The December 3, 1997 regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by President Ann Tedards at 3:08 p.m. in 177 Lawrence.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
President Tedards called for any corrections to the minutes. Hearing none, the minutes stood approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVESITY
Process for Change update. Provost John Moseley addressed the senate with an update on the Process for Change project initiated through the provost’s office with a large measure of cooperation and support from the university senate. More than fifty faculty members, including many senators, participated in the seven Issue Definition Groups. The first stage of the three-stage process was nearly complete; that is, each Issue Group reported out during a lengthy meeting November 24th with a final report due December 3rd. Provost Moseley indicated that a packet of the seven reports would be distributed to each senator for their perusal and review before the holiday break. (N.B. Due to the cumulative size of these reports, they have been posted on the Web at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~acadaff/change/process.html)
Currently, a smaller group is meeting with Provost Moseley and Vice Provost Lorraine Davis to reduce the seven reports into a smaller, perhaps five-page report that will synthesize the information. This document will be circulated to the entire faculty at the beginning of winter term. Additionally, President Frohnmayer will discuss these reports as well as the next "solution phase" when he addresses the faculty at the January 7, 1998 University Assembly meeting.
The provost noted that the solution phase of the project will consist of ten Solution Groups whose membership is open to anyone who volunteers to participate and will include some members of the seven Issue Groups distributed among them. The ideas and solutions these groups generate will be discussed among the faculty during the spring term.
Provost Moseley next spoke to the question of whether there was a real understanding of the sense of urgency that prompted the intensity of this Process for Change project, or whether it was seen as mostly an academic, somewhat interesting, exercise. To that point the provost made it quite clear that student enrollments are "flat". Further, out-of-state enrollments continue to decline as instate enrollments increase. Because the UO generates more income from out-of-state student tuition, it is losing money every year. This year the campus will run a three million dollar deficit. Two years from now, the deficit is projected to be five million dollars. By the end of next year, any "reserves" will be exhausted. In a very real sense, the situation is urgent. Provost Moseley indicated there is hope that changes in the state budgeting system will provide some improvement in funding for our campus, and this is not an unreasonable expectation in the next biennium. However, even if an improved funding scenario manifests itself, that is, if the university receives a five million dollar increase in its budget, we will still be right where we are now in two years time. That is not desirable: the goal is to be better off than we are now and in better shape, which is why the Process for Change is so important.
Provost Moseley opened the discussion to some questions from the floor. Senator David Conley, education, noted there is not a clear perception among the faculty concerning what will happen as a result of this process for change. Provost Moseley replied that he does not know for certain what the outcome will be. He suggested that in order to receive increased state funding, the university must demonstrate that it is making the kinds of changes that will attract more students, improve the quality of the university, and that will draw more state support. He continued that the state does not seem willing to pay us to do things in the future; rather, the state wants to see what we are doing now and how we are responding to changing times and trends in the present. If we can convince ourselves of the right steps to take and be willing to make some sacrifices to take those steps, Provost Moseley feels we will be able to solve our funding problems. The converse of this notion is to visualize what it would be like to take a five million dollar cut across the university -- loss of services, loss of students, and less stability.
Senator Jim Upshaw, journalism, asked if there are some ideas right now that could be done or circulated among the faculty for discussion. Provost Moseley replied that there have been a number of things implemented to help increase enrollment for example. This has been done primarily administratively, with deans and with smaller groups. He noted that one area we could work on right now is to try to improve retention rates, currently at approximately 78 percent, which used to be between 80-85 percent. The strongest influence on retention rate for students who are on the margin is whether the students develop a strong relationship with a faculty member. An increase of 5 percentage points to 83 percent would increase enrollment by nearly 1,000 students -- enough to balance the budget.
Senator Mary Wood, English, stated that discussions of budgeting problems and their implications need to occur at the departmental level. Departments appreciate the straightforward approach of knowing what the actual problems are. Provost Moseley agreed that a realistic picture of the budget situation is important. Further, he stated that the best way to improve the quality of the university and service to students as well as improve the financial situation is to get faculty at all levels to be more concerned about individual students. The provost acknowledged that this takes time and that with past budget cuts we are all working harder. The university has weathered difficult budgeting problems relatively well, but in actuality, for the past five or six years we have been about two years away from going broke. At this point, we have squeezed everything out that we can and we are currently spending our reserves, which we have not been doing in the past. For this reason, the provost stated that he views the financial situation as much more serious now than in the recent past.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, physics, suggested there would be more faculty support for the Process for Change if it were framed as an attempt to create long-term solutions to the budget situation, such as how the provost has presented this to the senate. More faculty are interested in getting past short-term fixes that have to be done more frequently. The provost acknowledged that we still do have to get through the short term, but if we do not solve the problems long term, we will be back again in two years.
Administrative review policy and procedures revisited. Provost Moseley next responded to a senate motion passed last winter term asking for greater clarification concerning administrative review procedures and policies. The provost indicated he has set up a schedule for the review of deans and other officers of administration based on a five-year cycle. Deans will be reviewed based on hire dates and time of last review using the five-year cycle. (He noted that Dean Risa Palm, College of Arts and Sciences, who should have been reviewed last year, has since left the university for a position elsewhere.) Up for review this year are two deans, Marty Kaufman, College of Education and Ann McLucas, School of Music. Head Librarian George Shipman is also up for administrative review. Next year no deans will be reviewed, and the following year Dean McGuire would come up for a fifth year review. Interim interviews with deans have occurred in the past on somewhat of an ad hoc basis which will be become more formalized at the third year. This review will not be as extensive as the five-year review, but rather will be more involved internally with the relevant school or college and the Office of Academic Affairs. Accordingly, Dean Tim McGuire, will have a third year review next year, no one the following year, and deans Robert Melnick, School of Architecture and Allied Arts and Rennard Strickland, Law School, would have third year reviews in two years. Additionally, next year Stead Upham, dean of the Graduate School and vice provost for research, will have his fifth year review and the provost will have his third year review.
The policy for reviewing deans suggests a committee of three to five members chaired by a senior faculty member not from that school or college and one who has been a dean or an associate dean or other central administrator. The provost indicated he would contact the school or college during winter term and ask them to report out by the end of spring term. Mr. Cheney Ryan, philosophy, expressed his concern about whether faculty or student input is sought during the review process. In his own informal poll of other faculty members, he said their responses indicated that some schools and colleges do have faculty input, yet he found no instance of this in the College of Arts and Sciences. Provost Moseley replied that there has not been a dean serving in the College of Arts and Sciences for more than five years – with the exception of Risa Palm who has just left – since Bob Berdahl; everyone else has been interim or served less than five years. Mr. Ryan suggested a change in policy for both the third and five-year reviews that would required solicitation of faculty and student input on performance before the review is complete. Provost Moseley replied that for the each of the three-year reviews that have occurred during his tenure as provost, faculty and student input have been solicited. He noted that there has not been a single methodology for such faculty and student input, but in each case every faculty member in the school or college was given the opportunity to comment. Further, the provost agreed that a review without faculty input would be less useful than one with faculty input.
Senator David Boush, marketing, asked the provost to comment on the usefulness of the process. Provost Moseley replied by characterizing the process as very good, with constructive criticism in each case. The provost sat down with the dean and went over the review discussing areas of strengths and weakness. He believes there have been improvements in the areas of weakness. Provost Moseley noted that it is a tricky process – while we all want to improve, no one is especially eager to open oneself up to mean-spirited comments. It is the provost’s job to filter out such comments and make the review a meaningful and useful process.
Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, indicated that he was chairman of the Library Committee and wondered what process would be used to review Mr. Shipman since there is no specific school or college involved. The provost responded that current and former members of the Library Committee would be one source from which to select members of the review committee. Commenting further, Vice Provost Lorraine Davis indicated that a solicitation for proposed members of the review committee went to each unit’s faculty library representative for input.
Report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. Mr. Paul Simonds, senate representative to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, reported on the IFS’s report to the state board. Although the next legislative session is nearly two years away, the IFS wanted the state board to know that faculties are ready and willing to go before the legislature and make the case for more support for higher education. The IFS in conjunction with the AAUP is busy devising strategies to have a greater impact on legislative processes. In addition, they are meeting with leaders from the business community to talk about mutual goals for achieving and supporting better higher education in our state.
Announcements and communications from senators. President Tedards reminded everyone that nominations for the new Undergraduate Council are due to the secretary of the faculty by the end of the following week. She encouraged senators to give thoughtful consideration to making nominations for this important council.
INTERINSTITUTIONAL FACULTY SENATE ELECTION
In accordance with legislation passed in last year’s senate, all representatives for the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate are now elected by the University Senate and serve three year terms beginning on January 1st and expiring December 31st of the relevant year. Ballots were cast by the senators with the following results: Mr. Paul Simonds, anthropology, was re-elected, term to expire 2000; Ms. Laura Alpert, fine arts, was elected to fill the remaining two years of a term vacated by Senator Linda Kintz, English, term to expire 1999; and Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, was elected as the alternate (one year, renewable term).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, recognized Ms. Sadie Rogers from the ASUO executive to speak to a motion from the ASUO.
Motion US 97/98-8 – Extending the drop/add classes period.
Be it resolved that the University of Oregon allow all students thirteen academic days to drop classes and fifteen academic days to add classes at the beginning of each academic term. For academic terms that are shorter than ten weeks, the drop and add deadlines will be applied appropriately.
Ms. Rogers said there was a strong feeling across campus among students that they need more time to decide which classes work best for them, especially as their schedules become more complex with more and varied obligations. Senator Olson added that an extended period of time for adding or dropping a class better enables students the opportunity to evaluate the educational product they are receiving. Nevertheless, the burden remains on the student adding a class late to take full responsibility for all the work missed in the class.
Senator Gilkey began the discussion on the motion by asking two questions: when will this motion take effect, and if passed, what are the financial implications of the motion? Senator Olson replied that he thought that fall 1998 was the desired effective date. However, Senator Olson acknowledged that the financial impact of implementing the motion was not discussed by the ASUO. To Senator Gilkey’s reminder that senate bylaws require a financial impact statement, the chair noted that the Rules Committee made a request for such a statement to the motion’s sponsors, but no statement was received. Senator Gilkey noted that some motions have come before the senate without a financial impact statement, but in this case it did not seem obvious that there would be no financial impact to the university. Senator Boush suggested that the ASUO does not have at its immediate disposal the resources to determine financial impact, and perhaps they should refer the question to the registrar. Vice provost Davis added that budget and management are the people to provide relevant financial information. Senator Gene Luks, computer science, said he believes the impact went further than that by affecting faculty productivity hours if credit hours drop due to late dropouts.
Senator Gilkey then moved to refer the motion back to the Rules Committee to acquire a financial impact statement and an effective date from the motion’s sponsors. The question arose whether discussion of the main motion could continue. The chair ruled that it could in the context of deciding whether to refer the main motion back to committee, but that in any case, the motion to refer would be voted on before the main motion. Discussion proceeded with Senator Catherine Page, chemistry, reiterating the problems an extended drop/add time period would create in classes that are in very heavy demand. It is difficult to determine whether students should have a longer add or a longer drop period for such classes, but perhaps a balance between the current drop/add period of time and that suggested in the motion is needed. Senator Dietrich Belitz, physics, wondered if anyone knew how many courses on campus had greater demand than openings. Senator Luks replied that perhaps the more important question is whether our system could apply drop add periods differentially to classes that are heavily in demand, that is, having a shorter drop period for such classes, to be determined by the relevant departments where they are offered.
Mr. Herb Chereck, registrar, responded to several of the questions posed. First, concerning high demand classes, he noted that all classes taught between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. were in high demand. Also, there are high demand programs where there are more people listed as majors than the department has the ability to teach courses. To add some perspective, the registrar indicated that in fall term there were approximately 65,810 student course enrollments – or "adds". During the current course add period of eight days, 28 percent (18,950) of the final 65,810 enrollments were accomplished. After the first eight days, 2 percent (1,366) of the final enrollments were added. When petitions are made to add a class late, permission is given if both the instructor and department approve. An important date to keep in mind is the number of adds after the "census time" during the fourth week of classes when the "official" count is taken. Last year between 300 and 400 students were added after the fourth week. Finally, he stated, that as the university moves to 4 and 5 credit hour courses, students have less latitude. If a student drops a course it usually means another term in school because it is too difficult to carry a 20 or more credit hour load to make up the dropped course. But for the bona fide shopper who is trying to find exactly the right courses, the process for adding a course after the current eight day period is already in place; if the course instructor and department agree to add you to the course, the petition is approved. Realistically from a pedagogical perspective, there are already some courses on campus where instructors do not allow students to enter classes after the first class or two because too much material is missed. In these cases it appears the mechanisms for addressing many of the questions raised are already in place.
Senator Belitz asked for greater clarification as to how a negative financial impact would come about. Mr. Chereck responded that the fee schedule defines full time tuition as 12-18 credit hours. Between 70-90 percent of our students are in this range. If students drop out of this range from full time to part time there is an impact on the student concerning the prorated amount of fee refunded. Senator Jenny Young, architecture, noted that the issue of how we provide information to students about classes is worth pursuing, so that students have a better idea of the classes before they enroll.
Vice provost Davis commented that the university is reimbursed on the basis of an FTE model that uses 15 credit hours as the standard undergraduate course load. She indicated we do not get the actual student tuition – it goes to the state and is redistributed. If the course-carrying load FTE of the students is below the projections made and students add courses later on, that FTE is not reimbursed. Senator Alan Kimball, history, noted that another way to look at this was that five students paying full tuition with 12 credit hours would be counted as four students using the FTE reimbursement model, or 100 percent becomes 80 percent. Thus the issue of financial impact on the university is an important one that needs more study and procedurally should be referred back to committee.
Several other senators wished to continue the discussion. Senator Tublitz asked how the students determined 15 and 13 days for the add/drop period. Ms. Rogers replied that when they talked to students, this seemed to be the amount of time they felt was reasonable to make a good decision about a class. Mr. Chereck brought up the issue of how this motion might be applied both to the law school (on the semester system) and summer school. He stated that currently the registrar’s office applies the drop add period proportionately to courses of different lengths. Would Law School students now have four and one have weeks to drop a course? The summer session has very erratic courses; thus Mr. Chereck recommended this motion not apply to summer session courses.
Finally, both Senator Page and Ms. Alpert indicated that in courses involving laboratory or studio work which are usually much longer class periods, it is impossible to make up work if the drop add period is extended to the time period listed in the motion. The courses are in heavy demand, so that if several students drop out late, enrollment is reduced perhaps as much as ten or more percent.
With the hour growing late, the question was called. The motion to refer was voted on and passed, sending the main motion back to extend the drop/add period to the Rules Committee for clarification of the implementation date and a financial impact statement.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no new business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.