Minutes of the University Senate meeting February 12, 1997

February 28, 1997
Minutes of the University Senate meeting February 12, 1997
ROLL CALL
Present: Altmann, Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Blandy, Bybee, H. Davis, DeGidio, Ellis, Engelking, Gerdes, Gilkey, Halpern, Hawkins, Isenberg, Kintz, Larson, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Maxwell, McGee, Morse, O Keefe,Ostler, Owen, Page, Pope, Ryan, Soper, Tedards, Unger, Westling, J. Young.
Excused: Berk, Chadwell, Farwell, Hurwit, Kimball, Paris, Ravits, Stavitsky,Wolfe, P. Young.
Absent: M. Davis, Rogers.
CALL TO ORDER
President Carl Bybee called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 204 Condon Hall. Minutes from the January 15, 1997 meeting were amended as follows: Senators Isenberg, McGee, and O Keefe were present at the January meeting and should be listed as such. President Bybee reminded all senators they must remember to sign the roll sheet to avoid reverting to a lengthier, voice roll call procedure. The secretary then advised upon request from Mr. Steven Chatfield, chair of the University Committee on the Curriculum, that the wording on page four, paragraph 1, lines 9-11 be amended to more precisely reflect when curricular changes become effective. The section should read that formerly, items approved in the fall curriculum report were not official until they appeared in the annual University of Oregon Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin ... [and that items] under institutional jurisdiction are official immediately after senate and UO president action. (Italics denote new text.). Hearing no other corrections to the minutes, they were approved as amended.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
President Bybee acknowledged members of Mr. Frank Geltner s parliamentary procedures class who were attending the meeting in order to observe senate proceedings. Also, President Bybee informed the senators that a senate conferencing system was being established using Motet, a software program on the World Wide Web made available through the computing center. Senators will be able to debate and rebut a variety of topics listed as part of the UO senate "conference". Senators who currently do not have access to the Web should inform either the president or the secretary. President Bybee reported on the UO Alumni Association s day of lobbying in Salem.
UO President Dave Frohnmayer and Provost John Moseley were both pleased by the turn out to see the CAUSE award accepted by Ms. Joanne Hugi, director of the Computing Center, for the UO s excellence in computing. Such a large turnout was impressive for the legislature; another lobbying day event is being planned to occur as bills affecting higher education come before the legislative session.
On another matter, President Bybee informed the senators that the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) shortly will be recommending support for a move to reconfigure the State Board of Higher Education to include two faculty members (currently, there are none). Originally, the IFS had wanted to wait until after this legislative session to begin instigating this change in board membership. However, at the same time the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) decided the time was right to move on the issue now and found sponsorship of such a motion in state Senator Cliff Trow who will introduce legislation to change board membership to include two faculty members. The bill is in draft form only but will be circulated to university senators at a later date. The IFS, seeing no point in delaying further, is supporting this bill.
Other announcements from the floor were heard from Senator Jane DeGidio, student academic progress, who reminded senators there are still openings available to teach freshman seminars; she encouraged anyone interested in teaching a seminar to contact her. Senator Anne Leavitt, student academic affairs, noted that the steering committee working on the UO Accreditation Study has finished its draft (the document is posted on the Web). Mr. Dave Hubin, president s office, distributed copies of the draft to senate executive committee members. The report is the culmination of the task force s 10-year study since the last accreditation. Clearly understating the importance of maintaining accreditation, Mr. Hubin deadpanned that among the things hinging on maintaining accreditation is the UO s ability to do such things as award degrees to students and grant federally funded financial aid. An accreditation team will visit the campus for three days in late April (20th - 23rd).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Following up on the January 15, 1997 senate meeting agenda item concerned with administrative review policies, Senator Cheney Ryan, philosophy, noted there were a number of policy areas reported to be under review or to be revisited. He suggested that an update on the report in six or nine months time be requested. In concert, Senator Wayne Westling, law, moved that the senate request the administration to provide an update on Vice Provost Lorraine Davis report clarifying of administrative review policies by the end of fall term 1997. The motion passed unanimously without further discussion.
A second matter of unfinished business concerning student senator input and representation on the university senate was raised by President Bybee. He reported receiving a motion in the form of a resolution recently passed by the student senate to increase the number of student senators in the university senate from the current five students to nine students, that is, the number of ASUO senators representing academic majors. The president and secretary determined that a motion to change the number of student senators in the university senate was not within the legislative power of the senate for consideration until the year 2006 according to senate enabling legislation. After conferring with the motion s originators, it was withdrawn and replaced with a request for senate discussion of the issue and endorsement of the ASUO resolution.
Senator Ben Unger, ASUO, spoke to the issue of student representation on the university senate and clarified the rationale driving the student resolution. He noted that the proposed increase in student senators on the university senate could not be approved by senate motion; such action falls under the jurisdiction of the university assembly, that is, the entire faculty, and only when it is called into special session with full legislative powers. Rather, Senator Unger hoped that the senate would endorse the principle of increasing the number of student senators from five to nine in order to preserve the direct constituency representation for whom students are elected to student senate seats. As an example, Senator Unger noted that in the student senate he represents arts and letters and journalism students, one of nine such student academic representatives. However, because university senate by-laws permit only five of the nine ASUO academic senators to be members of the university senate, he must represent business students in addition to his arts and letters and journalism constituents. Further, Senator Unger reminded everyone that in the former university assembly, the student participants represented specific constituencies. But when the university senate was reconstituted to represent faculty constituencies, the number of student senators was reduced--they believe disproportionately--to the current number of five senators. Senator Unger argued that issues discussed in the senate such as curriculum and the student conduct code, affect the entire university. If the faculty wants the senate to be truly a university senate, not simply a faculty senate, the number of student senator representatives should be increased to nine.
Senator Unger responded to queries by Senator Paul Engelking, chemistry, and Vice President Ann Tedards, music, about the composition of the student senate, explaining that there are 18 student senators elected: nine financial senators (responsible for disbursement of student incidental fees) and nine academic council senators, representing academic majors. It is from these nine academic council members that five student senators are elected to participate in the university senate. Senator Dave Soper, physics, wondered whether it might be possible in future years to change the way the student senators are elected, that is, to have students elect the five student senators that would participate in the university senate. Ms. Kalparna Krishnamurthy, ASUO academic senator, replied that changing the election of student senators meant changing the student senate constitution, an unwieldy task requiring a vote by the entire student body. She indicated that the nine student senate seats are reflective of the academic areas and to reduce them further would not serve the natural constituencies well. Mr. Bill Minor, ASUO finance senator, suggested that increasing the student senators to nine participants on the university senate affords four more students the educational experience of participating in university governance.
Senator Jenny Young, architecture, wondered if anything precludes all nine academic student senators from coming to senate meetings and participating in discussions and debate, even though they could not vote. She also asked what the reasoning was for setting the student senators number at five when the senate was restructured last year. In response, Senator Unger noted that the original proposal from the restructuring committee was for nine student senator representatives. That proposal was amended from nine to five student senators by senate vote perhaps, as Senator Unger speculated, a result of a relative power issue. Returning to the former question, Senator Unger suggested that although anyone, student or faculty has the right to speak in the senate, full, active representative participation in the senate necessitates the privilege of voting.
Senator Ryan questioned what the compelling reason was to change the number of nine students originally proposed to five students, other than to keep the number of student representatives at a minimum. He acknowledged there must have been a discussion on the issue, but if the main reasoning was to keep student participation at a minimum, that was not a compelling reason for him. Senator Sarah Larson, ASUO, remarked that the number of students represented by the nine academic student senators is relatively large, thus all nine ASUO academic senators should be able to participate in the university senate and vote.
Hearing no more discussion, President Bybee reminded all that the senate could not, by law, entertain a motion to increase the number of student senators from five to nine. Rather, he asked if there was motion for the senate to endorse the resolution passed by the student senate. Senator Leavitt as a point of information provided details of the current representative organization in the university senate, namely: 37 officers of instruction, 2 librarians, 3 officers of administration, 5 student senators, and the president--48 senators in all. President Bybee then reminded the senators that the current composition of the senate as it moved from the assembly form of governance to the senate form of governance had considerable serious, and sometimes contentious discussions resulting in compromises from all factions concerned about the representative apportions. However, the senate s role in this discussion is whether to instigate further conversations about the appropriateness of the representations and whether there is adequate reason to reconsider apportionment at some future date.
Senator Jim Isenberg, mathematics, noted that there was little point in voting on an issue which the senate cannot take legislative action for nine more years. Senator Dan Pope, history, suggested that a vote could be taken to get a sense of the senate on this issue. Ms. Krishnamurthy noted that student senators were not permitted to make motions regarding their representation in the senate. What the student senators hoped to achieve was a vote of support from the senate on this issue. Regardless of the senate s support or nonsupport, the students plan to follow procedures to call for a special assembly with full legislative powers for action on their resolution.
Senator Pope then moved that the senate express its endorsement of the principle that there be nine student voting members of the university senate, and it is hoped that procedures be initiated to put that into effect. Speaking in opposition to the motion, Senator Del Hawkins, business, stated his strong belief that curricular matters were the primary domain of the faculty who have much more experience in curricular matters. Further, there are multiple important stakeholders that the university serves; students are one absolutely critical group, but not the only group. The university also serves the interests of society as a whole and has an obligation to consider their interest in curricular matters, thus faculty should maintain maximum control. Senator Terry O Keefe, business, also spoke in opposition, saying that this structure had not been in position very long and it should be given a chance to see how well it worked. Secondly, new senators were not well-versed in the discussions held previously concerning the number of student senators and had not talked with their constituents to see how they felt on the issue.
Speaking in support of his motion, Senator Pope suggested that the move to reduce the number of student senators from the proposed nine to the current five senators may be a vestige of an earlier time when students in the senate comprised one third of the voting senators and when faculty attendance and participation in the senate was not particularly high. However, the reduction from one third to one tenth seemed somewhat excessive, especially when the students are forced to vote as the representative for a constituency by which they were not elected. Senator Catherine Page, chemistry, concurred with earlier comments about being hesitant to vote for a change when not cognizant of the prior discussions. But she noted there are other constituencies, such as officers of administration and librarians, who might also like to be considered for reapportionment. It is not appropriate to second-guess why the previous senate voted for the five senator configuration.
Though a member of last year s senate, Senator Susan Anderson, Germanic languages, did not recall explicit reasoning for reducing the number of student senators. Regardless, she felt that the ASUO resolution is very compelling about the difficulties of representation for the students. All that a positive vote on this motion would do is to support the students going to the faculty at large to discuss this matter. Senator Christopher Ellis, economics, indicated he did not have enough background information concerning the way the students constitute their own senate, that is, who votes for whom and how, and was inclined to put this motion off. Senator Soper stated he was uncomfortable as a senator voting to change what the faculty, that is, the university assembly in their wisdom had put into place so recently. Rather, he would like to see the students take the issue directly to the place where some action could be taken--to the university assembly.
One of the visiting student senators reaffirmed the intent of the students to take this issue to the faculty at large and asserted that it was in the senate s best interest to vote in support of the student resolution to do so. Senator Gene Luks, computer science, countered that a vote in support of this resolution was ill-timed, saying that only a year ago his larger constituency, the faculty, had voted to put the current configuration into effect. For the senate to vote in support of the motion to endorse an increase in student senators without having tried it for any reasonable period of time, was in effect to say the faculty had made a mistake. If the students want to take their case to the university assembly and persuade them of their error, that is fine and they should. But to have one of the first acts of the new senate be to endorse a change in the representation in the senate seems inappropriate. Senator Howard Davis, architecture, reiterated that there was likely good discussion and reasons as to why the number of student senators was reduced to five, but that we were not hearing those reasons now. Instead, the students were making a compelling argument that their numbers should be increased to nine. Continuing that line of reasoning, Senator Ryan remarked that although numerous persons have suggested there must have been "good reasons" for the five senator decision, no one present seems to remember those reasons, and if they do, he would like to hear them. Otherwise, it would appear the main reason was to keep student representation at a minimum. Vice President Tedards noted that regardless of how the vote goes in support of the change or not, the students intend to take the issue to the university assembly the only body that can enact a change in representation. If and when the assembly meets on this issue, it is likely they will want a "sense of the senate" at that time. Senator Jeff Ostler, history, commented that as a new senator he was not hearing reasons why not to vote for this motion, that is, why increasing the number would be harmful. On the other hand, it seems a positive move to have the student senators number be representative of their constituency.
Ms. Krishnamurthy reminded the senators that the vote to change from nine students to five came up on the floor of the assembly and was not the recommendation of the restructuring committee. The discussion was contentious and the vote itself was relatively close, about 84 to 51 in favor of only five student senators. Had it been a more lopsided vote, and without a contentious debate, perhaps the will of the faculty would have been more clear and would not be worth revisiting the issue. Following up these comments, Senator Engelking said that he is reluctant to revisit the issue for the very reason that it was a contentious one at the time. There was polarization on the issue and a vote was taken. In the whole restructuring process, a lot of compromises were made. But now that they have been made, it is his belief that many of his constituents would not be interested in having this topic come up again for discussion. Senator Pope finished the discussion with his opinion that the university assembly as a deliberative body was largely seen as a failure, and he was not inclined to give its deliberations a sudden burst of deference. Thus it seemed to him that if the majority of the senate felt it was appropriate to make the reform that the students propose, it should not feel reticent to vote in favor of the motion. If the senate did not feel that way, then presumably it should vote against the motion.
As a point of information, Senator Steve Owen, music, noted that the issue of obtaining a quorum in the university assembly came up numerous times, in part prompting the move to the senate as the legislative body. To enact legislation in the university assembly with full legislative powers, one-third of the voting faculty must sign a petition to call the assembly, and more than half must be present to vote on any legislation.
The question was called. The motion to endorse the principle that there be nine student senators on the university senate was passed (15 yes, 13 no).
NEW BUSINESS
Vice President Tedards reported on a joint meeting of the Senate Executive Committee and the Committee on Committee (COC) which met January 22nd. Results of that meeting culminated in several motions promulgated from last year s COC which was charged with making an exhaustive study of committees structure and purpose at the UO and making recommendations for reform. The first of the motions from the COC s report (the Eisen report) were before the senate as new business and would be introduced by the new COC chair, Senator Luks. Further, it was necessary to take emergency action to staff the Scholarship Committee, which was understaffed by about ten faculty. With the assistance of the deans, this was done. The committee was charged further with reporting back to the senate whether such use of faculty time--processing 3,000 financial aid applications--was merited and to make a recommendation for future faculty involvement. In addition, two other committees were understaffed, the Academic Requirements Committee and the Scholastic Review Committee. Both of these committees had been previously proposed to become subcommittees of the Undergraduate Education Policy Coordinating Council by the 1995-96 COC. This proposal will be reviewed by the COC and brought to the senate as a motion if appropriate. Also, the COC will determine which items in the Eisen report it can act upon on its own, and which will be forwarded as motions to the senate.
Finally, Vice President Tedards noted that she would bring several items to the attention of the Senate Executive Committee for action regarding university committee structure as it pertains to faculty governance. Such items include ensuring annual reports from committees, opening better communication channels among committees and with the senate, keeping the committee Web page updated, helping the COC process the Eisen report recommendations, and fostering faculty governance participation a via reward system for service.
Senator Luks then presented the first of two motions from the COC. The first motion, US 97-1, is to eliminate the ten signatures required in the petitioning for nominations process. The COC moved that candidates for positions on any elected university committee or council, excluding the University Senate, may be nominated by any person who is eligible to vote in the election for that position. Except in instances of self-nomination, the nomination must be accompanied by evidence that the person nominated is willing to serve in the position.
The current situation is that nominations must be accompanied by ten signatures endorsing the nomination. However, in practice a moot point because COC members often served as the signatories. The proposed change is meant to encourage more faculty to nominate themselves and others by eliminating what may appear to be a barrier to nominations. Senator Isenberg spoke in support of the motion, remembering from his past experience on the COC that having to roust out nominees in order to elect them to fill committees was not a palatable way to populate committees. With no other discussion forthcoming, the question was called. The motion passed unanimously.
The second motion, US 97-2, was to reduce the number of candidates required for open positions. The motion from the COC is that the Committee on Committees and the Secretary of the Faculty, with the help of the University Senate, shall ensure that the number of candidates nominated for each elective faculty committee or council, excluding positions on the University Senate, be at least one more than the number of open positions. In cases where the positions on a committee or council are divided into categories, the number of candidates nominated in each category shall be at least one more than the number of seats to be elected in that category.
Currently rules for elections to certain faculty committees require that the number of candidates be twice as many as the number of open positions. This motion would change that requirement and provide a role for the Senate in the nomination process. It is anticipated that the Committee on Committees would come before the Senate at its February meeting each year to discuss elections and the strategy for finding candidates. The purpose of this motion is reduce the pressure for the COC to find many more candidates than eventually will be elected in situations where there are not enough nominees.
An area of concern was expressed by Senator Dietrich Belitz, physics, who wondered if the day would come when, for one reason or another, there might be a determined minority in the university with a specific agenda for getting things done. The proposed motion would make it easier for such a group to get certain faculty onto committees. Senator Engelking responded that the COC is somewhat insulated from having absolute control by virtue of the path necessary to get on the COC, that is, to be appointed by the senate nominating committee which in turn is appointed by the senate president. Senator Leavitt remarked that the COC has a difficult time when working alone to appoint committees, and the intent is to get the senate more involved. To Senator Unger s question, "how will the senate help in this process," President Bybee answered that although the ways in which the senate will encourage more faculty interest in committee participation is somewhat vague right now, future recommendations from the COC Eisen report will address possible answers. The question was called and motion US 97-2 was passed unanimously.
Notice of motion for a third motion, US 97-3, concerned changing the way in which UO representatives to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) are elected was presented to the senate. Because thirty days notice of motion is required for such a motion it will be voted on in the March 12th meeting. Rather, President Bybee outlined the current election process in which seats one and two of the three IFS seats are elected from the senate and the third seat elected from a vote of the faculty at large. Currently the third seat is vacant, the petitioning process of last fall yielding no candidates. The proposed motion would require all three candidate to be elected by the senate but candidates need not necessarily be members of the senate. Senator Engelking explained that the IFS discuss policy that affects all campuses in the OSSHE system and is an advisory, recommending body to the State Board of Higher Education. Senator Soper further noted that although the IFS has influence, it has no vote--there are no faculty on the state board. Several senators commented on the importance of having a direct connection between the university senate and the IFS. They suggested that when the motion is presented at the next meeting, it be worded to reflect this notion.
Hearing no further comments on the IFS matter, President Bybee moved on to the final agenda items, noting proposed dates for presentation organizers for upcoming senate meeting agendas. Filling in previously unassigned topic presenters, it was noted that Vice Provost Lorraine Davis would provide background materials for the discussion on salary compression, Senator Faye Chadwell, library, on the topic of library support issues, and Senator Barbara Altman, romance languages, on tuition remission and reduction for faculty and staff dependents.
ADJOURNMENT
The business of the senate having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty