that although there may be a precedent of the assembly passing a resolution against the Vietnam War in the â€˜70s it was done under different circumstances and by a different governance structure than what is currently in place.
Many senators expressed uneasiness about voting on such a resolution because they were not elected to express faculty political opinion, and that voting on political resolutions may undermine the credibility of the senate in a public university.Â Other senators were troubled with the hostile environment that consideration of this resolution would create for the portion of university community that may not agree with the senateâ€™s sentiments, should it consider the resolution.Â Senators repeatedly expressed concern that consideration of the resolution would be symbolic, ineffective, and may have legislative repercussions for the university in the future.Â Nevertheless, these senators confirmed the importance of the university as a place for free speech and open debate, but that there were other more appropriate venues the university could offer to address the issues raised in the resolution.
Comments from senators and assembly members in favor.Â Senators and assembly members who spoke in favor of considering the resolution in the senate included Louise Westling, English, Levi Strom, student senator, Henry Alley, Honorâ€™s College, Eric Bailey, student senator, and Linda Kintz, English.Â These senators deemed the resolution worthy of debate in an arena of democracy and free speech such as the senate.Â Student senators pointed to increases in racial profiling, threats on civil liberties, fear of drafts, reduced funding of the Opportunity Grants, and fear of the recently enacted Patriot Act as examples of the effects this issue already was having on university students.Â One senator noted that the university teaches citizenship and the senate was an appropriate place for such citizenship.Â Another senator asked at what point would this issue become one for the senateâ€™s consideration.Â
With no other senators requesting to speak, a motion was made to suspend the rules in order to open the floor for comments from others in attendance.Â The motion passed with 31 in favor, and 4 opposed.
Comments from students and community members in attendance.Â A number of persons in attendance at the meeting spoke in support of the resolution as being within the purview of the senate including, among others, community members Marsha Foster, Bevan Gilmore, George Beres, and students Mike Meyer, Tara Clouse, Husin Passeim, and Alex Gonzales.
Community members and students encouraged the senate to vote to consider the resolution saying that it was the universityâ€™s duty to commit to an environment that promoted peaceful means for resolving conflict.Â A member of the alumni advised that this resolution could be viewed as an expression of condemnation and public conscience, which the person suggested is the highest form of patriotism.Â Another individual emphasized the precedence in the â€™70 of the faculty passing a resolution in opposition to the Vietnam War.Â One student indicated concern for students studying abroad who have been warned about the effects of the United Stateâ€™s potential actions against Iraq and have been encouraged to take precautions.Â He suggested that debating and passing the resolution might provide some relief for the study-abroad students.Â Â Other students encouraged the senate to consider the resolution as a means to promote change.Â They opined that most people feel that university officials are ignoring public opinion and that the senate has a responsibility to encourage these officials to listen to the public.
With the hour time limit exhausted, the question was called.Â President McLauchlan put the question: Does Resolution US02/03-1 in support of a peaceful means for resolving the conflict with Iraq fall within the purview of the University Senate?Â A hand vote was taken with 8 affirmative votes and 29 negative votes, indicating that the resolution does not fall within the purview of the senate.Â Thus, the resolution failed to be considered by the senate.
Julie Novkov, political science, then moved to suspend the rules in order to make a motion to move the question before a meeting of the University Assembly.Â President McLauchlan advised that a two-third vote of the senate was needed to pass the motion.Â The motion failed with only 24 senators voting in favor of suspending the rules.Â The senate president indicated to Ms. Novkov that the Senate Executive Committee would consider the assembly meeting issue at the next Executive Committee meeting.
Senator David Soper, physics, requested clarification on plans the Executive Committee is making regarding campus wide discussion of the Iraq issue.Â President McLauchlan responded that the senate and ASUO would co-sponsor a community-wide open forum and debate on the Iraq situation during January.Â Senator Frances Cogan, Honorâ€™s College, asked if the Executive Committee intended to set up a committee to address individual issues in Mr. Stahlâ€™s resolution.Â President McLauchlan replied that the Executive Committee would be hearing discussion on the issue in the upcoming months.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.Â
Senate McLauchlan noted that a panel discussion would be held December 12th in the EMU Gumwood Room from 5:30 â€“ 7:30 p.m. with its topic the KUGN â€œVoice of the Ducksâ€ controversy.Â The discussion is open to campus and the Eugene community.
Also, a public forum would be held December 10th in the EMU Fir room from 2:00 â€“ 4:00 p.m., sponsored by the PEBB Board to address issues with benefits and policy.Â The board would like to hear comments on health insurance arrangements with specific hospitals and any other feedback on the employee benefits package.
Ms. Deborah Baumgold, chair of the Undergraduate Council, provided an update on the councilâ€™s current issues, which include undergraduate curriculum reviews, promotion of undergraduate education, and developing criteria for the success of the undergraduate program.Â Specific active projects involve reviewing course syllabi and materials to insure the guidelines, specialized knowledge required, prerequisites, and coursework are appropriate.
Lastly, Senator Novkov gave notice that the senate should expect a motion at the next meeting to call for a meeting of the University Assembly to discuss the war on Iraq issue.
With no other business at hand the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 9, 2002
Present: H. Alley, L. Alpert, K. Aoki, E. Bailey, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, A. Elliott, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, M. Hallock, D. Herrick, P. Keyes, M. Linman, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly (nvp), K. Merrell, S. Midkiff, M. Myagkov, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer (nvp), C. Smith (nvp), D. Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman
Excused: B. Blonigen, R. Horner, D. Leubke, A. Morrogh, M. Partch, F. Tepfer
Absent: J. Earl, R. Graff, M. Holland, L. Skalnes, J. Wasko, M. Wilson
University Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in the EMU Fir room.Â The first order of business was a welcome to new and returning senators.
Minutes from the May 8 and May 22, 2002 senate meetings were approved as distributed.Â President McLauchlan also noted that the new student senators from the ASUO have been appointed and will be joining the senate at the November meeting.
WELCOME REMARKS FOR NEW AND RETURNING SENATORS
Mr. Paul Simonds, senate parliamentarian and former senate president, provided some context to the role of the senate in faculty governance by quoting from the universityâ€™s charter document.Â It states that the president (of the university) and the professors constitute the faculty of the university, and as such, have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein, and have the power to prescribe the course of study to be pursued and the textbooks to be used.Â He urged the senators to use their governance power look at issues of concern to them and their constituents.
President McLauchlan, in talking about the senateâ€™s agenda for the year, said it is focused on broader, long-term issues concerning the budget, faculty governance, and the relationship between the university and the larger community.Â He identified key challenges and opportunities for the academic year as having to deal with the ongoing state of Oregon fiscal budgetary crisis, noting that even if the proposed income tax passes, it is a temporary and partial solution to a decade old structural crisis that began with the passage of Measure 5 in 1990.Â He went on to say that unstable and unbalanced tax structure results in periodic crises for the public, and that of all the major sectors of state government, higher education has sustained the largest and continuous decreases to its budget.
Faced with the funding crisis this past year, a strategic planning process was begun last spring to better position the university.Â A document titled Strategic Directions was produced by the administration in consultation with the Faculty Advisory Committee and the Senate Executive Committee (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/strategic06nov02.html).Â The document outlines the purpose of and new directions for the university in terms of strengthening its fiscal support within the state.Â The document is comprehensive and addresses academic quality, salary raises, endowed chairs, research support, faculty diversity, strengthening the student body, increasing financial aid, access to higher education, increasing the student experience, and new directions in linking research with economic development in the state.Â Strategic Directionâ€™s most significant element is a new policy section titled, â€œThe Compact with Oregonâ€ more recently updated to be called, â€œThe New Partnership with Oregonâ€ or simply, â€œThe Dealâ€ (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/Partnership.pdf).Â The partnership represents a desired shift of the OUS institutions toward greater autonomy and institution flexibility in setting tuition as well as fiscal and academic priorities.Â Specifically, main points of the document note that:
the decline in state fiscal support is threatening the universityâ€™s ability to do its job well;.Â
revenue sources should be retained;
more local control is necessary; and
timely innovation is necessary.
The general trend toward increasing privatization was discussed.Â The trend is historically associated with increasing economic inequality, declining access to public institutions, fewer services to large sectors, and increasing social and political fragmentation.Â To avoid these pitfalls, President McLauchlan suggested that the university needs to deliberate in an open, democratic and participatory process in order to flesh out detailed responses from the university community and the public sector to implement specific qualities and plans in these two documents.Â He opined that the University Senate should be a focal point for these policy decisions.
Remarks from ASUO President Rachel Pilliod.Â Ms. Pilliod reported that the ASUO has many events planned for the year beginning with the annual Street Fair and the Stuff the Duck drive to register students eligible to vote in the November state elections.Â ASUO is also working with OUS and the UO administration to understand the New Partnership with Oregon, which they are supporting along with the Oregon Students Association, subject to further collaboration.Â ASUOâ€™s involvement includes lobbying directly to the state legislature and in Washington, DC.Â Although restricted to nonpartisan functions, ASUO can educate students regarding the impact of yes or no votes.Â ASUO is forming lobbying teams, committees, and groups to create a strong voice from students, administration, and faculty in order to lobby for the prioritization of higher education.Â Upcoming activities included: national â€œComing Outâ€ week; student advocacy (ongoing); national Affirmative Action Day; Weaving New Beginnings, a reception for students and faculty of color to get to know each other (moved to January); co-sponsoring a teach-in about the possible war with Iraq; and hosting a series of town hall meetings throughout the term.Â Regarding the West Campus recent rioting incident, the ASUO has been active publicly and behind the scenes to show that only a limited number of UO students participated and they are not reflective of overall student activism.Â Further, she felt that the universityâ€™s students should not be subjected to negative attention because of the actions of a few.Â
Remarks from Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis.Â Vice President Davis spoke first about the budget situation at the university.Â She indicated that the university is planning to receive $147 million from the state this biennium.Â The university had a $4.2 million budget cut going into the biennium last year and this year.Â It now has another $500,000 cut due to budget recalculations during the 5th special legislative session, and the UO is facing an additional $6 million cut if the January 2003 income tax ballot measure does not pass.Â On October 2nd, the university turned in a budget reduction plan to OUS outlining the budget cuts of $6.5 million in a general form; that is, $3.6 million from instruction; lose 150 full time employees; cut back 2,900 students, and so forth.Â A revenue plan was put together after consulting with faculty groups and students which includes a 10% tuition surcharge in winter and spring terms 2003 that will generate about $4 million, or 2/3 of the required budget cuts.Â Tuition surcharges would not be collected until March 1, 2003 and May 1, 2003.Â Since the ballot measure election is on January 28, 2003, the university wants to lobby the legislature for other opportunities to lessen or avoid cuts and perhaps eliminate the need to collect the surcharges.
Turning her remarks toward enrollment and campus growth, Vice President Davis noted that as of October 4th, the university had enrolled 19,689 students and expects the numbers to total 20,200 to 20,300 students by the end of the 4th week of enrollment.Â She said that the university needs to make decisions on enrollment management.Â Three to four years ago, the optimal size of the UO was shown to be between 20,000 to 22,000 students.Â That should be the maximum enrollment, but it creates management problems.Â We want to have the best Oregon freshman we can recruit, but we need enough out of state students who pay (higher) tuition bills, and enough graduate students to maintain the quality of research for which the UO is noted, while maintaining the sense of community and service that we value.Â This could be accomplished by a positive response to the New Partnership document.Â The importance of the New Partnership is to allow the UO a certain level of state support that is not impacted by other institutions.Â As part of OUSâ€™s Strategic Planning Committee, the new chancellor has taken portions of the UOâ€™s original New Compact with Oregon document and incorporated interests of other OUS institutions, renaming it The Deal.
Finally, the vice president noted that the university is in the initial phase of a $600 million comprehensive fundraising campaign spanning the next 5 years.Â Efforts last year plus a few months brought in the first $125 million of the campaign.Â An internal comprehensive campaign advisory council to the president will be formed.Â Many deans have already initiated the processes within the schools and colleges, and faculty will be key regarding campaign priorities.Â Vice President Davis concluded her remarks reminding everyone of the Convocation to be held October 25th at 2:30 p.m. in Beall Hall.Â She added that this year and for ensuing years, the fall term University Assembly meeting will be combined with Convocation, and new tenure-related faculty members will be introduced.Â
A brief question and answer period followed Ms. Davisâ€™ remarks.Â Senator Chris Ellis, economics, asked if the UO received any response from Salem regarding The Deal document.Â Vice President Davis responded saying the document is being addressed outside of the State Board of Higher Education.Â She continued to say that Salem is hesitant to give an opinion and has not yet been addressed in a manner requiring response.Â Mr. Tim Black, governmental affairs, added that meetings with legislators, gearing up the alumni association and foundation board members, making contacts, writing letters and opinion pieces, and so forth, should prepare legislators by January.Â He hopes the legislature will recognize The Deal as the only viable option they have.
Senator Dave Soper, physics, asked if there is a plan to keep the number of dollars per student from dropping.Â And if so, how is the university going to get people to agree to such a plan.Â Vice President Davis pointed out that The Deal document is the plan, and reaching an agreement will require lobbying.Â To a question from Senator Laura Alpert, art, regarding funding comparisons between the UO and other OUS institutions, Vice President Davis answered that we now are close to having the same funding matrix cell values as other institutions.Â
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, noted that all of these issues focus on maintaining and increasing the quality of the student experience and asked if the administration has been thinking about the quality of our student dormitories and housing.Â Ms. Davis answered that the housing situation is on the table and will filter up as part of the comprehensive campaign.Â Mr. Mike Eyster, housing, added that there is a proposal in the capital construction process to build more housing.Â The earliest possibility would be in the fall of 2005, pending some important decisions.
Senator Ken Merrell, special education, asked what implications would the document have for ceilings and numbers of students over time.Â The vice president responded that this is under consideration and there is an Enrollment Management Committee working on how to accomplish these goals.Â Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, asked if there is a percentage guaranteed for instate students.Â The vice president answered that there was no guaranteed percentage, but added that politically it is unlikely the university would move to a situation where more than 1/3 of our students were from out of state or country, unless the state is not willing to support us at all, because the UO is a state and public institution.
Report from the 2nd annual Faculty Leadership Caucus.Â Senate Vice President Lowell Bowditch, classics, reported on the Faculty Leadership Caucus (see summary document at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/FacLeadershipConfSep02.html).Â She noted that many of the issues raised during this senate meeting were also discussed during the caucus.Â Action points and issues were outlined for further Senate discussion over the year as follows:
Begin conversations on the status of the UO as a member of the American Association of Universities (AAU).Â Only a small segment of faculty members are aware of the implications of AAU status, which affects some of the priorities being set in the Comprehensive Campaign.Â
Establish communication and operational links between the Strategic Directions document, the UO Mission Statement, and the Comprehensive Campaign.Â There is concern regarding the presentation of research areas weighing too heavily in terms of the UO economic development, and less significant mention of the UOâ€™s core mission as a liberal arts institution.
Continue meaningful input into the Comprehensive Campaign from the Faculty Advisory Council, deans, and department heads.Â There is concern about making inaccurate assumptions regarding which program areas are easy or difficult in fundraising.
Establish guiding principles for the Comprehensive Campaign.Â
Identify other principles beyond AAU status.
Clarify the UO as a public university with great reliance on individual donors.Â Particular agendas could dominate and lead to less accessibility to higher education.Â Need based scholarships should be a strong priority of the Comprehensive Campaign.
Spell out connections to the Mission Statement and the degree to which these principles, as the goal of the campaign, should be articulated.
Anticipate the ways the Partnership with Oregon document might impact the faculty, as well as increase efforts to track the effectiveness of faculty governance in the past few years and in the future.
Look at the universityâ€™s agenda for athletics, such as how much money from the campaign will go to athletics, and should we have a donor tax or sharing to move part of athleticsâ€™ money into academics.Â There is concern about UO games being broadcast on a radio station that airs programming counter to the mission and diversity statements of the university.Â
Address concerns over the optimal size of the institution and size of enrollment.Â Question whether an increase in faculty size will offset this impact on class size.
Examine UO relations with outlying communities and the environment and how they are affected by increased enrollment.
Begin discussion about breach of student conduct codes on and off campus.
Continue to strive toward achieving the Senate Budget Committeeâ€™s White Paper goals regarding salary issues affecting faculty.
Senate President McLauchlan thanked Ms. Bowditch for her report and announced that the Faculty Leadership Caucus will be reconvened once or twice a year.Â Further, Vice President for Advancement Allan Price has been invited to the senate meeting in November and will speak about the comprehensive campaign, roles faculty might play, and ways to make the campaign a success.
Discussion of the senateâ€™s role in campus governance.Â Senate President McLauchlan introduced members of the Senate Executive Committee, reminding the Senate this committee, in consultation with the senate president, sets the senateâ€™s meeting agendas.Â Because it is important for senate members to communicate with their constituent groups, the president urged senators to consult with a multitude of people, including the Senate Executive Committee, about concerns they would like to have addressed by the senate.Â President McLauchlan noted that future senate meetings would have 10 minutes of open forum included as a regular part of the agenda for senators and faculty to speak to any issue they feel is important.
A general discussion regarding ways to improve upon the discourse of senate meetings ensued.Â Suggestion included relegating committee reports to a smaller portion of meeting time, having more frequent campus wide town hall meetings, and using a better room arrangement to facilitate discussions.Â (Note: due to multiple ongoing construction sites on campus, the senate is meeting in the EMU Fir room rather than the usual class or lecture room locations.)
Senator Malcom Wilson, classics, raised the issue of how much legislative authority the senate has at the university.Â For example, does the senate have authority to legislate university policy? Responses to this question were mixed.Â Mr. Paul Simonds, parliamentarian, responded by assuring that the University Assembly, which was the legislative body on campus prior to delegating its legislative authority to the senate when the senate was reorganized in 1996, passed legislation affecting operations of all campus areas.Â His belief is that the senate body has the authority to deal with any governance issue on campus, that there is no limit in the original charter that separates the president from the professors, and together they constitute the faculty with governance of the university.
Senate President McLauchlan interpreted the authority of the senate in a slightly different way.Â He noted that as a representative body it could not be involved in running day-to-day business operations of the university.Â There is an extensive division of labor between the administration and faculty regarding the governance of the university.Â He noted that in many ways the senate functions as a policy making body on matters of curriculum and course proposals, in particular.Â But it also has worked closely with the administration through various committees and task forces to develop policy on broader issues such as salary improvement and campus planning, as was done with the Senate Budget Committee and Riverfront Research Park development.Â Although it is doubtful we can legally enforce the senateâ€™s resolutions about park development, the university president said he would abide by the senateâ€™s resolutions and recommendations.Â
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Community member Bruce Miller was recognized by President McLauchlan and voiced his opinion that the university has not been well served by OSPRIG.Â He suggested that monies used to fund OSPRIG be used instead to develop a different model of legislature on campus with the purpose of developing a more effective lobbying effort to â€œsellâ€ the university.Â In response to Mr. Millerâ€™s efforts to present his ideas at great length, President McLauchlan pointed out that this agenda item is only for brief announcements and communications, and suggested that Mr. Miller contact the Senate Executive Committee regarding any agenda items he may wish to put forth for future senate discussion.
Senate Secretary Gwen Steigelman, academic affairs, announced that the legislation passed last spring to include members of the classified staff as non-voting participants in the Senate was being implemented fall term.Â The elections will be completed before the November 13, 2002 senate meeting.Â
Senate President McLauchlan announced that Mr. Peter Gilkey, mathematics and former senate president, has been appointed to the Non-Tenure Tract Instructional Faculty Committee.Â President McLauchlan also serves on the committee as a senate liaison.
Members of the Senate Nominating Committee were appointed and include Julie Novkov, Gene Luks, Maram Epstein, Virginia Cartwright, and Dave Soper.Â President McLauchlan also noted that a proposed Ad Hoc Comprehensive Campaign Advisory Committee will not be constituted in order to minimize duplication of efforts since the current internal campaign advisory committee already has ample faculty representation on it.
With no further agenda items, the meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
Minutes of the University Senate Organizational Meeting May 28, 2003
Present: H. Alley, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, P. Gilkey, R. Horner, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. McNelly, G. McLauchlan K. McPherson, D. Pope, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz, L. Wellman, M. Woollacott
Excused: F. Gearhart, S. Haynes, M. Harvey, C. Lachman, W.A. Marcus, A. McLucas, K. Merrell, G. Psaki, M. Russo, P. Scher, K. Sheehan, M. Shirzadegan, M. Wilson
Absent: L. Alpert, C. Bybee, F. Cogan, C. Ellis, M. Holland, R. Graff, E. Luks, J. Wagenknecht
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the organizational meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:08 p.m. in the Knight Library Browsing Room.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the May 14, 2003 regular senate meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Introduction and orientation of new senators. Senate Secretary Gwen Steigelman introduced the newly elected senators (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/ dirsen034/memsen034.html). She noted that five students from the student senate would join the University Senate fall term. The secretary provided a brief orientation to the general operational procedures of the senate including signing the roll sheet at the start of each meeting, and, when unable to attend due to illness or other university business, notifying the secretary in advance; senate by-laws require attendance records and removal of any senator with two unexcused absences during a term.
Secretary Steigelman drew the new senators' attention to aspects of the senate's web page (see http://senate.uoregon.edu), and noted important links from the page to senate related items such as agendas, minutes, legislation, committees, reports, faculty elections, as well as correspondence and other governance information. Senate minutes in electronic format are accessible via the web page from 1992 on; earlier printed minutes of the University Assembly meetings are available in the registrar's office. Lastly, the secretary noted that the senators' email addresses would be added to the senate listserv to facilitate email communications among senators. Agenda materials are emailed prior to each meeting as well as posted on the web page.
Remarks from outgoing Senate President Greg McLauchlan. The senate president began his remarks by recognizing and thanking several people who have been especially helpful in the organizational tasks of the senate: Parliamentarian Paul Simonds,
Webmaster Peter Gilkey, and the secretary of the faculty and senate, Gwen Steigelman. President McLauchlan then offered some reflections on his year as the UO senate president. He couched his perceptions of the year as a contrast of "big picture" and "small picture" events, noting the necessity of linking them to gain an accurate perspective of the year's activities. Big picture issues such as the struggling stock market and East Asian economy have had an effect on the senate. The big picture war in Iraq created small picture issues for the senate, such as the debate about the war and whether to consider a resolution in opposition to the war. Nationally, the military budget is over $400 billion a year and impacts the University of Oregon as an institution and contributor to its community. Consequently, it is necessary for the senate to address such issues, especially when public education funding is under assault.
President McLauchlan also spoke about the procedural difficulty of obtaining a quorum at a faculty petitioned convening of the University Assembly, as a fully empowered legislative body, for the purpose of considering a resolution against the war in Iraq. He suggested the issue of establishing a more easily attained quorum for such meetings should be pursued so that the assembly has the ability to be an effective body in the future.
During the past year the senate sponsored several war issue related forums with and for concerned faculty, student groups, and community members, which the president hopes will continue in the future. Similarly, at its last meeting, the senate passed a motion to provide ongoing monitoring of the USA Patriot Act's impact on university and its implications for information gathering, privacy, research, and other campus activities. President McLauchlan noted the senate would be working closely with administration in this area.
President McLauchlan then turned his attention to the "big picture" issue of the state's fiscal crisis and the resulting deep budget cuts experienced by higher education and the UO. As tuitions climb, access to higher education is decreasing. However, the "small picture" response has been the university's launching of a five-year Comprehensive Campaign to raise $600 million dollars, and a legislative proposal for OUS universities to become more fiscally autonomous from state government regulations. Speaking out more often and more directly on issues relating to better funding, access, and diversity is imperative.
The president continued his comments saying that the "big picture" view of intercollegiate athletics is that public support of athletics is increasing at twice the rate that it is for education. The "small picture" reality is that the UO is one of only a handful of universities that have self-sufficient athletics programs that receive no public support dollars. The success of the athletic department along with good management has eliminated what had been an annual $2 million general fund subsidy of athletics. Additionally, former Senate President Jim Earl's efforts two years ago to organize PAC-10 faculty leaders to pass a resolution calling into question the unending athletics arms race has drew national attention to the issue; as a result, Jim is part of a joining a national organization of faculty leaders who are working toward policies that bring restraint and logic to the escalating, "arms race" costs of athletics. This is a quintessential example of taking a local problem to the national level.
President McLauchlan further remarked that diversity and inclusiveness serve to define one of the university's core missions. This year's senate, in conjunction with other faculty and student leaders, addressed the controversial issue of KUGN radio's claim as the "Voice of the Ducks" while also being known for right wing "hate radio" programming. After thoughtful discussions, the UO's name will only be associated with sports programming and advertising, and not with any other of the station's programming. President McLauchlan concluded his remarks by saying he was proud to have served as senate president, and by advising the new senators to become acquainted with the issues facing the university to see how students, staff, and faculty can come together to talk about their goals.
Election of new Committee on Committees members. Senator Julie Novkov, Senate Nominating Committee, presented the slate of nominees for new Committee on Committees members: Malcolm Wilson, classics; Matt Roberts, law; Herb Cherek, registrar; and John Conery, computer and information Science. The nominees were elected unanimously to serve on the committee for a two- year term (2003-05).
Election of senate vice president for 2003-04. On behalf of the nominating committee, Ms. Novkov put forth the name of W. Andrew Marcus, geography, as the committee's nominee for senate vice president. President McLauchlan asked if there were any other nominations from the floor. Hearing none, the president noted that Mr. Marcus was on a research trip and unable to attend the meeting but had provided a brief candidate statement, which was then read. Mr. Marcus' statement elaborated on three main themes that would guide his efforts as vice president: (1) maintaining a strong sense of shared community within the University of Oregon, (2) working with the senate and administration to advance the roll of shared governance, and (3) helping the university to focus its voice to sustain the Liberal Arts tradition in the face of looming budget cuts. President McLauchlan then asked for a vote and Mr. Marcus was elected unanimously.
Confirmation of 2003-04 Senate President Lowell Bowditch. President McLauchlan confirmed P. Lowell Bowditch, classics, as president of the University Senate for 2003-04 with the traditional passing of the gavel along with a copy Robert's Rules of Order. The new president thanked past president McLauchlan and offered a few brief comments. She remarked how pleased she was with the election of Vice President Marcus, saying their issues and concerns are similar. President Bowditch emphasized the critical importance of maintaining the status and integrity of the UO's identity as a research institution. She noted discrete events and circumstances that pose challenges to that integrity, mostly budget related, such library cuts, growing enrollment, greater reliance on nontenure track instructors, and depressed faculty salaries. Other issues, including the roll of athletics and its relationship to academics, and the need to continue upgrading facilities, effect the university's standing as a place of higher academic research. President Bowditch went on to say that the university has taken several important steps to meet these challenges and it is important that the University Senate continues to be involved in the decisions being made. For example, senate committees are addressing the goals of the Comprehensive Campaign, the status of nontenure track instructional faculty, and the white paper goals for enhancing faculty salaries. The newly appointed senate ad hoc Committee on Campus Vision is another area where faculty and staff will have a voice in shaping the future identity of the University of Oregon. The senate, as the primary governance structure and voice for the faculty and staff, should honor that charge even as it focuses on areas where it can have a concrete impact.
President Bowditch also acknowledged the recent senate resolution monitoring the implications of the USA Patriot Act on the university, saying it is an area where the senate in coordination with the administration can have a significant roll. In the same vein, she concluded her remarks noting that senate meetings will continue to have a question and answer period with President Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley to continue facilitating the relationship between the faculty and administration. Such a relationship is a sine qua non for the university to move forward in this time of accelerating change, both in terms of its own identity and in the larger, socioeconomic context of the state.
WAYNE WESTLING AWARD FOR UNIVERSITY SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP
President Bowditch introduced chemistry professor Peter von Hippel as the 2003 recipient of the Wayne Westling Award for University Service and Leadership. She emphasized Professor von Hippel's exemplary, clear thinking and his extraordinarily sage advice as attributes characteristic of the spirit of the Westling Award. Acknowledging that it would take a long time to list all of Professor von Hippel's many accomplishments and services to the university, President Bowditch highlighted a few. A world-renowned scholar of DNA protein interactions, Professor von Hippel assumed the directorship of the Institute of Molecular Biology in 1967. He chairing the Faculty Advisory Committee from 1979 to 1981, and for the past 25 years presidents and deans alike have called on Peter as an ad hoc advisor. Professor von Hippel also chaired the Riverfront Research Park Scientific Advisory Committee from 1986-1988, and, as described by colleagues was a magnificent head of the chemistry department for many years. They lauded him as a model for other department chairs, one who was respected by everyone for his fairness coupled with compassion. Although beyond the scope of the Westling Award criteria, President Bowditch commended Professor von Hippel for his scientific contributions and more than 200 publications.
University President Dave Frohnmayer added to the accolades, saying that it is a pleasure to honor Professor Hippel with this award for his years of commitment, dedication, and contribution to the university. President Frohnmayer noted he had the pleasure of knowing Wayne Westling personally and found his influence in the school of law to be profound, making it all the more important to look carefully for someone who meets the true spirit of the award. President Frohnmayer announced that this year's award recipient and subsequent recipients would be recognized at the pre-commencement brunch and at the commencement ceremonies, indicative that a person of great distinction is being saluted. He went on to say that Professor von Hippel has held many positions, not all with formal titles, and has served on all of the presidents' task forces since 1971. Professor von Hippel's interests are ecumenical; along with the Eugene Symphony and the Bach Festival, the president noted his personal connection with von Hippel's academic work advancing the field of molecular biology. After a standing ovation, Professor von Hippel accepted the award and commented about his surprise at being so honored. He thanked everyone for their many kind words and compliments, and acknowledged with appreciation, his colleagues at the university.
President Frohnmayer then asked to say a few more words before concluding the meeting. He singled out the leadership of senate president Greg McLauchlan during the past year. Noting that it has been a difficult year on many fronts, with challenges yet ahead, he commented that President McLauchlan's service as the senate leader and beyond the senate, distinguished the UO campus from any other. President Frohnmayer said that he meets with AAU presidents twice a year and none of their campuses have the sense of collegiality in power and shared ideas as the UO. Noting that the UO charter promotes the idea of shared governance between the university president and the professors, the president was proud of the concept of shared governance as expressed at the UO. The president lauded Greg's leadership in times of turmoil and thanked him both individually and collectively on behalf of the senate by presenting him with a token of appreciation. In response, Past President McLauchlan thanked the president, members of the senate, and other members of the administration for their support and assistance.
With elections and the award presentation concluded, newly confirmed Senate President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m., inviting all to remain for a reception welcoming the new members of the senate and honoring Westling Award recipient Peter von Hippel.
Minutes of the University Senate Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Present: H. Alley, E. Bailey, J. Bennett, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan, M. Epstein, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, M. Holland, R. Horner, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan, C. Mc Nelly*, S. Midkiff, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott, R. Zimmerman
Excused: K. Aoki, B. Blonigen, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D. Leubke, K. Merrell, M. Partch, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer*, D. Soper
Absent: L. Alpert, A. Elliott, R. Graff, D. Herrick, P. Keyes, M. Linman, A. Morrogh, M. Myagkov, R. Ponto, M. Ravassipour, L. Skalnes, C. Smith*, J. Wagenknecht, J. Wasko (*non-voting participants)
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in 240C McKenzie.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the April 9, 2003 senate meeting were approval as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Budget and PERS Update from Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley reported that the forecast for the remainder of the biennium is due out on Friday, May 16, 2003 with expectations for more negative news. The current budget is 5% less than the governor's original proposal. The provost said that the university can perhaps manage within the current revenues and enrollments and proposed tuition increases without diminishing quality, but will just barely maintain access to the number of courses needed by UO students. Deeper cuts will require additional reductions in services and/or tuition increases. The legislature's Ways and Means Committee budget unrealistically included fee remissions as actual money collected by the university and adjustments are expected in the May 16th forecast; budget resolution is not likely until July or later. To keep the university's budget balanced, an attempt will made to look at options, minimize impact, and maximize the use of resources.
For the most accurate interpretation of the reforms being legislated for the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) situation, Provost Moseley recommended the governor's web site: http://governor.oregon.gov/fixingpers.htm. He further noted that most of the information applies to both Tier 1 (hired during or before 1996) and Tier 2 (hired after 1996) employees. The provost began by saying that the recently released PERS account balances (sent by regular mail to individual employees) will not decline. Anyone retired prior to Feb 1, 2000 will see no impact from the current PERS situation. Retirees after that date will see some impact from new actuarial tables that take effect July 1, 2003. These tables will have a "look back" but no employee will receive less than what they would have received if they retired on June 30, 2003. The 6% "member" retirement contribution � the university pays this for UO employees � will continue but will be deposited into a new, yet-to-be- defined, 401(k) type account rather than into PERS. The new 'accounts' will allow employees who will be in the system for a while to avoid the PERS controversy and, if chosen well, can contribute to faster growth of invested monies. The other 11% of retirement contributions will continue to go into PERS. The long-term effect of these changes will be a move from a Money-Match retirement calculation (which most retirees opt for currently) to a full formula retirement calculation.
Tier 1 members having previously been guaranteed a growth rate of 8% or higher on investments will now be subject to an 8% cap on interest earned and, although not subject to any losses, participants could experience 0% to 8% growth on their investments. The cap will remain in place until a sufficient reserve fund is built up and PERS is solvent again. For those who retire between April 1, 2000 and April 1 2004, the 2% cost of living adjustment (COLA) will not be awarded until an amount of money calculated to repay the PERS system for gains distributed in 1999 is repaid to the system. The calculation by PERS shows the maximum gain attributed for 1999 should not have exceeded 11%, yet the accounts were credited with a 20% increase. (Judge Lipscomb's earlier court decision determined 1999 as the limit for looking back to calculate unduly credited account gains.) No account growth is expected from now until April 1, 2004, but if one retires after that date the 2% COLA will be paid. The provost noted that much of the recent PERS related legislation likely would go before the courts on appeal. Actual resolution of the PERS situation could take from two to five years, depending on multiple factors.
The uncertainty of court battles contributes to the uncertainty of how the PERS situation will affect the university's budget. When asked if this information applied only to fixed accounts (rather than variable accounts), Provost Moseley responded that it did. Vice President Lorraine Davis added that if PERS discussions in upcoming meetings bring greater clarity, an open meeting would be scheduled so questions can be asked and answered. Provost Moseley remarked that the governor and legislative leadership are supportive of the pending bills and that other relevant items could be passed or vetoed. The Provost emphasized that there should be little or no incentive to rush into retirement. Helen Stoop, benefits administrator, assured that as soon as information is received from PERS it will be sent out to employees, adding that it is up to PERS to implement and interpret the bills.
Admissions Report from Director of Admissions Martha Pitts. Ms. Pitts reported that attention has moved from admissions growth to managing enrollment and stabilizing enrollment. Last year the UO had a record enrollment of 20,000 students and is projecting an additional 500 students next year. Admission requirements were adjusted: grade point averages were raised and college preparatory courses increased from 14 to 16. Students not meeting those new requirements went into a pool of 2,000 that underwent a comprehensive review of their academic indicators. The freshman class goal is to enroll 2,050 residents and 3,000 students overall; the UO has admitted about 300 more nonresident students. Deposits for nonresident freshman and subsequent "yield rates" are dropping due to the poor economy. The cost of attending the UO is greater than $25,000 a year for nonresident students, making it difficult to afford. Projections for fall 2003 are that the freshman class will be 250 students fewer than last year, the number of transfer students about the same as last year, and graduate student enrollment up slightly, for a total enrollment of 20,500. The goal is to keep enrollment at 20,500 to 21,000 students over the next five years. Ms. Pitts also remarked that they have seen an increase in the number of applications and admissions from students of color in every category with the exception of Native Americans, which is slightly lower. The increase in underrepresented groups' admissions is 18-20%.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Report from IFS Vice President Peter Gilkey. Mr. Gilkey indicated that the IFS has been very busy, but in the interest of time and a very full agenda, he deferred reporting at this time and would give a full report at the October meeting.
Public Employees Benefit Board (PEBB) Update and Discussion. Mylia Wray, PEBB administrator, provided a handout outlining information regarding the current negotiations for health and dental benefits. Ms. Wray reported the PEBB Board is working on plans for the 2004 benefit year with work to be completed by June 17th. PEBB's job is to design and negotiate a benefit plan based on a designated dollar amount, but because there is no established dollar amount for 2004, the board is planning for 3 separate option tracks: Option 1 � assume we keep the same carriers and benefits. Option 2 � adjust the percent of funding if not enough funding to cover renewal rates. Option 3 � consider options and ramifications if no new money is available. During two public meetings (May 20th and May27th), the board will announce benefits rates and implications. Feedback will be accepted at these sessions or in writing (see http://pebb.das.state.or.us/stakeholder_files/frame.htm).
Ms. Wray noted that health insurance options across the state have declined and some are consolidating. The average monthly contribution has risen from $386 to $637 and total premium are at $340 million for 2003. PEBB has an 8% regional increase � this is below what is predicted for PPO of comparable plans. When asked how well negotiations are going in terms of PEBB maintaining the richest benefits offered of all of the public employees surveyed, the response was that PEBB benefits produce 11% more than the average plan and costs only 5% more, making it the better buy. Senator Francie Cogan, Honors College, wondered if groups of benefits, such as vision or pharmaceuticals, might be dropped from plans, to which Ms. Wray responded that she thought it unlikely. Senator Julie Novkov, political science, asked if there would be other provider choices in addition to Regence BlueCross BlueShield. Ms. Wray explained that no other carriers bid for Lane County's medical insurance business. Senate classified staff participant Carla Mc Nelly, romance languages, commented that classified employees are currently in contract negotiations, some of which hinges on the level of benefits provided. Finally, Ms. Wray recommended reading PEBB's Vision Statement for the next five or more years which will guide PEBB's decision making (see http://pebb.das.state.or.us/vision.htm). All information is posted on the PEBB website (see http://pebb.das.state.or.us/).
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Spring 2003 Curriculum Report. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, noted that the Preliminary Spring Curriculum Report has been distributed and posted on the web as usual. Mr. Engelking noted that changes in the report should be submitted to Peter Campbell, College of Arts and Sciences, instead of Lexy Wellman. Group satisfying courses will be submitted through the regular system: the department or college committee, to the Committee on Courses, then to the Group Satisfying Course Procedures of Intercollege Education Committee. Mr. Engelking also noted several corrections in the preliminary report: changes in anthropology courses will take place in Winter 2004; ANTH 252 and ANTH 280 were approved without group status; and Geology 101,102,103, change from a lab discussion to lab lecture.
The Committee on Courses is in agreement with the Undergraduate Council's recommendation that a course's place in the curriculum is better explained on the course syllabus; that is, if the course satisfies certain requirements (e.g., group, multicultural, general education, major or other program requirements) the information should be explained on the course syllabus. Lastly, Mr. Engelking drew attention to the Student Engagement Inventory (page 14 of the report) as an aid in assigning student credit hours uniformly across courses based on the educational activity and the number of hours students are engaged in the activity. With no further corrections, the curriculum report (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/CurRptS03final.html ) was approved as amended.
Senate Budget Committee (SBC) Report. Mr. Lynn Kahle, chair of the SBC, began his report by reminding the senate that the SBC's White Paper salary goal was for the UO to achieve 95% parity with eight peer comparator schools within seven years. Positive change has occurred over the past five years, but in the last 12 months the university has lost ground by 1.9%. In 2001�2002, the committee recommended a 3% salary increase, which was implemented. With an additional 2% increase in benefit costs, the actual pay increase was 5% during a period with relatively no cost of living increase. Comparator institutions, on the other hand, had a greater increase in health care and benefit costs. Looking at the 5-year trend, salary progress has been made; however, achieving this parity goal has become more complicated and the committee is brainstorming new ways to achieve the final objective. If the comparison figures are broken down, full professors are not doing as well as assistant and associate professors in terms of parity, due mostly to salary compression. And this year, assistant professors reflected a decline.
Mr. Kahle further commented that as PERS and PEBB undergo changes, the university might face an increase in cost for less benefit. If UO employees are required to contribute more for their health benefits and receive lower retirement guarantees, the total compensation package (salary plus benefits) will have to be reviewed. Provost Moseley pointed out the complexity in doing comparisons across ranks and between institutions, and suggested the more meaningful consideration is to follow trends and keep on a positive slope. He noted this year the UO will have a high retirement rate for generally higher paid full professors, which must be taken into account if the parity rate drops. Mr. Kahle concurred, and reiterated the importance of understanding what factors affect the comparator numbers. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, remarked that looking at the statistics for associate professors, parity gains were reduced by 50% over the last five years and is cause for concern. One possible explanation is that other schools are paying higher salaries. Mr. Kahle advised that the data is very recent and there are still unknown factors. (Full text of the report can be found at http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen023/SBCRpt03.htm.)
Non-Tenure Track Instructional Faculty Committee (NTTIF) Report. Mr. Kahle, who also co-chairs the NTTIF committee, began his report by noting that from 1999-2003 the UO lost ground regarding total compensation for non-tenure track instructors relative to those in peer institutions, although the percentage of parity for instructors has not been monitored as it has for the tenured related faculty rank categories. Developing a White Paper for NTTIF is a goal of the committee. Mr. Kahle also noted that the committee conducted a major survey of NTTIF. Analyses of data will be done this summer, recommendations will follow, and a public meeting will be held. Mr. Kahle stated that the committee was in the process of identifying "best practices" for this faculty group, and the idea of creating an ombudsman is under consideration.
During a brief question and answer period, Senator Linda Fuller, sociology, recognized and thanked the committee members for their important work. In response to her question regarding full professors salary parity at the UO, Provost Moseley responded that departmental salary comparisons are made with an 80% floor compared to their group; the policy is that no person should be more than 20% below the average for their rank in their department, which is examined every time a salary increase is made by rank, and any problems should be referred to the provost's office.
Conferring of Degrees. Mr. Malcolm Wilson, chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, captured the senators' attention by speaking in Latin to make the annual motion to confer degrees. Fortunately for the non-Latin speakers in attendance, he followed his motion with the English version as follows: The Senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2002-2003 and Summer Session 2003, the degree for which they have completed all requirements. At this point, faculty member Frank Stahl, biology, called for a quorum. After senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds ruled that only a member of the senate could call for a quorum, Senator Carl Bybee, journalism and communication, called for a quorum. The secretary called the senate roll and determined that a quorum was present. With no further discussion, the motion to confer degrees for academic year 2002-2003 and summer session was passed unanimously by voice vote.
Recommendations for 2003-2004 Committee Appointments. Vice President Lowell Bowditch, chair of the Committee on Committees, presented the list of names of persons recommended for committee appointments next fall (see http://uoregon.edu~uosenate/dirsen034/com034.html). A motion to approve the list of recommendations passed unanimously. .
Motion US02/03-4 � Request for A Summary Report of UO Policies and Procedures in Response to the USA Patriot Act. Senate President McLauchlan called on Melinda Grier, university general counsel, to give a report on current policies and procedures regarding how the university responds to requests for information stemming from the USA Patriot Act and other similar acts. Ms. Grier said the three primary bills that have changed or added information requirements are (a) the USA Patriot Act, in which the issue surrounds electronic information gathering and enhanced border security; (b) SEVIS, which is a computerized system for keeping track of individuals entering the country on visas; and (c) the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, which requires reporting about select biological agents and matter. Ms. Grier noted that to date, there have been no requests for specific information at the UO or at many other colleges and universities pertaining to these acts. She polled a number of university departments that might receive such requests for information with the following results:
The Library has received no requests, has a protocol in place to call the general counselor's office to review the information, evaluate it, and take action; they will not release information or equipment without first calling for authorization.
International Programs has received no requests; they would only release directory information already available due to the Family Education Act, or require a valid subpoena.
Admissions, the Graduate School, the Student Health Center, Human Resources, the Provost's Office, the President's Offices, and Computing Services all have received no requests and would seek assistance from the general counsel's office before responding.
Registrar's Office would respond only if the request meets requirements of directory information already in place or if there was a valid subpoena.
Public Safety received a request for assistance in tracking international students soon after September 11, 2001; after consulting with Ms. Grier and others, they responded that the information requested would not be appropriate, provided no assistance, and have had no subsequent requests.
Research Services has had no requests after it was determined that the university was exempt regarding Bioterrorism Preparedness Act information.
Ms. Grier said her office would call to confirm the validity of any information requests made and would not turn over records unless they receive a valid document that meets the legal requirements. Mr. Frank Stahl asked if receiving an information request under the USA Patriot Act has disclosure limitations. Ms. Grier responded that the receiver of the request could speak freely and in detail to legal counsel (Ms. Grier, for example), but not release specifics if talking to someone else.
President McLauchlan thanked Ms. Grier for her report. He then recognized Mr. Daniel Pope, history, who acted in place of the original maker of the motion, Ms. Barbara Pope, women and gender studies, who was not in attendance. Mr. Pope put the following motion on the floor for discussion and debate:
MOVED THAT the University of Oregon Senate initiate a process to work with all sectors of the university to formulate policies and procedures to protect academic freedom and the working environment that is necessary to carry out the University's core mission. This process must begin with an understanding of what procedures are now in place, or are being considered, by administrative units such as the Library, the Office of International Programs, Admissions, the Graduate School, Student Health Services, Human Resources, the Registrar's Office, Public Safety, the Provost's Office, and the President's Office to respond to requirements of the Patriot Act, the proposed CAPPS II, and similar legislation. We request that the administration provide a summary report to the University Senate at its first fall meeting (8 October 2003) on current procedures, or policies under consideration, relating to: 1. Requests from government agencies for access to academic records, personnel files, student health files, mail, email, voice mail, and records of internet searches, library borrowing and book-buying in response to the Patriot Act and other similar legislation and executive orders; 2. Limitations on research, including restrictions on materials, personnel, and dissemination of results, imposed by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation and executive orders. In its report the administration should attempt to ascertain and disclose any restrictions on the travel of University personnel or students that has resulted or will result from the Patriot Act or anticipatory compliance with the proposed CAPPS II.
Mr. Pope shared his concerns about disturbing reports of other universities who had assigned someone to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on patriot act related requests. Ms. Mc Nelly remarked that in current contract negotiations the OUS is considering collecting information such as driving and criminal records. Ms. Mc Nelly suggested if the information were not collected, the university would not have the information to report. Senator Virginia Cartwright, architecture, asked what records are currently being kept by the various agencies. Ms. Grier responded that information kept relates to employees' benefits, faculty records, personnel records, payroll records, and social security numbers (for withholding reporting). Employment records are kept regarding performance evaluations, promotion and tenure information, and grant records. She noted there is some concern about email, and stated that the university is not keeping email, per se, but if you are using a UO account or saving email on a server, there is a backup system that may retain your email. Further, if a law enforcement agency came and asked for them, those backed up email, if available, could be subject to being provided. Deleting items does not guarantee removal from the server.
Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, shared her concern that such information requests are ongoing issues, not simply a one time report. President McLauchlan suggested that the senate executive committee could work with the administration on this issue. Senator Christine Sundt, library, commented about a videoconference held last December regarding the USA Patriot Act as it applies to the library that could be used for reference. In further discussion, Vice President Lowell Bowditch asked if the term academic records covered course syllabi and materials that are actually taught in classes. Ms. Grier responded that a syllabus might be subject to a public records request. As a public university, she noted, many records are public information. But students' academic records are private and protected, as are faculty personnel records, which are not subject to general disclosure. Senator Fuller indicated she was in favor of the motion but would appreciate a periodic update from Ms. Grier. In response, Senator Novkov proposed amending the motion by inserting the words "an annual" before the word summary in the second paragraph of the motion. The amendment passed. The main motion, as amended, was now ready for the vote. Motion US02/03-4 � Request for Annual Summary Reports of UO Policies and Procedures in Response to the USA Patriot Act passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Rachel Pilliod, president of the ASUO, formally thanked the senate for its leadership in dealing with complex and controversial issues in a manner that was encouraging to students. She also introduced Maddy Melton as the newly elected ASUO president.
Vice President Lorraine Davis questioned whether the Status of Women Committee was still in operation. She referred to a discussion she had earlier in the year with committee chair Caroline Forrell, who indicated that the committee had decided to dissolve. However, Committee on Committees chair Lowell Bowditch said that she had received different information regarding the future of the committee from Vice President of Student Affairs Anne Leavitt. Ms. Bowditch remarked that her committee had not received a formal written request for disbanding the committee, and suggested that when the committee convenes in the fall term, it review its committee status and make a recommendation to the Committee on Committees, which in turn will report to the senate for action to disband if that is the request.
The secretary reported the results of the recent faculty elections and noted that the newly elected senators, along with the carry-over senators, will meet for an organizational meeting on Wednesday, May 28, 2003. A new senate vice president will be elected and the Wayne Westling Award will be presented, with a reception to follow.
Lastly, President McLauchlan thanked the senators for their participation during the past year and thanked webmaster Peter Gilkey, parliamentarian Paul Simonds, and secretary Gwen Steigelman for their assistance as well.
With no other business or announcements to be made, Senate President McLauchlan adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.