RE: Addition of classified staff representatives in the University Senate
Last spring, the University Senate passed a motion (US01/02-5) to include three (3) elected classified staff representatives as non-voting participants in the University Senate. The senate meets 8 times a year from 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. on the second Wednesday of each month during the academic year. Term of office is two years, staggered; so for this first election cycle one of the three representatives will serve only a one-year term determined by drawing straws. The relevant text of the motion reads as follows:
Three classified staff shall be elected to serve as non-voting participants in the University Senate. Classified staff participants shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate and shall abide by the usual regulations adopted by the University Senate for its members. The Secretary shall arrange for the election of the classified staff participants following election and eligibility procedures for officers of administration as described in the University Senate enabling legislation sections 3, 4, and 5.
The purpose of this memorandum is to solicit nominations for the three classified staff participant positions, and explain voting procedures for the election held later this term.
Nominations. All classified staff members employed at .50 FTE or greater are eligible to serve on the senate. Nominations must be in writing using the form on the reverse side of this memo, and sent to: Gwen Steigelman, Academic Affairs, 207 Johnson Hall, or may be emailed to: email@example.com by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 23, 2002. You may nominate yourself or another eligible classified staff member after first confirming that he or she is willing to serve on the senate if elected.
Voting. A list of candidates and instructions for voting will be sent in a memo the week of October 28, 2002. Voting will be conducted on-line, electronically using Duck Web from October 30th through November 8th.PLEASE NOTE: You will need to use your employee identification number and the Personal Access Code (PAC) recently sent to you from the Benefits Office in order to log onto Duck Web and vote. So please keep your PAC handy in a safe place.
Nomination Form for Classified Staff
University Senate Representative
This message follows up on an email sent two weeks ago concerning intercollegiate athletics. Versions of that email went to sixty faculty governance leaders in the Bowl Championship Series conference schools, and we have heard from back from over two-thirds that they wish to be kept informed. A large majority of those responses included positive comments about the goal of working towards a broadly based venue for faculty discussion of and advocacy for long-term athletics reform. Those of you listed in the header of this message are leaders at Pac-10 schools who responded to that initial message; a full list of Pac-10 faculty governance leaders appears at the end of this message. (No one has responded negatively to the original message, but in each conference there are some schools I have not heard back from.)
The next step in this process is connected to a meeting of Big Ten faculty leaders on November 22, at which the issue of athletics reform will be discussed. The ad hoc committee on athletics that the Big Ten faculty leaders created a year ago has formulated a statement of intent to focus discussion at that meeting, and I have attached it here. It includes a more specific indication of the types of ideas we envision as important for a national faculty effort. That statement includes a proposal, outlined in the earlier message you received, to align with the AAUP and AGB, and with faculty leaders in the other BCS conferences, to plan a national meeting with a focused agenda that can help us work effectively towards reform. We expect leadership representation from the AGB to be present, and are hopeful that a representative of the national AAUP will also join (though this may be less critical, because we're in close touch with the AAUP). If our Big Ten colleagues, the AAUP, and the AGB do agree to move forward together, I'm hopeful that we will be able to contact you soon thereafter with a specific plan for a national meeting, at which all the BCS conference faculty leaderships can be represented. The fact that so many of you responded with interest to the earlier email message will be a strong inducement to Big Ten colleagues to undertake what is surely a long-odds attempt.
I do want to stress two points:
1) This effort is focused on changing the national context in which intercollegiate athletics is undertaken; it targets no school, and participation neither implies criticism of our home institutions, nor requires that we advocate for unilateral changes at our home institutions;
2) The strategy is to develop a consensus vision of stable and educationally viable forms of intercollegiate athletics in about a decade's time, and to design and advocate for adoption of a sequence of staged reforms that individual schools will be able to accommodate over time to reach that goal. This approach is designed to create as much common ground as possible, and allow faculty and others the breathing room necessary to develop viable proposals with strong evidence to support acting on them.
Those of us in Big Ten schools have an advantage in contemplating joint action because our schools fund an academically based consortium that sponsors periodic meetings of faculty governance leaders. Since we know one another in this way, it is relatively easy for us to think about working together. We realize that this may not be the case for other athletics conferences; I hope that the email list below may help make easier for Pac-10 faculty governance colleagues to communicate on these matters. Over the next two weeks, prior to the Big Ten meeting, I will continue trying to reach faculty governance leaders at Pac-10 schools who have not yet responded on this issue, and if you have any communication with leaders at those schools, I'd appreciate your letting me know. In the meantime, I'd like to thank all of you for responding to my initial message - I have found it difficult to believe that not a single colleague has replied by saying that this sort of effort is doomed to failure. It's the first indication I've had that it might not be.
EVENT ADVISORY: UO FACULTY, STUDENTS SPONSOR FORUM ON IRAQ
EVENT: The University of Oregon Senate and the Associated Students of the UO will host a public forum on "The University and the Iraq Crisis."
Lowell Bowditch, Senate Vice-President, and Hilary Arakaki, ASUO Campus Outreach Coordinator, will make opening remarks. Speakers will include
University President Dave Frohnmayer on "The Role of Universities in Times of National and International Crisis;"
Alec Murphy, professor of geography, on "Putting the Iraq Crisis in Geopolitical Perspective;"
Daniel Pope, associate professor of history, on "Historical Perspectives on Student Peace Activism;" and
Greg McLauchlan, associate professor of sociology, on "U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Critics."
DATE: Tuesday, Jan. 21 TIME: 7-9 p.m. LOCATION: Ballroom, Erb Memorial Union, 1222 E. 13th. Ave. 180 Prince Lucien Campbell Hall, 1415 Kinkaid St., overflow seating with a live video feed from the EMU Ballroom.
BACKGROUND: "The purpose of the forum is to provide multiple perspectives on the causes, potential consequences, and possible solutions to the international crisis regarding Iraq," says McLauchlan. "We will also examine the constructive role the university and broader community can play in a time when we face a threat of major war."
The room is wheelchair accessible. For more information contact Gwen Steigelman, University Senate Secretary, at firstname.lastname@example.org
The University Senate is the sole governing body of the University in all matters of faculty governance. The senate consists of 43 faculty elected senate seats distributed as follows: 37 officers of instruction (7 from CAS Humanities, 7 from CAS Social Sciences, 7 from CAS Natural Sciences, 5 from Architecture and Allied Arts, 3 from the college of business, and 2 each from the college/schools of education, journalism and communication, law, and music), 2 librarians, 3 officers of administration, and 1 president (elected from within the senate). Additionally, there are 5 student members from ASUO and 3 classified staff non-voting participants. Term of office is June 1, 2003 - May 31, 2005.
ELIGIBILITY Academic units listed above determine who is eligible for the purpose of voting for and nominating candidates to serve as officer-of-instruction senators. Minimally, all tenure-related officers of instruction holding the academic rank of instructor or higher, and employed at .50 FTE or greater are eligible. Librarians, and officers of administration who hold appointments of .50FTE or greater, are eligible to nominate, serve as, and vote for senate representatives from their constituent group. Adjunct, courtesy, and visiting faculty are not eligible. No senator may serve more than two consecutive two-year terms but may be elected again after an absence of two years.
The senate meets 8 times during the academic year, the second Wednesday of each month (October through May) from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Continuing senate members whose terms expire in June 2004
College of Arts and Sciences
Natural Sciences: Arkady Berenstein (mathematics), Gene Luks (computer and information science), Nathan Tublitz (biology), Marjorie Woollacott (exercise and movement science)
Social Sciences -- Chris Ellis (economics), W. Andrew Marcus (geography), Lars Skalnes (political science)
Humanities -- Frances Cogan (honors college), Henry Alley (honors college), Lisa Freinkel (English), Malcolm Wilson (classics)
Professional Schools and Colleges:
Architecture and Allied Arts: Laura Alpert (art), Ron Graff (art)
College of Education: Ken Merrell (special education)
Journalism and Communication: Carl Bybee (communication)
School of Law: Maury Holland
Lundquist College of Business: Mike Russo (management), Jeanne Wagenknecht (finance)
The secretary is authorized and instructed to exclude from the ballot any nominated persons who are ineligible for membership under the rules of the faculty. The Committee on Committees and secretary, with help from the senate, will fill out the ballot if an insufficient number of nominees is received.
Nominations needed for '03-'05
CAS-Natural Sciences -- 3 positions to fill, nominate at least 5
CAS-Social Sciences -- 4 positions to fill, nominate at least 6
CAS-Humanities -- 3 positions to fill, nominate at least 5
Architecture and Allied Arts -- 3 positions to fill, nominate at least 5
College of Education -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
Journalism and Communication -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
School of Law -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
Lundquist College of Business -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
School of Music -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
Library System -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
Officers of Administration -- 2 positions to fill, nominate at least 4
Classified Staff Participants -- 1 position to fill, nominate at least 3
Senate Budget Committee: Lynn Kahle, Business (Chair); David Frank, Honors College; Barbara Altmann, Romance Languages; Suzanne Clark, English; Steven Hsu, Physics; Steven Kevan, Physics; Greg McLauchlan, Sociology; Frances Dyke, Associate Vice President for Resource Management; John Moseley, Provost (Ex-Officio).
Charles E. Johnson Memorial Award Committee – Annual Report 2003
Henry Alley, Honors College
Paul Friskoff, Lundquist College of Business
Sandra Morgen, chair, Center for the Study of Women in Society
Rob Proudfoot, International Studies
Shaul Cohen, Chair, FAC, ex-officio
Gwen Steigelman, Academic Affairs, ex-officio
The Johnson Award will not be given this year. We received two nominations. Unfortunately, while these nominees have made important contributions to the university community, the committee decided unanimously that neither met the specific criteria for this award. Given our commitment to maintain the spirit of the Johnson award we sadly chose not to award it this year. Given that there are many talented individuals on campus who deserve recognition, the committee believes it is important to consider ways to expand the pool for this, and perhaps other, awards through better communication and outreach.
The Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) is charged with considering student petitions relating to the University’s graduation requirements, removing grades of incomplete after the deadline, and resolving a variety of registration issues. Periodically, ARC also responds to requests from the University Registrar or of other Officers of Administration. All such requests relate to the University’s set of general education or graduation requirements. As ARC carries out its charge, it is not to create an unwritten dual set of standards, nor is it to be arbitrary in its responses to student petitions. Rather, the task of ARC is to search for solutions that fit the intent of University requirements and the faculty legislation, while addressing the concerns and circumstances of individual students. During the current year, members of ARC have faithfully carried out that charge.
The committee meets biweekly beginning the second week of each term and usually adds a meeting at the end of each term. Between the beginning of fall on September 30, 2002 and our most recent meeting on May 19, 2003, ARC has met 16 times and considered 199 petitions. Three meetings remain for the regular academic year (including an extra meeting that was just added to handle the end of the year load) and ARC usually meets three to four times during the summer. Traditionally, the agendas of these remaining meetings are quite full, as the majority of UO students graduate in the spring or summer. ARC will consider roughly one hundred additional petitions in these last few meetings.
Of the 199 petitions ARC has considered thus far, it has approved or determined that the student has met the spirit of the requirement in 60% of all cases. It has denied 39% of the petitions thus far, and a small number of petitions (1%) have been deferred for more information and will be reconsidered once that information is submitted. The largest single block of petitions (120 or 60% of the total) concerned the University’s group requirements. Another 12% of ARC’s petitions related to the University’s Multicultural requirement. Of the 23 multicultural petitions heard by the committee, 57% were approved or found to have met the spirit of the requirement. The remainder of the petitions covered a wide variety of issues such as registration deadlines, incompletes, requests to register for more than 25 credits and reduction of graded, residence or upper division credits. These types of issues made up 30% of our load this year and the committee approved 66% of those petitions. In general, the committee held a tight line on issues such as reduction of graded, upper division or residence credits. They were fairly lenient with regards to changing grades of incomplete if the student had completed the work and a grade had been submitted by the faculty member. The group was fairly strict in regards to petitions to take more than 25 credits in the regular year, but was more willing to consider that possibility in the summer when students can split a heavier load up over several different sessions. Most of the petitions requesting increased credit loads were in regards to summer term.
In this report of ARC’s yearly activities, we’d like to highlight a few salient points. First, the committee struggled greatly with petitions requesting a reduction of credits from 16 to 15 in the University’s group requirements (Arts and Letters, Social Science and Science). Of the 120 petitions regarding group requirements, 59 (or roughly 50%) were requests for reductions from 16 to 15 credits in on of those groups. While 44% of those petitions were approved, it’s worth noting that in the first three meetings of the term, the committee held with the philosophy of last year’s committee and approved 87% of these petitions. After the third week, the committee only approved 28% of these petitions. Such disparity in the rulings is due to an agreement that the committee came to in the fourth week of the term. After much strife amongst committee members regarding these petitions, the committee decided to bring in Herb Chereck, University Registrar, to provide some history. There were two issues at the core of this conflict. First, committee members felt like they were altering the rules of the group requirements by uniformly accepting these petitions. Second, there was some disagreement as to whether all or most faculty had actually added another contact hour or more work to courses that had been switched from three credits to four credits in recent years. After speaking with Herb, it was discovered that only a very small percentage of courses had not changed their workload to reflect a four-credit load. Rather than react to the few courses that were lagging behind, the committee decided to hold firm to what the requirement actually is, 16 credits, and recognize the extra work that goes into earning that final credit of work. An agreement was reached that the committee would no longer pass these petitions solely on the basis that they were “only a credit short”, but instead look for two criteria in accepting these petitions: other work the student had completed that might meet the spirit of the group requirement but wasn’t currently being utilized in any of the other groups and hardship on the student’s part. With this criterion in place, the number of these petitions approved drastically declined. It is also plausible that this new “hard line” approach could be responsible for the drop in overall petitions heard by the committee from last year to this year (247 last year compared to 199 this year).
Second, the ARC brought two issues to the attention of the University’s Undergraduate Council this year. First was the issue of incompletes. For the past few years, the committee has routinely been approving petitions to change an incomplete to a grade if the instructor has submitted a grade. Also, it came to our attention through our discussion, that many faculty were under the impression that an incomplete would change to an F on a student’s transcript when they graduate if they don’t make up the required work. With this in mind, we thought it was appropriate for the Undergraduate Council to review the incomplete policy and determine if it’s fitting for changes to be made. The second issue was the excessive use of SAPP (Substance Abuse Prevention Program) courses by students to reach the minimum 180 credits for graduation. Many students who find themselves in a pinch to graduate quickly will fill their schedule with these courses in lieu of taking courses with more substance. In an effort to graduate quickly, several students have petitioned the ARC to add more than 25 credits to their schedule using the argument that they could manage the load because of the number of SAPP courses they were taking. The committee generally has a negative reaction to transcripts with a large number of these courses on them unless it seems to relate to the student’s career goals and it would be supportive of limiting the number of these courses that can be used towards graduation requirements.
In summary, the ARC has fulfilled its charge of maintaining the integrity of the University’s requirements while being sensitive to the needs of each petitioner and the needs of the institution we represent. It has been fulfilling to meet and work with other faculty, officers of administration and students from across campus. Each of us has been pleased to work with colleagues in a different way and each has been pleased to serve the University in this capacity.
On behalf of the Academic Requirements Committee, the current chairs respectfully submit this report.
Faculty Personnel Committee 2002-2003 Report to the Senate
The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) has now completed its work for the 2002-2003 academic year. The FPC consists of ten elected faculty members and two student representatives (when possible). The faculty members each have one vote and the students are non-voting participants in the deliberative process. Five faculty are chosen from the College of Arts and Sciences and five from various professional schools. The faculty on this year's committee were: Dare Baldwin (Psychology), Tom Bivins (Journalism and Communication), Dianne Dugaw (English), Tom Dyke (Chemistry), Mark Johnson (Philosophy), Randall Moore (Music), Chris Phillips (Mathematics), Ying Tan (Art), Jim Terborg (Business), James Tice (Architecture). Mark Johnson served as Chair of the FPC, and the one student representative was Mena Ravassipour.
During the 2002-2003 academic year, the FPC advised the Provost on thirty-six cases involving tenure and/or promotion. The breakdown of the cases was as follows:
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure 18
Tenure Only 4
Promotion to Professor 13
Senior Instructor with Tenure 1
The FPC held seventeen meetings during the current academic year, each lasting from one and one- half to two and one-half hours. In addition, each faculty member spent approximately two to three hours per week reading files. Each member was responsible for writing the FPC report on three to four cases, which required a substantial additional time commitment beyond merely reading a file.
Most of the files were very well prepared, adhering strictly to the guidelines found in two key sources: (1) A Faculty Guide to Promotion and Tenure at the University of Oregon (Office of Academic Affairs), and (2) Timetable and Guidelines for Recommending Promotion and/or Tenure for Faculty Members (Office of Academic Affairs). We strongly urge everyone connected with the preparation of tenure and promotion files to follow these guidelines carefully, which would remedy many of the problems encountered by the FPC each year in evaluating the files.
Every year the FPC Final Report includes a litany of complaints about the preparation of files plus pleas for strict adherence to guidelines. This year's FPC is no different in this respect. We have singled out the following issues for special attention, based on specific problems we encountered with a small number of the files we were reviewing.
Every professional school that has a separate promotion and tenure document should include a copy of it in the file. Because standards for research quantity and quality may vary across fields and disciplines, it is crucial to have an explicit statement of expectations and standards for research, as well as for teaching and service. These standards should be applied in a consistent fashion for all cases within a specific department, college, or school, and they should be consistent with university-wide guidelines.
University guidelines specify a maximum of six to seven letters from outside reviewers. We believe that each file should contain at least five letters and not more than seven, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise, in which case the reasons for this variation should be provided. This year we saw the number of external letters range from four to ten or more.
It is important to explain the reputation of any schools and programs of the external reviewers, within the candidate's field(s). It should be made clear why the reviewer is qualified to evaluate the candidate's work.
The same materials for review should be sent to all of the reviewers, unless there is a compelling reason for not doing so, in which case an explanation for the difference should be given in the Department Head's evaluation letter.
Ample time for a considered response from external reviewers is crucial. The FPC recommends a minimum of two months (and preferably longer) between the receipt of materials and the deadline for the reviewer's report. We noted one case in which the period between the date of the letter requesting the review and the deadline for the review was less than a month!
The FPC noted more than one occasion when there was an obvious discrepancy between the assessment of external reviewers and that of the candidate's department or school. When this occurs, the reasons for this should be addressed by the Department Committee and/or Department Head's letter. Deficiencies and strengths alike should be examined.
Connections between the candidate and external reviewers should be explained in detail, minimally in brief statements identifying the reviewers, but also, if appropriate, in the Department evaluation. Some units did an outstanding job of this, while others left us speculating, without evidence to resolve our doubt.
Each evaluating unit (especially at the department level) should give explicit guidance concerning the significance, if any, of the ordering of authors for publications and grants. Also, the extent of the candidate's contribution to publications and grants should be clarified
Each department should provide an explanation of the relative weighting to be given to various types of publications, such as peer-reviewed book chapters, peer-reviewed articles, non-peer- reviewed articles, peer-reviewed conference proceedings, extended abstracts, and so forth. The FPC members cannot be expected to know these weightings for areas outside their fields.
In support of the previous three comments above, we strongly recommend that each department supply a list of publications (separate from that provided in the c.v.) from the date of appointment or last promotion that (a) classifies each publication according to such categories as: peer-reviewed article, scholarly monograph, peer-reviewed book chapter, refereed conference proceedings, textbook, non-refereed article, etc., and (b) indicates (with an underline or asterisk) faculty co-authors.
It should be made clear in the Department Committee evaluation how we are to regard various types of books listed by the candidate.
First, are they research books, textbooks, or some other kind of scholarly publication
Second, what is the department, school, or college's policy on the relative weighting of scholarly research monographs versus textbooks?
Third, to what extent are books of various types to be considered scholarly or creative activity? It should be made clear on the c.v. which books are primarily textbooks, and when appropriate, information about such books should be included in the teaching section of the file.
It is extremely useful to have an account of how courses are grouped by various departments and schools in calculating teaching averages and comparing them to department means.
In closing, the members of the FPC once again wish to express their gratitude for the excellent work of Ms. Carol White. Her efficient and highly professional handling of the details and mechanics of the processing of the files helped us do our job better and kept us on track. Carol cracks the whip with a gentle hand.