Motions

EMU Extended Hours Project

Description:

Students at the University of Oregon for the past few years have struggled to find quiet and comfortable places to study. The library fills up very quickly and it can be stressful for students to compete for rooms with one another.

This year we have the largest freshman class the University of Oregon had ever seen, and there is no doubt that study space will be an issue for everyone. The ASUO is determined to find more space for students to use during exam weeks and allows them to study late into the night.

After exploring other options, we decided that the EMU is the best choice for students because it is
located in the center of campus and is capable of accommodating a large number of students.

I have consulted with EMU Facilities Manager Dana Winitzky and we put together a comprehensive
cost breakdown for a project of this nature. These calculations are based on the assumption that we will be extending the normal operating hours of the EMU to stay open until 3:00 am for 7 nights, with two student night managers each night.

Future of the Project:

If this initial effort is successful, the ASUO executive would like to have a discussion about the possibility of opening up the EMU for midterm exams as well, for Winter Term 2012. This first week would serve as a litmus test for gauging student interest in late night EMU studying, and we will be keeping track of which days and times have the most traffic.

A.

1. What will this money be used for?

EMU FACILITIES Cost estimate for extended EMU hours

Utilities (water, sewage, electricity, HVAC)

Avg. cost/hour                                 $47.64
Avg. daily cost for extended hours *   $166.74

* avg. hourly cost x 3.5 (11:30 PM to 3:00 AM)

Total cost for extended hours **

** avg. daily cost x 7 days                $1,167.18

Custodial Supplies (paper products, cleaning supplies)

Avg. cost/hour                                 $13.44
Avg. daily cost for extended hours *   $47.04

* avg. hourly cost x 3.5 (11:30 PM to 3:00 AM)

Total cost for extended hours **
** avg. daily cost x 7 days                 $329.28

Custodial Staff

Avg. cost/hour (includes OPE)            $19.61
Avg. daily cost for extended hours *   $68.64

* avg. hourly cost x 3.5 (11:30 PM to 3:00 AM)

Total cost for extended hours **
** avg. daily cost x 7 days                 $480.48

Night Manager(s)

Avg. cost/hour                                 $15.00
Avg. daily cost for extended hours *   $52.50

* avg. hourly cost x 3.5 (11:30 PM to 3:00 AM)

Total cost for extended hours **
** avg. daily cost x 7 days                 $367.50
Total Cost for 2 Night Managers          $735.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS                $2,711.94

2. What will it mean to your program if this request is denied?

If this request is denied then students will not be able to use the EMU to study late during exam weeks.

3. What other funding options have you exhausted, and what were the results?

We addressed the possibility of the EMU covering some of these costs, but they are not comfortable funding this project until we can implement a successful pilot program. If this request is approved then we can put this project into motion and re-enter negotiations with EMU management for next term.

4. Explain how this request will enhance the cultural and physical development of students at
the University of Oregon, and how this request will benefit your members.

This project will enhance the cultural and physical development of students at the University of Oregon by allowing them to work on projects and study for exams in a healthy learning environment that brings them closer to their peers, and reinforces the importance of the EMU as a social and Academic hub for students across campus.

B.

1. Name of Event: EMU Late Night Access Project (Work in Progress)

2. Date of Event: November 28 – December 4th, 2012

3. Is this event open to all of the student body?

YES

4. Are you charging for this event?

NO

5. Is this event of a fundraiser?

NO

6. Are you requesting money for food for this event?

NO

7. What Advertising will you be using?

Covered in-house by the ASUO Executive

SFA 11/12-04 The University Statutory Faculty requests that the OUS Board hold an executive and a public meeting and a public vote on the question of renewal, or non-renewal of the OUS Chancellor’s employment before the 12/31/2011 deadline in his current contract.

SFA 11/12-03: The University Statutory Faculty moves that the State Board of Higher Education invites the UO Senate or its executive committee to provide a formal candidate for the interim president of UO.

SFA 11/12-02: Motion for the Establishment of a UO Board of Trustees, Senate Executive Committee presented by Professor Peter Keyes, Architecture

The UO Faculty Assembly directs the Senate Executive Committee, or an ad hoc Senate Committee to be appointed by the Senate President, to initiate negotiations with State Legislative leaders and the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, leading to the appointment of a University of Oregon Board of Trustees. 

The scope of issues to be engaged in the discussion of the powers of this board shall include, but shall not be limited to:

1.    The composition and appointment process of the Board

2.    Operational oversight of the University

3.    Setting of  tuition and fees

4.    Budgetary control

5.    Contract negotiations and contract authority

6.    Bonding authority

7.    Acquisition of property

8.    Status of legal counsel

9.    Construction buildings

10. Authority over the hiring and firing of president of UO.

11. Hiring and personnel policies for faculty and staff

SFA 11/12-01 Motion on the replacement of President Richard Lariviere; Senate Executive Committee presented by Professor Ian McNeely, History

WHEREAS the State Board of Higher Education and its Chancellor have  acted to terminate the employment of Richard Lariviere as President of the University of Oregon, and

WHEREAS they have undertaken this action without any advance consultation with the faculty and students of the University of Oregon and then over the repeated expressions of protest from the faculty, students, staff, alumni and alumnae, and friends of the University of Oregon, and

WHEREAS they have as a group declined to engage in rea­soned dialogue with the university community and have thereby confounded the traditions of argument and persuasion on which higher education is based, and

WHEREAS they have acted in defiance of testimony that their action will bring enduring injury to the University of Oregon, and

WHEREAS they have provided the citizens of the State of Oregon with no credible reasons for their action until com­pelled to do so, and

WHEREAS they have indicated by their action their lack of respect for the President, faculty, staff, students, alumni and alumnae, and friends of the University of Oregon, and

WHEREAS the University of Oregon Statutory Faculty condemns the Chancellor and State Board of Higher Education for their decision to terminate President Lariviere and for the process by which they reached this decision,

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Statutory Faculty directs the University Senate, working with the University Administration and the State Board or whatever Board may succeed it as the legal authority that appoints the University of Oregon president, to establish a search committee with strong university representation to locate a suitable permanent replacement for President Lariviere.

---

US09/10-8

Subject: Notice of Motion (with text)
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:43:59

Peter,

Notice of MOTION on tenure decisions:

The Senate calls on the Provost to explain, not later than 13 January 2009, why he failed to advise the FPC of his actions regarding the tenure and promotion decisions of Spring 2009 (as reported in the FPC 2008-2009 AY Report to the Senate), and to advise the Senate of his intents in this regard with respect to future decisions.

Many thanks for your help, Frank
Franklin W. Stahl
Molecular Biology
1229 Univ. of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1229
fstahl@uoregon.edu

---

Subject: Re: US09/10-8
To: "Peter B Gilkey"
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:57:29

I am withdrawing the motion

Franklin W. Stahl Molecular Biology 1229 Univ. of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1229

---

• Legislative History
• Email 2 November 2009 to the Senate Rules Committee.
• Memo 10 November 2009 -- a note of clarification on practices that have been followed to organize the interaction between the provost and his staff with the FPC.
• Emails 10 November 2009 to Frank Stahl and to the Senate Rules Committee concerning US09/10-8.

---

Web page spun on 10 November 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises

---

This relates to US09/10-2

---

The following email is posted with the kind permission of Frank Stahl.

Subject: Re: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:24:20 -0700

Dear Peter,

Thanks for including me in this correspondence. My take on our present governance structure is that the Senate can make (propose, really) changes in the gov. doc., which become effective upon ratification by the Statutory Faculty (President plus "Professors"). Thus, I think Nathan can't vote until after the Senate proposes the change to the Statutory Faculty (which can be done this November).

Best, Frank

Franklin W. Stahl Molecular Biology 1229 Univ. of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1229

Subject: Re: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Tracy Bars
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:56:50 -0700

Dear Peter:

The rules committee will be pleased to present this motion to the Senate at the October meeting.

Best, Tracy

---

Subject: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: tbars@uoregon.edu, aemami@uoregon.edu, mhenney@uoregon.edu
Cc: tublitz@uoregon.edu, gwens@uoregon.edu, simonds@uoregon.edu, fstahl@uoregon.edu, hubin@uoregon.edu
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:57:20 -0700

Dear Tracy, Ali, and Michele:

I have been in correspondence with Paul Simonds (the Senate Parlimentarian) and there is a bit of technical housekeeping that perhaps needs to be done given that Nathan Tublitz is to be the Senate Vice President in 2009/10 and that he does not at present hold a Senate Seat. Rather than recapping things in this email, I will simply point you to the web site http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen090/PGPS3Jun09.html where the relevant correspondence between me and Paul is posted (and where I shall post this email presently) -- I am trying to be as transparent this year as possible. So I am asking you to draft a housekeeping motion along the lines of

• if the Vice President of the UO Senate is not a serving UO Senator, he shall serve ex-officio on the Senate with full voting authority and the membership of the Senate will be temporarily increased to 52 Senators for the period in question concerning questions of quorum.

And, if you concur that this is a good idea, I will ask you (i.e. the Senate Rules Committee) to present the motion to the Senate at the October meeting for approval. Of course if you do not concur that this is a good idea, please so inform me and I shall not proceed further in this regard. I shall be guided by your advice in this matter and I wish in no way to infringe on your perogatives in this matter as the Senate Rules Committee. Furthermore, I claim no monopoly on wisdom in this matter and you should feel free to rewrite this motion! In particular, please consult the Senate Charter http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/SenateCharter.html to make sure we do not thereby create some absolutely horrible conflict in the Charter. I forsee no significant financial impact from this motion.

Concerning amending the charter, I think the operative words are perhaps "... amended by a two-thirds vote of the University Senate at any meeting, provided the amendment has been proposed in writing to the Secretary, and a copy of the proposed amendment has been sent to each member of the University Senate at least thirty days before the meeting at which the amendment is to be considered." I am copying this to Professor Stahl to solicit his input as well as he is well versed in such matters as perhaps he might feel that only the statuatory faculty could amend the charter. I have consulted with Nathan and he most graciously left the decision on whether to proceed further up to me. I am also copying this to Dave Hubin as he is most knowlegable in matters of faculty governance. Surely more input is to be preferred to less! But I emphasize. The final decision is up to the Senate Rules Committee!

Again. Thank you so very much for your work on this crucial Senate Committee. Please keep me informed as to your progress on this and also on US09/10-1.

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey UO Senate President 2009/10

---

Subject: Re: Voting rights of the Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Paul E. Simonds
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:42:08

Dear Peter, I think the motion you propose to give the vice-president (who is not a senator under present circumstances) senate membership is probably a good idea. She or he will usually attend the meetings and be involved in the usual vice-presidential committee work. Adding voting privileges makes sense to me. Having already allowed voting in a prospective president who is not at the moment a senator, I see no reason to deny a slot as senator for full participation in the senate. It should be considered also as part of whatever new governance system is approved. Have there been any contrary opinions?

---

Subject: Voting rights of the Senate Vice President
To: Paul E. Simonds
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:28:26 -0700

Dear Paul.

I am writing to you about a potential sticky point for next year. The Charter of the UO Senate states "4.8 With a total of 51 Senators, or less if constituencies are not represented, the quorum for the University Senate is one more than half, as presently constituted. No business shall be transacted unless a quorum is present"

Last year as Vice President, I was NOT a senator and thus did not count toward the quorum nor did I vote. Then Senate President Paul van Donkelaar afforded me the courtesy to make various procedural motions, raise points of order, etc. And in any event, I extend the same courtesy to Nathan. But I never voted nor was my presence counted in any quorum question.

A similar question arises concerning Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz this year. So I am just writing to you to get your take on the question cited above. I am copying Nathan and Gwen and Dave to invite them to weigh in as well -- Gwen in her role as Secretary of the Senate and Dave through his long standing involvement in Faculty Governance. Do you think we should ask the Senate Rules Committee to write a motion to amend the charter along the lines of "if the Vice President of the UO Senate is not a serving UO Senator, he shall serve ex-officio on the Senate with full voting authority and the membership of the Senate will be temporarily increased to 52 Senators for the period in question concerning questions of quorum".

Of course, Nathan has the right to the floor to speak to motions, introduce motions, etc. What is at question is solely whether he counts towards a quorum and whether or not he can vote.

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey

---

Web page spun on 4 June 2009 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises