December 6, 1996

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 1996


ROLL CALL Present: Altmann, Susan C. Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Blandy, Davis, Ellis, Engelking, Farwell, Gerdes, Halpern, Hawkins, Hurwit, Kimball, Kintz, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Maxwell, Ostler, Owen, Page, Paris, Pope, Ravits, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Westling, J. Young, P. Young, M. Davis, S. Larson, D. McGee, S. Rogers, B. Unger.

Excused: Acres, Berk, Chadwell, DeGidio, Gilkey, O'Keefe, Wolfe

Absent: Morse


CALL TO ORDER: There being a quorum, the meeting was called to order at 3:08 p.m. on Wednesday, November 13, 1996 in room 204 Condon Hall.

President Bybee began the meeting by welcoming the five new Student Senators, and by having them stand and introduce themselves. They are: Sadie Rogers, undeclared; Michael Davis, third year Law student; Ben Unger, a junior majoring in English; David McGee, senior in Biology; and Sarah Larson, senior in Political Science.

President Bybee then reminded all Senators that whenever they speak during a Senate meeting, they should begin by stating their name and department, so that people can continue to get to know one another. (Most Senators forgot to do this during the November 13th meeting.)

The first and most important item on the day's agenda was an address by Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley spoke to the Senate about issues of importance to the University in general and also provided some post-election reflections.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 9, 1996

Before Provost Moseley began his address, President Bybee called for a motion to approve the minutes from the October 9th meeting of the Senate. The motion was made and seconded, and the minutes were approved. President Bybee explained that the minutes would be posted on the Senate Home Page for those who are interested in reading them on-line.

After the meeting had concluded, Senator Dave Soper came to the Acting Secretary with a correction on p. 8 of the October 9, 1996 minutes. The correction had to do with one of Senator Soper's remarks concerning the Revised Policy on Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power. Page 8, lines 3-4 of the October 9th minutes as originally published read: "He expressed his concern that the judges in these cases might be biased, since a "preponderance of evidence" requires only that it is more probable than not that the accused is guilty." Instead, this passage should have read: "He expressed his concern that innocent people might be convicted, since a "preponderance of evidence" requires only that it is more probable than not that the accused is guilty."


PROVOST JOHN MOSELEY'S ADDRESS

Provost Moseley introduced the three topics he wished to address: 1) a follow-up on the November 5th election; 2) the policy on Knight chairs and professorships; and 3) a brief update on the Strategic Planning process and the "Solution Teams" that are currently working on various issues within the State System of Higher Education.

ELECTION RESULTS: Overall, Provost Moseley interpreted the election results as a move toward the center. Extremes on both sides were rejected, and in general, the more moderate candidates and ballot measures won. Some strong supporters of higher education were elected and re-elected to the Legislature, and many of the most negative ballot measures were soundly defeated, including: 1) the ballot measure that would have made it very difficult for the Legislature to amend laws that had been changed by the initiative process; 2) another ballot measure that would have given the Legislature direct oversight over all OAR's; and 3) two initiatives that would have directly and negatively affected public employees, i.e., the one affecting PERS, and a measure that would have required the reporting of total compensation rather than just salaries of all public employees. These measures all went down by substantial margins.

The new Speaker of the House and the new Senate President are Republicans, but both are described as moderates. The House is very narrowly controlled by Republicans, but the perception is that both leaders are able to work across party lines. All of state government and higher education is better off that the Legislature did not get split, with one house being Democratic and the other Republican. This way there will be a real objective to get through the Legislative session in a relatively clean and expeditious fashion.

The passage of Measure 47, the so-called "cut and cap" property tax limitation initiative, was probably the most negative thing that happened on November 5th. Given the general results of the election, it is reasonable to interpret the passage of Measure 47 as a pocketbook issue. Voters are fed up with our tax system. Even with the passage of M5, property taxes have continued to rise, and voters are concerned that as property assessments continue to climb, so will property taxes. It seems to reflect a weakness in the initiative system that what may well be a call for needed tax reform ends up being foisted upon us in the form of a very flawed ballot measure. The measure may even be challenged constitutionally, although no one is at present very confident that it will be found unconstitutional. But it certainly is poorly conceived, and as a part of the Constitution it will be difficult to change. What we need to consider for at least the near-term future is how the state is going to live with the property tax limitations of Measure 47.

During the next biennium, Measure 47 will take about one billion dollars out of play. It will take that amount away not specifically from higher education, but from K-12, community colleges, local government and other items supported by property taxes. But it is clear that the Legislature and the Governor will move to compensate for some of the cut, particularly in the area of education.

On the positive side, the Governor has vowed to protect education, and has made it clear that this includes higher education. There are two or three major differences between the situation we now face with Measure 47, and what we faced six years ago with Measure 5. One is that M5 had an explicit revenue replacement requirement, and M47 does not. This will have an effect on how the dynamics play out in the Legislature. The second point is that we have a governor who is explicitly a supporter of higher education. When M5 passed, the governor was frankly NOT a supporter of higher education. The third thing is that the economy, which was in moderately good shape when M5 passed, is actually in better shape now, and is generating more revenue through income tax and other revenue sources. Thus, there is more of a capacity to ameliorate the effects of M47 with regard to higher education than there was with M5.

We also have more supporters in the Legislature now than we have had for the last two or three Legislative sessions. Furthermore, there is a general understanding among most legislators that higher education has taken the largest cut as far as general funds go, and that reduction in general fund support has been made up largely through tuition increases. The Legislature also seems to understand that there is no longer any capacity in higher education to make up for a loss of general funds through further tuition increases at rates that exceed inflation.

So, we expect to get a fair hearing from the Legislature, and we hope and expect that the Legislature will fund as a minimum what the State Board has proposed as the "current service level." The "current service level" amounts to more money than we are getting this year, because it includes inflationary roll-ups, including a large one for the Library. It also includes state funds for 6% salary increase (effective 1/1/97 and 2/1/97) which the University is self-funding for 1996/97. So Provost Moseley is optimistic that the Governor's budget, which will come out in early December, will include most of what the State Board defines as the current service level. If that is the case, it is clearly a positive outcome for us. However, it is NOT as positive a result as we could have hoped for if Measure 47 had not passed.

Beyond that, we are going to have to work hard to get funding for anything else. We have some very important targeted initiatives in process that are above the current service level. The one that has the highest level of general support among all of the institutions in the system is for the State to at least match the contributions to the development of instructional technology that our students are making in the form of Ed Tech fees. We have made great progress on this campus (and elsewhere in the state system) in terms of instructional technology, but there is room for further improvement, and the State needs to fund its share of that growth.

There are some other areas/initiatives that we also hope to pursue. Although the state will have less opportunity for re-investment in higher education, it is hoped that at least the disinvestment will not continue. From our perspective, if the state picks up the current service level, it will give us some flexibility within our budget for some things we badly need to do.

It is important that we (the faculty and administration at the UO) respond in a way that shows that we are concerned about the overall situation in the state, and that we take our responsibility to our students and to education seriously.

First, and most importantly, we need to continue to make a case for higher education and its importance to the State's economy.
The importance of having a well-educated populace cannot be overestimated, in terms of both our quality of life and the economic viability of the state.

The University of Oregon makes a significant direct contribution to the state economy. Each year, through grants and contracts, tuition from non-resident students, and expenditures of non-resident students, the University brings in over $150 million to Oregon from outside the state. The state in turn provides the UO with somewhere between $41 million and $42 million in general fund support per year. So, we provide the state with a very good deal--and this is not to mention the educational services we provide. We will be making this point with the Legislature.

The UO as well as other institutions in the state system responded to the challenges of Measure 5 very productively--some would say too productively, because we managed so well. On the other hand, we stepped up to our responsibility. While the UO has certainly suffered under the strains of M5, it is still an excellent, high-quality university, the flagship institution in the state. Our national academic reputation as measured by the survey that is taken by U.S. News and World Report has actually gone up from 59, in 1990 when M5 passed, to 55 in the most recent survey. (This is not to be confused with our ranking, which is determined in large part by the amount of state support a public institution receives.)

We need to keep reminding people that we are a low-cost provider of very high quality education.

Second, we must stay the course if higher education in this state is not to be seriously damaged. Staying the course means that we must continue to improve both our quality and our productivity. Given the documented increase in high school graduates over the next decade, in order to fulfill our responsibility to the state, we must be prepared to serve these students with high quality programs in the areas that they and the state need.

We must continue to attract and serve qualified students. In the early phases of M5 we closed some programs--those that were deemed to be the least central and least critical to the University's mission. We have nothing left that fits that category; one might even argue that we went too far with the M5 program closures. There are probably no remaining programs that we could close and net a savings, because when you close programs, you reduce access, thereby reducing the number of students. Beyond the fact that we might directly lose money if we close any more programs, there would be other indirect costs as well. We lost tremendously in the beginning of M5 because of the perception that higher education was unstable, and the fear that additional programs might be closed. This perception, as much as the program closures themselves, contributed to the loss of 2,000 students in the first two years after M5. We are not yet back up to the enrollment level we had reached prior to the passage of M5.

So, program closures are not on the horizon in any reasonable response to M47; instead, we must continue to selectively look at new programs that meet the student demands and the needs of the state. We have already been doing that; we started an Environmental Studies program, and we have instituted a joint degree between Math and Computer Science. We need to continue this process of selectively looking at programs and moving forward with those that meet students' and the state's needs.

We also must continue to attract and retain outstanding faculty. This means that we must not let our salaries become any less competitive than they already are. Therefore, we cannot pull back from the salary increases that we are planning to give in January, which have been approved by the Legislature and are already budgeted. While the public may perceive these plans to continue to move forward as meaning the University "doesn't get it," it is our job to convince them that we DO get it, and to help them to understand that it would be counterproductive for both the University and the state for us to take steps such as program closures or salary/hiring freezes to cut costs. The Provost hopes that by having a clear understanding of the University's position, those who find themselves serving as spokespersons for the University (in varying capacities) will be better able to help the leaders of the state understand why we are NOT cutting programs and why we are NOT freezing recruitment of "new" (i.e., replacement) faculty. The Provost pointed out that we are not adding new faculty positions; we are simply filling positions that are left vacant by retirement or resignation, and we are doing that as student enrollment continues to grow. We need to do what we can to try to help other people understand this.

Finally, we must continue to serve the needs of the state, not only by providing graduates and educated people to the state, but also through research, which is supported almost entirely by non-state funds, and service.

That is where we are right now. While we certainly would be better off if Measure 47 had not passed, if it had failed there almost certainly would have been some other move in the Legislature and/or among people with initiative petitions for other kinds of tax reform. Measure 47 has forced the issue, but we must remember that that full $1 billion probably would not have been available in any case.

At this point in the meeting the Provost invited questions or comments from the floor.

Senator Westling noted that the Provost had painted a very impressive and optimistic picture, but that it seemed to conflict with an article he had read in the Oregonian that morning which stated that all state agencies were being asked to submit budgets with a 10% reduction. Are the OSSHE budgets to be excluded from this 10% budget cut?

The Provost replied that the full budget that we submitted would have assumed more than a 10% increase over the current service level. He does not know exactly what that will mean, but he does not think all state agencies will be cut by 10%. His prediction right now is that higher education will be funded somewhere near the current service level as submitted by the Board. We will know more by next June.

There are other factors that can come into play as well, one of which is enrollment. We don't know how much enrollment is going to grow or be allowed to grow, but that is another way to affect the budget. Still another factor is tuition.

The Provost stressed that he wanted to make sure that there was no uncertainty about our intent with regard to the plans that we have already made concerning such things as faculty salaries and programs.

Senator Soper then asked the Provost whether he had any predictions regarding tuition.

Provost Moseley responded that he did not. Both in-state and out-of-state tuition are currently about as high the market will bear. Raising tuition at this point would probably NOT bring any more money into the State System, because if we were to raise tuition, fewer students would come. The Provost feels that there is no more room for our resident or non-resident students to make up for state underfunding by increasing tuition, and he hopes we can get the Legislature to understand this.

Had Measure 47 not passed, the current student campaign to freeze tuition might have been successful. This would have been good for the University, because it most probably would have increased enrollments. However, as things currently stand, we may see tuition go up by 3% or so, to reflect the average rate of inflation. If tuition is increased by more than the rate of inflation, we will probably lose money, due to a decline in enrollments.

Senate President Bybee then expanded upon the Provost's remarks by noting that higher education had taken a disproportionate hit in terms of solving the financial problems of M5, and while we are dealing with a different measure now [Measure 47 instead of 5], there seems to be a greater recognition on the part of the Legislature that higher education DID shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden last time around. It is hoped that because we more than fulfilled our obligation with regard to M5, we will be a less likely target now. We hope to receive enough support to at least maintain things as they are, and possibly even to strengthen certain areas. While this may be good news for the UO, it requires that we be sensitive to other state agencies and city and local governments who are getting bad news; we must be careful about how we handle our relationship with them.

The Provost interjected that no one wants to see K-12 take a 20% cut; that would not be a desirable outcome from any point of view. However, there are other possible revenue sources. The "kicker" [state income tax surplus] will have close to $300 million in it, and the leaders of both the House and the Senate have publicly expressed a willingness to look at this as a source of revenue for bridging the short-fall caused by M47. In addition, property tax this year is at a very high level. Cities and counties could decide not to spend all of this revenue and save some of it to deal with the 10% roll-back provision of M47.

There is clearly more flexibility now than there was at the time of the passage of M5.


DEVELOPING POLICY ON KNIGHT CHAIRS AND PROFESSORSHIPS

A draft of the Knight Chair policy dated 11/13/96 was handed out at the meeting, and is included on pages 18 and 19 of these minutes.

Phil Knight has pledged and has already given a major part of a $15 million gift to the University for establishing several endowed chairs and professorships. This gift would allow us to establish 15 fully funded chairs at the University, or it could be used to fund a combination of chairs and professorships, which require about half the amount of a chair. The gift was given with the stipulation that it be distributed at the discretion of the University President, so it is the President who will ultimately decide on the final form of the policy under discussion. The President has been discussing the policy with his staff, with the Deans, and with the Faculty Advisory Council, and is having the Provost discuss it with the Senate. He would like to receive any suggestions or comments as soon as possible so that the policy can be finalized. The policy will provide an outline of our current plan for using what Phil Knight intended to be a "transforming gift" in a way that will maximize the gift's effect.

All appointments will be approved by the President. Interest income from the Knight gift will remain in one central fund, administered by the Office of Academic Affairs, from which money will be transferred to the schools and departments that have been awarded Knight Chairs or Professorships. In order to become eligible for a Knight Chair, the School or College will need to raise a matching chair. The intent is not to have just 15 new endowed chairs, but to have 30 (or more, if some of these are Professorships). Each Knight Chair will receive an income stream that will begin at $40,000/year--so obviously these are not fully-funded positions. Endowed chairs are typically "add-ons;" some of the money goes into salary enhancement, and some of it typically goes to program support and to fund research.

These Chairs are not intended to be entitlements based simply upon seniority; rather, they will be given based on extraordinary and continuing accomplishment and service.

A Chair will not necessarily stay dedicated to the specific area to which it was initially awarded. It can be moved around within the school or college in which it was granted, according to the priorities of the University and the school or college. Furthermore, these chairs will not be given in perpetuity, but instead will be granted for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal. The chairs are intended to be used by the University to try to achieve its highest priorities at any point in time, so there are some differences between these Knight Chairs and the more typical endowed chairs.

The Provost invited the Senate to discuss the Knight Chair policy at its December meeting, and then get back to him with comments. He also invited individual comments.

Concern was expressed from the floor that the matching requirement might lead to a concentration of the Chairs in certain schools or colleges where fund-raising is easier than for others.

Provost Moseley responded by saying that it is the administration's intention that the chairs be distributed generally in proportion to enrollments; the chairs will NOT be concentrated in one area. The general expectation for distribution is that the smaller schools and colleges will probably be eligible for only one or possibly two chairs; the intermediate sized schools and colleges will get two or maybe three chairs; and the College of Arts & Sciences, which comprises half of the University, will get approximately half of them.

The matching requirement will be absolute, but this does not mean that the chairs will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, beyond the expected allocation plan outlined above.

Raising matching funds should not be a problem. It is more likely that the matching funds will be raised before we have received the entire Knight gift. We currently have $6 million of the gift in the bank, earning interest. By the Fall of 1997 we hope to begin to support six of the chairs. Knight has five years to fulfill the $9 million balance of his pledge. The Knight chairs are intended to serve as a positive incentive to other donors to endow other chairs.

At this point, there was a question from the floor: Will the $40,000 for a chair always be an augmentation of an existing line item, or is it possible that it could be used to substitute for other funds for a position?

The Provost replied that the Knight money is NOT intended to be used as a substitute for other funds. The intent is that a faculty member holding a chair like this would have a base salary funded by other sources, usually departmental funds, and that the endowment would be used to augment that salary and provide additional support. It is possible that the endowment funds might be used to bridge appointments, or that a department might have funds only for an assistant professor, and would use the endowment income to bring the salary up to a more senior level.

The schools and colleges have been asked to come up with their own processes for allocation of the Knight Chair funds.

The question was asked about what funds would be counted as part of a school's or college's "match." Overall, the University has already raised $150 million, some of which is in faculty development, and the senator wanted to know if any or all of that would count towards the match.

Provost Moseley replied that the raising of funds for matching purposes started last July. Any gifts given now, or during the past couple of months, are considered to be part of the match. The Provost went on to emphasize the importance of this gift to our core mission, and he stressed that we have a responsibility to use this gift wisely, so that its potential for transforming the university can be realized. He noted that gifts like these, if used wisely, can move a campus to a level of national prominence that otherwise might not have been possible.

The first Knight Chair appointments, possibly as many as six of them, could be made in the Fall of 1997, so the endowment funds could be used as a recruitment tool this year.

The Senate President then inquired as to how open the policy was to further adjustment.

The Provost answered that the issue is open until it is closed, but ultimately the final form of the policy is up to the President. There is a lot of flexibility in this policy; there are also aspects of the Knight gift that distinguish it from many of our previous endowments.

Senator Tedards then asked whether the matching amount for a Professorship would be $40,000.

Provost Moseley answered that the matching amount would be an endowment of $1 million, which is enough for one endowed chair. The Provost pointed out that the matching program is already working to entice new donors to endow a chair.

In answer to another question about whether this money would be used to "top off" existing lines, rather than create new ones, the Provost pointed out that it would take a $2-2.5 million gift to generate enough money to support a completely new senior level position, if one assumes that salary and OPE would cost the University somewhere between $75,000-$100,000. Virtually all of our current endowed chairs have base salaries that are paid with state funds that are then augmented by endowment funds. This does not mean that some of the Knight Chairs will not be used to attract new, outstanding people from the outside; but these new hires would be based on existing lines, for example to fill a position when someone retires. So the Provost's hope is that we will be able to use these Chairs to help us with a mix of retention, recruitment, and salary improvement.

The Provost looks forward to input from the Senate on the Knight Chair policy.


REPORT ON THE OSSHE PLANNING PROCESS

Beginning last Spring, the State Board initiated a very complex planning process which resulted in a set of goals and strategies which were assigned to various "Solution Teams" for investigation and recommendations for implementation. There are several important Solution Teams currently at work on various issues. One that may have some effect upon the UO is the Solution Team on Engineering. There are some differences of opinion between OSU and PSU about how Engineering should be organized in the state. That Solution Team will report to the Board on Friday.

Related to the Engineering issue is a proposal that the UO has made called the Oregon School of Computing. The UO is best equipped to make a major contribution to the high tech industry in the area of Computer Science. We have been concerned that because our Department of Computer Science is in the College of Arts and Sciences, (whereas the Computer Science departments at OSU and PSU are a part of their Schools of Engineering), our Computer Science department would get swept up in the Engineering initiative, and would be left in a less than ideal position. Our Computer Science department would continue to exist, but we would not benefit from any additional funding, nor would we be able to serve the needs within the state which our department is in some cases best qualified to serve.

We therefore proposed the Oregon School of Computing as a consortium involving UO, OSU, and PSU. The reason we gave for NOT supporting a consolidation of Computer Sciences in the state into one big mega-department is that there is a need for integration of the computer science departments into the rest of their respective universities. There are many connections, programs, and inter-disciplinary involvements that our Computer Science department has with other departments on campus. This is also true to a lesser degree at OSU and PSU. To not have a good Computer Science Department in a modern university is unthinkable.

But recognizing that each institution needs and wants to have its own Computer Science department, we also recognize the need in Portland and in other areas of the state for a higher level of continuing professional education. There is a need for more undergraduate degree programs in computer science, as well as a need for more Master's programs. The Oregon School of Computing is a cooperative plan that appears to be getting a high level of support from the other institutions. It would both augment support for the computer science departments themselves, and for this joint program. The Oregon School of Computing would be most visible in Portland, but it would serve the entire state. Gene Luks was one of the authors of the proposal for this cooperative venture. It is hoped that the Board will ask the UO, OSU, and PSU to proceed with the development of this proposal, thereby setting a positive example for how cooperative consortia can operate in this state.

Another very important solution team, chaired by President Frohnmayer, is looking at graduate education in Oregon. Graduate enrollment at the UO has been gradually but steadily declining for the past 4-5 years, a trend which is not good for the health of a comprehensive research university. In some cases those declines have been deliberate, where job market considerations have led programs to take fewer students. In other cases the decline is due to a decrease in student interest, a phenomenon that can be seen at many major universities around the country, but which is nevertheless a cause for concern. The President's committee has just begun to look at this issue.

Together with Stephen Reno, the President of Southern, Provost Moseley is co-chairing a solution team which is charged with looking at the Chancellor's office. This team has completed a first round of investigative interviews on campus and has had a first meeting. The two conclusions that have emerged so far are: 1) there is a need for some kind of coordinating central agency, such as the Chancellor's office; and 2) there is a need, particularly among the four-year schools, for many of the services that a Chancellor's office provides. This committee is going to focus on what the real needs, services, and types of policy guidance are that the Chancellor's office could provide, and how best to fund those administrative services. The Chancellor convened this solution team with the hope that it will produce positive and useful recommendations for change in that office, and the Provost is optimistic that this review of the Chancellor's office will provide a positive contribution to the entire state system. There is also the possibility that the recommendations might lead to some monetary savings.

The Provost promised to keep the Senate informed as things develop on these Solution Teams.

The Provost then opened the floor to any further questions.

Senator Ryan asked the Provost to clarify the current policy concerning review of academic deans. The Provost replied that the controlling policy document states that academic administrators should be reviewed every six years, although the practice has not always been rigidly followed. Reviews have taken place at five, six, or even seven years, although the Provost intends to adhere to the six-year schedule, barring any policy changes.

Senator Ryan then said that he believes the Faculty Handbook mentions reviews every three years. The Provost explained that this probably refers to mid-term reviews, and that the administration intends to stick with the sixth year review for the purpose of re-employment decisions. The mid-term reviews are intended to provide an opportunity for constructive criticisms that can be addressed before the formal fifth- or sixth-year review. Senator Ryan pointed out that faculty must submit to reviews on a regular basis, and that more regular reviews of administrators would be beneficial to faculty morale. Provost Moseley agreed that we need to take all review processes more seriously. Currently, annual reviews for non-tenured faculty are not done on a regular basis, nor are the post-tenure reviews, which are supposed to be conducted every five years. Senator Ryan asked if a dean could be reappointed without a [fifth- or sixth-year] review. The Provost responded by stating that no dean's contract would be renewed for more than one year [beyond the initial five-year appointment] without a formal review.

The Provost thanked the Senators for inviting him to come and speak.


At the conclusion of Provost Moseley's presentation, President Bybee drew attention to the rest of the day's agenda. Making reference to item 6.1 under Unfinished Business, he asked that Senators be sure to take with them a copy of the 10-page summary of issues from the "Building A Senate Agenda" project, so that it can be discussed at the December 4, 1996 meeting. President Bybee was pleased with the initial level of response to the survey. In this first step, the range of issues was identified; the next step will be to begin to prioritize those issues. The 10-page hard-copy summary document will be posted on the Senate Web Page for those who wish to access it electronically.


ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE SENATE FLOOR

President Bybee mentioned that nominations are being sought for a member-at-large for the Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate. The IFS is putting together a state-wide faculty plan for lobbying during the coming legislative session, so this is an important time to be involved.

With regard to the Sexual Relations and Abuse policy, the hearings have taken place, and in response to the oral and written testimony, there will be one more fairly significant revision of the document. It will then be referred back to the Senate.

The same is true for the changes in the Student Conduct Code. There has been a lot of press coverage, there was a lot of valuable testimony at the public hearing, and the committee has received lots of written input. As a result, the committee is putting together a revision of the proposal before it is brought before the Senate as a formal motion.


COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senate Budget Committee

Ms. Gwartney, 1995/96 Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, gave the 95/96 report for that committee. She provided several copies of one-page report, which is included on page 20 of these minutes. Ms. Gwartney reviewed the roles and purposes of the Senate Budget Committee, which are listed in her report. In 1995/96, there were six continuing members and nine new members of this committee. Ms. Gwartney noted that given the steep learning curve involved, it is desirable that members of this committee serve for more than one year if possible. The members of the committee first met to receive a budget tutorial, and then met to discuss specific issues, which are outlined in the report. Three of those discussion items, numbers 1, 2, and 6, (serials cuts, parking, and the financial impact of proposed student and peer course evaluations) had been specifically requested by the Senate.

Ms. Gwartney characterized much of the committee activity as "informed and watchful oversight." The committee did take action on one item--the Senate Budget Committee resolution dated March 20, 1996. The text of this resolution, which is on the subject of parking fee increases, can be found in the report of the committee.

Ms. Gwartney then outlined the recommendations that the 95/96 committee made to the members of the 96/97 committee for the coming year. These items are also outlined in her report.

Senator Kimball asked whether the March 20, 1996 resolution had ever come to the Senate floor. Senator Soper noted that there had been considerable discussion of the parking issue. President Bybee said he believes that the resolution did not ever come to the Senate floor. Ms. Gwartney expressed surprise, saying that the SBC had sent a memo to then-President Paul Simonds about the issue. Senator Tedards said she would find out just exactly what had taken place, and would bring that information back to the Senators.

Concerning the final recommendation of the SBC for 96/97, i.e., that the Senate Budget Committee report to the Senate more than once per year, President Bybee agreed that this might be a good idea in general with regard to committees that report to the Senate. If reports are delivered only at the end of the year, it is often too late for the Senate to take any action on issues that are raised in those reports.

Senator Kimball then raised a concern about a Register-Guard story on the Senate's position regarding the Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power policy. He noted that if the Senate is to be an effective body, it needs to be able to make clear decisions that are recorded and reported accurately.

Senator Belitz asked whether the Senate should have a policy or mechanism for dealing with wrongly reported information. President Bybee agreed that this would be desirable, and suggested that when things are incorrectly reported by local news media, that perhaps our Communications Office would have a way to see that a correcting statement was issued.


Faculty Personnel Committee

Martin Wybourne (Physics), Chair of the 1995/96 Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) delivered the next committee report. A copy of this report can be found on pages 21 and 22 of these minutes.

The purpose of the FPC is to advise the Provost on all tenure and promotion cases. Last year's committee was comprised of 10 faculty members and one undergraduate student. The ASUO was unable to provide the name of a graduate student to serve on the committee in 95/96. However, it is the recommendation of the FPC that in the future the ASUO try to provide two student representatives to serve on this committee.

The committee met on at least a weekly basis from January until June, with more frequent meetings as the June 15th deadline approached. The committee reviewed a total of 39 cases: 5 for tenure only; one for promotion to Senior Instructor with tenure; 24 for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure; 8 for promotion to full Professor; and one new hire at the level of Professor with tenure. The FPC's recommendation to the Provost was favorable in 28 cases, and negative in 6. In 3 cases the committee was divided, and a mixed vote was recorded. In one of the remaining two cases, the FPC was unable to decide because of a lack of guidelines with which to judge the case, and in the other, there were issues that caused the committee to remain undecided.

The Provost agreed with all of the committee's favorable decisions, and with 3 of the 6 negative decisions. The Provost acted favorably in two of the three cases that received mixed votes from the FPC, and favorably in one of the two cases in which the committee remained undecided.

The main frustration the committee had--and one that has been expressed by the FPC previously--was the inadequate documentation of teaching performance contained in some of the files. The FPC would like to urge department heads to adhere to the new policies on teaching evaluations, which should help provide more uniform reporting campus wide.

One issue on which the University should provide definite expectations is on the promotion from Instructor to Senior Instructor with Tenure. This caused serious problems in one case during 95/96. There are at present no clear guidelines, and the expectations vary widely across the campus, which makes an objective review of these cases very difficult.

The Committee also discussed and in general supported the policy on Sexual Relations. However, the policy raised a serious issue for the FPC, that is, when a written reprimand is included in a faculty personnel file, how is it to be weighted with respect to the other evaluative components of teaching, research and service? The FPC believes that this is an area where the new policy will have a substantial and long-lasting impact on a person's career, and it is felt that the University should provide future committees with carefully crafted directions to assist them.

The FPC recommends no changes in procedures for this year's committee, and would like to publicly thank Vice Provost Lorraine Davis and her assistant, Carol White, for their considerable help as the FPC worked through its heavy caseload.

At the conclusion of Mr. Wybourne's committee report, the floor was opened for questions.

Senator Engleking asked to whom the FPC's recommendations were made. Mr. Wybourne answered that the recommendations are included in the committee's formal report, and they were also forwarded to Lorraine Davis.


Proficiency-Based Admissions Standards System (PASS)

Senator Kimball gave the final report of the day on the Proficiency-based Admissions Standards System, which potentially has some major implications for higher education. The PASS project report details a major revision of the K-12 testing and evaluation system. Senator Kimball delivered a packet of materials to President Bybee, which describes the legislation in 1991 that created a completely new approach to curriculum in the public schools, moving towards the production of a portfolio for each student that measures talents, capabilities, and accomplishments. These portfolios would replace the more traditional high school transcripts. The system would also guide students into one of two basic tracks, college-bound or "workbench" bound. Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery are awarded when students have demonstrated the required skills.

The 1991 legislation was amended significantly in 1995. While it is up to the public schools to figure out how to deal with the new form of evaluation outlined in the PASS project, the issue for higher education is that students might come to us with documentation of their accomplishments that we do not know how to interpret. This could especially present problems for Admissions office. Professor David C. Conley (Education), who has been actively involved in this project since 1991, is a good resource for questions on this matter. Other active participants have included Jim Buch from Admissions, and Lorraine Davis in Academic Affairs.

Senator Kimball recommended that the Senate take no specific action on this issue at this time, other than to encourage the University Curriculum Committee to look over the document before it is put in final form to make sure that it describes properly the sorts of talents and capabilities we would expect students to have.

The floor was then opened to questions/discussion. Senator Westling asked if the portfolios would be used to waive lower-division courses. Senator Kimball replied that as far as he knew the answer was No. Senator Young raised the question of how this will affect admissions for out-of-state students--that is, how the evaluation of portfolios will compare with the review of traditional transcripts. (It was pointed out that this will also be an issue for Oregon students who apply to out-of-state colleges and universities.) Senator Kimball answered that at this point we are not sure how the two forms of evaluation will be compared, although he again referred Senators to David C. Conley. Senator Kimball noted that there is only about a 7% variance between admissions based on the portfolio versus traditional admissions procedures.

Senator Soper asked whether the Undergraduate Council had been looking at this issue. Senator Tedards replied that the Undergraduate Council has spent two full meetings on this topic.

Senator Kimball reminded Senators that the public schools are going to implement PASS, no matter what our views on it might be. But he did add that he felt encouraged that Lorraine Davis, who has studied the issue extensively, and who initially had serious doubts and many questions about the project, has begun to change her mind.

Senator Engleking asked what the estimated workload of evaluating the portfolios would be. Senator Kimball replied that the major burden will fall on the Admissions office, not on faculty, and that is something Jim Buch is looking at right now.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further discussion or questions, the meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

Julia J. Heydon
Acting Faculty Secretary