March 28, 1997
ROLL CALL
Present: Acres, Altmann, Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Blandy, H. Davis, M. Davis, DeGidio, Ellis, Engelking, Farwell, Gerdes, Gilkey, Hawkins, Isenberg, Kimball, Kintz, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Maxwell, McGee, Owen, Page, Paris, Pope, Ravits, Rogers, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Unger, J. Young, P. Young
Excused: Berk, Chadwell, Hurwit, Morse, O’Keefe, Ostler, Wolfe
Absent: Halpern, Larson, Westling
CALL TO ORDER
President Bybee called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 204 Condon Hall. Noting the fullness of the meeting’s agenda, the president expressed a desire to move as expeditiously as possible through the agenda. Minutes from the February 12, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. George Pernsteiner, provost’s office , and Mr. Russ Tomlin, associate dean of arts and sciences, were introduced by President Bybee to report on UO enrollment projections and budget ramifications for the 1997-99 biennium. Mr. Pernsteiner and others are currently in the process of negotiating with the chancellor’s office about the UO budget for the next biennium, and shortly will be in Salem as the legislative hearings on budgets for higher education begin on March 31, 1997.
Mr. Pernsteiner began by indicating the forecasts for UO student enrollment for the upcoming 1997-99 biennium remain “flat”, that is, about the same as in the previous biennium. However, forecasts by others OSSHE institutions, such as Portland State and the regional colleges, indicate continued growth in student enrollment. These forecasts translate into decreased budget dollars in excess of the shortfall anticipated as Measure 47 (the property tax cap measure) is implemented. Budgeting for each OSSHE institution occurs using the Budget Allocation System, commonly referred to as the BAS model. Monies from the state general education fund plus in-state student and graduate student tuition from all the campuses are pooled in the chancellor’s office then reallocated to each campus on the basis of formulas used by the BAS model, of which the single largest component is FTEs. Consequently, as student enrollment increases on other campuses, and the UO enrollment remains essentially stable, the relative amount of dollars budgeted back to the UO decreases. To improve this budgeting scenario, Mr. Pernsteiner indicated that the provost’s office began looking for ways to increase the enrollment figures that would “count” for more budget dollars, and thus avoid some of the budget reductions that would occur as a result of the projected stable enrollment figures.
A small committee consisting of Mr. Jim Buch, admissions, Mr. Russ Tomlin, arts and sciences, and Dean Tim Mcguire, business, worked in consultation with all of the deans to develop enrollment enhancement projects for fall 1997. The strategies considered for increasing enrollment in the short term include getting appropriate FTE credits for work currently being done but which has not received credit in the past, and trying to increase the credit carrying loads of current students. Encouraging students to sign up for credit hours before the fourth week of each term (the week used for official credit hour counts) or adding one more credit hour to their course load would boost the number of FTEs substantially. These and other enrollment enhancement projects were presented to, and have been accepted by, the chancellor thus saving approximately 2.5 million dollars of budget cuts that the UO would have to make. Although these enrollment enhancement ideas may work in the short run for the upcoming biennium, in order to stabilize the budget over a longer period it is necessary to find ways to increase enrollment FTEs. In the long term, the number of students enrolled will have to increase in order to break out of the current budget reduction cycle.
In response to a question whether credit hours at each of the seven campuses receive the same level of funding, Mr. Pernsteiner replied that the BAS formula gives more money for students in some disciplines than others. Each discipline has a designated value, or price tag. Students in agricultural disciplines are worth more funding dollars in the BAS model than English students, based on the theory that it is more expensive to teach agricultural students than it is to teach English students. The differences in the discipline mix at the UO compared with Oregon State, for example, means that the UO receives approximately 20 percent less funding per student than Oregon State. President Frohnmayer has raised the issue of using what appear to be out-dated formulas for budget allocation with the chancellor and other campus presidents. To date, no action has been taken. However, the president plans to continue raising the issue in order to bring it to the forefront of budgeting discussions.
Mr. Pernsteiner further clarified that the BAS model budget allocations and general fund allocations to higher education are based on in-state students. The UO is given no funding for out-of-state students; rather we keep all but approximately 10 percent of out-of-state tuition. Although the UO has benefited from out out-of-state student dollars in the past, in the last several years we have not met enrollment targets, which consequently has contributed further to our budget woes.
Mr. Tomlin explained some of the short and long term strategies proposed for enhancing enrollments for this fall term and beyond. He prefaced his remarks encouraging senators to review carefully the suggested strategies for their academic rigor and soundness, and further requested that any and all other ideas which may augment the proposed enrollment enhancing strategies be forwarded to Provost Moseley. He noted that although we have not succeeded in growing at the projected target enrollment rate, our spending patterns have. As a consequence, it is vitally important that we find ways to increase enrollments and FTEs. Continuing, Mr. Tomlin identified and discussed briefly the proposed strategies including: (a) increasing course carrying loads, (b) creating new courses, (c) starting new programs, (d) improving student recruitment, and (e) increasing student retention. (An updated version of the proposed strategies is attached to these minutes.)
In another announcement from the floor, Mr. Paul Simonds, Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS), reported that it is going forward with supporting a legislative bill drafted to include two faculty members on the State Board of Higher Education (which currently has no faculty representation). Submittal of the final form of the bill is imminent. Recall that the AAUP is promoting faculty membership on the state board as well.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
President Bybee asked for consideration of Motion US 97-3, a proposed change in senate bylaws election procedures for Interinstitutional Faculty Senate representatives from the UO. The motion reads as follows:
The three representatives and one alternate from the University of Oregon to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate shall be elected by the University Senate from the university voting faculty as a whole. The three IFS senators serve staggered terms of three years. The alternate shall serve a one year term, which may be renewed. When electing an IFS representative, the senate shall ensure that at least one of the three IFS representatives is a current member of the senate or has previous senate experience.
This motion would amend election procedures for IFS representatives to have the senate elect all three representatives, from both the senate and faculty at large. Formerly, one seat of three was elected by the voting faculty from the faculty at large, the other two by the senate from current senators. The motion proposes that the senate elects all three IFS positions, but from a wider constituency with the caveat that at least one IFS representative has previous University Senate experience.
After asking for discussion on the motion and hearing none, the motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously.
The next order of business was to elect the third IFS representative from the UO, vacant since the incumbent’s term expired in December, and also elect an alternative IFS representative. President Bybee graciously thanked, but turned down having his name placed in nomination by Senator Peter Gilkey, mathemetics, indicating that his upcoming schedule would preclude him from full participation in the IFS. Similarly, Vice President Ann Tedards, music, also declined nomination by Senator Altmann, noting that as president-elect of the senate she will be focusing her attention on that responsibility. Vice President Tedards then nominated Senator Linda Kintz, English. Requesting any further nominations but hearing none, President Bybee closed nominations and declared Senator Kintz elected by acclamation.
Finishing off old business, the floor was opened for nominations for the IFS alternate position to serve a one year, renewable term. Senator Gilkey nominated Senator Jim Isenberg, mathematics. With no other nominations forthcoming, President Bybee declared Senator Isenberg elected by acclamation.
NEW BUSINESS
The winter term curriculum report from University Committee on the Curriculum (UCC) was the first order of new business. Because this curriculum report had two parts, one concerning curriculum changes and the other proposing changes in the curriculum committee’s charge, President Bybee asked that the senate consider each part separately. Mr. Steven Chatfield, chair of the UCC, began his report asking first for clerical changes to the winter report followed by substantive changes. Architecture 620, Environmental Design Research (2-4), was an inadvertent omission and was added to the list of new courses. Regarding substantive changes, Ms. Louise Westling, head of the English department, was recognized by Mr. Chatfield and addressed the senate voicing her objections to the proposed comparative literature courses labeled COLT 201, 202, 203, and 204 titled Epic, Drama, Poetry, and Fiction, respectively. She added that, as presently listed, these courses appear to have no discernible differences from long-standing courses offered in the English department and listed under similar titles. Ms. Westling indicated that she has spoken with Mr. Roland Greene, head of comparative literature, who has agreed to work with her to develop course titles which more accurately depict the differences between the proposed new comparative literature courses and those in the English department. In an effort to have the proposed COLT courses accepted with this winter term curriculum report, Ms. Westling moved that she and Mr. Greene meet by April 4, 1997 and agree on more appropriate course titling for the proposed COLT courses. With no further discussion, the motion was passed. Finally, pages 4-12 of the winter curriculum report, excluding page 11 which concerns proposed changes in the charge and composition of the curriculum committee itself, were accepted as corrected.
Turning then to the section of the curriculum report dealing with the composition and operation of the UCC, Mr. Chatfield presented pertinent bits of historical information concerning the responsibilities of the committee, the final powers of approval, and the committee’s membership. After leading the senators through a prepared handout detailing the faculty legislation that charged, empowered, and described membership of the UCC, Mr. Chatfield noted that although there were a few minor changes proposed in the responsibilities of the committee, the most substantial proposed change was to include the dean of the Graduate School (or designee) as an ex-officio member of the committee. The Graduate School has the power to approve its own curricular changes, but coordination between the UCC and Graduate School would be improved with the addition of the Graduate School representative.
The motion on the floor to accept the curriculum report’s proposed operational changes led to a discussion on how best to disentangle the seeming overlap in duties and responsibilities between the UCC and the Undergraduate Education Policy Coordinating Council (UEPCC). Suggested approaches included postponing a vote on this motion and arranging a meeting between the two committees to let them sort out their respective committee charges. Alternatively, the Committee on Committees is currently studying committee structure with a goal of streamlining and reducing redundancy; they may be the most appropriate moderator of committee responsibilities. A third option was to pass the motion outright, confirming by legislation what the UCC is currently doing.
Vice President Tedards voiced a concern that the proposed wording listing a primarily UCC responsibility to screen “changes in general education requirements” was a direct overlap with the UEPCC’s responsibility. She spoke in favor of adding a member of the Graduate School to the UCC and further suggested adding a member of the UEPCC to the UCC to help them work together. Senator Anne Leavitt, student academic affairs, suggested that the Committee on Committees be given the opportunity to finish its work sorting out redundancy and duplication of effort. Ms. Nan Coppock-Bland, university editor, reminded senators that accepting the proposed composition and operation of the UCC would not preclude amendments or changes in the UCC at a later time; the committee was most intent on getting into legislation what it is currently doing. Senator Kintz moved that the senate approve the UCC’s proposed changes with the proviso that the Senate Executive Committee orchestrate a meeting between the two committees, in conjunction with the Committee on Committees, to work out differences in charges and responsibilities. Having no second, the motion failed to be placed on the floor. Mr. David Hubin, president’s office, again stated that although passing the UCC proposed changes would not preclude reconsidering it at a later point when the Committee on Committees makes its final recommendations, it may not be the most efficient way to proceed. Hearing no further comments, the discussion ended.
President Bybee put the motion to approve the proposed operational and membership changes in the UCC winter curriculum report (page 11 of the winter curriculum report) to a vote. The motion passed with three senators voting in opposition.
Consideration of motion US 97-4 -- Emergency Action, was the next order of business. The motion concerns the proposed addition of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 571-21-057 to the Student Conduct Code. The proposed motion would allow the student conduct coordinator (Ms. Elaine Green) to take "emergency action" when it was immediately necessary to secure the health or safety of other persons or the student against whom the action is taken when there is an alleged violation of the Student Conduct Code. The intent is that with an immediate threat, usually physical in nature, the student conduct coordinator or her designee, has the authority to take steps to ameliorate the situation. Emergency action includes but is not limited to (a) immediate withdrawal from the university, (b) restrictions on the accused student’s presence on university property or at university events, and (c) a request to undergo a medical or psychological evaluation at the Student Health Center.
To begin the discussion of the proposed rule, the senate voted to suspend the rules in order to permit the student co-chair of the Student Conduct Code Committee to address the senate. Ms. Mandi Hood, honors college, outlined a timeline for the proposed emergency action should it take place. The emergency action is essentially a prelude to the formal hearings process. It is enacted as soon as notice is given to the student that the action is taking place. The accused student will be given the reasons for the action and be given an opportunity to explain why the emergency action is not necessary. The student is informed that a preliminary hearing will take place within two business days. At the hearing, the student has the opportunity to be represented by a student advocate or other counsel and to demonstrate that none of the threatening conditions that prompted the action apply. Based on an evaluation of the preliminary hearing, the student conduct coordinator may (a) dissolve the emergency action and take no further action, (b) dissolve the emergency action but proceed to a full formal hearing, or (c) sustain the emergency action until a formal hearing regarding the accused student’s conduct may be held. The accused student has the right to have the emergency action reviewed by the dean of student life no sooner than on working day after a preliminary hearing is held. Finally, the student may ask for subsequent review of the emergency action ten days later, arguing that the emergency action no longer need be imposed.
Ms. Lisa Freinkel, English, co-chair of the Student Conduct Code Committee clarified some semantical changes suggested by the Senate Rules Committee. Having done so, Ms. Freinkel moved that the senate accept the proposed change to the Student Conduct Code in OAR 571-21-057 (and numbered US 97-4 for the University Senate). Full text of the motion may be found at the end of these minutes. In discussing the motion, Senator Dietrich Belitz, physics, asked what is currently being done in the absence of the proposed rule. Ms. Green replied that the likely action that would take place currently is that a trespass notice be given without having a regularized procedure. The intent of this motion is to put a reasonable procedure in place. Ms. Green further indicated that this motion intends to deal with imminent threat, not simply perceived threat, hence the notion of “emergency”. Senator Martha Ravits, women’s studies, wondered how likely it would be, for example, for a student who threaten someone with a gun to show up for the hearings procedures. Ms. Green answered that it is quite conceivable that an immediate threat might involve criminal activity and consequently the individual would be removed by campus or other police. Obviously the proposed code change can not provide complete protection for all such threats, but it is an attempt to ameliorate a threatening situation while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused student via preliminary and formal hearings.
Senator Alan Kimball, history, asked for clarification as to how the proposed rule compares with existing procedures for nonstudents and students in the dormitories. Ms. Green indicated that another section of the OARs addresses conduct in the student dormitories and these standards primarily deal with health, safety, and sanitation issues. For nonstudents who are threatening on campus, the general criteria for threatening action involve danger, health and safety, and nuisance. So essentially, the proposed change is a more narrow and restrictive change. Mr. Hubin added that when a trespass is issued, the Office of Public Safety notifies both the president’s office and Mr. Peter Swan, the university attorney.
With the discussion ended, President Bybee put motion US 97-4 -- Emergency Action, to a vote. The motion carried.
Noting that the hour was growing late, President Bybee asked for a sense if the senate wished to continue with the remainder of the agenda or postpone until the next senate meeting in April. Adhering to the traditional rule of ending senate meetings by 5:00 p.m., the senate indicated a desire to adjourn. President Bybee apologized to guests and visitors who attended the meeting in support of agenda items that were not addressed at this meeting, suggesting that they will be high on the agenda for the April senate meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
University of Oregon
Fall 1997 Enrollment Enhancement Projects
(Note: This is an update of the document distributed in the March 12, 1997 University Senate meeting.)
Project Name: Description FTE
*** IMPROVE RECRUITMENT ***
1. Summer Start
Freshman F97 denials, admitted to special summer session program 26
2. Admission Support Program
Increase number in program to maximum recommended by ALS 33
3. Dean's Scholars
Awards to highly qualified students ineligible for Presidential
Scholarships 25
4. Calls to Admits
Calls by admissions staff to admits on day of admission 50
5. Graduate Expansion
Select departments admit one or two more masters candidates than
planned 55
6. Increase Law Admits 5
7. Foreign Recruiting
Establish formal relationship with colleges in Taiwan and Hong Kong
15
(Trebon has already laid groundwork)
8. AEI Guaranteed Admit
Reinvigorate guaranteed admission
(coordinate with AEI, OIEE & Admission) 10
*** INCREASE RETENTION ***
9. September Experience
Special three week program for students moving to sophomore status
50
Possible target groups:
Catch up--courses for major, proficiency requirements
Marginal GPA after first year
Progress boost--sophs and juniors on the margin (need one or two
credits to move to next level
Placement boost--math, writing, foreign language
Skill development -- technology, arts, music, library usage,
internships
10. Calls to Drop-Outs Staff to call those registered spring '97 who have
not registered for fall '97 25
Calls to be made in August
11. ALS/FIG Leader Mentoring 5
Build on connection made in the fall with freshmen and reconnect in
the spring before registering for fall
12. Intervention with Probation Students 5
Personal follow up with each person placed on probation after
winter term. Coordinate through Deans.
*** NEW AND REVISED COURSES ***
13. Complete 3-4 Credit Conversion (Composition) 75
14. 1Cr Writing Course for AAA Studios 10
15. Ensemble and Senior Projects in Music 10
16. Science Senior Research Seminar 0
17. Library Tech Courses 30
Integrate current library courses with department based instruction in
a team taught format (1998)
18. 1 Credit Freshman Seminars Offer some seminars in "smaller" packages, increase participation (1998) 5
*** NEW PROGRAMS ***
19. 5th Year Teacher Ed Program 50
20. Communication Disorders Program Expansion (1998) 50
Motion US 97-4 -- Emergency Action
Proposed motion to add OAR 571-21-057 Emergency Action to the Student Conduct Code section of the Oregon Administrative Rules.
(1) The Student Conduct Coordinator or his/her designee may take emergency action when immediately necessary to secure the health or safety of other persons or the student against whom the action is taken ("the accused student") and there is an alleged violation of the Student Conduct Code.
(2) "Emergency Action" includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Immediate withdrawal from the University;
(b) Restrictions on the accused student's presence on University
property and/or University events; and
(c) At the time of the emergency action, the Student Conduct
Coordinator may request that the student secure a
medical/psychological evaluation through the Student Health Center or at
another facility at the student's own expense. The evaluation may be used
to determine the appropriateness of withdrawing the emergency action.
(3) At the time that the emergency action takes place, the Student
Conduct Coordinator or his/her designee shall:
(a) Inform the accused student of the reason for the emergency
action;
(b) Give the accused student the opportunity to explain why an
emergency action need not be taken;
(c) Inform the accused student that a preliminary hearing will
take place according to Section 4, and that the
accused student will be informed of its time, place, and date; and
(d) The possible restrictions that may be imposed prior to a
formal hearing.
(4) The preliminary hearing shall take place within two business days of the emergency action. At this hearing the accused student shall have a full opportunity to demonstrate to the Student Conduct Coordinator that none of the conditions specified in Section (1) apply. The accused person may be represented by a student advocate or other counsel.
(5) Based on the reasonable evaluation of the evidence presented at
the preliminary hearing, the Student Conduct Coordinator shall notify the
accused student within 24 hours of the decision to:
(a) Dissolve the emergency action and take no further action;
(b) Dissolve the emergency action but proceed to a full hearing
regarding the accused student's conduct as
prescribed in the Student Conduct Code; or
(c) Sustain the emergency action until such time as a formal
hearing regarding the accused student's conduct
may be held.
(6) An emergency action shall be reviewed by the Dean of Student Life or his/her designee at the request of the accused student no sooner than the next working day after the preliminary hearing. The review shall allow the accused student to argue that an emergency action need no longer be imposed. Subsequent review of the same emergency action may be requested no sooner than every ten days.
(7) Formal hearings subsequent to an emergency action shall occur no sooner than ten days, and shall be administered pursuant to 571-21-040 and 571-21-055 of this Code. The accused person may waive the ten day notice requirement in order to expedite the hearings process.
(8) If a hearings officer or panel removes restrictions on the accused student's housing or enrollment, the student will not be assessed fees for reinstatement.
Motion passed, University Senate March 12, 1997.