The meeting was called to order by Provost John Moseley at 3:06 p.m. in room 150 Columbia, on May 3, 1995. The minutes of the February 1, 1995 meeting were approved as distributed.
The Provost explained that the President was absent from campus and that he, the Provost, would chair this meeting of the Assembly.
Mr. Donald Taylor, Professor Emeritus, English, presented a memorial for Mr. John C. Sherwood, Professor Emeritus. Mr. Sherwood was a member of the Department of English from 1946 until his retirement in 1984. On February 22, 1995 Mr. Sherwood passed away in Eugene. A copy of this memorial may be found on pages 24 and 25 of these minutes.
Mr. James Reinmuth, Professor, Lundquist College of Business, prepared a memorial for Mr. Richard W. Lindholm, Professor Emeritus in Business Administration. In 1958 Mr. Lindholm came to the University to assume the position of Dean of the School of Business Administration. A copy of this memorial can be found on pages 25 and 26 of these minutes.
That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 1994 95 and Summer Session 1995, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.
This motion was approved by voice vote.
Prior to the introduction of the motion on faculty governance structure Provost Moseley presented information on the format that the meeting would follow. Student Senators would not be able to vote on any part of the governance motion, but they will be able to join the debate on the motion. This is in line with the legislation of the faculty that brought students into the assembly and the senate. On November 6, 1974 the following was enacted by a vote of the faculty:
The student members of the University Senate shall have the same privileges in meetings of the University of Oregon general faculty as for members of the voting faculty (as defined in the Faculty minutes), i.e., the privileges of introducing motions, participating in debate, and voting.
This legislation, or any part of it, may be rescinded or amended only by vote of the voting faculty, not including those students who have voting privileges.
In connection to this President Paul Olum, on November 9, 1983 interpreted this as disallowing the student senators to vote on any part of a governance motion, but that the student senators could join in the debate.
Further Provost Moseley stated that all amendments had to be submitted in writing to the Secretary prior to their being introduced on the floor. The scenario would be as follows: the chair of the committee would introduce the motion, and speak to the motion. Discussion would follow and members of the committee would answer questions if asked or they would react if necessary to provide clarification of the any part of the motion.
Ms. Laura Alpert, Chair of the University of Oregon Assembly Committee on Governance Reform, was recognized to bring the motion to the floor of the university assembly.
Motion to Reform the Governance Structure of the University of Oregon
Ms. Alpert explained that the Committee had met and discussed the governance question and the assignment given to the Committee by the Assembly last June when it passed legislation to create a Committee on Faculty Governance. Previous to this the Faculty Advisory Council had worked for the better part of an academic year exploring several questions concerning faculty governance. The primary question centered on "Is faculty governance working?"
The FAC had sent out a lengthy questionnaire concerning this question and many others. The return was substantial and the common thread that ran through the vast majority of the responses was that faculty governance was not working or at best it was dead. In some instances the reaction was more severe that faculty governance was a failure. The Committee took the questionnaire and the responses and commenced to study the problem. In the discussions that followed and the disagreements on solutions the Committee started to find a common ground and the areas that were most common were those that were settled first. The difficult parts continued in disagreement and debate. The perseverance of the individual members resulted in the product that has now been introduced into this body for discussion and hopefully enactment.
Since January the Committee has held open forums in a quest for input as to what might be wanted. Through three of these forums and in a presentation to the University Senate the Committee found it could bring closure to its discussions and work and formulate a piece of legislation that would work well at the University of Oregon. Mr. Jack Rice, a member of the Committee, was recognized to present the details on how the committee developed a representative, constituency based senate. The following is his statement:
An important goal of the committee was to develop a representative, constituency based senate. In order to achieve such a goal it is obviously important to have a a reliable data base for faculty FTE. We chose to utilize the "Performance Indicators" compilation prepared last fall by the Budget Office. This compilation provides the most accurate accounting of both tenure related and instructional FTE together with SCH production.
The committee examined scenarios based on tenure related FTE and total instructional FTE (i.e., including instructors and GTFs). In the end, we chose to utilize tenure related FTE as the primary criterion in apportioning the senate seats.
After settling on thirty nine faculty senate seats (including two from the Library) as the appropriate number, we calculated the number of seats based on tenure related FTE in each of the Schools and Colleges and within the three divisions of CAS. The distribution of senate seats based strictly on FTE is shown in the third column of the overhead.
Examination of these numbers produced concern and ample discussion by the committee. Most of our discussion centered on the CAS, especially the large number of seats for the natural sciences. The number would suggest that we ought to have ten science seats distributed among the eight science departments. This means that at least two, and often times more than two, of the science departments would have more than one senator. The committee believes that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have more than one senator from an individual department. I ask each of you to carefully consider the consequences for your own department of having two faculty members serve on the University Senate simultaneously. Furthermore history indicates that it might be rather difficulty to regularly fill ten senate seats from the natural sciences.
We therefore chose to examine additional criteria upon which to distribute the CAS seats. Because curricular issues are the primary focus of faculty governance, we chose to also examine total SCH shown in column 4. Using this criterion, we note that the Humanities play a larger role than indicated simply by FTE, and should arguably have a greater role in faculty governance.
In the end, we found different strength for each division of CAS. Many of us on the committee view the three divisions as equal partners, albeit with different strengths within the college. We have therefore recommended equal representation for the three. By limiting the number to seven we at least provide for the possibility that no single department will have more than one senator.
Another departure from the purely mathematical model is the Lundquist College of Business. Note that Business, Music and Education all have roughly the same FTE. Business is slightly larger, but is it sufficient to receive an additional seat. The committee believes YES based on the differences in SCH. Note that Business generates more than TWICE as many SCH than Music or Education. We therefore recommend assigning three seats to business.
Finally, allow me to explain our rationale for recommending nine student senators. The committee has heard passionate arguments endorsing student membership ranging from 0 to at least the current number of eighteen. After much discussion, the committee voted to recommend nine. This recommendation is based on the fundamental goal to make the Senate a representative constituency based body. The ASUO Constitution calls for the election of nine Academic Senators to represent the major student student degree programs. The constituencies for the ASUO academic Senators are shown at the bottom of the chart. Two representatives are for undeclared students, two are for social science majors, and there is one representative each for AAA/Interdisciplinary/Music, Natural Science, Business, Journalism/Arts and Letters, and Graduate/Law. Any number of student senators is arbitrary, and the committee believes that student membership on the University Senate should be limited to the nine academic senators.
a chart has been eliminated from the document as the input document was garbled at this point. Interested readers should consult the original document
(DIVISIONS OF CAS: Natural Sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Exercise and Movement Science, Geological and Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology Social Sciences: Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, International Studies, Political Science, Sociology, Women's Studies Humanities: English, Creative Writing, Classics, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Literature, Germanic Languages and Literature, Honors College, Linguistics, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Romance Languages, Russian, Theater Arts)
STUDENT SENATE DISTRIBUTION: 9 total Academic Student Senators 2 Undeclared, 2 Social Sciences, 1 AAA/Interdisciplinary/Music, 1 Natural Sciences 1 Journalism & Communication/Arts and Letters, 1 Business 1 Graduate/Law
The Provost recognized Ms. Sarah Douglas, Chair, Faculty Advisory Council, who urged the Assembly to vote in favor of the motion. She stated that the move toward representational university senate with direct ties to constituents would create a senate that would finally have direct responsibility to those they serve. This, she stated, would create a better form of government. The Assembly is not representative, the present senate is advisory and not representative and thus no real representational form of government exists at the university level. This model, this motion, provides a positive move toward the goal of shared governance, she concluded.
Mr. Tom Givon, Linguistics, stated that the motion was a good proposal but three main issues had to be decided. 1. Who is faculty? 2. Disenfranchisement of those who teach on Wednesday afternoons and cannot attend meetings. 3. Nine students gives too much power in the proposed senate five would be a better number.
Mr. Jack Sanders, a member of the committee, encouraged passage. The present system does not work and the proposed senate would give you a body that would work because it would represent you directly. The number of students that the motion proposes is the lowest number the committee could agree upon. The number is a compromise, and it is very unlikely that the students would ever have an opportunity to control the vote of the senate on any issue.
Mr. Frank Geltner, EMU, asked why the number of officer of administrators was limited to three. Ms. Alpert explained that the total number of OAs specifically not tenure related was roughly 280 to 300. This excluded tenure related OAs, such as the President who has tenure in the School of Law, and Librarians. The main duty of the Senate would be in the area of curriculum and instruction as well as discipline and thus those directly related to these three areas especially the first two are those who are tenure related. The largest number of senators should represent these faculty.
Ms. Nan Coppock Bland, University Editor, asked if the franchise was to be extended to those who are in research or were instructors. The answer was that other than the directions given in section 4 the various units could include or exclude as they wish. But the directions in section 4 had to be the basic voting group for the various units. After a brief exchange it was decided that the word "faculty" would be excised from the motion and replaced with "Officers of Instruction" in order to clarify the meaning of the motion.
To the question of why the librarians should be included in the thirty nine positions with OI faculty, Ms. Alpert answered that the library has a long history of being associated directly with the OI faculty. As an example the University Librarian is a member of the Council of Deans, and the library staff is directly involved in teaching and research.
Ms. Coppock Bland asked if the agenda, motions and minutes of this new senate would be widely circulated. The committee responded that the answer was "yes."
Mr. Wes Morrill, University Counseling Center, stated that representative government was indeed a worthy goal, but disenfranchisement of those who are designated as Officers of Administration is unworthy of the long tradition of shared governance that the University of Oregon has had. Speaking of his staff he mentioned that they had PhDs, have done research and continue to do research, they work directly with students in counseling on an individual basis and at times in groups. We all contribute to the mission of the university do not shut us out now.
Ms. Deanna Robinson, Journalism and Communication, opposed the motion on the basis that the assembly does work, but that the overload of work has cut into participation for many. The best solution would be to have meetings and discuss the issues and give people time to discuss the issues among their colleagues. After that a vote could be taken by electronic mail. It was pointed out that the Oregon state law governing public meetings would not tolerate electronic ballots or any type of secret ballots in the area of setting, establishing or disestablishing policy.
Mr. Arnold Ismach, Journalism and Communication, stated that the assembly is dysfunctional. For many years a change in governance has been discussed and he urged those in attendance to vote for the motion as it is a positive step in governance.
Mr. Dusty Miller, EMU, felt that the students and officers of instruction were well represented in the motion but that the number of OAs was way too small to be representative and needed to be increased. He suggested that the number should be raised to make it more proportional as the number for OIs was.
The first motion to amend came from Ms. Elaine Green, Student Services. Her motion to amend was to increase the number of OAs from three to six (section 2.1). Ms. Molly Westling, English, opposed this motion to amend as the business of the senate was basically curriculum and instruction and that officers of instruction should dominate the body. Mr. Richard Stein, English, also opposed the motion to amend as precision is not possible but the main motion does a good job of balancing all of the interests and should be passed as it stands. A vote by a show of hands defeated the motion to amend.
Mr. Martin Fisher, Student Senator, moved to amend section 3.7 to read: (added parts underlined, and deleted is bold with brackets)
Election shall be by receiving a vote of more than 50 percent [ or more] of those voting within their constituencies. If a run off election is necessary the ballot shall include the names of those candidates who received the most votes but less than the required 50 percent.
This amendment was approved by a show of hands.
Mr. Fisher than proposed an amendment to 3.8. This motion to amend was: (added parts underlined)
The Secretary shall arrange the filling of all faculty and officer of administration vacancies through the notifying of the next available candidate, determined in descending order of number of votes received in the most recent election for the represented constituency. If no person eligible to fill the vacancy is available, the seat shall remain vacant.
This motion to amend was defeated by a show of hands.
Mr. Jim Long, Chemistry, moved to amend section 4.1 to change the minimum rank of Assistant Professor to Instructor . The .50 FTE or greater would remain. This motion was passed by a show of hands.
Next Mr. Long moved to amend 2.1 so that non tenure related instructors who teach would be included. Mr. Long pointed out that this motion would include research associates as well as instructors who teach. This motion was defeated by a show of hands.
A motion to amend section 6 through adding a 6.6 part was proposed by Mr. Robert Hurwitz, Music.
Two years after the new system takes effect a university wide election shall be held, the purpose of which will be to endorse and make permanent these changes, or to deny said endorsement. If a majority of those voting does not support endorsement, the previous system of faculty governance shall immediately be reinstated.
Mr. John Conery, Computer and Information Science, asked how such a vote would take place. Ms. Laura Alpert vigorously opposed this motion and Mr. John Nicols, History, suggested that the assembly should meet and discuss and vote on the issue. The motion to amend was put to a vote and defeated 36 in favor and 54 opposed.
At this point someone moved the question. This was passed and the main motion was put to a vote. The motion failed by a vote of 51 yes and 48 no. Discussion showed that the entire move was premature and that debate should continue on the main motion. Several individuals expressed interest in proposing amendments. With this the meeting adjourned, at 5:00 p.m, with the debate to continue on May 17, 1995.
The meeting was called to order by President David Frohnmayer in Columbia 150 at 3:07 p.m., on May 17, 1995.
Ms. Caroline Forrell, a member of the governance committee, was recognized to read a portion of the public meetings law so that the members of the assembly would understand the specific difficulties that the assembly faces in being the governing body of the university. She pointed out that Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 174.130 defines a quorum as a majority..."Any authority conferred by law upon three or more person may be exercised b a majority of them unless expressly otherwise provided by law." Further she pointed out that..."The Public Meetings Law requires that all votes of governing bodies and the vote of each member be recorded and made public."
Mr. Hurwitz was recognized to move an amended version of his amendment that had been defeated at the May 3 meeting. The amended version replaced "...university wide election...." with "...special meeting of the assembly...." Mr. Wes Morrill, Counseling Center, moved to table this amendment and this carried by a show of hands.
Mr. Tom Givon, Linguistics, made a motion to excise the number "9" students in section 2.1 to "5" and to add to section 2.3 "The five students voting in the new Senate will be elected by the nine academic student senators." Mr. Givon pointed out that he felt 9 of 52 was too large a percent much greater than the 18 in the Assembly, but a smaller percent than the 18 in the present senate. Curriculum and instruction is the main business of the university and students should not make the long range and lasting decisions in this area.
Mr. Mark Rhinard, the student member of the governance committee, disagreed with Mr. Givon and urged defeat of this amendment. The committee, he pointed out, worked long and hard in drafting the document before the assembly. Compromises were reached and one of the most difficult was to establish the number of students that would be in this new senate. The number nine was parallel with the number of student academic senators and to reduce the number to five would lessen the influence of certain academic student senators. Student input is very necessary and proper, it should not be lessened through the reduction proposed by Mr. Givon's amendment concluded Mr. Rhinard.
The motion to amend was put to a vote and passed by a vote of 87 yes and 53 no. The number of student senators was now set at five.
Mr. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics, moved to amend 2.1 to read: "Natural Sciences 10 "Social Sciences 6 "Humanities 6" Mr. Phillips pointed out that this would increase the size of the CAS contingent in the Senate by 1. The proportional breakdown would be better served by the increase in the seats for natural science and a decrease by one each for the social sciences and humanities. He acknowledged that in the past it might have been difficult to get individuals from the natural sciences to serve in the senate, but that would not be true henceforth as this is a more powerful senate and through a quick survey Mr. Phillips found that it would not be difficult to get ten people to serve in this new senate.
Mr. Jack Sanders, a member of the governance committee, urged defeat of this amendment as he stated that committee in its deliberations discussed the difficulty faced by departments when people are on leave or sabbatical. To have an increased obligation to provide senators year after year could result in empty seats in the senate and thus underrepsentation for some unit. At the number moved by Mr. Phillips the natural sciences would have to come up with five new senators each year, this could prove to be difficult.
Ms. Anne Dhu McLucas, Dean and Music faculty, pointed out that student credit hours was a legitimate part of the distribution system. Ms. Risa Palm, Dean of CAS and Geography faculty, pointed out that the College of Arts and Sciences has always operated as equal parts and to shift an emphasis onto one over the other three would be to create an unnecessary imbalance. She too pointed out that the SCH are very important in making decisions on representation. The motion to amend was defeated by a show of hands.
Mr. James Lemert, Journalism, was recognized to present his motion to amend the main motion by adding a section 7.
7. Repeal and Amendment 7.1 Section 7 applies only if Sections 2.1 and 5.1 of the Governance Reform Committee's original motion are adopted as part of the rules of faculty governance. 7.2 On petition signed by at least 100 voting members of the University of Oregon faculty, repeal or amendment of any part of this Governance Reform Motion will be placed ont he agenda of a special meeting of the University Assembly. the petition must state whether repeal of the entire measure, repeal of parts of it, or listed and specified amendments to these governance rules will be the agenda item. 7.3 This special Assembly meeting will be held within 2\30 working days of the filing of the petition with the office of the Secretary of the Faculty. If the petition is filed late enough in the academic year so that an Assembly meeting could not be scheduled within 30 days before the end of the nine month academic year, then the special Assembly meeting will beheld on or before the third Wednesday in October of the next academic year. 7.4 Not withstanding the power retained by the Assembly under 7.2, in all other respects the Senate shall have the exclusive powers conferred on it under Sections 2.1 and 5.1.
Mr.Lemert pointed out that the new senate would be the legislature of the University and that a fail safe method of oversight had to be established. In responding to a question from Mr. Kenneth Liberman, Sociology, concerning how one would control this "special meeting" to one topic and not have it become a far reaching legislative body, Mr. Lemert stated that the petition would set the limit, but perhaps other issues could arise and that it is logical that the Governance System could be an issue in a special meeting.
Mr. Jack Sanders stated that many would like a fail safe method of governance, but what Mr. Lemert is proposing is to possibly set the stage to repeal the governance structure. How wold the Assembly govern within the laws that apply to public meetings? Mr. Ben Johnson, Sociology, asked how would future amendments be handled? Ms. Laura Alpert stated that the Senate would amend and that section 6.5 affords an appeal process to those who do not like the amendment. Also section 6.2 allow all individuals, among others, who have the franchise to appear at senate meetings to debate and introduce motions. The motion to amend was put to a vote and was defeated by a vote of 63 yes and 90 no.
Sections 2 and 6 were now presented as areas to be amended. Mr. Fred Tepfer, Campus Planning, moved that 2.1 would have the word "primary" substituted for the word "sole" and that an addition to section 6 would be added, its number would be 6.6 and it would read: "The Assembly may veto any legislation by a vote of at least one third of the faculty." Mr. Tepfer stated that the present document did not provide any recourse or recall of unpopular legislation and these two changes would give remedy this problem.
Mr. Maury Holland, Law, stated that this proposal would allow a minority of faculty to control the governance system and Mr. John Nicols, History, did not think that the amendment was the proper vehicle to function as the oversight rule. The motion to amend was defeated by a voice vote.
Mr. Nicols now moved an amendment to section 6. "6.6 The University Assembly, with full legislative power, shall be convened only after a petition to do so has been signed by thirty three percent of those eligible to vote for non student senators, as provided for in other sections in this legislation." Addressing this amendment as necessary Mr. Nicols stated that it should be difficult to bring things to the assembly, but not impossible. A substantial or divisive issue should be given a wider hearing than the senate could provide, and that the residual rights of governance should remain with the assembly.
Ms. Marie Vituli, Mathematics, asked about the open meetings law and this assembly meeting, while Mr. Jim Long, Chemistry, asked about controlling the issues on the floor of this assembly meting that is, he asked, what is the meeting about? Mr. Nicols stated that the petition had to have the agenda on it prior to its circulation and the gathering of signatures. People signing the petition had to know what specifically they are agreeing to commit themselves to in calling the meeting. Mr. Sanders wondered if one third signed and only 50 people came to the meeting
The motion to amend was put to a vote and by a show of hands it was accepted and thus the amendment becomes a part of section 6.
Mr. Frank Geltner, EMU, moved to amend 2.1 and 2.2 concerning the distribution of seats among faculty, students and officers of administration. His amendment: 40 Faculty 6 Officers of Administration 6 Students 1 President of the Senate In addition he proposed that section 3.6 would be altered by his amendment as it increases the number of faculty to forty and this number is divisible by two, thus in reality one half could be elected each year. The added seat would be elected at large. This motion to amend was defeated by a showing of hands.
Mr. Geltner than presented an amendment as an addition to 6.4: (changes are underlined)
The Assembly may discuss any matter that it wishes, provided that the first meeting of each academic year shall include the State of the University address by the President of the University, the presentation of any proposed changes of the University Senate Rules and Procedures, and the introduction of new faculty members.
This amendment died from lack of a second.
Mr. Dusty Miller, EMU, moved the following:
The new University Senate shall be enlarged to allow seven officers of administration to be seated in the new university governance structure."
Mr. Miller stated that the motion would allow the skill and interest of the officers of administration to be brought to the senate. Ms. Elaine Green, Student Services, pointed out that the long tradition of shared governance required this increase and that the motion on the floor lessens the opportunity for the officers of administration to take an active part in the governance structure and diminishes the franchise for these members of the faculty.
Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, pointed out that the Charter of the University states that the government of the University is given over to the Professors and President. Professors were thought of as instructional faculty and that means curriculum and instruction faculty and not administrators. Mr. Larry Smith, Career Center, disagreed as he said we are all about education some in the classroom, some in counseling offices, some in academic advising but the skills taught students come from various places and not just the classroom. The definition of instruction should be much broader and more inclusive.
The motion to amend was defeated.
The President stated that some cosmetic changes and not substantive changes will be made to the main motion as amended to make sure that the language is clear and proper and that the correct words are used to keep in line with present university usage.
Ms. Laura Alpert, Chair of the Governance Committee, proposed a change in 3.7 to clarify the wording and to clean up the amended part of 3.7.
Election shall be by receiving the most votes within their units. If a tie vote results in the election of more senators than the number of available seats for a particular unit, a run off election will be held.
This motion to amend was passed.
Mr. Frank Anderson, Mathematics, moved to take the Hurwitz amendment from the table.
Mr. Gary Martin, Music, asked what recourse was available, what avenue of review was available, what system of adjustment was available if legislation was passed that was disagreeable to many faculty. Ms. Alpert stated that oversight was built in section 6, specifically 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 all provide recourse, protest, etc.
The Hurwitz amendment failed to come off the table by a vote of 69 yes and 90 no.
Mr. Frank Geltner, EMU, moved to increase the student membership from five to seven. This was defeated.
Mr. Martin Fisher, Student Senate, stated that 8000 students were disenfranchised by this vote. The initial number of nine student senators in the new senate was to have nine constituent based senators in the new senate. With the number reduced to five the four that have been removed represented approximately 8,000 students and it is these students that will not have a voice in the new senate. Mr. Tom Givon said that the five would be chosen from among the nine and that is how the 8000 students would be represented. The motion, as amended, was now ready for a vote. By a show of hands the President determined that the difference was more than the required two thirds and the motion, as amended, was passed.
The President thanked the committee for its work and dedication to drafting legislation to establish a new governance system for the university. His thank you was echoed by many in the audience as well as by applause.
Here is the motion as enacted:
The business of the meeting having concluded the meeting adjourned, at 4:50 p.m. Secretary
He was the husband of Irma Sherwood, also a member of the English Department, and the father of Martha, Jeremy, and Sarah Sherwood. Dr. Martha Sherwood is currently office manager of our Russian Department.
John Sherwood was a man of extraordinarily broad and deep learning. He knew and used Latin, Greek, French, German and Italian. He ranged freely and expertly in eighteenth century British literature, critical theory, Irish literature, classical literature, and the Bible. His major published work studied John Dryden, modern criticism, and the teaching of composition. He published the standard reference volume on thy major twentieth century critical theorist Ronald Crane. He published scores of scholarly and general articles on these subject and on modern British and American literature, philosophy, religion and military history. He was active on university and departmental committees and in the deliberations of this body.
All of this John Sherwood did with style, grace, and authority. Perhaps those of us who knew him well remember him most fondly for two less professional sides of his personality his many acts of personal generosity and his satiric bent. He was active in the Association for Mental Health and in Project Care. He visited and provided transportation for the elderly and the disable. He bought a tractor for Food for Lane County, which organization grew produce in his back yard. His fine satiric poems often on academic subjects and of a distinctive conservative stamp were frequently brilliant adaptations of the major satires of John Dryden and Samuel Johnson, tow the writers he most revered. The author of this memorial was somewhat nervously honored to appear as a co conspirator in John's fine satire on the academic upheavals of the late sixties and early seventies. Many of us enjoyed his comic faculty club skits. His most original satires, however, were quite physical assessments of campus life his flashing "Publish or Perish" signboard, his conservative super hero Owlman who appeared in comic strips issued as from the second floor men's room in PLC, and his elaborate scale model of the Titanic, presented to the chairman of the English Department during a time of crisis.
His students remember him for his learning, his ready concern and help, and his dry throw away lines and comic asides. All of us who knew him will miss his wit, his deep concern for this university, and his generous friendship. We are the richer for having known him and poorer for having lost him.
Donald S. Taylor Professor Emeritus Department of English May 3, 1995
Dean Lindholm heralded many changes and literally pushed the CBA to take risks and extend itself to reach its full potential. Under his guidance, the CAB developed its graduate school and emphasized research activities for its faculty. With his encouragement, the CAB stepped out into the university community and began to participate fully in campus committees and faculty governance. In addition, the CAB began to develop partnerships with regional industry that allowed us to show case our faculty and students.
Richard W. Lindholm was born in Minnesota in 1914 and was a graduate of Gustavus Adolphus College, the University of Minnesota and the University of Texas. an economist by background, he taught at St. Thomas College, Texas A&M, Ohio State, and Michigan State before arriving here in 1958. During World War II, Dean Lindholm served int he U. S. Counter Intelligence Corps where he received five battle stars.
As a scholar, Dean Lindholm was best known as our nation's most knowledgeable proponent of the value added tax. He was the author of 30 books on taxation, fiscal policy, economic development, and banking. Throughout his career, Dean Lindholm was active as a consultant to our Federal Reserve System and to many foreign governments throughout the world.
Immediately upon arrival at Oregon, Dean Lindholm concentrated on building a high quality research faculty with a solid graduate program. Graduate enrollments in 1958, the year of his arrival, consisted of 71 students in three separate masters programs. In 1971, his last year as Dean, the CBA could count 263 graduates in its masters and doctoral programs. Today, we have about 300 graduate students in programs in Eugene and Portland.
Among his contributions, the most important lasting contribution of Dean Richard W. Lindholm was his dedication to high quality scholarship, and his leadership by example as a distinguished international economist. Those who worked for him and with him will always remember fondly his cheerful disposition and winning smile.
The Richard W. Lindholm Professorship was established in our business school in 1988 by the Lindholm family as a permanent memorial to Dean Lindholm. Dr. Larry Dann is the current Lindholm Professor.
James E. Reinmuth The Charles H. Lunquist Distinguished Professor of Business