Motion US02/03-4 Ð Request for a Summary Report of the University's Policies and Procedures in Response to the US Patriot Act, CAPPS II, and Other Similar Legislation
Motion proposed by Barbara Pope, Women and Gender Studies For action in the University Senate, May 14, 2003
THEREFORE, WE MOVE 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.
Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the US government enacted legislation (the USA Patriot Act) to limit threats of domestic terrorism. Responses to terrorism are clearly needed. However, the hastily enacted Patriot Act, and similar legislation and executive orders, contain elements that interfere with the University of Oregon's educational and research mission, which is based upon the open exchange of ideas and the advancement and dissemination of knowledge.
The Patriot Act permits use of wiretaps; secret searches of property; retrieval of voicemail, email, and internet search results; and access to university personnel files, library and book-buying records, and academic records. Such surveillance may be conducted under a "gag order," meaning that members of the university community (including office workers, computer programmers, librarians, booksellers, campus security officers, faculty, administrators, and others) can be ordered to provide information to federal authorities without revealing that surveillance is occurring.
At present, the Patriot Act and the proposed Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II Act (CAPPS II) have resulted in visa and travel restrictions. Portions of the Patriot Act are inhibiting the scientific use of biological materials and the work of laboratory personnel. New restrictions on use of the Freedom of Information Act limit historical and social science research.
These measures pose threats to academic freedom, and the maintenance of a working environment that fosters the free exchange of ideas and the dissemination of new knowledge.
The legislation was amended at the 14 May 2003 Senate meeting to require an "annual" report. It was then passed.
Resolution US02/03 - 1 - Resolution Supporting Peaceful Means of Resolving the Conflict With Iraq
Notice of resolution given 11-13-02
Sponsored by Franklin W. Stahl, biology
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..
Motion US02/03-2 Amend student membership on the Library Committee to include one undergraduate and one graduate student.
Sponsored by University Library Committee University Senate meeting January 15, 2003 Passed (unanimous voice vote)
Moved that: Student membership on the University Library Committee shall consist of one undergraduate student and one graduate student.
Fiscal impact: None.
Explanation: Current legislation (see http://library.uoregon.edu/ulc/dir95/univlibx.html) calls for two students to serve on the University Library Committee. The committee agrees unanimously that it is desirable to specify one undergraduate and one graduate student in order to assure that both perspectives and constituencies represented.
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.
Present: H. Alley, E. Bailey, J. Bennett, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, F. Cogan, A. Elliott, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, D. Herrick, M. Holland, R. Horner, P. Keyes, D. Leubke, M. Linman, G. Luks, G. McLauchlan, C. McNelly*, K. Merrell, S. Midkiff, A. Morrogh, R. Ponto, M. Shirzadegan, L. Skalnes, D. Soper, B. Strawn, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, R. Zimmerman (*non-voting)
Excused: V. Cartwright, J. Earl, W.A. Marcus, M. Partch, M. Russo, E. Singer*, C. Sundt, F. Tepfer, J. Wasko, M. Wilson, M. Woollacott
Absent: L. Alpert, K. Aoki, B. Blonigen, R. Graff, M. Myagkov, M. Ravassipour, C. Smith*
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in room 240C McKenzie.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes of the March 12, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Update on PEBB and PERS Benefits Situation. Ms. Helen Stoop, human resources benefits administrator, reported on the recent meeting of the Public Employee Benefit Board (PEBB). State meetings were held in January and renewel rates were negotiated for benefits year 2004. Considerations included: (a) the cost of medical and dental benefits remaining at status quo; (b) the cost of a midpoint of the status quo option, that is, if cost is 10% more for the same benefits, recommendations and plan changes for 1/2 benefit increase; and (c) 0% increase, that is, change the medical and dental benefits to retain the current premiums. Insurance carriers are submitting plan changes for review. Mylia Wray, PEBB representative, will present the possibilities to the UO Senate at the May meeting and feedback will be submitted to the PEBB Board for discussion. Preliminary premiums for the year 2004 should be known by June 2003.
Switching her comments to issues surrounding the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), Ms. Stoop noted that there are several bills to re-vamp PERS currently under consideration in the legislature (see the PERS website at http://www.pers.state.or.us/ for text of the various bills). She indicated that to become law, these bills must pass in the House, the State Senate, be signed by the Governor, and likely go through the Oregon Supreme Court to verify their legality. She added that the legislature can overrule the PERS Board and the courts can overrule the legislature. The OUS Governmental Relations office tracks a bill's progress and the Chancellor's Office monitors and provides testimony throughout the process. The UO's Office of Governmental Affairs promotes and protects the legislative issues as they specifically affect the UO. Bill 2001A was signed into law in February 2003, meaning that Tier 1 PERS members hired before 1996 will not have earnings credited to their accounts in excess of the assumed earnings rate of 8%. Once the system's deficit is eliminated and the reserve account has been replenished for a three-year period, earnings in excess of the 8% assumed rate might be reconsidered. Other PERS bills are being expedited for the Supreme Court to determine legality for implementation in 2003. Bill 2005A reduces membership on the PERS Board from 12 to 5 members, allows the Governor to appoint the chair, and requires three Board members to have experience in business management, pension management, and investing. Having been passed by the Senate General Government Committee, bill 2005A is waiting approval from the full Senate.
Another bill passed by the House and awaiting Senate approval implements new mortality tables. These tables include the actuarial factors used to calculate retirement benefits for Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees. If passed, the new tables will be effective July 1, 2003 and will include a "look back" without interest applied to all payment options. This means new actuarial criteria will be applied to an employee's account balance at the date of retirement and the result compared using the June 30, 2003 balance with a benefit calculated from the old factors. The highest benefit will be paid to the retiree. Over time, the look back will no longer be the higher benefit amount. This bill eliminates the need for employees to retire as of June 30, 2003 to avoid a reduced retirement benefit, although continuing to work without an increased benefit is the cause of controversy over the look back feature. Because employees are living an average of 4 years longer than indicated in the older actuarial tables, this bill requires the PERS Board to update the tables every two years beginning January 1, 2005 so money in the retirement fund will cover the longer life spans. The House PERS Committee is reviewing a successor plan for employees hired after July 2003.
During a brief question and answer period, Ms. Stoop fielded questions regarding how and if interest might accumulate in members' accounts, and whether PEBB will continue to issue reports of amounts in members' accounts. Ms. Stoop indicated that the yearly account balance statement would be sent out again this year around May 1st, but would likely not include projected retirement amount calculations since so much of the pertinent information is still under legislative scrutiny and undecided at this point.
UO Lobby Day in Salem. Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) Representative Peter Gilkey reported that the IFS met recently with a number of legislators in Salem to discuss the current budget crisis facing the state, in general, and higher education in particular. State Senator Decker explained the budget cuts are so severe there is not enough support from either side of the aisle to pass the budget or revenue enhancements at this point. The May 15, 2003 revenue forecast numbers will be used to determine a new budget. Each OUS university was asked to submit budget scenarios reflecting 2% to 10% greater cuts than the current Governor's budget, which is anticipated to require an additional 4% in cuts. OUS fears that a possible 10% increase in budget cuts could result in the loss of 12,000 students across the system and a projected loss of 43.2 million in tuition dollars. The legislature intends to finish the higher education hearings and postpone the budget action until May 2003, although the Projected Bonding Authority and the Higher Education Efficiency Act continue to progress through the system. Senate President McLauchlan, Vice President Lowell Bowditch, and UO senators Stephanie Midkiff, library, and Julie Novkov, political science, met with six members of the State Senate and House to discuss the Higher Education Efficiency Act. This act would give the UO greater autonomy from the state in terms of policies, planning, budgeting, tuition setting, and bonding. Autonomy in the area of tuition can translate into greater support for middle and lower class students. There are many potential equity benefits to having greater autonomy. Support for the act is positive, and other than minor adjustments, no major obstacles are anticipated.
Update from Provost Moseley. The provost remarked briefly that legislative Bill 437, concerning the New Partnership with Oregon, has passed out of committee, and if not "over amended", will be a great gain for the university. However, it will be a real struggle to keep the bill "as is" without the Department of Administrative Services as well as other elements making substantive changes in it. The concern is to maintain enough of the bill to accomplish what was originally intended. Provost Moseley addressed the tuition issue and corrected the increase percentage to 19% to 20% as opposed to what had been reported as an 24% to 25% tuition increase at the UO. The original figure did not take into account the discounted class options offered at the UO.
PANEL DISCUSSION: Diversity at the University of Oregon How are we doing?
President McLauchlan introduced Provost John Moseley, Penny Daugherty, Director of Affirmative Action, Carla Gary, Director of Multicultural Affairs, and Professor Jayna Brown, English and Ethnic Studies, as panel members for a discussion on diversity progress at the UO. Provost Moseley began by highlighting initiatives in the area of diversity the campus has undertaken.
The Center on Diversity and Community (CODAC) was established in 2001. There is good leadership and it looks optimistic for accomplishing its goals, although funding issues are being addressed.
The Center for Indigenous Cultural Survival was established in 2001.
A search is underway for a new position, Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity.
The President's Council on Race was formed to assist President Frohnmayer in setting up his administration and is an ongoing council.
The Minority Faculty Recruitment Program was designed and implemented by the President's Council on Race.
The Ethnic Studies Program was formed.
Implementation of initiatives and recommendations stemming from student work groups and the report of consultant Elson Floyd, president of the University of Missouri.
A campus climate assessment was conducted by Dr. Susan Rankin, Pennsylvania State University, with follow-up analysis and recommendations.
The Bias Response Team was established.
Information was obtained from the Community Value Statement and other, smaller scale implementations are in effect.
Provost Moseley referred to the most recent OUS report on diversity and noted some difficulties in making accurate counts of the progress made to increase the number of minority faculty. The provost quoted statistics regarding race categorizing and the number of multiracial and international faculty who do not identify with the "standard" racial and ethnic categories defined by the government. Since the UO Minority Recruitment Program began, the numbers in all categories have increased, with a diverse group of 29 faculty members hired and $2 million spent in the process. These 29 faculty members include 12 women, 17 men, 8 African Americans, 12 Asian Americans, 5 Hispanics/Latinos, and 5 Native American Indians. Twenty-five of these faculty members are still with the University.
Director of Affirmative Action Penny Daugherty said the OUS Diversity Report (to which the provost referred earlier) shows some progress at the UO. In 10 years, the representation of Asian/Pacific Americans at the UO has increased from 3.1% to 5.5% and Hispanic/Latino from 2.2% to 3.3%. There has been a modest gain for Native American Indians and a decrease in African Americans from 1.1% to .9%. Ms. Daugherty went on to note that the goals of the Affirmative Action Office are largely concerned with employment so that representation in the various university employment groups reflect at least the same degree of diversity as is available in the national or regional employment groups from which we recruit new employees. For example, in the 11 different tenure track faculty job groups at the UO, the most current figures available show women are underutilized in 6 groups and people of color in 5 of those groups; in the 11 fixed-term faculty job groups, women are underutilization in 2 groups and people of color in 3. Ms. Daugherty said that diverse representation is improving at the UO although it is far from where it should be.
Ms. Daugherty emphasized the necessity of faculty and administrative commitment to diversity to increase minority representation on campus. She remarked that commitment must start with outreach and recruitment, and suggested that faculty must begin building bridges to attract minority faculty members before a search begins. Outreach efforts should be aggressive and creative, involving print media, electronic media, scholarly and professional organizations, and women's and minority interest groups or caucuses. A search procedure must involve critical thinking regarding the way excellence is defined and whether it inadvertently eliminates qualified applicants without strong backgrounds but with strong scholarship. Existing search paradigms must be reconsidered and selection criteria must be redefined. All new hires, particularly women and persons of color, should be assisted as much as possible with personal transition into the university. Pairing up new hires with established faculty and campus resources will assist in avoiding issues that may interfere with the transition process and that can help establish strong bonds with the university.
Professor Jayna Brown, ethnic studies and English, addressed concerns regarding implementation of affirmative action objectives. Having been with the university for three years, Professor Brown participated in many searches and found the processing for affirmative action is not being implemented as intended, and there is much resistance to change. In response, the Faculty and Staff of Color Coalition was formed and is in the process of creating a mission statement.
Ms. Brown reiterated her isolated feeling in being the only African American tenure track employee at most meetings, and emphasized it is not an encouraging factor in promoting diverse faculty to remain at the UO. She suggested cluster hiring to bringing on board a diverse collegial group of people that can interact and create a congenial environment. When asked about the coalition in relationship to CODAC, Ms. Brown reiterated that the coalition's efforts are toward faculty retention, recruitment, and curriculum reform, and is not meant to supplant any other group. Consideration must be made at the department level as to what the priority is in who is hired. Ms. Brown also noted that there are some attitude problems at the UO that discourage diversity. She suggested, too, that strategies for hires have to happen at all levels, junior through senior positions.
Ms. Carla Gary, multicultural affairs, said being one of the few faculty members of color is a tremendous responsibility. The investment in diversity must come from all faculty members; the issue of recruitment, hiring and retention of faculty is everyone's problem. Traditions and "chilly" work environments must be examined on a departmental level where the people in the departments focus on how to make needed changes. Minority candidates make decisions about where they want to work based what they want to do and who is there doing things that are important to them. Faculty have a hand in engaging people by helping form the climate of their department. Ms. Gary also remarked that treating people the same is not treating them fairly because one cannot look for the same things in different people. She suggested that it is incumbent upon faculty to look at themselves and make connections with professional associations and former classmates that are teaching all over the country and to engage them in attracting prospective PhDs. Sabbaticals and leaves of absence also are opportunities to bring people of color in to get to know the campus and the community.
During a discussion period, a question was asked if sexual orientation was part of the process for increasing campus diversity. Ms. Daugherty commented that diversity, including sexual orientation, is a larger issue than "typical" affirmative action issues. She noted that from an affirmative action perspective, the five federally protected groups are women, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians. Increasing the population of these group members is a goal of the university. Ms. Brown agreed that there is a need to increase the number of people of color so they will have more options in their interactions with others. Mr. Garcia, ethnic studies, questioned the statistics cited by Provost Moseley earlier indicating that progress had been made during the past decade to increase faculty diversity. Provost Moseley explained that different minority identification categories on different censuses came about as people requested alternative ways to identify themselves. The multiracial category, for example, does not exist on many questionnaires. He indicated that in 1992 the UO had 589 tenure track faculty members who identified themselves as white, non-Hispanic, and in 2002 the number was 564. Overall, the tenure related faculty grew from 645 to 691 members during the same time period, indicating a net growth in the minority categories. Acknowledging the figures are not yet where they should be, the provost pointed out that the Minority Faculty Recruitment Program is working, and the number of minority faculty has doubled on campus since the inception of the program. Nevertheless, Mr. Garcia expressed frustration at the slow progression of change, suggesting that inadequate positive changed is used to camouflage the need for additional change. Provost Moseley reiterated his commitment to the diversity issues and agreed to look again at the statistics and check for any duplication. The debate on census accuracy of minority faculty members was unresolved, but the discussion concluded with a desire for more visible diversity on campus..
OPEN FORUM AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
The secretary reminded everyone that the nomination process for election to university level committees and the senate was underway, but was lacking in candidates for a number of open positions. Information regarding which positions need candidates and the eligibility requirements can be found on the senate's web page via the nominations link.
President McLauchlan announced that 22 senate members requested the Iraq resolution be readdressed by the senate. However, such a request must come from a majority of the senate, which would require 24 members making the request. Hence, the issue was not put on the agenda.
Distinguished Service Award Committee Report. The senate went into Executive Session from 4:55 p.m. to 5:10 for action on this report.
With the lateness of the hour and business concluded, President McLauchlan adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.