The meeting of the University Assembly was called to order at 3:34 p.m. in Columbia 150 by President Myles Brand. The minutes of the June 5, 1991 meeting of the University Assembly were approved as distributed.
Mr. Gerald Bogen, Education, presented a memorial for Mr. J. David Rowe, Campus Planning. Mr. Rowe joined the University faculty in 1960 and served the University until his death on August 24, 1991. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.
President Brand had the Provost and the various Deans introduce new faculty members. The past year did not produce as many new faculty as in recent years though the University could have used more faculty. The impact of Measure 5 on the University was given as a part of the reason.
None.
None.
President Brand delivered a "State of the University" address at this time.
"The Good, the Bad, and the Uncertain: The State of the University 1991-92"
"As we begin a new academic year, I want to take this opportunity to share with you some thoughts and reflections, goals, ambitions, and uncertainties. In briefest form, I see the next two years as ones in which our strategic planning process will come to fruition and we will begin to make progress toward realizing our academic aspirations; but these will also be years in which we continue to feel the pain of cuts resulting from a decrease in state support and in which there will continue to be uncertainty about the environment for higher education.
"I will shortly discuss the salary and academic support improvements made possible by state funding that was "added back" to our state budget at the end of last year's legislative session. I am pleased about the level of this funding, and it represents a genuine improvement given our prospects at the beginning of the session last January. This favorable result is due to a number of factors, most prominently a relatively good state economy and the leadership of several individuals, including representative Stanley Bunn, Chair of the Education Subcommittee of Ways and Means, and Chancellor Thomas Bartlett.
"However, let us not forget that there were very significant budget and program cuts last year. I said then, and I repeat now, the University of Oregon was forced to amputate healthy limbs. The decision was made not to cut programs across the board, which would have incapacitated the entire university, but rather to make the cuts in selected areas. Programs in Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education and the College of Human Development and Performance took the brunt of these cuts. Other vital areas of the University were also affected, some quite seriously, but these were the most adversely affected. The result of these changes is that the breadth of our programmatic offerings has been diminished. The selective approach, however, has meant that the quality of what remains has been maintained.
"Programmatic cuts are the most visible effects of a reduced state budget resulting from the property tax limitation initiative, Measure 5. But there are other effects. One such effect is the significant increase in tuition. Although the add-back process lowered the potential tuition surcharge, resident tuition, nonetheless, increased by $500 annually, making us one of the most expensive public universities for residents on the west coast - though, I should add, approximately average nationwide. Tuition also increased significantly for nonresident students, and, for these students, it will continue to do so for the next few years until nonresidents assume the total cost of their education. Increased tuition, and probably more importantly perceived uncertainty about state funding, has led to a small but real decline in the number of returning resident students.
"Another effect of last year's budget decrement which is not highly visible is the continuing cost of the phased out programs. Although we eliminated a number of programs, we decided to retain all tenured faculty in these programs, as well as give untenured faculty some time to transfer. This decision was the right one, surely. For one reason, we felt it critical to honor the commitments made in the tenure process; and for another, we must, as much as possible, give students the opportunity to complete their degrees. However, we need to be clear that this decision has fiscal implications. State support for all cut programs ceased this past July 1; funding for the continuing faculty and for program phase outs must come from other sources within the University. For this year alone, the University must find close to $4 million from other sources for these faculty that the state no longer supports. At this time, we have not identified all of the needed amount.
"These were hard decisions and last year was a difficult year, to put it mildly. For me, it was the most difficult time in over twenty-five years in the academy. Yet, despite the pain of last year, I find a great deal about which to take heart. The University of Oregon, especially its faculty, have shown remarkable toughness and resiliency. I find among many people on campus a sense that the University will be stronger than ever. The University of Oregon did not get where it is after 115 years of ups and downs because it folds under adversity. In the past, it gathered itself and went forward to succeed; indeed, it always reached greater heights than it did previously. This resiliency, this Oregon spirit, continues to pervade. I have no doubt that our University will again progress, that this setback, no matter its seriousness, will also be conquered, and we will continue to move into the forefront of America's universities.
"There is good news, too. Funding available during this biennium will provide for a reasonable salary package. According to the guidelines issued by the Chancellor's Office, there will be 3% available for across-the-board increments and an additional 2% for merit and any necessary equity adjustments. I urged the Chancellor and the Presidents of the other Oregon colleges and universities that the criterion for merit should significantly take into account excellence in teaching and instruction-related activities. The Chancellor concurred and that has become part of the criterion for merit. There will also be an additional 1% available for a variety of other purposes, including promotion increments, preventive retention and special equity cases. We may have the flexibility to shift some merit monies to the tenure-related faculty category from other unclassified categories. In the immediate future, there will be consultation with faculty and administrative groups to determine the most appropriate way for us to allocate these funds. Salary increments this biennium will begin January 1, 1992 and, most probably, May 1, 1993.
"As we discuss these salary increases we must keep in mind the context. Even though our increment this biennium will be relatively good when measured on a national scale, we will need considerably greater gains to catch-up to our comparative institutions. Equitable and competitive faculty salaries remain a first priority for us.
"I am now pleased to announce something that makes me quite happy. This past year during the strategic planning process, several task forces made clear that the faculty need more support for instruction and research. I take it that this conclusion is undeniable. But there was a question about which areas it is best to provide such support. After all, different faculty members have different specific needs; and the same faculty member is likely to have different needs over time. The answer to the question, I believe, is obvious: put into the hands of individual faculty members direct control of support resources.
"The system-wide funding available for tenure-related faculty support makes possible what I shall call individual Academic Support Accounts, or ASAs. Each tenure-related teaching faculty member will have available to him or her $1000 per year to support his or her instructional, research, or related professional service activities. I will not bore you with the bureaucratic details, but the essence is this. Each tenure-related teaching faculty member will have an individual account on which he or she can draw directly for such expenses as travel, instructional materials, hiring teaching or research assistants, or anything that can be paid by state general funds for the purpose of conducting research, instruction, or related professional service.
"To take another example, purchases of equipment can be made with ASA funds. As in the case of any piece of equipment bought with state general funds, I should add, the equipment belongs to the University, though it may be dedicated for use by a single person. In order to maximize flexibility, several faculty members may pool their ASA funds to purchase equipment, invite a speaker to campus, conduct a conference, and so on. Moreover, these funds will "roll over," that is, a faculty member may choose to let them accrue over a period of years.
"Guidelines on the use of ASA funds and how to access them will be worked out by an ad hoc committee in the near future. Accounts will be opened this December 1, with $500 available for the remainder of this year. The first full amount of $1000 per year will begin July 1, 1992.
"For the sake of clarity, let me stress a few points about ASA's. These funds are for the sole purpose of supporting tenure-related teaching faculty in their instructional, research and related professional service. These are support funds, and not part of one's salary; hence, they are not taxable. The funding for ASAs comes from monies "added back" by the legislature that cannot be used for salary. When I originally broached the idea of ASA's with some faculty groups last spring, including the Assembly and the Senate, I did so under the assumption that we would have to use salary dollars. Even so, the response I received was highly favorable. Fortunately, we can initiate ASAs without using salary monies. Let me repeat: the funding for Academic Support Accounts is not coming from salary monies. These funds will be totally added on; they are not being reallocated from elsewhere and importantly they do not in any way affect existing departmental Supplies and Services budgets, College travel budgets, or any other ongoing support programs for faculty.
"Another advance being planned for early implementation concerns the campus organizational approach to affirmative action. To introduce this change, it is helpful to place the campus affirmative action structure in a national context. Following the Vietnam War era, many campuses turned their attention to issues of affirmative action, and ours was no exception. Most efforts were highly localized, with some small groups of faculty, students, or staff trying to enhance diversity on campus in relatively uncoordinated ways. Successes were met especially in the area of student recruitment. For example, 1976 marked the year of the highest percentage enrollment of African-American students on college campuses. In those times there was, frankly, little high-level administrative support for these activities. Moreover, compliance issues were not adequately addressed. There then began to evolve a national model that focused affirmative action in a single office. Federal law tended to support this approach, since universities were now being required to have a central location for data collection, compliance, and formal grievances. Concurrent with the emergence of this single office approach, we also found that central administrations became more forthcoming and visible in their support of affirmative action initiatives. Again, our campus was no exception; and we created a central affirmative action office a number of years ago.
"However, the highly centralized model that has emerged also has drawbacks. For one, it tends to exacerbate the tension between proactive attempts to build a sensitive, tolerant, and welcoming campus environment and reactive attempts to assure compliance through investigations and formal grievance procedures. It is in practice impossible for one office to meet both objectives simultaneously. Another drawback to this highly centralized model is that it tends to limit responsibility and accountability to one primary office, thereby removing it from the many other offices in the university. In the past several years, as the University of Oregon enhanced its affirmative action efforts, the defects of the centralized model have become apparent.
"I propose to the University community that we lead the way in the further maturation of affirmative action on college campuses. While our goal of creating a fully sensitive, tolerant, and welcoming environment remains unchanged, we should be open to new ways to meet our objective. I propose we develop a new model in which we separate our proactive activities from our reactive ones, enhance our proactive efforts, and take steps to institutionalize affirmative action. We should strive to make affirmative action part of the fabric of campus life.
"Presently the framework for this new model is being presented to various sectors of the campus community for suggestions and feedback. Early indications are that, with some refinements and cautions and a clear understanding that additional changes may be required in the future, the institutionalization model is the right approach for us at this time. There is no magic formula for a successful affirmative action program. We must remain flexible, realizing that the campus environment dictates different approaches at different times. I should add that, even though affirmative action and equal employment opportunity is crucial to the campus, fiscal constraints demand that this restructuring should be budget neutral in that no new funds are to be allocated and it should maximize the impact of currently available funds.
"I believe that it is entirely appropriate that the University of Oregon lead the way in developing a more mature and successful approach to affirmative action. We have a long history of attention to these matters, and we have a campus population that is supportive and cognizant of affirmative action needs. We do not have to wait until other universities point the way; rather, it is we who should continue to be in the forefront.
"Restructuring affirmative action efforts on campus is consistent with the goals articulated by the faculty task force on affirmative action and college and department planning groups that are part of our strategic planning process. During this past year many persons - faculty, students, and staff - contributed their time, energy, and most importantly, their insight in identifying areas of needed improvement and change by participating in this process. The work of many is now reaching fruition.
"During this Fall Quarter the process of consultation and drafting of our strategic plan will be completed. The University will finalize its plan for the next five or so years. This step is absolutely crucial if we are to take control of our future. Without a plan of action, we will not be able to maximize the use of our resources; and, to look at the negative side, we will fall victim to the agendas others have for us, rather than pressing forward on one of our own making.
"The plan itself will be presented in several formats. There will be a twenty or so page document that provides the framework and key ideas of the plan and which puts our future within the evolving economic and social context of Oregon. This document, when completed, will be the primary vehicle that many external constituencies, as well as many people on campus, will use to understand our future intentions. That document will be available very shortly and it will be mailed to every faculty member.
"There will also be a more extensive, operational version of the plan. This version will rely heavily on the work of the various task forces and college and department planning groups. It will expand on the framework document and it will contain detailed objectives necessary to implement the key ideas presented in the framework document. This operational document too will be widely distributed on campus for discussion and feedback. It is my expectation that the initial version of the operational document will receive extensive discussion and it will undergo refinement.
"At the beginning of the strategic planning process some people were concerned - indeed, 'cynical' would not be too strong a word - that we would create a document that would sit quietly on the shelf and be forgotten. I said then and I repeat now that the strategic planning process is a serious one and that we will live by the course we chart for ourselves. Thus, as part of this plan, we will include mechanisms for implementation and monitoring progress. Specific individuals will have responsibility for ensuring that we successfully meet our goals. This will be a plan of action, and not an intellectual exercise. In particular, our budget priorities will be determined by the plan. I mean to include both reallocated resources and new revenues accrued, for example, through private fund raising.
I will not attempt to summarize the documents that you will soon receive. I am confident that you will review them carefully and that you will not be reticent in commenting. But I do want to take one moment to mention my full concurrence and support of one key building block of the plan.
"From the extensive work of the undergraduate education task force, there emerged a wonderful approach for building on our strengths to create a model undergraduate education that prepares leaders for the 21st century. The task force named this approach "The Oregon Model." It did so because the approach builds on the University's commitments and successes in undergraduate education. Our faculty has long embraced quality undergraduate education. Our modest size for a public research university, our excellent residential environment, and our liberal arts and sciences focus all make possible a uniquely strong Oregon approach.
"The heart of The Oregon Model includes a stress on small class experiences, on a curriculum structure that enables students to make satisfactory progress, on an array of strong interdisciplinary programs, as well as the normal disciplinary ones, and on an emphasis on learning in depth. It includes a University commitment to quality instruction through appropriate incentives and rewards to the faculty and through placing a high priority on supporting instructional activities. It includes bringing to bear our attributes as a research university to affect instruction positively, attributes such as extensive library collections, faculty who have knowledge on the cutting edge of their subjects, and Graduate Teaching Fellows who can provide invaluable assistance in the learning process. And it includes the creation and maintenance of a campus atmosphere that respects students and which is seriously invested in their success.
"I believe, and I say this without hyperbole, that the University of Oregon has the capability of providing the most outstanding undergraduate learning environment in the country, bar none. Our advantage over small, private - and very expensive - colleges is that we are a research university, and because of that, we can incorporate into our undergraduate education all the advantages that a research faculty and research facilities can provide. Our advantage over the many other public universities, which have reached enormous size, is that we are a personalized, caring community. If we succeed in creating a model undergraduate program at Oregon, as I firmly believe we are capable of doing, then we will be the standard by which all other universities will be judged.
"I have pointed to one part of the emerging strategic plan. There are others that are equally as important and as exciting. There is much in the plan that addresses the campus' ability to enhance its research efforts. The Office of Research, working with the Deans, Chairs, Institute Directors, undertook an extensive study that identified present and future opportunities. Moreover, the proposal to internationalize the University, including the recommendation to create an International College, the prospect for selected department and program improvement and enhancement, the renewed emphasis on graduate and professional education, the potential for outreach of educational programs, especially in Portland, among others, are all worthy - and realizable - goals.
"The plan that is emerging is ambitious; but it is also realistic. It is a plan that builds on our past successes while taking into account the state, national, and international future contexts. The British novelist G.K. Chesterton, when asked what book he would most like to have with him if stranded on a desert island, replied "a book on shipbuilding." Our planning documents will provide not only our vision of the ship we are building, but also concrete steps on how it can be built. I look forward to campus discussion of these documents, to further refinements, and changes as necessary, and then to implementation. I look forward to getting it done.
"The University of Oregon is a public research university focused on the liberal arts and sciences and complementary professional areas. It is a university that has enjoyed much success, as indicated by its membership in the Association of American Universities. It is, as well, a university destined to enjoy future successes. The strategic planning process, in particular, will enable us to make selective investments and to enhance our existing strengths, so that the faculty's full potential is realized. Our prospects are excellent.
"That is the good. In particular areas, salary increments for the next two years, especially judged in comparison to projected national average increases, will be strong. Academic Support Accounts for direct faculty support in instruction, research, and related professional service will be added to other support mechanisms on campus. There will be a restructured affirmative action effort. And the most far reaching advance, our strategic planning process is reaching fruition.
"But not all the news is good. The bad is that this year some of our strongest programs are being phased out because of budget limitations resulting from Measure 5. The costs of these phase outs both in terms of human pain and loss and financial consequences will continue for a long time.
"And then there is the uncertain. The people of Oregon need a strong system of higher education. Investment in human capital, in the education of the citizens of the State, is the single most important action Oregon can take to ensure a high quality of life for all. We are exiting from the industrial age and entering the information age. In Oregon, we are witnessing the creation of jobs requiring a college education increase at eight to ten times the rate at which jobs are lost in the timber industry during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Oregon, like the rest of the nation, cannot depend heavily on a natural resource base and a cheap labor force to ensure a high quality of life for its citizens. The single most important determinant for a satisfying future is educational attainment, not merely at the level of literacy, but at the level required for leadership in a growing global economy of the mind. Will Oregonians have the will to invest in higher education? We cannot answer this question definitely now, but we will be able to do so shortly. For the full horrendous impact of Measure 5 will shortly be upon us unless steps are taken to alter its course.
"Measure 5 was directed against an unfair property tax; it was not a referendum on higher education and it was not an indication of a lack of support for what we at the University are trying to accomplish. Nonetheless, Measure 5 has already had dire consequences for higher education. It created far more problems than it solved. It did not, as the people of Oregon wanted, create a just and equitable tax structure. And until that happens, the progressively adverse effects of Measure 5 will continue.
"Governor Roberts is embarked on a Great Conversation with the people of Oregon to determine what they want their state to be like in the future and how they intend to pay for it. Translated into terms for the University, the outcome should be an understanding of what is to be the extent and quality of higher education in the state and the method by which the people will pay for it. This is not a decision process about which we can be complacent. We already know the devastating effects Measure 5 can have if unchecked. Each person here, each person on campus, indeed each person in the state, has a stake in its outcome. Complaining after the fact will be useless. Participation, active participation, is the order of the day.
"Until the state fixes its tax structure, and until there is a clear commitment to invest in its human capital, there will be uncertainty. While it is true that higher education in many other states is also experiencing a period of uncertainty, we are naturally most concerned about what happens here in Oregon.
"The 1990s will require of everyone tolerance for ambiguity. In some cases, people will be able to limit that ambiguity. During this next year, the people of Oregon will have the opportunity to chart a course for the state's future. We will be able to help in the process, especially, as it pertains to higher education. We need to take advantage of that opportunity. It may never come again.
"The good, the bad, the uncertain. Which predominates? There is a temptation to focus on the uncertain, on future state support for the University, or even on the bad, on the recent pain and harm. But let us not lose sight of the good. Through an incredibly difficult year, campus resilience has been evident. The Oregon spirit, the ability to face adversity squarely and to find ways to progress, continues to shine brightly. Our financial situation, far from perfect, is not as gloomy as we feared. Our action plan for the future is coming to fruition. We are designing ways to build on our past successes and to continue progress toward true national prominence.
"As I reflect on the events of this past year, I am reminded of Mark Twain's response when he was asked while leaving church one day whether he thought it would stop raining. "It always has," Twain said. Despite the pain, despite the uncertainty, we have reason to be optimistic. The optimism, moreover, is not just passive like that of Twain. Our optimism is based on even stronger foundations than Twain's observation of past patterns, for ours is also based on our ability to shape our own future.
"I cannot, in my heart, believe that Oregonians will let their future be disastrous. The people of Oregon - and this includes all of us in higher education - will not let that happen. There is simply too much at stake: it is nothing less than the lives and futures of many, many people. For myself, I remain optimistic - optimism tempered with caution - because of future uncertainties and with regret because of past losses, but optimism about our University and our state nonetheless.
"Thank you."
The business of the meeting having concluded the meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m.
Keith Richard, Secretary
J. David Rowe, University Planner Emeritus, died in Australia on the 24th of August at the age of 57. Dave retired from the University on June 30th of this year. In addition to his role as University Planner, Dave was a member of the faculty of the Division of Educational Polity and Management. His loss will be felt keenly by us, his colleagues in the administration and on the faculty, and by his many students whom he taught formally in the classroom and informally by his example as he practiced his craft.
Dave was born in 1934 and was raised in the midwest; his graduate work was done at the University of Kansas. He joined the University community in 1960 as planning consultant in the Bureau of Governmental Research, a position he retained until 1976. In that year Dave's responsibilities changed to that of University Planner, a position he held until his retirement this summer.
Dave's accomplishments were many, too many to recite in this memorial. The major building and planning projects that he guided as University Planner include the:
In addition to drafting innumerable plans and reports for internal audiences, Dave published over one hundred articles, studies, and major reports ranging from "Rural Zoning" to an economic analysis of Stark County, Ohio, to the recently released University of Oregon Long Range Campus Development Plan.
Dave took on the role of University Planner shortly after the University had adopted ÃÃThe Oregon Experiment as its master planning process. One of the main tenets of this process, a radical idea at the time, was the view that users should help design their own space. Dave's challenge was to create a working dialogue between the Architects and the people they were designing for©©to help the members of both camps to feel comfortable with a new vocabulary and a new working relationship. Architects, faculty members, students and staff remember Dave's skills as an interpreter and guide as we worked together toward final designs of a host of projects, large and small. We owe Dave special thanks for introducing us to each other and to new ways of thinking about our surroundings.
Dave the planner has left a major tangible legacy to our community, but it is the remarkable contributions of Dave the person that many of us will especially treasure. At his memorial service many persons spoke of their "very best friend," Dave; others gave witness to his role as a significant mentor to their own personal and professional growth.
Planning the physical environment of a community as diverse as a university, particularly this one, is a daunting challenge. Dvae faced this challenge with patience, tolerance for ambiguity, and confidence. He was able to keep his energies focused on the larger picture even while resolving the difficulties inevitably associated with details and with conflicting interests. David had the capacity to listen, to really listen, and to bring divergent points of view to agreement. His successes have been many. Few of us have so many physical monuments to our credit as does Dave. And fewer yet among us could have accomplished so much with such humility and self deprecating humor.
Dave was in demand as a teacher. He loved to leave campus to work with practicing educators as they struggled to develop schools which responded to the learning needs of children. My favorite memory of Dave as teacher was an event which occurred in Alberta, Canada last summer. He was asked to work with a large group of educators to remodel a school. Dave went to the site prior to class to become familiar with the building. During his tour he met the janitor. A discussion ensued and Dave listened to this man who had watched children cope with the school building. I will always have the vision of our Dave, tweed jacket and tie, fiddling with his pipe, standing in front of the class with his newly acquired friend, co©teacher, and colleague, the janitor, in his bib overalls.
From this rather lengthy, yet greatly compressed, account of his accomplishments it might appear that David Rowe devoted the whole of his adult life to the University of Oregon. But such an assessment is incomplete. Dave also devoted his talent and energies to community agencies, particularly those which dealt with persons less fortunate than most of us. For example, Dave was a member of the board of directors of the Alvord©Taylor House, and of Goodwill Industries. Dave was also active in his church, serving on the Board of Trustees of the First Congregational Church.
Even though he retired this summer, Dave planned on making continued contributions to the University. At the time of his death he was working with his wife, Diane, a member of this faculty, on a research project which was examining the contributions of the private sector to public higher education in Australia.
J. David Rowe served this University long, frequently under circumstances of extreme difficulty, and served it always to the best of his abundant and versatile ability. His memory will have long life here.
Mr. President, I move that this memorial be made a part of the permanent record of this faculty and that copies be sent to J. David Rowe's family.
Gerald K. Bogen, Associate Dean and Professor Educational Policy and Management