Present: Acres, Baldwin, Belitz, Boush, Burkhart, Chadwell, Cohen, Dale, DeGidio, Dolezal, Ellis, Farwell, Gerdes, Gilkey, Hurwit, Kahle, Kershner, Kimball, Kintz, Larson, Lees, Luks, Morse, Olson, Page, Paynter, Singell, Stein, Tedards, Tublitz, Upshaw, Vakareliyska, Wood
Excused: Altmann, Berk, Eisert, Leahy, O‚Keefe, Paris, Smith, Stavitsky, Westling, Young
Absent: Conley, Foster, Kriegel, McGee
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Ann Tedards called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:12 p.m. in 100 Willamette.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes from the February 11th meeting were corrected to reflect that Senator David Conley, education, and not Senator David Cohen, physics, had asked how the eighteen Solution Team reports would be prioritized (see page 2). Also, the secretary noted that Mr. Richard Steers, vice provost for international affairs, is on sabbatical; he has not left the university as was noted in last month‚s minutes. These corrections noted and with no other additions or corrections, the minutes were approved.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Announcements and communications from senators. President Tedards reminded the senators of the deadlines for submitting nominations for the elected faculty committees and councils as well as senate elections. She encouraged everyone to solicit candidates for the various positions. Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, announced the 14th annual Hunger and Homeless project sponsored by OSPRIG. He and two other students invited senators to get involved with teams of students or to create their own teams to participate in the community clean-up service event. The project is a one-day "workathon" in community services. Money raised through pledges goes to local community agencies.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Report from the Committee on Courses. Mr. Maury Holland, chair, presented the preliminary winter term report from the Committee on Courses, indicating it reflects a relatively quiet but productive term. The committee is nearly 100 percent current with its docket. As it appears now, the committee will not be deluged with end-of-the-year proposals, which often has been the case in past years. The procedures recently enacted seem to be working quite well, especially in terms of proposals being in the proper form with all the appropriate documentation. One area that the committee believes some improvement is needed is to make more widely know the substantive policies and criteria that are the committee's responsibility to monitor on behalf of the faculty.
Upon asking for any modifications or amendments to the preliminary curriculum report, Ms. Jo Anna Gray, speaking on behalf of the Clark Honors College and the CAS curriculum committee, proposed a modification of the proposal to enabling Clark Honor College students‚ eligibility for bachelor of science degrees. Ms. Gray noted that the wording as it appears in the preliminary report was changed slightly by the Committee on Courses, and in doing so, the intent of the proposal was changed. The CAS curriculum committee and the honors college intend to make the bachelor of science degree available to students in the honors college, where currently only the bachelor of arts is awarded. Unlike the wording in the report, the CAS curriculum committee did not intend that the B.S. option be open only to science majors. Also omitted was the insistence that honors college students take a language, regardless of whether they earn a B.A. or a B.S. degree. The wording that was intended by the honors college is as follows:
The Clark Honors College offers a bachelor of arts degree (B.A.) and a bachelor of science degree (B.S.). In order to earn either degree, a student must satisfy all University of Oregon requirements for that degree as well as all honors college requirements. Honors college requirements for both the B.A. and the B.S. include demonstration of second-year competence in a foreign language. The foreign-language requirement can be waived for the B.S. degree, however, if the discipline in which the student chooses to major requires at least 90 credits of course work. In selecting a major, students should be aware that not all departments and programs offer both the B.A. and the B.S. and should verify that the chosen major permits graduation with the degree desired.
Ms. Gray reasoned that there are a number of majors on campus that are very heavy in credit hour requirements and that are not restricted to the sciences or CAS in terms of credit hour requirements. Adding the second language requirement to these heavy credit hour majors effectively eliminates students in those majors from the honors college as an option. This proposal makes the honor college accessible to all qualified students regardless of their choice of major. Mr. Holland acknowledged that the changes were inadvertent and accepted the clarified rewording of the proposal.
A brief discussion began with Senator Dietrich Belitz, physics, asking how many departments require more than 90 credit hours of course work. In response, Ms. Gray indicated that the range of credit hours required for a degree is between 45 and 198 across the entire university. Typically, in the natural sciences the credit hours required for a degree is approximately 110; the professional schools are even higher. The range is about 45 to 55 credit hours required for a degree in the humanities and social sciences. Ms. Gray went on to explain that the honors college position is that, for example, a student who majors in mathematics and is in the honors college should meet both the B.S. and B.A. language requirements unless the course credit hours required is too burdensome (90 hours or more).
Hearing no further discussion on this proposed amendment to the Committee on Courses report, President Tedards recognized Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, who moved to accept the amendment. The motion carried unanimously. One other correction was noted, that the acronym AEIS (page 7 of the report at the bottom) stands for Academic English for International Students, not American English, as printed. With this amendment and correction, the winter term curriculum report passed unanimously.
Report from the Standing Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns. Senator Mary Wood, English, spoke as a follow-up to senate resolution US97-6 concerning domestic partner benefits that was adopted by the senate April 9, 1997. In January 1998 the Public Employees Benefit Board (PEBB) voted to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of state employees. The board intends to implement this policy as of June 1, 1998 and is currently working on developing the criteria for determining who qualifies as a domestic partner. Implementation is predicated on the outcome of a case currently in the courts that appeals an earlier decision that granted domestic partner benefits to several Oregon Health Science University employees. Not much more can be done until the outcome of the appeal is known; if the appeal loses, PEBB will begin its implementation of domestic partner benefits.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Kirk Bailey, director of legislative relations, was invited to address the senate concerning issues and questions surrounding faculty advocacy do‚s and don‚ts in a legislative context. Mr. Bailey began his remarks noting that we are already in the election season with candidates having filed the day before this meeting. He stressed the importance of making all the candidates aware of higher education priorities. For the most part, the legislature remains relatively favorable to higher education as they were last session.
The governor has indicated that he expects to put more money into higher education, although he has not said just how much at this point. The governor‚s task force report on higher education is still under review; nevertheless, there is reasonable confidence that more funding will be recommended. Those recommendations are due to the governor in May.
Senator Olson asked if there is any way that the faculty might endorse particular candidates. Mr. Bailey replied that neither the faculty as a body nor the university as an institution may endorse a candidate or a ballot measure. Nor can any of the resources that are available to faculty as members of the institution be used. However, faculty can provide facts about the impact positions, measures, or legislation would have on higher education. As individuals on one‚s own time, one may freely support whatever or whomever one wishes. Faculty are encouraged to exercise their individual rights to advocate any position or candidate with any legislator. Such actions help to build personal relationships in order that legislators know what individual faculty members are thinking.
Mr. Bailey suggested the current focus should be what the governor will put in his budget; it will be the base point of discussion for the entire session. The legislature seldom does much amending of the proposed budget. Mr. Bailey also encouraged the faculty to avail themselves to the resources of his office as they seek to make contact with legislators. There are many profiles of candidate, contact names, and phone numbers, for example, available on the legislative relations office‚s Web page. Legislators rely on the expertise of faculty members, thus it is important to make contact and share that expertise.
Senator Larry Singell, economics, asked for clarification about what is considered non-university time. Mr. Bailey answered that nine to five during the workweek would definitely be considered university time. A good rule is to do any advocating from home, or do it in such a way as to represent yourself as an individual who works at the university but who is not speaking for the university as a whole. For example, do not use a title or letterhead stationary in correspondence. Legislators know that both e-mail and telephones are used part of the time for personal reasons. Vice provost Lorraine Davis added that if using e-mail, do so after regular hours and remove any title tags. It is important not to represent yourself as anything other than an individual.
The discussion continued with Senator Catherine Page remarking that students can be strong advocates of the university as well. They can readily speak to the quality of the education they are getting. Mr. Bailey noted that the Oregon Student Association is a strong, well-organized student organization that speaks frequently on behalf of students. Senator John Baldwin, PPPM, asked what faculty should do if asked to testify or meet with legislators during regular working hours. Mr. Bailey responded that if the request is in the realm of the faculty member‚s expertise, the faculty member should accept the invitation. It would be prudent perhaps to contact the legislative relations office to inform them of the request in order that they can work with the faculty member to make sure relevant information is made available. With no further questions, President Tedards thanked Mr. Bailey for his informative comments regarding legislative relations.
Panel discussion on the role of faculty research in a student-centered vision for the UO. At this juncture of the meeting, two students and six faculty members who were invited by the senate executive committee joined the meeting to form a panel discussion. The topic was the relationship of research to teaching at the UO, especially as it relates to ongoing process for change discussions. Panelists included graduate student Dennis Redmond, comparative literature, undergraduate student Jeremy Grzybowski, pre-business, and faculty members Ian Duncan, English, Steve Shankman, humanities center, Alec Murphy, geography, Geri Richmond, chemistry, Nathan Tublitz, biology, and Marian Smith, music.
The full text of that discussion, too lengthy to be distributed in the paper version of these minutes, can be found as an addendum to the minutes on the senate Web page at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/senate.html and will be included in the permanent minutes of the meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, President Tedards indicated, at Provost Moseley‚s request, that the text of the panelists‚ comments and discussion would be forwarded to the groups reviewing all the reports from the process for change Solution Teams. She again thanked the panelists and senators for their participation.
Finally, Senator Gene Luks, computer and information science, noted that we have not necessarily convinced our own student body of the "message" of what a research institution is all about. He wondered if perhaps a panel such as this one, but comprised of students concentrating on these issues, would be a good idea. President Tedards replied that she met with the student ASUO senate president. They want to institute periodic meetings between several members of the University Senate Executive Committee and the ASUO student senator counterparts. Senator Luks‚ request could be taken to that meeting.
Adjournment
The business of the meeting concluded, the senate adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty