The first University Senate meeting of the 1997-98 academic year was called to order by President Ann Tedards at 3:10 p.m. in 177 Lawrence. Minutes from the May 14, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from Mr. Dave Frohnmayer, UO President. President Tedards introduced President Dave Frohnmayer who welcomed everyone back to the start of another academic year; one, he predicted, that would be an extraordinary and important year. President Frohnmayer remarked that much of the summer had been spent in planning for the "revolutionary" changes facing higher education in general and the University of Oregon in particular. We are in the midst of a rapid economic transformation in the state; we are facing technological advances that impose new costs as well as opportunities, are experiencing changes in student demographics, and we have seen political movements that limited tax revenues for higher education. These external forces that challenge us to find new funding resources for the university, coupled with the different needs and demands of the incoming students, must also be balanced with sometimes competing demands of our stakeholders -- our students, their parents, state government, the business community, the labor movement, and the general public. The president noted that internal self-examination in the face of such revolutionary change was already underway and that the senate would play an instrumental role in that process.
President Frohnmayer went on to note that a draft version of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy recommends a rather radical restructuring of higher education, including getting rid of the BAS system of resource allocation and starting over with a new system. It suggests focusing on making our system of higher education student centered. In other words, business as usual will no longer suffice. This is a positive step because it offers a wholesale reinvestment of resources back into higher education in ways other than in small, increment steps, which have not been favorable to the university.
In order to prepare for what will likely be continuous change, the president outlined an intensive, information gathering process about enrollment, public support, and capacity to adapt to new technology and new markets, to take place over several months and involving the widest array of faculty and student leaders. The second phase of the process will follow immediately afterward to generate the most effective kinds of responses to the information gathered. President Frohnmayer noted that although the university received many accolades on the quality of its programs during the recent accreditation team visit, they questioned whether we would be able to continue on the same path given the constraints of our funding problems. This initiative is an effort to deal with such changes as realistically as possible and as rapidly as possible.
The president concluded his remarks adding that he has no doubt that we will be able to meet these challenges successfully, commenting on the extraordinary sense of community and spirit that are ongoing attributes of the faculty and students throughout his many years of association with the university.
Remarks from Ms. Ann Tedards, University Senate president. President Tedards opened her remarks indicating that this year's senate would continue building on the working agenda begun last year under Past President Carl Bybee’s leadership, and responding to issues brought to the senate. She encouraged senators to interact regularly with their constituents and to bring any and all concerns they feel the senate should address to either the president directly or to the attention of the Senate Executive Committee. President Tedards spoke to the issue of shared governance, indicating that the reconstituted senate is taking its place as the forum where all major issues and proposals for change affecting the university come to the floor for discussion, debate, and resolution. Over the past year, a strong partnership with the administration has developed with mutual accountability, leading her to believe that this senate is empowered to effect real change. The senate is in an enviable position of being accountable to its constituents, yet able to set its own agenda and take up those issues deemed most important to the integrity and welfare of the university.
President Tedards closed her remarks by reminding everyone of the upcoming Assembly meeting in which President Frohnmayer will welcome new faculty and speak further about the challenges facing the university in what may well be a pivotal year. The senate will play an integral part in the changes that lie ahead of us.
Remarks from Mr. Paul Simonds, president of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). Mr. Simonds spoke briefly about recent events in the IFS meetings. They have succeeded in getting a bill through the legislature that gives the governor the option of appointing a faculty member to the State Board of Higher Education. The IFS is the body that will submit names to the governor for that faculty appointment when the seat becomes available in 1999. On another matter, Mr. Simonds presented a resolution to the state board in support of domestic partners benefits, similar to the resolution passed in the University Senate last spring. The board currently is waiting for the outcome of a pending court case, and if positive, will move forward on the issue. The IFS also developed a statement regarding the role of faculty in the state system of higher education in the same fashion as there are statements outlining the role of the state board, chancellor, and presidents. At the present time the IFS is starting to plan for two big issues to bring to the next legislative session: enhancement of faculty salaries and post tenure review, especially maintaining tenure. Mr. Simonds concluded by reminding the senators that the IFS has direct access to the state board, and any concerns from faculty should be brought to the attention of the IFS.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Faculty Personnel Committee. Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics and chair of the current Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) submitted the 1996-97 FPC report. He noted that outcomes for faculty seeking to be tenured were ninety-five percent favorable during the past year. (Full text of the report is attached to these minutes.)
Senate Task Force on Committee Structure. President Tedards reported on the work done by the University Senate Task Force on Committee Structure that she convened over the summer. She noted several items in the report scheduled to come before the senate as notice of motions later in the meeting. Senator David Boush, business, inquired whether this task force was a senate task force, and if so, the various elements of the report should come before the senate for discussion and debate before leaving the senate as recommendations of policy. President Tedards replied that portions of the report deemed necessary for legislative action were scheduled for debate as motions. However, she acknowledged that item six, concerning the expectations of service for tenured faculty, was a recommendation of the task force, not the entire senate. Thus, to Senator Boush’s request that all items of the report making recommendations come before the senate for discussion, President Tedards indicated they would be added to the agenda. (Full text of the report is available on the University Senate Web Page*.)
Announcements and communications from the floor. Mr. Rand Stamm, Office of Public Safety, was introduced by President Tedards to provide an update on parking changes and regulations on campus. Beginning this fall term, parking policy placed a cap on overnight parking permits, limiting them to 400 cars, a reduction from approximately 650 cars regularly parked overnight on campus the previous year. A price increase in permits of approximately eight percent was the first such increase since 1988, implemented primarily to offset increases in expenses. Other changes include the tandem taxi program, begun last spring, which is a tandem and three-passenger bicycle service operated in the evenings to take people around campus and to and from the Amtrak station. A quarterly newsletter was implemented to better inform the campus community about parking regulations and to answer frequent questions about parking. Construction of the new law center eliminated 190 parking spaces, all of which will be replaced on completion of the center, most likely by using the dead end sections of Moss and Columbia streets. The long-range plan of the university is to develop alternative transportation. When questioned about the reserved parking situation, Mr. Stamm noted that a $50 fee per month on top of regular unrestricted reserved parking permit fees has been assessed to help finance the development of additional parking spaces near the southeast corner of Bean complex (Lot 34). Current costs for adding a parking space are approximately $3,000 per space. Mr. Stamm reiterated that the university is working hard with the Lane Transit District (LTD) to help alleviate parking congestion. LTD is in the process of implementing a rapid bus shuttle from the west side of Eugene. Programs in place include the free ridership program for faculty, staff, and students, adding routes, building more transit stations, providing "park and rides", encouraging bicycle usage, and continuing to develop a workable plan involving the parking available at Autzen Stadium.
Senator Margie Paris, law school and senate representative to the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), spoke to the senators regarding President Frohnmayer’s earlier remarks about being prepared for the anticipated "revolutionary" changes ahead for the state system of higher education. The president has asked that faculty, students, and staff participate in an intense, three-stage process to undertake an in-depth examination of the issues and challenges facing the university, and to make decisions about how best to respond in order to maximize opportunities. Directed by the provost’s office, this "process for change" will have oversight by the FAC, Council of Deans, and the University Senate.
Senator Paris explained the first stage of the process as one to understand the issues. Seven Issue Definition Groups, appointed largely from existing committees and the senate, will identify major issues involving: economics, students, public perception and support, educational quality, changing markets, relationship with the system and state, and the role of faculty, students, and staff in institutional change. In stage two, the issue groups will be reformed into ten Solution Groups charged with brainstorming information provided in stage one into solutions with some possibility of succeeding. The idea is to have a broad base of the best thinking on how to respond to challenges of the future. Finally, in stage three, a relatively small but broadly based executive committee would develop a proposal or series of proposals for campus discussion and implementation. The time frame for completing the first two stages is early January, with the final stage completed by the end of the academic year, or at the latest, before the start of fall 1998. Senator Paris encouraged as many senators as possible to take on this intensive work. It is an important opportunity for the senate to take on leadership in having faculty and student voices heard in preparing for the future and helping the president position the university for upcoming changes to the higher education system.
Discussion on the proposed process for change focused on whether the extraordinary time commitment of faculty for this project would result in real, substantive change and how much impact the faculty could have on external factors affecting higher education. Ms. Lorraine Davis, vice provost for academic affairs, indicated that the proposed process was a concerted effort to have more faculty voice in both the internal and external operations of the university. Senator Gerry Berk, political science, reflected on the disgruntlement many of his constituents have about the Productivity Plan, and suggested senators’ time might be better spent discussing issues raised from it that affect the internal operations of the university. Although current administrative attention is directed toward what may occur external to the university. Ms. Davis reiterated that external changes have a parallel affect on how internal programs and curriculum are run. Those decisions have to be made and necessitate faculty involvement. Senator Wayne Westling, law, noted that often in the past, plans and proposals affecting change at the university came to the senate after the fact for rubber stamping approval amid complaints of no request for senate involvement in the process. Accordingly, Senator Westling stated his support for the senates’ early involvement in the process for change and was in favor of accepting the president’s invitation to participate.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mr. William Baugh, past chair of the Undergraduate Education and Policy Coordinating Council (UEPCC) was called on to present the first of two motions from the UEPCC given notice at the May 14, 1997 senate meeting. At this point, Senator Dale Elliott, ASUO, asked for a quorum count. A roll call count yielded a quorum with thirty-three members present. Mr. Baugh then introduced Motion US 97-12 Bachelor’s Degree Requirements and Group Requirements:
Students may not satisfy the Arts and Letters or Science group requirements by using courses in language, mathematics, or computer and information science used to satisfy the Bachelor of Arts (BA) requirement (language) or the Bachelor of Science (BS) requirement (math).
In explanation, Mr. Baugh said it was the UEPCC’s intent to restore a condition that previously prevailed, reinstating the reality in breadth in the general education group requirements. This has become a major issue because of the elimination of clusters and the shift to a modal course of four credit hours. Under this proposal, the BA/BS CIS/math/language requirements and the general education breath requirements, which are designed for nonmajors, would become distinct again.
In the discussion that followed Senator Cynthia Vakareliyska, Russian, stated that she thought the motion was unclear. She moved that language be added to clarify the intent of the motion that would clearly distinguish that a single language or math course used to count toward a BA or BS degree could not also be used to count for either Arts and Letters or Science group requirements. Debate followed on whether the text of the main motion was clear as presented and whether students and faculty advising students would understand the change in policy. Senator Vakareliyska accepted a suggested revision in her amendment to send the main motion back to the UEPCC for more clarification and to provide a date when it would go into effect. Thus, the amendment now on the floor was to refer the main motion (US 97-12) to eliminate double counting language and mathematics courses back to the UEPCC for clarification of language and to set an effective date. With no further discussion, the amendment to refer was put to a vote passed by voice vote.
After a question by Senator Gilkey, mathematics, concerning the planned adjournment time of the meeting, a second call for a quorum count was made. The roll call count indicated eighteen senators present; hence the quorum was lost. President Tedards invited Mr. Baugh back to next month’s meeting to present the second UEPCC motion. Senator Gene Luks, chair of the Committee on Committees, gave notice of four motions submitted jointly from the Committee on Committees and University Senate Task Force on Committee Structure. These motions proposed: (1) to abolish the UEPCC and University Committee on the Curriculum, and establish two new committees, the Undergraduate Council and the Committee on Courses; (2) to revise the charges to the Committee on Committees to permit May appointments to faculty committees that will convene in the following fall term; (3) to establish two year terms of service on faculty appointed committees; and (4) to elect chairs of appointed committees in May from among committee members continuing for a second year of service. Similarly, Vice President Jeff Hurwit gave notice of three motions from the Senate Executive Committee concerning amendments to revise the bylaws to reflect legislation passed last year to elect IFS representatives. (Because no new business could be conducted without a quorum, these motions were subsequently distributed electronically to the senators on October 9, 1997. Senators had received hard copies of these seven motions at the beginning of the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting stood adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
* The University Senate Web Page address is: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/senate.html
The Faculty Personnel Committee respectfully submits this report of its activities for the 1996-97 academic year. Members of the committee were:
Bruce Branchaud, Chemistry
Virginia Cartwright, Architecture
Joseph Fracchia, Honors College
Helen Gernon, Business
Peter Gilkey, Mathematics
Mary Gleason, Special Education
Barbara Gordon-Lickey, Psychology
Robert Kyr, Music
James O'Fallon, Law (Chair)
Brad Shelton, Mathematics
Michael Davis, Graduate Student
Matthew Scotten/Kelli McCarten, Undergraduate Student
Ms. McCarten replaced Mr. Scotten after he resigned from the committee.
The committee reviewed a total of 47 cases, and made recommendations to the Provost in 44 of them. 25 of the cases involved tenure and promotion, 6 involved tenure only, 15 involved promotion only, and one involved reinstatement of tenure. The committee registered a majority negative vote in two promotion with tenure cases, and two promotion only cases. The Provost denied tenure in one of the promotion with tenure cases, and delayed a final decision in the other. He denied promotion in one promotion only case, and granted it in the other. In the two cases where the Provost chose a resolution different than the majority position of the FPC, the FPC vote was closely divided. In all other cases, the Provost acted consistent with a favorable recommendation of the FPC.
The committee declined to make a recommendation in three cases that came to it very late in the term, under circumstances that made it impossible, in the committee's judgment, to give full and fair consideration. Because they were promotion only cases, they were set over for consideration by the 1997-98 FPC, with the opportunity to address issues relating to the completeness of the files.
The work of the committee was hampered and the process delayed in many instances by problems with the files identified only at the FPC level, such as missing signatures, failure to provide a statement of departmental performance criteria, or inadequate presentation of teaching data. The FPC strongly urges the Provost's office to offer training to department members who are managing personnel cases, and urges that all those who are involved in evaluating cases pay careful attention to both the substance of the case, and the adequacy of the file to permit an informed judgment by people who do not have special expertise in the field. The committee did not note any particular defects in the procedures followed for processing personnel cases, but it became acutely aware of the difficulties that flow from delay in the process. We urge candidates and departmental/college committees alike to push for early completion of files.
The committee was appreciative of the assistance of Lorraine Davis, Jack Rice, and Carol White in the Provost's office.