The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand on October 14, 1992, in Columbia 150 at 3:34 p.m. The minutes of the June 3, 1992 meeting of the University Assembly were approved as distributed.
A memorial for Mr. Kenneth Scott Wood, Professor Emeritus, Speech Pathology, has been presented to the Secretary for inclusion in these minutes. Mr. Wood came to the University of Oregon in 1942 and remained an active faculty member until his retirement in 1972. He passed away on October 30, 1990 in Eugene. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.
The Annual Report of the Faculty Personnel Committee can be found at the end of these minutes.
The President introduced Provost Norman Wessells who introduced the Deans who in turn introduced the new faculty members. Even with the restraints of Measure 5 the University of Oregon has been able to hire a number of outstanding new faculty.
The Secretary presented the following motion: "It is hereby moved that legislation establishing 3:30 p.m. as the set time for the start of University Assembly meetings be amended to establish a starting time of 3:00 p.m. as the mandated starting time of meetings of the University Assembly."
It was explained that number of faculty members had difficulty meeting family obligations when Assembly meeting extend past 5:00 p.m. If the meetings started one half hour earlier the possibility that the meetings would end by 5:00 p.m. would increase immeasurably. In opposition it was pointed out that the University class schedule did not operate on a time that made starting at 3:00 p.m. realistic. Some members of the Assembly would not be able to make the meeting until it was already 30 minutes underway. The vote was by hand and the motion was defeated with 38 yes, 49 opposed.
None.
President Brand presented the following address to the University Assembly.
I sincerely welcome faculty, students, and staff as we begin our 117th year at the University of Oregon. I want to extend an especially warm welcome to those of you who are new to our University community.
In higher education, our growth cycle is opposite nature's. In the natural world, spring is the time for renewal, and fall the season to harvest. But in our realm, fall is the time for cultivating new ideas and for renewing ourselves. And in the spring, especially at commencement time, we reap the rewards of our efforts.
As we embark on this new cycle together, I would like to share my thoughts on where we are in a time of continued transition and uncertainty a time replete with unparalleled challenge, but also coupled with unshakable faith in our long-term stability and future as an institution. To place these contrasting elements in context to understand the larger context in which we must operate and succeed I thought it would be useful to begin my remarks to you today with a discussion about values.
The topic of values, unfortunately, has taken on a somewhat pejorative connotation, especially recently. But despite some political misappropriation, I believe it is important for values to remain a focus of discussion, debate, and awareness throughout society, including, certainly, within a university community.
When I arrived in Oregon in 1989, one of my first observations was that unlike many other places in which I had lived and worked, here I could not attempt to understand why people acted the way they did simply by knowing whether they were Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. In many other parts of the country, these designations can be useful. But in Oregon, we are different (I include myself, of course, because I am an Oregonian now, too). And as my experience at being an Oregonian has increased, I have found that I can understand and sometimes predict the actions of fellow Oregonians if I know, more or less, where a person is located on a value scale ranging from wholly community oriented to wholly individualistically oriented.
Let me explain what I believe that these two value orientations entail. As a framework for discussion, I will, quite deliberately, draw the contrasts in extreme in caricature, if you will. To me, a community orientation is one that concerns itself primarily with the welfare of the entire community, everyone included. On the other hand, an individualistic orientation is one that is concerned primarily with the welfare of oneself, or perhaps a limited group (in comparison to the community or society at large) with which one identifies.
I see other distinctions between these two orientations. The community orientation, I believe, is more apt to concern itself with equal and fair treatment for all, and ascribe equal rights to all. The individualistic orientation, however, is more likely to advocate privileged treatment for oneself.
A community orientation, alternatively, ascribes to each of us the responsibility for bringing about the well-being of other persons. An individualistic orientation focuses on the responsibilities one has to oneself.
A community orientation tends to promote government action that improves the quality of life for all; it eschews action that improves the situation for the best-off among us at the cost of the least well-off. An individualistic orientation seeks to limit the function of government to bare essential services; those who are less well off are told to fend for themselves, their well-being left largely to the limits of what they can do for themselves.
Yes, it's true that probably few people, if any, fall on the extreme ends of this value scale. But without scientific accuracy, and only as a loose approximation, I suggest that many persons fit somewhere within the continuum I have just described.
At the risk of great oversimplification, my observation is that during the last few years, some, perhaps many, Oregonians have been shifting from the community side of the scale to the individualistic side. Being an Oregonian certainly still conveys a great deal of which to be proud. But on some issues, I see an increased focus here on oneself, matched by an increased disregard for the well-being of others. In defense of our home state, this movement is by no means unique to Oregon; it is occurring in many other places, and not just in America. But here, close to home, we see fresh and dramatic evidence of its existence_and it is worth mentioning because here we have the best chance of doing something about it.
To illustrate the ascendancy of the individualistic orientation in this state, consider the passage of the property tax initiative, Measure 5, in November 1990, and the electorate's inability to motivate a resolution to the crisis that Measure 5 has wrought. While I continue to believe that Measure 5 was not directed at higher education rather, it was aimed at an understandable frustration over an inequitable state tax structure its passage and the resulting aftermath signal an unsettling shift away from the shared community values that helped build this state and country to values focused more on self-interest. There are other examples, including one involving human rights that is on many minds this fall and I shall have more to say on this in a moment.
When I talk to audiences across the state, I often use the following true story to depict this attitudinal shift: Last spring, I was having lunch at a local restaurant on 13th Avenue. On that occasion, I happened to overhear two students. They were somewhat older students, perhaps in their late twenties, and they were talking about Measure 5 and its effects on higher education in this state. One asked the other, "What do you think will happen to the University?" The other student replied and I remember this response clearly "I'm graduating this year. I don't care what happens to the University: I've got mine, and I don't care."
"I've got mine, and I don't care."
For one thing, this student made the obvious mistake of not recognizing that the success of the University, after he graduates, affects the long-term value of his degree. It also demonstrates that the student who made these comments falls on the extreme individualistic side of the value scale I have described.
"I've got mine, and I don't care." I do not believe that this extreme view is held by very many Oregonians. But it does illustrate a growing tendency toward individualistic values and away from community values.
Lack of commitment to community values, as I have suggested, has resulted in the tax structure quagmire in which we find ourselves. No one likes to pay taxes. And often, people feel that they do not receive services equivalent to the taxes that they pay. Rather, we often begrudgingly pay our taxes leaving aside the threat of penalties because we rationalize that these monies help those who are most in need. Also, of course, we recognize that taxes provide certain services society must have law enforcement and child protection among others, including, of course, education. As someone becomes distrustful of our political process, and becomes less interested in helping others, he or she is less inclined to support a tax structure at the current level, not to mention at increased levels.
Another consequence of the shift away from community values is that it leads to intolerance and to a rise in discrimination. As University president a role that I legally am unable to step out of I am not permitted to advocate support or defeat of Measure 9, the anti-homosexual initiative on this November's ballot; the same is true for any other initiative or candidate on the ballot. But certainly, I can say this much: Measure 9 represents another example of the shift away from community values, in which all people are to be treated equally, caringly, and respectfully. Incidentally, Ballot Measure 9, if you are not aware, could have a number of direct consequences for academic freedom. If enacted, for example, it could require the University to make statements to its students that are not supported by the preponderance of available scientific information regarding homosexuality.
It is not clear precisely why this shift from community values to individualistic values is occurring at this time. I expect that worsening economic conditions play a crucial role. The United States is in the midst of a massive economic transition. We are moving away from heavy dependence on defense industries because of the end of the Cold War. And we are finding, as vastly improved communication and transportation links tether us to once-remote parts of the world, that the marketplace in which our nation must compete is truly global in nature a marketplace in which old alliances and allegiances no longer provide our country the relative ease of access that it once had in many parts of the world. At the same time, we are seeing changes in the U.S. standard of living; Americans can no longer boast that they "have it better," economically speaking, than any other place on earth.
These economic transitions are difficult: Families and individuals are experiencing change in identity, role and status based on changes in the workplace and within the home. Workers are displaced; new skills, both in labor and management, are required; and new expectations must be internalized. We also are witnessing a rise in religious, ethnic and racial intolerance, which, though unleashed by threats of economic deprivation, unveil some of the least admirable traits of human nature. All this may be obvious, but it does not go far in explaining why this value shift is now taking place, particularly here in Oregon a state people across the country have admired for its progressive and forward thinking views.
Frankly I do not know the deeper explanation for this value shift. But whatever it is, I believe it is incumbent on people of good will and I include all members of the University community in this category to find ways to reverse this trend and promote an ethic of caring, tolerance, and inclusiveness. For instance, a turn toward the community-value side of the scale will result in greater support for needed social and human services, from housing for the homeless to health care for those least able to afford it. Such a turn will associate the university more directly with the communities of Oregon and with the economic, social and cultural needs of those residing here.
Importantly, from the perspective of the University, a turn toward community values will enhance the prospects for an improvement of educational support in Oregon. I say this out of a deep-seated conviction that higher education and community values go hand in hand. Those who espouse community values are more apt to view higher education in particular, I refer to affordable, accessible, public higher education as providing both tangible and intangible benefits that far outweigh society's investment.
Support for education is an investment in future generations. It is an investment in people. The quality of one's life is enhanced, not only in economic terms but also in the range of enjoyments, through education. In particular, an investment in public higher education provides opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable for young women and men_and some who are not so young_from all walks of life. To do otherwise, to limit such opportunities, is to make access to higher education restricted to a financial elite, thereby relegating much of the population to underclass status. For me, the most troubling aspect of the crisis in higher education brought about by Measure 5 is the loss of opportunities experienced by those prospective students excluded because of program elimination and tuition costs. Measure 5 is already harming the lives of many Oregonians by depriving them of educational opportunities in ways from which they may never recover.
Ultimately, the Measure 5 crisis will be ended only when an appreciation of the value of caring for others' well-being again dominates. But let me turn now from the philosophical to the pragmatic side of the problem that faces us.
As I am sure everyone knows, Governor Roberts' attempt to have the legislature forward her tax plan to voters this summer failed. One consequence of this failure is that members of the Oregon legislature, especially its leaders, have become acutely aware that they themselves must play a direct and constructive role in helping solve this crisis. To their credit, they formed a bipartisan, bicameral special subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Oregon's Future, which is trying to set a "core" state budget and establish a revenue base for this core. The committee recently completed hearings involving the heads of major state agencies, including higher education. This information was reported in some detail in a letter I sent to the campus community in August, as well as another letter, in mid September, from Vice Provost Jerry Kissler. You can be assured that I will continue to make every effort to keep the campus community fully informed about these activities in Salem and how they affect us.
By law, the Governor is required to submit a balanced budget to the legislature. If there are no replacement revenues for Measure 5, and if the Governor were to proceed with her plans to reallocate funding among state agencies, then higher education would be required to adjust to a base budget that is 80 percent of the current budget plus whatever additional funding is available from an add-back, reallocation process. However, and happily, the legislature has not accepted this approach. Rather, the legislative leadership has committed itself to establishing a core budget level, and then seeking either temporary, bridge funding, or permanent funding to fill at least a portion of the gap created by Measure 5.
In late August, the special subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Oregon's Future the legislative leadership group I mentioned a moment ago held a hearing on higher education. This resulted in preliminary acceptance of a core budget approximately 4 to 5 percent below our so-called "running rate." This rate is the amount of funding required to continue our current service level, including funds to pay for the salary increments due to begin this winter and spring and other cost increases incurred over the past two years. The subcommittee also addressed the issue of student access by planning to hold down resident tuition increases.
Let me emphasize that these legislative developments are far from final. They represent only one step in what promises to remain a very lengthy and difficult budget-setting process for the coming biennium. Nevertheless, the developments I have just described do provide cause for encouragement. So far, so good.
Two other issues arose during this hearing that deserve our notice. First, a number of legislators expressed concern that they did not understand what faculty members do with their time. They focused on workload issues. Unfortunately, there is a significant misunderstanding of the duties that faculty members perform, especially those involving research and creative activity. Most disturbing was the lack of understanding of what is necessary for good teaching. To say that faculty members are engaged in teaching only six or nine hours a week is like saying that Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings spend only 30 minutes a day working to deliver the news. Both cases ignore the enormous time and effort spent "off-camera."
Moreover, the entire argument about faculty workloads has been somewhat misframed, in my opinion: The real need, I believe, is to find an appropriate balance between how an individual faculty member spends her or his time divided among research and teaching and service, and, in turn, balancing this individual's workload with his or her colleagues' to ensure a high level of instructional quality for the institution as a whole. The Chancellor's Office, with the assistance of the campuses, needs to meet the challenge of educating the legislature and the general public about what we as faculty members do and why it is important to the public good. On our campus, we should address the issue of distribution of faculty effort constructively. It is an issue, together with the more general one of faculty career paths, that is receiving national attention. I am pleased to say that the Faculty Advisory Council has decided to devote considerable attention to these issues this year. I anticipate a lively campus discussion.
Second, it is clear that there is a revenue gap between the core budgets of state agencies and the expected tax receipts. Some of this gap may well be closed by cutbacks from the core state budget, even if new revenue is added either temporarily or permanently. Some legislators are advocating a state employee salary freeze for the next biennium. Others are beginning to discuss the possibility of a salary roll-back for these employees. This extreme approach to cost cutting would be effective only if the various state employee unions were willing to incorporate it into their new contracts. There also is the question of whether these roll-backs would be permanent or temporary, recognizing that a temporary roll-back has the effect of a short-term furlough. These discussions, it is important to emphasize, are in their most early stages, and we should not expect to learn anything concrete for some time to come, but I did want to give you early warning.
Despite these two qualifications, my reaction to the first round of discussions by the Joint Committee on Oregon's Future is one of cautious optimism. Again: so far, so good. Our legislative leadership clearly recognizes that Measure 5 cannot continue unchecked. Higher education fared relatively well in the initial discussions about the core level of required support. Of course, I hasten to say again, there is a great deal that can and, no doubt, will happen before our budget is finally established for the next biennium. In fact, I do not expect to know with certainty what our budget will be for the next biennium until late spring, at the earliest.
The greatest problem currently facing the University is how to budget for next year in this climate of significant uncertainty. We have adopted, with the approval of the Chancellor's Office, a strategy designed to sustain our academic and instructional programs. We know that the demand for higher education is increasing: the number of 18 year-olds will increase by approximately 35 percent by the end of the decade; and there are changing workforce demands, the result of Oregon's continued transition from a resource-based economy to an information and high-end service economy. These emerging workforce demands require a well-educated population. We would not serve the state well, nor would we enhance our ability to meet our long-term mission, if we made additional substantial programmatic cuts. While there may be some cutbacks that we will have to make, at least temporarily, the response to Measure 5 must be directed toward doing as little lasting harm as possible the essence of our sustainability strategy. It will take creativity, self-control, and confidence in ourselves to succeed in an environment that encourages precipitous action.
One way in which we can ensure the success of our sustainability strategy is to become more efficient and effective in administering the University. Last year, the consulting firm of Peat Marwick conducted a review of administrative services at Oregon State University under the auspices of the Board Administrative Review Committee, known as BARC. The Joint Committee on Oregon's Future has urged the State Board of Higher Education to conduct similar reviews at each campus, and I expect we will be involved in a review of this type this year.
We should approach the BARC process as a positive opportunity to learn and become better. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the many substantial contributions made to the overall success of our academic programs by those who provide essential support and administrative services. The legislative leadership has accepted the principle that funds saved through administrative changes should be reallocated to academic or instructional programs. This review, I expect, will be consequential. I have asked Dan Williams, vice president for administration and finance, to oversee the BARC review process at the University of Oregon.
The University Senate Budget Committee will provide policy advice in constructing our budget for the next biennium. This faculty group has been involved in the budget process since last spring. In addition, there will be wide consultation with student and staff groups, as well as deans and others, on all of these crucial issues. Our primary goal, again, is to sustain our academic programs, restricting any cuts to areas of administrative cost containment and any areas that might permit rapid rebuilding. I do not presently anticipate any major, permanent programmatic cuts beyond those that we have already taken in the first round of Measure 5.
Measure 5 and its resulting budget constraints have occupied us for over two years. Until there is a resolution, this issue will continue to hold our attention. However, and in spite of the key importance of this budgetary problem, I do not believe that it is the major challenge facing the University of Oregon: I am fully confident that the Measure 5 crisis will be resolved, though I do not know how or exactly when. I have too much faith in the majority of Oregonians to think otherwise. The key issue facing us, rather, is: what kind of university will we become after the Measure 5 crisis? The real challenge is to position ourselves for the future during these difficult times. Many businesses fail, not in recessions, but exiting from recessions because their markets have changed and their competition has moved forward while they have only "hunkered down" to ride out the storm. This same threat can apply to universities, if we are not careful.
Fortunately, and despite some self-doubts, we have moved forward with our strategic planning effort. Our ability to influence our own future depends on continued progress in this arena. While we will not be able to devote even barely adequate resources to realize our plans, at least while we battle with Measure 5, we can support a number of initiatives that are not costly, and we can accomplish a great deal.
One priority of our Strategic Plan is the improvement and support of high-quality undergraduate education the realization of the Oregon Model. Let me briefly mention two issues relating to undergraduate education on which we should focus anew this year.
First, we should review the faculty reward structure concerning excellent teaching performance. Consider this: We have several important institutional recognitions for extraordinary teaching. These awards are directed toward individual faculty members. Often, however, instructional excellence is the product not of an individual faculty member working alone, but rather of the total efforts of an entire department, program, or even school. We need, too, to reward this type of cooperative excellence. I would propose that departments, and similar academic units, be rewarded directly. We might, for example, provide special merit increases to the entire department, or perhaps increase the Academic Support Accounts (the ASAs) for members of the department for several years. I will consult with appropriate faculty groups concerning the criteria for departmental teaching excellence and to ascertain the best way to identify and reward these departments.
Second, after considerable debate, this body last year approved changes in general education requirements that permit departments to increase the depth of learning in their courses. As a result, many departments will be revising their courses this fall. There is, however, one other curriculum matter to which we should attend this year. This past spring, the University Senate began the process of reexamining the Race, Gender and Non European-American general education course requirement. A committee that includes both students and faculty will begin meeting this term with the purpose of recommending to the Senate, and then to the Assembly, potential revisions in this requirement. I know that we have struggled with this curriculum requirement previously. But in light of arguments from some students and faculty that the present requirement does not meet the needs of our students, we should revisit this issue.
In addition to improving undergraduate education, our Strategic Plan speaks to enhancing support for research and for graduate and professional students; to enhancing our efforts in internationalization, including the creation of an international residential college on campus; to improving our facilities, especially classrooms; to improving campus computer support; to enhancing faculty recruitment and retention through endowed professorships; to assisting students through enlarged scholarship programs; to creating a campus climate that is tolerant, welcoming, and inclusive; as well as many other initiatives. A number of strategic planning fund allocations made last spring are funding projects that now, or soon will be, in full swing.
While we are making real progress on all these fronts, success, ultimately, will take additional resources. It is obvious, moreover, that state funding, even internally reallocated and efficiently used state funding, will not provide the necessary support for all that we hope to accomplish. We need to develop additional revenue sources to meet these priority goals.
We are now in full swing for planning for the next University fund-raising campaign. Although the final goal will not be set until next year, it promises to be the largest campaign of its kind ever conducted within the State of Oregon. I have already met with many of our supporters, both in the state and elsewhere, and they are supportive of our enlarged fund-raising goals. This fall, we are undertaking a feasibility, or market, study to ascertain which projects are fundable and at what levels. Last year, we set a new record in fund-raising at the University of Oregon, of more than $18 million. I expect this number to grow substantially in the future as we undertake the Campaign.
We need to direct our resources to our primary academic mission. Auxiliary enterprises, such as housing, parking, and continuing education need to reimburse the University for services provided centrally. A start in this direction was begun two years ago; we need to complete the task. Recently, the Board of Higher Education made some changes in tuition policy that will also improve our financial situation. We will move toward a policy in which non-resident students will not be subsidized by state funds. We are not unique in this regard: state governments across the country are asking non-resident students to pay the full cost of their instruction. Additionally, except for 5-year programs and other special cases, all students resident and non-resident alike will pay the full cost of their educations after 218 credit hours. These tuition policy changes are consistent with maintaining student access, since they do not increase the costs to be borne by resident students making normal progress.
To my mind, the single most important feature of our Strategic Plan is that it focuses on quality: quality instruction, quality research, and quality professional service. The issue is not how large we are to become, but rather to what standard of excellence will we adhere. Indeed, we enjoy a comparative advantage if we continue to be a modest-sized research university, rather than an overly large, impersonal one that attempts to be everything to everybody. We have a beautiful campus and an intellectual community that remains human-sized. Crucially, the central element for a university that emphasizes quality_a superior faculty_is already well in place.
We can ensure that our faculty remains the highest quality through strong recruitment whenever we do recruit and by sound promotion and tenure procedures. And in this regard, I believe it is time to review our promotion and tenure procedures, to confirm that they are sound and fair, and if necessary, to fine-tune them. There are historical and reasonable differences among colleges, schools, and departments in promotion and tenure procedures, as well there should be. The promotion and tenure process is not one in which "one size fits all."
Nonetheless, it is useful to review promotion and tenure procedures periodically. I will ask Provost Wessells to consult with the appropriate faculty groups with the purpose of establishing and charging a blue ribbon committee to review these procedures. To revert to the issue of rewards, I also will ask this committee to look at the possibility of establishing true and recognized excellence in teaching as an additional primary standard for promotion to the rank of full professor.
The blue ribbon committee should examine the required portfolio for research excellence, limiting it, for example, to three to five pieces of one's best work. This committee should complete its work this academic year; it will likely take another year for the campus community to discuss this committee's recommendations and implement any recommended changes.
In closing, as I hope my remarks today have made clear, I have no intention of allowing our University to come to a grinding halt. In fact, we can't even slow down. Looking at this fall's enrollment figures, it's obvious that our students still believe very much in the high quality of service that this university provides the state. We can't let them down. We are proving that their faith in us, in this community, is well placed, and I am very proud of this. Moreover, I personally am very encouraged that so many of our students found a way to return this fall despite all the hardships presented by steep Measure 5-related tuition increases in recent years. And I am thrilled_not a word you will hear me use often_that we are seeing such a strong increase this fall in students of color. Obviously, our efforts to ensure that the University of Oregon is a welcoming community for all students are paying off.
Yes, we are confronting a very difficult budget problem created by Measure 5. But a rational examination of the facts, as we know them currently, yields considerable reassurance. While fundamental problems remain, at my core I remain optimistic that we Oregonians, and our leaders, will find a timely, fair, and equitable answer to the Measure 5 revenue crisis. Yes, this academic year AGAIN will test our persistence and commitment, as we deal with a state legislature that is itself under great pressure. But we will find ways to move forward. We will keep our academic programs intact_indeed, I expect that we will selectively enhance some of them. And we will continue to improve our quality, as we bring to fruition some of our strategic plans.
Finally, although it is of little comfort, it is worth reminding ourselves that our university is not alone in experiencing difficulties. Throughout the country, higher education is facing severe trials. Some state universities are faring worse than we are, relatively speaking, such as those in California and Massachusetts. A few very few are doing somewhat better. But in this climate, if we continue to handle our own challenges well, we have a genuine opportunity to improve our position nationally. Times of financial deprivation are great levelers. If we can keep looking forward, and focus on the long term, we will emerge in the next few years comparatively stronger.
I began my remarks to you today with a discussion of values, drawing a sharp contrast between an individualistic orientation and one that emphasizes community involvement for the greater good. I said this distinction contributed to my initial ability to understand Oregonians. But I appreciate this distinction for another reason: it helps me realize why, with our own community values of caring, tolerance, and inclusiveness, we are sure to be winners, no matter what.
Oregon is a great university. We have a long tradition of excellence. This is not the first serious storm we have weathered, and as in the past, we are sure to come out of this successfully. Persistence. Fortitude. Self-confidence. Community. And continued focus on quality. These are our signposts as we make our way, together, to a better, more prosperous future. Thank you.
The FPC met from early January through the middle of June to review forty three internal cases and six external hires. The following table summarizes the outcome of the internal cases: Total cases Approved Denied Other considered
Promotion to Professor 17 (2F) 16 (2F) 1 0
Promotion to Associate 25 (9F) 20 (6F) 3 (1F) 2 (2F)+
Tenure only 1 1 0 0 Total 43 37 4 2 in one case consideration is delayed by a year, in the other only tenure was granted.
In addition all six outside hires were approved. The action by the Provost agreed with the recommendation of the FPC in most cases where the vote was unambiguous. However, there were quite a few cases (33 %) where the committee vote was split. Here, appropriately, more weight was given by the Provost to recommendation by the Deans and other committees.
The job of reviewing the cases was made easier by the efforts of Vice Provost Lorraine Davis, who reviewed every case, and checked that the information was complete before releasing the files to FPC. The cases were also much better prepared this year due to her efforts at standardizing the information. In contrast to last year's committee report, we found that documentation of teaching was generally good. In particular some campus units have made an effort to visit classes and submit a report on teaching style, effectiveness, student response, etc. We also had excellent secretarial help from Ms. Carol Rydbom at the Provost's office.
The large number of split votes were the results of differing relative importance given to research, teaching and service activities by members of the committee. Cases where all these activities were strong were easy to decide. More difficult to decide were cases, for example, involving a good researcher who is a mediocre teacher with little in the way of service, or an excellent teacher with a strong service record, but who is an average researcher. A clear guidance on this issue from the Provost's office might help in resolving some of these cases. Other issues the committee confronted were:
Ned Jay Christensen Professor, Speech Pathology and Audiology