2012-2013

Stephanie Bosnyk, 2013 Recipient of the UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration

Stephanie Bosnyk's 2013 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration Acceptance Speech

Stephanie Bosnyk's 2013 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration Acceptance Speech

I am extremely honored to have been nominated and selected as the third recipient of the UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration. I would like to thank the UO Senate for establishing this special award and for all of those who supported my
nomination.

Trying to select my greatest mentors is tough as all the people I have worked with over the years have contributed to my growth. Still, I would especially like to thank Jim Reinmuth (my boss for 18 years and former Dean of LCB) and my Mom for being great mentors.

I do not think of myself as a great leader but have always been committed to the principles of being a part of a great institution like the University of Oregon. The social media age can make it difficult to inspire or connect with people on an individual basis. However it has always been a passion and commitment of mine to assist others to achieve their potential along the way. Over time (and I do have a few years under my belt) it has been fun to participate in many committees and advisory bodies that I hope have led to better working lives for those I have shared this journey with. At times, the day-to-day work doesn’t seem important until you see how it has impacted just one or two people and made their life better.

As the University goes through tremendous change it is important for all of you to continue to be involved and connected through various channels (committees, OA Council, mentor to others) and to make a difference in the lives of the students, faculty, and staff around you.
Reconnect, revitalize, and join in!

It is always rewarding to be recognized for your efforts and decisions and I find this award to be particularly motivating and inspirational to me. Thank you again for this recognition --- I wish you each every success and joy.

Richard Daniels' 2013 UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award Acceptance Speech

Good afternoon Dr. Kyr, members of the University Senate, and guests. Thank you for this great honor. Although I knew this award existed, it would never have occurred to me that I would be awarded it, in part because there are so many of my colleagues who equally deserve it. And it’s a pleasure to work with them every day. However, I will humbly accept this award with relish and sincere pleasure.

I’m a third generation Oregon native; I grew up on a small farm near Portland. While two older brothers graduated from U of O, my degree in education came from one of Oregon’s other “seven sisters” PSU. I have two daughters, (one who is an alum) and three grand-daughters, all of whom I adore tremendously. I like to garden and while I enjoy cooking I’m rather mediocre at it. I like crossword puzzles but the one in the Register Guard is as good as it gets. I love to travel and road trips are a favorite. That is where I am now, watching the world slip by as I motor down highway 19 somewhere between Alert Bay and Campbell River on Vancouver Island. I’ve traveled in Asia, the South Pacific, South and Central America and Europe, and to most places in the US. I’ve swabbed out a toilet, replaced a water heater and changed bathroom and kitchen sinks. I’m handy with a sewing machine and have made patchwork quilts and dresses for my children and grandchildren. I’m amazed constantly that across this campus I continually meet the legions of other classified employees with similar if not more interesting backgrounds, training, skills, and experiences.

I work in the Office of Admissions which is truly a unique place. My work area is called the Sun Room on the second floor of Oregon Hall and overlooks the large U of O sign along Franklyn Boulevard. There are big windows and lots of light. I share the space with 5 other workers who process applications and offer support in the admissions process. I also share the space with about 20 orchids which I alternately treat with nurture and neglect. They show me their perverse gratitude by continuing to bloom. My primary job is to support the traveling admissions recruiters and to handle the various mail communications with prospective students and applicants. I sit in on communications meetings, offer advice on purchasing equipment and supplies, and manage three student workers who remind me of what’s it’s like to be young. I also empty our office composting bucket. The admissions office is an interesting blend of personalities and persuasions, temperaments and tolerances.

Besides working hard, we are known to have a good time. There are periods of intense production peppered with bursts of humor and fun. And every month a birthday party. It is not uncommon to put up the Department’s half sized ping pong table for some Friday afternoon tension release. Parents often contact senior admissions management with compliments on what a great job we’re doing in recruiting and processing their children’s admission and how impressed they are with the personal touch we take with their children. We take very seriously our mission of carefully admitting the best candidates for a most rewarding and successful experience here at the U of O. 

So, that’s about who I am and what I do here. I’ve said many times that this is the most rewarding and occupationally fulfilling job I’ve had during my varied working life. I’ve had many different and interesting occupations and, I can tell you that I’ve learned a thing or two in those other experiences that I’ve added to my repertoire of skills and style, both as a person and an employee.

One of my favorite associations over the past years has been with the Classified Staff Training and Development Advisory Committee, more recently as the committee chairman. This is a standing university committee that works with human resources to advise on training and development opportunities for classified staff. We also work with the office of Organizational Development and Training that offers many courses for classified staff and the robust SkillSoft, online training programs available to everyone.  Through training and recognition, our mission is to foster and nurture the best, most capable classified workforce possible. We also host the recognition events for classified staff like the Years of Service reception and the luncheon honoring those with 25 or more years of service. Perhaps you’ve received a message from me announcing the committee hosted fall or spring meeting with the president. And, I personally administer the CSTDAC Pass The Duck awards. This is a self-perpetuating award where the previous recipient passes on one of six Lucite trophies to the recipient of his choosing. This award primarily honors the dedication and service of the many, many deserving classified workers by their peers. This endeavor has also allowed me the opportunity to meet the many, many interesting, knowledgeable and dedicated classified staff from across campus. What I’ve found is that if you ask any classified staff person, they will tell you that as this university continues to grow and expand its academic programs, to serve an ever larger student body and provide for their needs, they work harder than ever in providing the best service possible, while struggling to understand why the Oregon University System’s contract bargaining unit wants to minimize the compensation the classified staffers earn.

CSTDAC recognizes this challenge in trying to provide training opportunities for them when they simply can’t or aren’t allowed to take time to develop their skills. They want to feel more like an asset to this institution than a liability. Their collective skill sets, colorful backgrounds and tremendous dedication to this endeavor add to the wonderful tapestry that makes the University of Oregon special. I want the University of Oregon to become its best self. Let’s work to protect and encourage all of us who work here to be the best they can be and recognized and compensated for it.

As I head toward my retirement at warp speed, it is wonderful to be recognized for this honor and to feel like my endeavors matter. So, to Dr. Kyr and members of the University Senate, thank you. I am deeply honored.

Promotion Tenure Retention Appeals Committee (PTRAC) 2013 Annual Report to the University Senate

May 29, 2013

MEMORANDUM

TO: Christopher Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

CC: Ruth Keele, PTRAC Staff

FROM: Mark Johnson, 2012-2013 Chair Promotion-Tenure-Retention Appeal Committee (PTRAC)

RE: 2012-2013 Report of the PTRAC to the UO Senate

The Promotion-Tenure-Retention Appeal Committee (PTRAC) is an externally mandated board which functions pursuant to OAR 571-003. Its purpose “is to hear appeals on decisions to deny promotion and/or tenure or the failure to renew an appointment.” Because “the committee deals with confidential appeals, the committee does not file substantive reports.” (Citations from the committee web page: http://committees.uoregon.edu/node/39.)

The PTRAC dealt with two cases during the 2012-2013 academic year.

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 22, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 22 May 2013

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

Present: Roger Adkins, John Ahlen, Tracy Bars, Mandy Chong, Kassia Dellabough, Michael Dreiling, Robert Elliot, Karen Estlund, Pedro Garcia-Caro, Bill Harbaugh, Qusheng Jin, Amy Jones, Harinder Kaur Khalsa, Robert Kyr, David Landrum, Kelley Leon Howarth, Huaxin Lin, Peng Lu, Richard Margerum, Jeffrey Measelle, Debra Merskin, Ronald Mitchel, Amy Nuetzman, Deborah Olson, Margie Paris, Steven Pologe, Roxann Prazniak, Ken Prehoda, Gina Psaki, Gordon Sayre, Donna Shaw, Christopher Sinclair, Randy Sullivan, Bruce Tabb, Lamar Wise

Absent: Taylor Allison, John Bonine, Nancy Bray, Connor Dwyer, Jennifer Ellis, Ali Emami, John Foster, Mark Gillem, Sangita Gopal, Ryan Kellems, Theodora Ko Thompson, Charles Martinez, Reza Rejaie, David Riley, William Steiner, Arkady Vaintrob, Bryan Vanderpool, Peter Walker

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the May 22, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:04PM in room 101 of the Knight Library.

He informed the Senate that there were no meeting minutes to approve as the May 8 minutes were still in the process of being transcribed. Both the May 8 and May 22 meeting minutes would be approved at the first Senate meeting in the fall.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Senate President Kyr was sorry to report that President Michael Gottfredson could not attend the Senate meeting as he had business to attend to in Salem with the State Legislature.

2.1 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President, 6:00 – 9:00pm at Collier House: Input for Testimony

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that he would be giving testimony at the joint Ways and Means Committee meeting on Thursday, May 23 in Salem, OR. He was looking forward to the meeting and commented that both the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) and the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) had provided great participation regarding his testimony and its relation to shared governance. Both committees had met several times over the past week, and these meetings were inspired in part by President Gottfredson. Senate President Kyr stated that he had never been in a meeting about shared governance that had impressed or inspired him more than the meetings of the past week.

Senate President Kyr encouraged Senators to visit the President’s website and to read his affirmed statement on shared governance. He then encouraged all in attendance to visit with him that evening from 6 – 9PM in Collier House to discuss any issues relating to his upcoming testimony in Salem. If Senators could not attend that evening, he encouraged them to send him an email with their concerns.

He then offered a few parting comments as the outgoing Senate President. His comments are below in their entirety:

“It has been quite a two years for me as Senate President, as you can imagine, and more so for you as citizens of this university. When you look at where we were two years ago, and then you do a mental check as to where we’ve been and the journey we’ve taken together; it’s something extraordinary. I don’t think just for us, but in American higher education. I would gladly say that anywhere before any forum, and I don’t know a community anywhere that could have dealt better with the hand we’ve been dealt over how many years, you count them, than this community. That’s something we need to celebrate and remember every day of our lives as co-educators on this journey together and a full complete five constituency of our university where we honor each other; our participation and our deep concern for each other as human beings, for the system, and for improving this university. That’s what we’re all engaged in doing. It’s crucial that we remain focused on that.

Participation and service is fundamental to the future of this university. Without it, we will not move, and that means each of us has to take upon ourselves an extra measure of responsibility and accountability for participation and service. We’re doing our best through the Tenth-Year Review to revise that system of service so there will be incentive and motivation. We’re working with the Deans and doing everything we possibly can, and that will continue into the next administration because both Margie and I are determined to improve this system so that it’s a greater pleasure for you to serve and there is some remuneration, perhaps not financial yet, but there is remuneration in other ways, and that’s important to note.

I’d like to focus on three principles that we need to keep before us as we go forward: collaboration, co-creation, and collegiality. Collaboration is essential. That means everyday of our lives in the workplace. It means across the boundaries of our units and departments. It means between universities in this system. I’ve worked tirelessly in each and every one of these ways to serve you. I hope I’ve succeeded in some small measure, but certainly have worked very hard between the universities within our system because there was a lot of, maybe it could be said, bad blood in some ways, a product of history, certainly not of our own making in the sense that we tried to create it or that we even recognized it often. Sometimes things go beyond our own spectrum of vision. We don’t always see what’s happening in other quarters even in our own state, even in our own city, even in our own university. So, as collaborators at all these levels, we need to be more vigilant and more aware of the needs of everybody who is within our community, and our community embraces all of Oregon as well as those within our own university.

Then co-creation, the university is not the creation of the central administration, not the creation of the faculty, not the creation of the Classified Staff, not of the OAs, not of the ORs, not of the students. It’s a co-creation of all of us, and we have to remember that and honor each other in every way. There are needs, there are resources, of course we’re going to go on discussing this, but we have to be sensitive to each other and understand each others needs and co-create the university.

And finally, collegiality; ever important is respectful dialogue. Some people would say that within the last week there have been some lapses in that area. If you believe that, take it upon yourself to heal it, and lets heal it together and go forward. We must be responsible and accountable to ourselves and to each other for respectful dialogue and collegiality.

And finally, shared governance. I’ll just end with my strongest support possible for both our University Charter which states in no uncertain terms “the President and Professors constitute the faculty, and as such, have the immediate governance and discipline of the public university and the students therein.” It’s at the core of who we are. It is in the Senate Bill 270 legislation. It is affirmed there in various ways. It is not in any way diminished, and the University of Oregon Constitution is equally important, and those things in partnership in our work together to affirm them in the way that we live and relate to each other is essential to our way forward.

So thank you all so much for your participation and service. I meant from the depth of my heart what I said at the beginning that I don’t believe there is another community that could have dealt with the cards that we’ve been handed in these last two years and have done so well and maintained such integrity over this journey. And there will be more to come. We’ll be tested in different ways, but we’re strong and we can do this together. Together we’re going to create the university that we truly, truly want. Thanks so much for your support over these past two years.”

After a stirring round of applause, Senate President Kyr moved on to the New Business portion of the meeting.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration; Presented to Stephanie Bosnyk, Assistant Dean of Operations, Lundquist College of Business

Senate President Kyr acknowledged Stephanie Bosnyk (Assistant Dean of Operations, Lundquist College of Business) as the 2013 recipient of the UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration. He then read an excerpt from her letter of nomination. The excerpt is below:

“In service to the broader university, Stephanie has been a model. A partial list of her university service over the past decade is highlighted below. Particular leadership roles that should be highlighted include the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) 2005 – 2007, the Lundquist College of Business (LCB) Dean’s Search Committee in 2009 – 2010, and the chairing of the UO Child Care and Family Services Committee in 2002 – 2003. She is a true model and inspiration for all of us in terms of her participation and service.”

After reading the excerpt, Senate President Kyr congratulated Ms. Bosnyk and presented her with the award.

Stephanie Bosnyk accepted the award and read the following words:

“I am extremely honored to have been nominated and selected as the third recipient of the UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration. I would like to thank the UO Senate for establishing this special award and for all of those who supported my nomination.

Trying to select my greatest mentors is tough as all the people I have worked with over the years have contributed to my growth. Still, I would especially like to thank Jim Reinmuth (my boss for 18 years and former Dean of LCB) and my Mom for being great mentors.

I do not think of myself as a great leader but have always been committed to the principles of being a part of a great institution like the University of Oregon. The social media age can make it difficult to inspire or connect with people on an individual basis. However it has always been a passion and commitment of mine to assist others to achieve their potential along the way. Over time (and I do have a few years under my belt) it has been fun to participate in many committees and advisory bodies that I hope have led to better working lives for those I have shared this journey with. At times, the day-to-day work doesn’t seem important until you see how it has impacted just one or two people and made their life better.

As the University goes through tremendous change it is important for all of you to continue to be involved and connected through various channels (committees, OA Council, mentor to others) and to make a difference in the lives of the students, faculty, and staff around you. Reconnect, revitalize, and join in!

It is always rewarding to be recognized for your efforts and decisions and I find this award to be particularly motivating and inspirational to me. Thank you again for this recognition --- I wish you each every success and joy.”

Senate President Kyr thanked Ms. Bosnyk for her remarks.

3.2 UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award; Presented to Richard Daniels, Outgoing Mail Specialist

Senate President Kyr acknowledged Richard Daniels (Mail Specialist, Office of Admissions) as the 2013 recipient of the UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award. Mr. Daniels was unable to attend the meeting to accept his award, so Senate President Kyr asked Senator Theodora Ko Thompson (Classified Staff Senator) to accept the award on his behalf.

Senator Ko Thompson accepted the award on behalf of Mr. Daniels and delivered his acceptance speech to the Senate body. The speech is below in its entirety.

“Good afternoon Dr. Kyr, members of the University Senate, and guests. Thank you for this great honor. Although I knew this award existed, it would never have occurred to me that I would be awarded it, in part because there are so many of my colleagues who equally deserve it. And it’s a pleasure to work with them every day. However, I will humbly accept this award with relish and sincere pleasure.

I’m a third generation Oregon native; I grew up on a small farm near Portland. While two older brothers graduated from U of O, my degree in education came from one of Oregon’s other “seven sisters” PSU. I have two daughters, (one who is an alum) and three grand-daughters, all of whom I adore tremendously. I like to garden and while I enjoy cooking I’m rather mediocre at it. I like crossword puzzles but the one in the Register Guard is as good as it gets. I love to travel and road trips are a favorite. That is where I am now, watching the world slip by as I motor down highway 19 somewhere between Alert Bay and Campbell River on Vancouver Island. I’ve traveled in Asia, the South Pacific, South and Central America and Europe, and to most places in the US. I’ve swabbed out a toilet, replaced a water heater and changed bathroom and kitchen sinks. I’m handy with a sewing machine and have made patchwork quilts and dresses for my children and grandchildren. I’m amazed constantly that across this campus I continually meet the legions of other classified employees with similar if not more interesting backgrounds, training, skills, and experiences.

I work in the Office of Admissions which is truly a unique place. My work area is called the Sun Room on the second floor of Oregon Hall and overlooks the large U of O sign along Franklyn Boulevard. There are big windows and lots of light. I share the space with 5 other workers who process applications and offer support in the admissions process. I also share the space with about 20 orchids which I alternately treat with nurture and neglect. They show me their perverse gratitude by continuing to bloom. My primary job is to support the traveling admissions recruiters and to handle the various mail communications with prospective students and applicants. I sit in on communications meetings, offer advice on purchasing equipment and supplies, and manage three student workers who remind me of what’s it’s like to be young. I also empty our office composting bucket. The admissions office is an interesting blend of personalities and persuasions, temperaments and tolerances.

Besides working hard, we are known to have a good time. There are periods of intense production peppered with bursts of humor and fun. And every month a birthday party. It is not uncommon to put up the Department’s half sized ping pong table for some Friday afternoon tension release. Parents often contact senior admissions management with compliments on what a great job we’re doing in recruiting and processing their children’s admission and how impressed they are with the personal touch we take with their children. We take very seriously our mission of carefully admitting the best candidates for a most rewarding and successful experience here at the U of O. 

So, that’s about who I am and what I do here. I’ve said many times that this is the most rewarding and occupationally fulfilling job I’ve had during my varied working life. I’ve had many different and interesting occupations and, I can tell you that I’ve learned a thing or two in those other experiences that I’ve added to my repertoire of skills and style, both as a person and an employee.

One of my favorite associations over the past years has been with the Classified Staff Training and Development Advisory Committee, more recently as the committee chairman. This is a standing university committee that works with human resources to advise on training and development opportunities for classified staff. We also work with the office of Organizational Development and Training that offers many courses for classified staff and the robust SkillSoft, online training programs available to everyone.  Through training and recognition, our mission is to foster and nurture the best, most capable classified workforce possible. We also host the recognition events for classified staff like the Years of Service reception and the luncheon honoring those with 25 or more years of service. Perhaps you’ve received a message from me announcing the committee hosted fall or spring meeting with the president. And, I personally administer the CSTDAC Pass The Duck awards. This is a self-perpetuating award where the previous recipient passes on one of six Lucite trophies to the recipient of his choosing. This award primarily honors the dedication and service of the many, many deserving classified workers by their peers. This endeavor has also allows me the opportunity to meet the many, many interesting, knowledgeable and dedicated classified staff from across campus. What I’ve found is that if you ask any classified staff person, they will tell you that as this university continues to grow and expand its academic programs, to serve an ever larger student body and provide for their needs, they work harder than ever in providing the best service possible, while struggling to understand why the Oregon University System’s contract bargaining unit wants to minimize the compensation the classified staffers earn.

CSTDAC recognizes this challenge in trying to provide training opportunities for them when they simply can’t or aren’t allowed to take time to develop their skills. They want to feel more like an asset to this institution than a liability. Their collective skill sets, colorful backgrounds and tremendous dedication to this endeavor add to the wonderful tapestry that makes the University of Oregon special. I want the University of Oregon to become its best self. Let’s work to protect and encourage all of us who work here to be the best they can be and recognized and compensated for it.

As I head toward my retirement at warp speed, it is wonderful to be recognized for this honor and to feel like my endeavors matter. So, to Dr. Kyr and members of the University Senate, thank you. I am deeply honored.”

Senate President Kyr thanked Senator Ko Thompson for accepting the award on Mr. Daniels behalf.

3.3 Wayne Westling Award; Presented to Paul Engelking (Chemistry)

Senate President Kyr recognized Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) as the 2013 recipient of the Wayne Westling Award. He then read the following words from Professor Engelking’s nomination letter:

“To chair the UOCC (University of Oregon Committee on Courses) takes intellectual acumen, diplomatic skill, an ability to balance procedural minutia, and a big picture perspective of the goal of university education and the myriad methods for delivering it. Paul has done this unobtrusively but with aplomb over a remarkably long time. He has brought the course review process into the digital age, most especially through the UOCC website, while otherwise assuring the universities curriculum would not suffer whatever resisitudes have occasionally beset UOs administration/senate or senate/administration relations. In addition, I am told that in the 1990s, Paul played a crucial role in steering a compromise after a campus-wide deadlock over the undergraduate multicultural requirement. For fifteen years, Paul has guided the UOCC with a steady hand, working tirelessly both on behalf of faculty governance and of the core instructional mission of the university. If this doesn’t quality as outstanding and long term leadership and service to the university, I don’t know what does.”

Professor Engelking approached the Senate floor and received the Wayne Westling Award. He delivered the following remarks:

“I find myself in a position not unlike that of the French gentleman who is used to speaking ordinary everyday language and then discovering that for forty years he had been speaking prose. I didn’t expect an award for doing what I thought was ordinary work. One thing that allows me to overcome my chagrin is that this award honors Wayne Westling. I knew Wayne Westling. I regarded his as a friend of mine, and he was a person you wanted to emulate but was impossible to imitate. I remember the time in the Senate Executive Committee, which I served on with Wayne many times. It was harder for me to remember which of us was President. Wayne was wise beyond his years and never pushed to devise. I do remember him correcting a potential faux pas for my bad French pronunciation with a short staccato interjection ‘Do you want to do that?’ or ‘Is that how you say it?’ and he would then silently give you time to think for yourself. His modus operandi was not to convince you of his opinion; he wanted you to convince him. Back and forth, Wayne covered a lot of ground fast.

You may be expecting an explanation of how I became a Senate President and all that followed. I have a simple excuse; I was framed. I received a phone call from Wayne stating that the Senate Nominating Committee needed two names on the ballot. Would I mind lending mine? The other Senator was a natural orator and a shoe-in for a win. The election came, and my opponent wasn’t there, so the vote was postponed. Fifteen minutes later, my opponent arrived expecting to be too late. The election was called. My opponent removed his name from the ballot. The election was held.

I am reminded of Wayne often. Last summer in the jury assembly room, prospective jurors were instructed in the jury selection process. As I heard the old French word for the procedure pronounced ‘vadere’ with the V sounding as W as in classical Latin, I thought of Wayne. ‘Is that how you say it?’ Wayne would know, he wrote the book.

I’d personally like to thank some people who helped me on the Curriculum Committee; the committee members themselves and the administrative assistants on the committee. Looking back I remember especially Liz Zitron and Linda Adkins (Sponsored Projects Services). This list is not exhaustive. I’d also like to thank Kathy Warden (Project Manager, Senior VP and Provosts Office) who is currently assisting the Committee on Courses. I’d also like to thank Lexy Wellman (CAS) in the College of Arts and Sciences for being a great partner in getting their courses through the committee work, and I’d like to thank all the committee members on the Committee on Courses over all the years. They’ve been wonderful colleagues and I’m proud to have worked with them.

Thank you very much for this award. I didn’t expect it, so it’s a double surprise. Thank you.”

Senate President Kyr congratulated Professor Engelking and thanked him for his remarks.

Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that there was a society called the Dead Presidents Society. Everyone who had served in the “new Senate (since 1996)” was included in the Society when their term was complete. He stated that he was the deadest of those dead presidents, and it was his duty and honor to induct Senate President Kyr into the Dead Presidents Society. Senate Parliamentarian Simonds then presented Senate President Kyr with two bottles of wine, one for each year of service as Senate President. He thanked Senate President Kyr for his hard work in maintaining shared governance.

Senate President Kyr thanked Parliamentarian Simonds and proceeded to the next agenda item.

3.4 Motion (Leglislation): Spring Curriculum Report; Paul Engelking, Chair; Committee on Courses

Professor Paul Engelking (Chemistry) presented the corrections to the 2013 Spring Curriculum Report to the Senate and moved that the report be adopted. The report can be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the 2013 Spring Curriculum Report was adopted unanimously.

3.5 Motion (Legislation): Authorization to Award Degrees; Robert Kyr, Senate President

Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. He then asked for a second, and the motion was seconded.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

3.6 Announcement of Spring Election Results (Kyr)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the election results were posted to the Senate website and encouraged all Senators to view the results. The results can be found at the link above.

3.7 Introduction of New Senators (Kyr)

Senate President Kyr asked all newly elected and re-elected Senators to stand and be recognized.

3.8 Signing of Facilities Scheduling Policy & the Conferral of Posthumous Degrees Policy (Kyr)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that President Gottfredson had agreed to sign both the Facilities Scheduling and Conferral of Posthumous Degrees Policies.

3.9 Academic Freedom & Freedom of Speech Policy (Kyr)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that President Gottfredson preferred that the Senate divide this policy into two different policies; one addressing academic freedom and the other addressing freedom of speech. Senate President Kyr had agreed to these terms and mentioned that this would be a change in formatting, not content. This policy would be carried into Senate VP Paris’ (Law) administration in case further discussion was needed.

3.10 Legal Services Policy; Margie Paris (Law), Senate President-Elect & Chair; Legal Representation Policy Review Committee

Senate VP Paris informed the Senate that at their last meeting a question had arisen regarding an employee’s right to ask for legal advice from the Attorney General. This was no longer the case. Employees could not seek legal advice from the Attorney General and must turn to the Office of the General Counsel for legal advice regarding job related litigation. As a result of this discovery, Senate VP Paris thought it best to confer with the Office of the General Counsel before work was completed on the Legal Services Policy. She proposed tabling the policy until the fall term. Her goal was to bring a sound policy back to the Senate that did not include contradictions.

3.11 Senate-Administration Joint Review of the Office of Research, Innovation, and Graduate Education [RIGE] (Kyr)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that the Committee that was investigating RIGE had requested an extension, which he had granted as their investigation was quite extensive. He then invited Professor Bruce Blonigen (Economics) to provide a brief report on the committee’s work.

Professor Bruce Blonigen informed the Senate that the charge of the committee was very broad and they wanted to be thorough and thoughtful in their investigation. The committee’s composition was widely represented across campus and its members needed time to be fully informed with all aspects of the investigation. For the rest of the term, the committee planned to meet with its members to plan their investigation and to consider how to move forward in the most effective way. They planned to continue their work during the summer with more formal discussions taking place during the fall term culminating with a report for the Senate at the end of the fall term.

Senate President Kyr thanked Professor Blonigen for his report.

3.12 Motion (Legislation): Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 2 (Tenth-Year Review 2013); Robert Kyr, Senate President & Chair, Tenth-Year Review (Committee on Committees)

Senate President Kyr informed the Senate that he would be continuing the slate of committee revisions in the fall at the request of Senate VP Paris, who was the chair of the Committee on Committees. He moved the motion to the Senate floor and called for a second. The motion was seconded and he proceeded to read through the committee revisions to the Senate body. The revisions can be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Campus Planning Committee to the Senate body. He then called for a period of discussion on the revisions.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) asked if the Campus Planning Committee’s charge extended to athletic facilities, to which Senate President Kyr replied that he was unsure and commented that the charge did not specify but did not exclude athletic facilities. It was his personal understanding that the Campus Planning Committee covered all capital projects at the university, but he was unsure as things might have changed without the Senate being informed.

Senator Harbaugh suggested an amendment to the revisions to include the language where appropriate, “including all athletic facilities.”

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh where he would like to insert that language into the revisions, to which he replied under number 4 and after the word landscaping, the phrase “,and all athletics facilities,” should be inserted.

Senate President Kyr called for a second, and the amendment was seconded. He then called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) requested another amendment to insert the word “all” before the word buildings under the first sentence of number 4 to insure that all campus buildings were included in the Campus Planning Committee’s purview.

Senator Harbaugh replied that the Athletics Department was considering building a golf course at an off-campus location and for this reason, he wanted his language to remain in the motion, to which Senator Mitchell asked if there was any way to make the motion language more inclusive without specifically referencing athletics.

Senator Harbaugh agreed with Senator Mitchell and withdrew his amendment and seconded Senator Mitchell’s amendment.

Professor Peter Keyes (Architecture) offered a point of clarification. He stated that the operative word was campus. If a facility was not on campus, it did not fall within the purview of the Campus Planning Committee. He commented that the Matthew Knight Arena was not on-campus. Because the UO was a branch of the state government and therefore subjected to land-use planning law, there had to be designated planning commissions and committees under state law and the Campus Planning Committee acted as that body for the UO. This issue was very complicated and legal boundaries needed to be discussed and clarified before amendments were considered, and he believed that there were many outside constraints to consider before boundaries could be pushed.

Senate President Kyr commented that this issue needed to be researched further with a working group as many things had changed within the last ten years. Senator Mitchell agreed with Senate President Kyr, and as his amendment had already been seconded, he was unable to withdraw it, so Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment did not pass.

Senate VP Paris moved to postpone the consideration of the Campus Planning Committee until a future meeting. She also moved to create a working group that would evaluate the ideas discussed at the meeting regarding the Campus Planning Committee. Her motion was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion to postpone. A voice vote was taken, and the motion to postpone was approved unanimously.

Senate President Kyr thanked the Senate body for their thoughtful discussion on the Campus Planning Committee revisions. He then moved on to the revisions of the Committee on Committees.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Committee on Committees aloud to the Senate body. He then called for a period of discussion on the revisions.

Senate VP Paris offered two amendments to the revisions. Her first amendment was under number 12 and involved changing the reporting deadline from October 1 to November 1. Senate President Kyr asked if the amendment could be considered a friendly amendment and asked for any objections from Senators. Seeing none, it became a friendly amendment.

Her second amendment was under the first bullet point of number 4. She asked to include the words “and officer of administration” after the word “faculty.” Senate President Kyr asked for a second to the amendment. The amendment was seconded and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously. He then called for further discussion on the revisions to the Committee on Committees. Seeing none, he called for a period of discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

3.13 Motion (Legislation): Working Groups for Administrative Advisory Groups (Paris)

Senate VP Paris moved her motion to the Senate floor. Senate President Kyr called for a second, and the motion was seconded. He then read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr yielded the floor to Senate VP Paris to provide background information on the motion. Senate VP Paris informed the Senate that several committees listed on the committees website were not Senate committees, but were administrative advisory groups. The working group established by the motion was charged with discussing changes to these groups with the administrator(s) who owned each group.

After Senate VP Paris concluded her comments, Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) wanted to know why the administrative group on transparency and other various administrative groups were not included in the list contained within the motion.

Senate VP Paris replied that she drew these committee names from the committees website under the listed category Administrative Advisory Groups (http://committees.uoregon.edu/adminadvgroup).

Senator Harbaugh asked if there was anything in the motion that restricted the working group from looking into the Administrative Advisory Groups (AAGs) listed in the motion, or was it possible for the working group to explore AAGs not listed in the motion.

Senate President Kyr commented that the working group could decide if it wanted to explore other groups besides those listed on the committees website.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) suggested a friendly amendment to include the words “for example” after the first parenthesis under section 1.2. Senate President Kyr called for objections to the friendly amendment, and seeing none, the friendly amendment passed.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

3.14 Motion (Legislation): Working Groups for Faculty Research Awards Committee (Paris)

Senate VP Paris moved the motion to the Senate floor. Senate President Kyr called for a second, and the motion was seconded. He then read the motion aloud to the Senate body. The motion can be found at the link above.

After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr yielded the floor to Senate VP Paris to provide background information on the motion. Senate VP Paris stated that during the Tenth-Year Review, several items relating to committee membership, charge, and the committee’s relationship with the Office of Research, Innovation, and Graduate Education (RIGE) warranted the establishment of a working group to further hone revisions to the Faculty Research Awards Committee.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) asked if there were natural sunset provisions on the working groups. Senate President Kyr replied that when the working groups delivered their report to the Senate, they ceased to be, unless the Senate determined that further work was needed.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the motion, and seeing none, he called for a vote. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

There were no open discussions at the May 22 Senate meeting.

5. REPORTS

There were no reports delivered at the May 22 Senate meeting.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Senate President Kyr asked if anyone had an announcement or communication from the floor.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) called the Senate’s attention to the fact that a motion for a vote of no confidence in President Gottfredson had been submitted by Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology).

At this point in the meeting, Senate President Kyr stated that this notice of motion must be discussed and called the Senate into executive session pursuant to the open meetings law. He then read the following statement:

“The Senate may now meet in executive session for the purpose of discussing a complaint about the performance of an employee. Executive session is held pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 192.660(2)(i). Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to remain in the room during the executive session. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room. Pursuant to ORS 192.660 representatives of the news media are specifically directed on any of the deliberations that take place during the executive session except to state the general subject of the session as I previously announced it, in other word, that the session concerned a complaint about the performance of an employee. At the end of the executive session, we will return to open session and welcome the audience back into the room.”

Senate President Kyr asked the members of the audience to leave the room. He then asked Professor Stahl if he had anything to say before he left the room.

Professor Stahl stated that he made his announcement from the floor at the request of Professor Tublitz.

The Senate convened in executive session for the discussion of the performance of an employee.

The Senate ended executive session and reconvened in open session. Senate President Kyr invited Senators to attend the discussion in Collier House regarding his upcoming testimony in Salem.

He then delivered his final words as President of the UO Senate:

“I could not be more thrilled that Margie is our next President. She is a remarkable leader. I didn’t know her very well before, but we have been working together so closely, and I’ve never worked with someone who I’ve felt so connected to in the sense that we have the same ideals, belief, and commonly held values for the university and colleagues. It is truly a pleasure and an honor to confer the gavel on Margie Paris, our Senate President.”

Senate President Margie Paris offered a warm sentiment of thanks to Robert Kyr for his remarkable leadership over the past two years. She stated that she had never learned so much from one person in such a short period of time, and asked the Senate to send him off with a round of applause and a standing ovation.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Margie Paris called the May 22, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:01PM.

Senate Meeting Agenda - May 22, 2013

Knight Library Room 101, 3:00‐5:30 pm

3:00 pm 1. Call to Order
       
3:02 pm 2. State of the University
        2.1 Remarks by Robert Kyr, Senate President
      6:00-9:00pm at Collier House: Input for Testimony
         
3:20 pm 3. New Business
    3.1 UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration;
      Presented to Stephanie Bosnyk, Assistant Dean of Operations, Lundquist
      College of Business
    3.2 UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award; Presented to Richard Daniels,
      Outgoing Mail Specialist
    3.3 Wayne Westling Award; Presented to Paul Engelking; Professor (Chemistry)
    3.4 Motion (Legislation): Spring Curriculum Report; Paul Engelking, Chair;
      Committee on Courses
    3.5 Motion (Legislation): Authorization to Award Degrees; Robert Kyr,  
      Senate President  
    3.6 Announcement of Spring Election Results (Kyr)  
    3.7 Introduction of New Senators (Kyr)  
    3.8 Signing of Facilities Scheduling Policy & the Conferral of Posthumous Degrees  
      Policy (Kyr)  
    3.9 Academic Freedom & Freedom of Speech Policy (Kyr)  
    3.10 Legal Services Policy; Margie Paris (Law), Senate President-Elect & Chair,  
      Legal Representation Policy Review Committee  
    3.11 Senate-Administration Joint Review of the Office of Research, Innovation,  
      and Graduate Education [RIGE] (Kyr)  
    3.12 Motion (Legislation): Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 2  
      (Tenth-Year Review 2013); Robert Kyr, Senate President & Chair, Tenth-Year  
      Review (Committee on Committees)  
    3.13 Motion (Legislation): Working Groups for Administrative Advisory Groups (Paris)  
    3.14 Motion (Legislation): Working Groups for Faculty Research Awards  
      Committee (Paris)  
         
5:25 pm 4. Open Discussion
       
5:25 pm 5. Reports
         
5:27 pm 6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor
         
5:30 pm 7. Adjournment

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 8, 2013

Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting for May 8, 2013

Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator

Present:

Absent:

Excused:

1. CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Robert Kyr (Music & Dance) called the May 8, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to order at 3:06PM in room 101 of the Knight Library.

1.1 Approval of the Minutes of the April 10 & 17, 2013 Senate Meeting

Senate President Kyr asked the Senate body for questions or comments on the meeting minutes from April 10 and 17. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote to approve the minutes. A voice vote was taken, and the minutes were approved unanimously. He then asked President Michael Gottfredson to deliver his State of the University address.

2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

2.1 Remarks by President Michael Gottfredson

President Gottfredson stated that there was quite a bit of activity going on in Salem, OR in the state legislature. Two very important Bills were before the Senate and House of Representatives, which pertained to institutional governing boards. These Bills were Senate Bill 270 and House Bill 3120. Senate Bill 270 was the institutional governing board bill, and he directed Senators to read up on these documents, which could be found on his website. Senate Bill 270 authorized an institutional governing board for the UO and PSU (Portland State University). It also provided the opportunity for OSU (Oregon State University) to have an institutional governing board should their president find that desirable. It also outlined requirements for other institutions to request their own governing boards.

House Bill 3120, which the President referred to as a companion bill to Senate Bill 270, affected the structure of higher education in the state, and established the authorities that institutional governing boards would report to regarding such items as degree approval. The bill took many of the authorities that previously existed in the state board of higher education and brought them above all institutional governing boards. According to the President, both bills were going through the Ways and Means Committees undergoing further attention and analysis regarding their fiscal implications. The President had submitted commentary on those implications as had PSU and the state board of higher education.

The President believed that these bills encompassed a watershed moment for the institution regarding how the UO governed and financed itself. He then commented that these boards would be an enabling vehicle for financing the UO’s future. President Gottfredson stated that the institution was not trying to change its public mission in any way. The governance structure proposed in Senate Bill 270 was a very standard one for a public university that consisted of a board appointed by the governor and ratified by the legislature. They were trying to change how the mission of the university was animated.

President Gottfredson mentioned that several capital construction projects were under consideration in Salem including the Erb Memorial Union (EMU) project, residence hall expansions, and the G-bond renovation project for Straub Hall. They were also seeking G-bond support for the Science Commons Project, but as yet did not have the governor’s support.

His administration had moved forward on the national search for a new Provost. Professor Alec Murphy (Geography) was the chair of the Provost Search Committee, and the committee had begun meeting and was working with a search firm to identify potential candidates. Dean Scott Coltrane (Dean, CAS) had agreed to serve as Interim Provost while the search was underway.

The President reported that several changes were taking place in the central administration. With the departure of Michael Redding (Vice President, University Relations) two vice presidential areas were being combined into one. The Government Relations and Development Activities were now the Office of University Advancement, which was led by Michael Andreasen (Vice President of University Advancement). He believed that the integration of both offices was critically important as the UO was moving further towards the establishment of an institutional governing board. President Gottfredson stated that VP Andreasen was developing an extremely important capital campaign that would commence as soon as the institutional governing board was in place.

President Gottfredson then mentioned several exceptional accomplishments garnered by the faculty including the UO Chamber Choir, under the direction of Professor Sharon Paul (Director of Choral Activities) who placed first in the Fleischmann International Competition at the Cork International Choral Festival in Cork, Ireland. He also mentioned that His Holiness the Dali Lama was visiting the university and would be speaking to the campus community at the Matthew Knight Arena during the following week.

After delivering his address, President Gottfredson asked for questions from the Senate body.

2.1.1 Questions and Comments with Response

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff Senator) asked President Gottfredson if he supported having a Classified Staff employee serve on the institutional governing board.

President Gottfredson replied that his recommendations to the legislature were made public and that he was mostly supportive of an undesignated board and believed that a student and faculty member were appropriate. That was his recommendation.

Senator Ahlen asked if it would be fair to characterize that President Gottfredson opposed having a Classified Staff member on the board, to which the President replied that he characterized his support rather than his opposition.

Senator Ahlen then stated that he had heard concerns from fellow Classified Staff members that they were not being paid enough money to be able to afford a seat on the institutional governing board. He then asked President Gottfredson if he knew how a Classified Staff member might be placed on the board, to which President Gottfredson replied that his administration was currently bargaining with the Classifed union and any comments regarding his request were restricted until the bargaining was complete. He thanked Senator Ahlen for his comments.

Lamar Wise (student) stated that he was proxy for Senator William Steiner (Student Senator) who was not able to attend the meeting. He asked President Gottfredson to provide an update on the composition of the proposed institutional governing board.

President Gottfredson replied that there were no current updates. Senate Bill 270 had information on the current composition of the board.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) apologized for being late to the meeting, and commented that it was unclear to him whether or not faculty or students would get a vote on the board. He then asked the President what he was going to do to insure that faculty and students received a vote.

President Gottfredson replied that he had spoken to this point earlier and that his stance on this matter could be found in his comments that he delivered to the state legislature.

Senator Dreiling asked the President what he was going to do in addition to his comments to lobby for a faculty, student, and Classified Staff vote.

President Gottfredson replied that he was working all the time and he had made his position clear.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) asked the President if he could insure that the local board would respect the UO Constitution.

President Gottfredson replied that he could certainly advocate for that, but assurances were beyond his capability. He then commented that he would put forth a very strong statement regarding shared and faculty governance, which was something that would never change under his administration.

Professor Stahl asked if President Gottfredson would exert himself to defend the UO Constitution as it presently existed, to which President Gottfredson replied that he would exert himself to defend the principles and reality of shared governance.

3. NEW BUSINESS

3.1 Motion (Policy Adoption): Legal Services Policy; Margie Paris (Law) Senate-Elect and Chair, Legal Services Policy Review Committee

Senate Vice President (VP), Margie Paris (Law) moved that the Senate adopt the Legal Services Policy and added that she had two small amendments to make, which would be discussed after Senate President Kyr had read the policy to the Senate body.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The policy was seconded and he read the policy aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above.

After reading the policy, Senate President Kyr asked Senate VP Paris if she had any comments to make regarding the policy. Senate VP Paris commended several of her colleagues from the law school who drafted the policy, including Professor Susan Gary (Law) and Senator John Bonine (Law).

Senate VP Paris informed the Senate that this policy had originally been drafted by the Office of the General Counsel in response to a number of concerns and issues that had been in the works for a number of years. She then proposed two amendments to the policy. These amendments were suggested to her by Professor Nathan Tublitz (Biology) via email.

The first amendment was under the “Right to Legal Advice or Representation” section of the policy. She referenced the second paragraph, third sentence, and stated that sometimes representative bodies, like the ASUO may seek outside legal advice as an alternative to the advice of the General Counsel, and those bodies should be able to expend their own funds in order to pay for that legal advice. She then stated that the third sentence of the second paragraph should be amended to say “University funds may be used to pay any expenses incurred in obtaining alternative legal advice or representation only if the General Counsel was asked to provide legal advice or representation.”

The second amendment was under the second sentence of next paragraph in that section, which currently stated “The University will pay the cost of…” The amendment inserted a prefatory phrase to that sentence, which was “Except for University Senate and ASUO funds, University funds may be used to pay the cost of…

Senate President Kyr read the amendments aloud to the Senate body and asked if there were any objections to these amendments being considered as friendly amendments. Seeing no objections, he called for a period of discussion on the amendments.

Senator Ronald Mitchell (Political Science) asked for a point of clarification regarding who defended employees of the university. It was his assumption that the Attorney General defended university employees. He asked if that was correct and also wanted to know what was being changed by the policy.

Senate VP Paris replied that the policy did not change who defended university employees or the quality of defense as those matters were covered by the Office of the General Counsel. The UO did not have a policy on legal representation, and this solidified that matter. She then commented that in respect to defense, the one thorny point had been that the Office of the General Counsel’s interpretation of what lay within the scope of employment, she suspected, had not matched university employee expectations of what lay within the scope of university employment. She offered an example of a colleague in the Law School who was sued for a comment she made in an article she wrote as part of her scholarly research. The Office of the General Counsel declined to represent her on the grounds that her writings were beyond the scope of university employment. She proposed that the Senate make a strong statement regarding matters similar to her example as she believed that they did fall within the scope of university employment.

The other matter that was changed by the policy regarded the right of university employees to obtain their own legal counsel if an employee was dissatisfied with the legal opinion of the General Counsel or if the General Counsel declined to represent a university employee. According to Senate VP Paris, this policy made it possible for university employees to seek legal counsel elsewhere.

Senator Mitchell asked if this policy changed university representation from the State Attorney General’s Office to the Office of the General Counsel.

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) replied that Senate Bill 242, which was passed one year ago, stated that the Oregon University System (OUS) was not eligible to request or receive legal services from the Attorney General and The Department of Justice (DOJ) except in a few cases. He believed that circumstances had recently changed and the university received all legal advice through the Office of the General Counsel. He then mentioned that in light of this information, several items in the policy would have to be reworked.

Senate VP Paris asked Senator Harbaugh if he was suggesting that university employees could no longer seek advice from the DOJ, to which he replied that he thought that was the case, but he was not able to find that specific language in the document he was currently viewing. It was his belief that university employees could not go to the DOJ for legal advice. He then commented that it would have been very helpful if the General Counsel had attended the Senate meeting for today’s discussion.

Senate VP Paris stated that she did not know the answer to Senator Mitchell’s question and did not know if it affected the language of the policy and did not see the harm in leaving that language in, unless Senators thought differently.

Lamar Wise (student) placed his support for the amendments offered by Senate VP Paris.

Senator Kelley Howarth (Romance Languages) referenced the last sentence of the first paragraph under the section entitled “Defense and Indemnification of Employees and Authorized Volunteers.” She wanted to know why Non-Tenure Track Faculty (NTTF) and other employees were not mentioned in this sentence.

Senate VP Paris replied that she had not included other constituencies in that sentence because she had not heard of any controversy regarding the scope of employment other than from scholarly/research activities of tenure track faculty. The reason for that controversy stemmed from the General Counsel not checking scholarly research for accuracy, and she had not heard of this taking place in NTTF and other university constituencies.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) commented that he was worried about policy language that implied that university employees had access to the Attorney General for legal advice rather than being restricted to its own General Counsel. He believed that having such wording in a policy could be thoroughly misleading, and if there was a law that prohibited university employees from seeking advice from the Attorney General, this should be confirmed, and the policy should be rewritten and brought back to the Senate. He was reluctant to see the policy go forward until these issues had been researched and fully addressed.

Senate VP Paris asked Professor Susan Gary (Law) if she could provide any insights on the Attorney General issue, to which she replied that she did not have any additional information to add than what had already been presented.

Senator Randy Sullivan (Chemistry) stated that the attorney client relationship invoked a whole plethora of ethical constraints and considerations. He wanted to know who the client was if a unit of the university asked advice from the General Counsel.

Senate VP Paris replied that this was a very difficult question, which she did not have an answer. She then spoke to Professor Stahl’s request and stated that it might be wise to research this item and come back to the Senate with more information. She did not have any objection to doing this and asked Senate President Kyr if this was acceptable to him, to which he replied that it was if it was acceptable to the Senate body, which it was.

Senator Randy Sullivan commented that in light of Senate VP Paris’s comments, he asked that the motion be tabled till a later date. Senate President Kyr called for a second. The tabling request was seconded and he then called for a vote to table. A voice vote was taken, and the policy was tabled unanimously.

Senate President Kyr asked that all further comments regarding the Legal Services Policy be directed to Senate VP Paris via email.

3.2 Motion (Legislation): Committee Requirements with Moderate Revisions, Slate 1 (Tenth-Year Review 2013); Robert Kyr, Senate President and Chair, Tenth-Year Review (Committee on Committees)

Senate President Kyr moved the motion to the Senate floor. He called for a second, and the motion was seconded. Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. He then read through the revisions to each committee, which can also be found at the link above.

Senate President Kyr read through the revisions to the Environmental Issues Committee. After reading the revisions, he called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read through the revisions to the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC). After discussing revisions to the FAC, Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the revisions.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) asked if the description of the charge of the FAC clearly stated that the FAC did not represent a branch of shared governance, but was strictly an informal opportunity for the President to receive “off the cuff” advice from wise people.

Senate President Kyr replied that the charge was clear.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) asked if there was a specific reason why the membership specified tenured faculty rather than tenure-track faculty, to which Senate President Kyr replied that that was the original composition of the FAC. The previous membership language was considerably more nebulous and this specification clarified that matter in order to provide a broad membership.

Senator Sinclair asked why Assistant Professors were not included in the membership.

Senate VP Paris replied that the FAC had traditionally required tenured faculty due to its nature, in that it was not associated with the principles of shared governance, and it was important that members of the committee not have anything to lose regarding job security.

Senator Robert Elliot (Linguistics) commented that if the membership was not taking Assistant Professor, they may want to change the NTTF requirement to Senior Career Instructor to keep NTTFs in line with tenured faculty. Senate President Kyr asked him if he was offering an amendment, which he replied that he was. The amendment was seconded, and Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Kassia Dellabough (AAA) proposed an amendment to Senator Elliot’s amendment. The NTTF membership requirement should now read, “3 Career NTTF with Senior Instructor rank or above.”

Senate VP Paris commented that the membership should not exclude NTTF Instructors of Research and she did not know what an NTTF Senior Instructor of Research was called but wanted to ensure that that group was included.

Senate President Kyr called for a vote on Senator Elliot’s amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment did not pass.

Senator Dellabough amended her amendment to the following, “3 Career NTTF who have undergone at least one promotion…” Her intent was to ensure that NTTF who served on the FAC had more seniority.

Senate President Kyr called for a second, and the amendment was seconded. He then called for a period of discussion on the amendment.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) asked Senate President Kyr to explain what had not changed with the committee, to which he referred to Senate VP Paris who replied that she would have to refer to an older version of committee criteria, which she did not bring with her. She then explained the old membership and the additions made by the Committee on Committees.

Senator Lin asked why the “promotion” language was better than having Senior Instructors serve on the FAC, to which Senator Dellabough replied that the “promotion” language represented a wider pool of NTTF to fill the position, and a promotion required a considerable amount of experience to obtain.

Seeing no further discussion, Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously.

Senate President Kyr called for further discussion on the FAC Committee review. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Library Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Scholarships Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he moved on to the next committee.

Senate President Kyr read the revisions to the Study Abroad Programs Committee to the Senate body and then called for a period of discussion on the revisions. Seeing none, he called for a period of discussion on the entire slate of committee revisions. Seeing none, he called for a voice vote on the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion was approved unanimously.

3.3 Motion (Legislation): Payments by the Athletics Department for Academic Purposes; Bill Harbaugh (Economics), UO Senator

Senator Bill Harbaugh (Economics) moved his motion to the Senate floor.

Senate President Kyr read the motion aloud to the Senate body, which can be found at the link above. After reading the motion, Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh to comment on his motion.

Senator Harbaugh stated that an independent and very broadly represented taskforce recommended that the Athletics Department (AD) implement these items in 2004 and the Senate recommended that these items be implemented by the AD 2008, but to date the AD had not implemented any of the items listed in the motion. Senator Harbaugh also had statements of support from five previous Senate Presidents and from the current co-chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). According to Senator Harbaugh, the AD’s budget had increased almost three fold since 2004, and the Athletics Director and his Financial Director reported that in six years, the AD might be able to begin making voluntary contributions to academics. Senator Harbaugh believed it was time for the Senate to set a firm deadline to begin contributions and a firm amount for those contributions.

Senate President Kyr called for a period of discussion on the motion.

Senator Huaxin Lin (Mathematics) deferred his comments to Professor Dev Sinha (Mathematics). Professor Sinha distributed several handouts to Senators. He explained that he had been on the IAC for six years, served on the hiring committee for the current Athletic Director, Robert Mullins, and had spoken with President Lariviere at length about matters discussed in Senator Harbaugh’s motion. It was his belief that despite Senator Harbaugh’s comments, the motion was a significant change to the 2004 taskforce recommendations. Professor Sinha believed that the AD was not ready to begin contributing to academics due to their current financial situation.

Senate President Kyr informed Professor Sinha that there was a time limit on comments from visitors and asked him how much additional time he required to deliver his statement, to which Professor Sinha replied that he required five minutes. Senate President Kyr agreed to the five minutes.

Professor Sinha stated that the AD was not generating operational reserves due to the building of the Matthew Knight Arena. According to Professor Sinha, the AD had two options, one of which was to use Legacy Fund monies to pay for the arena. The other option was to cut operations, which would entail discontinuing several athletic programs. The growth discussed by Senator Harbaugh was due to contributions made by Philip Knight (President & CEO, Nike Corporation) and Professor Sinha believed that a discussion should be held with Mr. Knight regarding the distribution of funds given by him to the AD. He then read a hypothetical letter to Mr. Knight on the type of conversation that he believed would have to take place in order for Senator Harbaugh’s motion to be implemented. The letter is below in its entirety:

“Dear Mr. Knight,

We know you’ve been the most generous donor to both academics and athletics in the history of our campus. We know that Coach Bowerman was the largest influence on your life outside your family starting with your time as a student athlete. We know you made public statements about how pleased you are with athletics and its accomplishments historically and recently. We know that it’s significant to you, the department; you named the new arena after your son. You called this the Legacy Fund Model because it is your legacy. But Mr. Knight, we don’t like your legacy plan. We blame it for having a lack of funds coming from athletics, so we’re going to take some of those monies and of course cuts in this department and we hope you don’t mind too much.”

Professor Sinha believed that this type of conversation was what the Senate was asking the President to deliver to the AD by approving Senator Harbaugh’s motion. He then referenced USA Today data on athletic departments around the country versus stadium size. According to Professor Sinha, schools with larger stadiums could afford to contribute to athletics and because UO had a smaller stadium, they did not have the operational reserves to contribute to athletics. He concluded his comments by stating that the President, Athletics Director, and members of the IAC were not consulted on Senator Harbaugh’s motion.

Harlan Mechling (Assistant Senate Executive Coordinator) stated that during his tenure on the previous ASUO President’s administration, he served on a student run campaign called the SCORE campaign, which met several times with Rob Mullins (UO Athletics Director). The campaign urged Mr. Mullins to adopt a similar model to the 2004 taskforce requests, which were ignored. Mr. Mechling spoke in favor of the motion and offered his full support of its passing.

Senator Christopher Sinclair (Mathematics) asked if the Senate could send this motion back to the IAC for their recommendation. Senator Harbaugh replied that the chair of the IAC spoke in favor of the motion. The chair was speaking for himself and not as chair of the IAC. Senator Harbaugh had spent a great deal of time on this issue and according to him; it was rare that the IAC received a substantial conversation from AD Mullins on this issue. He believed that this issue was very low on the AD’s priority list. When Senator Harbaugh had brought this issue up in IAC meetings, he had been told that it was a university issue and should be brought up in the Senate.

Senator VP Paris spoke in favor of the motion. She agreed that contributions from the AD to the academic mission of the university should be required; however, she did not believe that the Senate was the appropriate body to call for this requirement. Senate VP Paris stated that this requirement should come from President Gottfredson, and she feared that if this legislation was enacted it would place the Senate in a confrontational position with the President.

Senator Michael Dreiling (Sociology) spoke in favor of the motion and stated that given the timeline and the promises to contribute by the AD, this motion was not about saying no to the generosity of Philip Knight. He believed that the motion entailed holding the AD accountable to a claim and doing so in a way that respected other budgetary concerns of the university. He then commented on the lavish spending of the AD in buildings such as the Jaqua Academic Learning Center and Autzen Stadium. According to Senator Dreiling, those funds could be used to better the academic mission of the university and he believed the Senate was the body to hold the AD accountable.

Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) reminded Senators that the motion was labeled as legislation, and it requested that the President act on its terms, which to him sounded more like a resolution. If Senator Harbaugh wished to label his motion as legislation, Professor Stahl asked that he amend the motion and replace the words “requests the President” with the word “shall.”

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Harbaugh if he accepted Professor Stahl’s amendment or if he preferred to change the label of the motion to a resolution, to which Senator Harbaugh replied that he was originally told that labeling his motion as legislation would not require the President to do anything. As such, he did not want to change the label to a resolution, and stated that he was content with the language “the Senate requests” because if the President did not act on this motion, Senator Harbaugh felt that President Gottfredson should come before the Senate and explain why he chose not to act.

Senator Harbaugh asked Senate President Kyr if he was correct in assuming that the President had to respond to a motion that was labeled as legislation, to which Senate President Kyr replied that the President had to respond to all motions that required his action.

Professor Stahl stated that the Senate could enact legislation with the wording “shall.” If the President did not wish to accept the legislation, he was obliged to come to the Senate and explain why. If the President and Senate could not come to an agreement, the issue went before the Statutory Faculty Assembly for a vote, and the President retained the right to veto the decision of the Assembly but must explain his veto in a letter to the entire faculty via email.

Senator John Ahlen (Classified Staff Senator) asked why the contribution figure in the motion was 2%.

Senator Harbaugh replied that 1% seemed too low and 3% seemed too high.

Senator Richard Margerum (PPPM) stated that he supported the motion but felt there was a great deal of information lacking. He did not feel comfortable voting on a motion without having enough information.

Senate President Kyr asked Senator Margerum if he was proposing to table or postpone the motion, to which Senator Margerum replied that he was curious to know why people were upset with the IAC. He also wanted to know why the IAC had not reviewed the motion.

Senator Harbaugh replied that this motion was supported by five previous Senate Presidents, and the IAC’s charge did not include holding the AD responsible for academic contributions. He also commented that previous taskforce reports had come through the UO Senate and not the IAC.

Senator Gina Psaki (Romance Languages) stated that she supported the motion and recalled a town hall meeting that discussed a ninety-four million dollar renovation to Autzen Stadium. The Athletics Director at the time stated that ninety-four million dollars was the cost of doing business in the (at that time) PAC-10. Senator Psaki then commented that the Senate needed to be concerned with the cost of doing business in the AAU (American Association of Universities). She believed that Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the motion should not be paid by the academic budget.

In hearing everyone’s comments, Senator Harbaugh believed that there was support for the motion, but he felt that people did not want to pin President Gottfredson into a corner or offend Philip Knight, who had been extremely generous to the university. In light of this, he offered an amendment to change the label of the motion to a resolution instead of legislation.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The amendment was seconded and he then called for a period of discussion on the amendment. Seeing none, he called for a vote on the amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the amendment passed unanimously.

He then called for further discussion on the motion.

Professor Dev Sinha (Mathematics) stated that the IAC had not considered the motion as an agenda item. He objected to the characterization that the motion had been thoughtfully considered by the IAC.

Senator Hauxin Lin (Mathematics) was concerned with the timing of the resolution and thought further discussion was in order. He requested tabling the motion until the next Senate meeting.

Senate President Kyr called for a second. The request to table received a second and Senate President Kyr called for a vote on the request to table. A hand vote was taken, and the request to table was denied.

Professor Glen Waddell (Economics) stated that he was a member of the IAC and one of the charges that the committee faced during the 2012-2013 academic year was listed in quotation marks under 1.1 of the motion. Senate President Kyr charged the IAC with that task. He was slightly disappointed that Senator Harbaugh changed the label of the motion to a resolution and thought that the length of time taken for the AD to pay their bills was ridiculous.

Senate President Kyr ended the period of discussion on the motion and called for a vote. A voice vote was taken and the results were inconclusive. He then called for a hand vote and the motion passed. 

4. OPEN DISCUSSION

5. REPORTS

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

7. ADJOURNMENT

Seeing no further business, Senate President Kyr called the May 8, 2013 meeting of the University of Oregon Senate to a close at 5:06PM.

2013 UO Spring Election Results

The 2013 UO Spring Election results are posted below. Many thanks to all who participated in the election and for giving your time in service and dedication to the University of Oregon.

University Senate

College of Arts and Sciences

Natural Science - 4 openings

Randy Sullivan (Chemistry)
Miriam Deutsch (Physics)
Paul Dassonville (Psychology)
4th opening TBD

Social Science - 3 openings

John Davidson (Political Science)
Jane Cramer (Political Science)
Bruce McGough (Economics)

Humanities - 7 openings

Deborah Healey (Linguistics)
Matthias Vogel (German & Scandinavian)
Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages)
Gordon Sayre (English)
Marvin LeNoue (American English Institute)
6th & 7th openings TBD

Professional Schools

AAA - 2 openings

Howard Davis (Architecture)
Deni Ruggeri (Landscape Architecture)

College of Education - 1 opening

1 opening TBD

School of Journalism & Communication - 1 opening

1 opening TBD

School of Law - 1 opening

Mary Ann Hyatt

Lundquist College of Business

All positions filled for 2013 - 2014 academic year.

School of Music & Dance - 2 openings

Robert Kyr (Music)
Alexandre Dossin (Music)

UO Libraries - 1 opening

Edward Teague (AAA Library)

Clark Honors College - 1 opening

1 opening TBD

Other Academic Units - 1 opening

1 opening TBD

Officers of Administration - 2 openings

Lisa Raleigh (College of Arts & Sciences)
Annie Clark (University Housing)

Non-Tenure Track Research Faculty - 1 opening

1 opening TBD

Classified Staff - 1 opening

Jimmy Murray (UO Libraries)

Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)

College of Arts and Sciences - 3 openings

Miriam Deutsch (Physics)
Hal Sadofsky (Mathematics)
Jeffrey Measelle (Psychology)

Professional Schools - 3 openings

Alexandre Dossin (Music)
Lynn Kahle (Business)
Merle Weiner (Law)

Officers of Administration - 1 opening

Helen Chu (UO Libraries, Academic Technology)

Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC)

College of Arts and Sciences - 2 openings

Li-Shan Chou (Human Physiology)
Nicholas Proudfoot (Mathematics)

Professional Schools - 3 openings

3 openings TBD

Graduate Council (GC)

College of Arts and Sciences

Natural Science - 2 openings

Li-Shan Chou (Human Physiology)
Sara Hodges (Psychology)

Professionsl Schools - 1 opening

Alexandre Dossin (Music & Dance)

Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee (FGAC)

3 openings

Cynthia Vakareliyska (Linguistics)
2nd & 3rd openings TBD

Intercollegiate Athlectics (IAC)

College of Arts and Sciences - 3 openings

Bill Harbaugh (Economics)
Jennifer Freyd (Psychology)
Matthias Vogel (German & Scandinavian)

Professional Schools - 2 openings

Laura Leete (PPPM)
Jennifer Ellis (Finance)

Classified Staff - 1 opening

Kurt Krueger (Printing & Mailing Services)

Promotion Tenure Retention Appeals Committee (PTRAC)

All positions filled for 2013 - 2014 academic year.

Undergraduate Council (UC)

All positions filled for 2013 - 2014 academic year.

Officers of Administration Council (OAC)

Colleen McKillip (Journalism & Communication)
Deb Mailander (Labor Education & Research Center)
Paula Staight (University Health Center)
Spencer A. Smith (Information Services)

CAS Dean's Advisory Council (DAC)

Social Science - 2 openings

Philip Scher (Anthropology)
Anne van den Nouweland (Economics)

Humanities - 1 opening

Forest Pyle (English)

Syndicate content