MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1993 MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

ROLL: Present--Bennett, Bolt, Bolton, Brick, Clark, Ferguson, Frank, Gilkey, Gilland, Goldstein, Hall, Harvey, Hasek, Hibbard, Hoop, Hubin, Kahle, Kelley, Kelton, Lee, R., Lee, S., O'Brien, Omogrosso, Pickett, Pope, Rothbart, Shing, Soper, Squires, Stuhr, Tepfer, Thomas, Trombley, Wallerstein, Wixman. Excused--Calof, Forell, Gwartney-Gibbs, Klos, Lesage, Osternig, Sheridan, Steeves. Absent---Brandon, Laskaya, Meyer, Mitha, Sprague, Williams.

In the minutes of the April 14, 1993 meeting Senators Steeves and Wallerstein were present. The official minutes of that meeting have been corrected.

CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Senate President Michael Hibbard called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m., in Room 133 Gilbert. The minutes of the April 14, 1993 meeting were approved.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS

Mr. Daniel Udovik, Chair of the "Commission on Promotion, Tenure, and Career Development" was recognized to make the initial report for that Commission. He handed out a document that contained the charge for the Commission and it is presented here also:

COMMISSION ON FACULTY REWARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE

Achievement of the University of Oregon's primary mission as an educational institution depends on optimal development of the careers and contributions of the teaching faculty. It is professors who teach in a variety of ways and contexts, carry out research and scholarly inquiry that advances human knowledge and sustains the advancement of society, and perform services for the community, state, and nation. It is the responsibility of the University to examine periodically the structure and function of the system used in hiring, promoting, tenuring, and rewarding professorial faculty. Periodic updating and adaptation of that faculty career development system to changing circumstances, within the university and in the society that supports it, is a responsibility of a public institution accountable to the people of Oregon.

A COMMISSION ON PROMOTION, TENURE, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT is constituted and is charged to study these and related issues, and to make recommendations for change and improvement to the President and to the faculty. Campus-wide faculty discussions of the issues and any recommendations should occur at appropriate points in the process. The Faculty Advisory Council, the University Senate, and other faculty bodies should also be consulted as the Commission proceeds. Recommendations may include specific policy changes that become part of the university's regulations, and may also include informal recommendations on procedure that have been effective in some parts of the university and might serve just as well in other parts. During its deliberations the Commission is asked to consider:

Another general theme is the proper weighting and use of evidence about research in the tenuring and promotion processes. Now the entire research output of a faculty person is reviewed by local and university committees. Does this overemphasize quantity rather than quality? Should reviewers and reviewing committees focus only on a subset of the candidate's scholarly or artistic materials? A related theme is the proper definition and weighting of creative contributions by faculty in the fine and performing arts, and by certain professional school faculty whose training and expertise come from the professions. Career development and guidance of such faculty requires clear enunciation of guidelines for such "nonpublished" contributions and how they will be evaluated and weighted. Do guidelines of professional associations suggest strategies for the University of Oregon? Finally, should we take into account the difficulty in some fields in getting materials published or displayed?

The Commission also is charged to consider the theme of "timing", that is the time-in-rank before promotion. Does it make sense to consider the strength of cases independently of the time-in-rank? Should we retain the concept of "early" promotions, and if so, what criteria and guidelines should apply to such early promotions? Do these apply for both "associate" and "full" promotions? While there may be some presumption that faculty members will normally require some probationary period to achieve a level of accomplishment necessary for promotion, should this be a rule? If not, can we have a clear statement about when promotion might occur in terms of research and teaching output and quality? Should truly unusual events in a faculty person's life (death of an immediate family member; birth of a child; severe, debilitating illness) be taken into account in a faculty person's career? Should such circumstances affect the tenure clock or the timing of consideration for promotions or merit raises? Are there any considerations unique for any Schools or Colleges that affect the time-to-promotion issue?

With respect to "timing", should the University of Oregon retain the "6-year" principle for consideration for tenure? Some institutions use a clock with 5-years as assistant professor plus 5-years maximum as nontenured associate professor prior to the tenure decision. What timing would serve us best in the future?

In carrying out its investigations and deliberations, the Commission should be sensitive to the broad range of legitimate activities and expectations in our various Schools and Colleges, and the impact of different kinds of accreditation requirements on faculty activities. Our aim should be to develop a campus-wide set of rules and guidelines that can be used as the framework for individual units, each of which may develop its own additional policies and procedures with approval by the Provost and Faculty Advisory Council.

All of the issues presented in this charge to the Commission have been introduced and are being discussed nationally and locally. On this campus, junior faculty, deans, members of the Faculty Personnel Committees, and administrators involved with faculty development have identified the issues raised here. Your work is important and timely to this broad campus community.

The Commission is charged to begin its deliberations and fact finding during Spring quarter of 1993. Ideally, the Commission's work should be concluded by the end of academic year 1993-94. The Commission should consider the timing and forms that its conclusions and recommendations should take. A wide range of possibilities exist. Even before the work is completed, recommendations for immediate implementation or policy change at differing levels may be warranted. Possible modifications for the Faculty Handbook could be a logical outcome of Commission deliberations. A single major report or concluding document is not necessary but could be considered. Finally, the Commission may wish to develop the outline of a handbook detailing with promotion and tenure at the University of Oregon.

Udovik stated that the Commission will distribute more information in the fall and establish some focus groups. A report from the Commission is expected to be completed by Spring quarter 1994.

Mr. Jack Rice, Chair of the Committee on Committees presented the nominations for the faculty committees. The report was accepted as presented.

The Senate Nominating Committee Chair, Senator Fred Tepfer, placed the following names into nomination for President and Vice President of the University Senate for 1993-1994. For President: Mr. Davison Soper, Physics; for Vice President: Ms. Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs. At the organizational meeting of the Senate on May 26, these two names will be presented formally for the positions given. Other nominations from the floor may also be made at that time.

OLD BUSINESS

Senator Peter Gilkey was recognized to present a motion concerning the Student Conduct Code.

"The student conduct committee submits the following motion to the Senate of the University of Oregon to amend the student conduct code OAR 571-21-030 to create a new subsection (21) to read:

"(21) Stalking as repeatedly contacting another person when (a) the contacting person knows or should know that the contact is unwanted by the other person, and (b) the contact causes the other person reasonable apprehension of imminent physical harm or the contacting person knows or should know that the contact causes substantial impairment of the other person's ability to perform the activities of daily life. As used int he subsection, 'contacting' includes but is not limited to communicating with or remaining in the physical presences of the other person."

After a short discussion the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

DISCUSSION

President Hibbard recognized Mr. Paul Csonka, Physics, to present his motion.

Mr. Csonka stated that the franchise is being consistently denied large numbers of voting faculty who have class schedule conflicts, are out of town on department/university business or are tied up in laboratories or other official university activity. This is unfair to those members of the faculty. The debate could be summarized fairly and accurately and thus that do not attend would know the essence of the debate. In addition the faculty would discuss the motion in conversations prior to the vote.

In this manner a more thoughtful process will take place prior to the vote. The motion will be complete, as all amendments will have been made and decided upon and anything complicated will have been addressed and fully understood. At the very least the voting members of the faculty will be as fully informed as they are now under the present system.

Mr. Csonka suggested that it might be wise to have a committee appointed at some future date to study various ways to conduct a secret ballot. Ballots could be cast by e-mail, through designated ballot boxes scattered around campus, or some other method.

In a question about the secret ballot Mr. Csonka stated that if it is found that Oregon law allows such a ballot than the Assembly should utilize it. Mr. Peter Swan, Law, stated that the Assembly might get by using the secret ballot if the motions are treated as initiatives and that the Assembly is not a governing body. This would result in no votes at the Assembly.

Senator Goldstein asked if the idea that the vote must be public and at the Assembly does not result in those absent being denied the right to vote? Mr. Swan stated that it does.

Senator Rothbart asked what changes in faculty governance would have to be made to bring the Assembly into line with the law on public meetings. Mr. Swan stated that changes would have to be made, but no one has worked any changes out as of this date. It might be that over the next several months a faculty group might be appointed to commence looking at the problem and to come back to the Senate and eventually to the Assembly with suggested changes in the structure of faculty governance.

ADJOURNMENT

President Hibbard stated that this was the last meeting of this body of Senators as the meeting on May 26, 1993 will be composed of 18 newly elected faculty senators and a majority of newly elected student senators. Mr. Hibbard thanked the senators for their cooperation this year to make the senate run smoothly. He wished all well.

In return the senators expressed gratitude for the splendid job Mr. Hibbard did in performing his task as President of the Senate this past year. Appreciation for a job well done--a job that is multi-faceted and difficult--got a round of applause from the Senators.

The business of the meeting having concluded, the 1992-93 University Senate adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary 


Web page spun on 9 June 2002 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises