Minutes of the University Senate= Meeting, April 8, 1998

 

 

Present: Acres, Baldwin, Belitz, Boush, Burkhart, Chadwell,= Conley, Dale, DeGidio, Dolezal, Eisert, Ellis, Farwell, Gerdes, Gilkey,= Hurwit, Kershner, Kintz, Kriegel, Larson, Leahy, Lees, Luks, Morse, Olson,= Page, Singell, Smith, Tedards, Tublitz, Upshaw, Vakareliyska, Westling,= Young

 

Excused: Altmann, Berk, Foster, Kahle, Kimball, O=92Keefe, Paris,= Paynter, Stavitsky, Wood

 

Absent: Cohen, McGee, Stein

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President Ann Tedards called the regular meeting of the= University Senate to order at 3:08 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

The president asked for any additions or corrections to the minutes.= Hearing none, the minutes stood approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer. President= Frohnmayer provided an update on progress with the Process for Change= project and other items of general interest. The president spoke of earlier= times when public universities enjoyed high levels of state support and= relatively large amounts of federal research funding, explaining that in= the decades of the fifties, sixties, and seventies, society recognized the= importance of educating the huge Baby Boom generation, providing= educational access to disenfranchised individuals, and out-racing the= Soviet Union in technology. Noting that those days are gone forever, the= president suggested that our future is marked by comparatively low levels= of tax support, comparatively higher tuition, a changing student body, and= new expectations from the society in which we live.

 

On the other hand, President Frohnmayer reported some good news in that= we are going to achieve greater budgetary fairness within the Oregon= University System (OUS). The seven OUS presidents, state board=92s staff,= and most of its members accepted in concept the principles of campuses= retaining the tuition fees they generate. Beyond that, a fairer matrix of= state funding which follows the students in the OUS will be used. It will= require a substantial addition of the state=92s appropriation to higher= education. This represents a more positive direction for funding higher= education in Oregon than has been evidenced in the last two decades.

 

In the short run, it is unlikely that we will get back to pre-Measure 5= funding levels; rather, we would be fortunate to return to a twenty percent= level of state funding. Even so, that would make a huge difference in the= way we operate. Citing a recent poll conducted by the American Council of= Education, President Frohnmayer noted that when a large, demographically= diverse sample of American families were asked what they valued most of all= the things they could purchase, they rated a four-year college education= for their children or grandchildren higher than any other single value.= Although the value of the higher education enterprise is well understood,= it does not translate into an understanding of how we do our business, or= of why we charge the prices that we do. There is still a lot of work to be= done with our respective publics. Nevertheless, recognition of the value= of higher education is perhaps at its highest level.

 

With that, the president noted that we have begun a parallel Process for= Change. He remarked at how resistant many people are to change. However,= President Frohnmayer commented on how extraordinarily pleased he has been= with the quality and the quantity of involvement by members of the campus= community in the Process for Change throughout the year. He stated his= belief that in transforming what we do, to do it even better, we will not= lose sight of our core value of upholding the vitality of a liberal arts= education as long as we adhere to the highest levels of scholarship and= service. The president said that if he were to point to a single indictment= of the recent governor=92s task force on higher education and the economy,= it would be that it faults the higher education system of the state for= failing to live up to its highest values. Those values are of cultivating= analytical skills, of cultivating the capacity to communicate orally and in= writing, to calculate even simple mathematical problems, and the ability to= work collaboratively in groups. These are the heart of a liberal arts= education and our mission, and there are those who believe that we have not= delivered as well as we need to in order to meet the needs of our= students.

 

The president further remarked at how well the faculty, staff, and= students responded to his call to meet the challenges presented in the= Process for Change. Nineteen work groups produced a substantial amount of= ideas and suggestions for improvement. The Senate Executive Committee, the= Council of Deans, the Faculty Advisory Council, and the president=92s small= executive staff are in the process of sifting through these reports. The= preliminary results demonstrate an agreeably similarity in responses to the= raw material of idea generated. A report synthesizing all the ideas= developed through the Process for Change will be available for review in= mid May. The president also announced a town-hall style meeting he has= called for May 20th during which the campus community can= discuss and give their final reactions to the report.

 

The amount of time and effort given to this project indicates that the= people involved are not afraid of change, or of tackling the difficult= problems, or of looking at ways in which we can do things better. The= president suggested that the outcome will be not a single master plan, but= a collection of smaller plans that lead to significant numbers of= improvements in how we do what we do, better. Their timing will be= staggered based on their importance and on funding availability. In that= respect, the president believes we will be able to maintain and accommodate= our change and position the university strategically at the very time when= the OUS itself is undergoing a massive change. He intends to implement this= in a way in which the UO we will continue to be viewed as the flagship= institution, able to adapt more readily to the governor=92s charge to us= than any of the other system institutions.

 

Moving to other topics, President Frohnmayer noted two other items of= interest. For more than a year the UO has developed a self-study of its= collegiate athletic program in preparation for a site visit from the NCAA= this past week. During the visit, NCAA officials interviewed the presidents= of both the university and the University Senate inquiring about our= internal processes. They were favorably disposed to the high level of= faculty governance evidenced by the direct participation of the= Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, a committee which reports to the= senate, and which is emblematic of the positive role of faculty governance= at the university.

 

Finally, the president gave a progress report on the Riverfront Research= Park (RRP) review process. The members to conduct the review have been= selected in accordance with advice from the Faculty Advisory Council, and= include some members who signed a petition calling for the review. The= president spoke specifically about several elements of the review, that is,= by law the Eugene City Council is required by July 1, 1998 to make a final= decision as to the continuation of any urban renewal project it has within= its boundaries, one of which includes the RRP. A few weeks ago, the= Riverfront Research Park Commission sent a recommendation to the mayor and= Eugene City Council to adopt what is called the Base Option and that the= RRP be continued under the terms of the Base Option. Among other aspects,= the Base Option includes a reduced level of funding from that which= currently maintains the infrastructure of the park, and which this= university otherwise would probably be required to assume if the urban= renewal district were to be abandoned, even given our budget stringency.= The Base Option also provides for the development of bicycle paths and= other infrastructure development and it specifically states that the= development of the park in the interim =96 at least in the foreseeable= future =96 be on the south side of the railroad tracks. As such, the Base= Option preserves the status quo so that the review process which the= president has instituted can continue. Thus, President Frohnmayer indicated= that he will write to the mayor and the city council asking that they= maintain the RRP as an urban renewal district under the conditions= identified with the Base Option.

 

Opening the floor up for comments or questions, the president responded= to a question from Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, clarifying that the Base= Option would hold development of the area north of the railroad tracks in= abeyance; the priority for development would be south of the tracks while= the review process of the RRP continues. Senator Paula Burkhart inquired as= to the membership of the RRP review committee. The president replied that= the committee is chaired by Mr. Theodore Palmer, mathematics, chair of the= Campus Planning Committee. A full listing of the members is attached as an= addendum to these minutes (page 6).

 

Report from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). IFS= senate representative Laura Alpert, fine arts, reported on the recent IFS= meeting held here on the UO campus. The meeting agenda platformed an= unusually large number of invited guests including: UO President Dave= Frohnmayer, Ms. Gretchen Pierce, member of the governor=92s Task Force on= Higher Education and the Economy, State Representative Susan Castillo, OUS= Chancellor Joe Cox, Mr. Tom Imeson, member of the State Board of Higher= Education, Mr. Steve Handron, North Eugene High School, and Representative= Jim Welsh. Included with their respective presentations at the meeting were= suggestions to respond to changing trends in the state work force=92s= educational needs, an emphasis on the importance of faculty members having= personal interactions with state legislators, and an awareness of the= increasingly blurred distinction between public and private education. Mr.= Imeson outlined the significant budget changes proposed for the OUS (see= President Frohnmayer=92s remarks earlier in these minutes). Additionally,= Mr. Handron discussed problems inherent with the Proficiency-based= Admissions Standards System (PASS). He suggested that although the written= standards are high for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and= Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) for high school students, the nature= of the examination process is difficult and administration problematic. In= his view, the enormous breath of the CIM and CAM requirements will force= shorter and more superficial coverage of subject matter.

 

Other items discussed by the IFS were the development of a slate of= candidates for the new faculty position on the state board; continued= reciprocity of support for a student tuition freeze and pay raises for= faculty; and concern over the proposed OUS Performance Measures and= Indicators, especially the listing of faculty pay as an indicator of "cost= effectiveness" rather than of "quality". Similarly, questions were raised= regarding changes in the power and authority of the chancellor=92s office= in the new OUS as well as who will monitor the Performance Measures and= Indicators. Smaller OUS institutions also questioned their ability to= remain competitive in small educational markets during slow economic= periods.

 

Senate Nominating Committee call for nominations. Committee= chair Senator Clare Lees, English, invited senators to nominate= individuals for the position of senate vice president any time before May= 27, 1998 when the election will be held during the organizational meeting= for the carry-over and incoming newly elected senators. The vice president= is president-elect of the senate. Senator Lees stressed the importance of= continued strong leadership in this position, noting the progress the= senate has made strengthening the role and position of faculty governance= over its first two years since restructuring.

 

Announcements and communications from senators. Senator Elliott= Dale, ASUO, addressed the senators from his position as president of the= Interfraternity Council on campus. He asked senators to talk with their= constituencies and encourage faculty members to help the fraternities in= their efforts to raise academic standards in the Greek system. Senator Dale= would like faculty members to volunteer to act as academic advisors to the= various fraternities (and sororities), and provided written materials for= senators to distribute to interested faculty members.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Distinguished Service Award Committee. President Tedards asked for= and received a motion that the senate move into Executive Session to= discuss the nominations for the Distinguished Service Awards and an= honorary doctorate. Accordingly, all non-senators were asked to leave the= meeting for a short period of time. Names of award winners, if any, are= made known publicly at a time just prior to the spring graduation ceremony.= At the conclusion of the Executive Session, non-senators were invited to= rejoin the meeting.

 

University Senate Executive Committee report on Process for Change.= President Tedards reported that the Senate Executive Committee had= spent time individually reviewing the many reports of the Solution Teams= during the spring vacation break, and then meeting as a group to draft a= summary of the reports for review by the senate. Full text of the executive= committee=92s draft summary report can be viewed on the University Senate= web page at: http://darkwing= .uoregon.edu/~uosenate/senate.html. President Tedards reminded the= senators that this document is one of four from groups producing summary= reports on the Solution Teams efforts, which in turn, will be integrated= into a final report from the provost. That report will be the topic of= discussion and reaction at the May 20th town meeting style= assembly called by President Frohnmayer. This senate executive committee=92= s draft document is not for publication, but rather represents the executive= committee=92s best efforts at sifting through and summarizing the Solution= Teams=92 reports.

 

Senate Vice President Jeff Hurwit began a discussion of the summary= report by noting that the executive committee identified four over-riding= points as important during the Process for Change implementation stage.= First, it is the hope of the committee that the Process for Change will= result in material improvements to the instructional program and benefits= to intellectual life at the university. Second, the university must remain= a traditional four-year residential research university with an emphasis on= general education rooted in the liberal arts. Parallel to this traditional= mission, we must expand our offerings in non-traditional delivery of= education to serve increasing numbers of non-traditional students. Third,= the executive committee encourages the central administration especially to= consult with the various campus entities that are most relevant to any= change under consideration. As plans for implementation develop, each= membership group of the university -- administrators, faculty, staff, and= students =96 should be involved in making decisions concerning what each= group knows the most about and does best. And finally, as we position= ourselves for the future in a rapidly changing environment, we must define= ourselves rather than let external forces define us.

 

The report further highlighted and consolidated a litany of ideas and= suggestions from the various Solution Teams under the framework of eight= major headings: undergraduate education, graduate education, funding and= budget, university tradition and internal communication, expanded= offerings, public image and visibility, diversity, and university= structure. At this point Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, drew the= senate=92s attention to two specific suggestions in the report. The first= was to develop a "frequent scholar program" tuition credit plan in which= for every fifteen credits earned, a student could receive one credit free.= Another idea was to "pay" faculty for doing good advising by rewarding= faculty via their ASA accounts.

 

Members of the executive committee proceeded to guide the senate through= the report, leading to a discussion and reaction period afterwards. Senator= Dietrich Belitz, physics, asked about the suggestion to have tuition breaks= for children of faculty and staff members, wondering if this would raise an= equity issue among individuals who may not be able to take advantage of= this break. He suggested it is better to keep compensation for faculty and= staff monetary rather than in the form of services that everyone may not be= able to take advantage of fully. Senator Gilkey noted that the main= objective of this idea was not necessarily financial, but rather to build a= sense of community and better morale among faculty and staff. Senator Paula= Burkhart, graduate school, supported the idea saying the financial impact= for staff with low incomes would be substantial.

 

At the conclusion of the report run-through, Vice President Hurwit= thanked Provost John Moseley, Vice Provost Lorraine Davis, President= Frohnmayer and others in the central administration for the level of= inclusiveness woven into the Process for Change. He recognized that= building a consensus such as this one is extremely time consuming and= costly, but he was certain in the long run the process would serve us all= well. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, commented that when we first started= this Process for Change, he, and certainly other faculty members, was= somewhat cynical about the entire process =96 coming up with ideas and= actually implementing them. However, he remarked that this report proves= him wrong, and further, he commended the senate executive committee for= pulling together a report that, if even partially implemented, would result= in a much better university. Senator David Conley, education, suggested= that under the area of university structure we would have to look at the= culture of the university and come to grips with the broader notion of= culture and how we are structured. President Tedards replied that the= section under university structure may appear somewhat thin in that the= items there represent long term goals that will require considerable more= thought for development and implementation. Finally, Senator Catherine= Page, chemistry, suggested adding the raising of admission standards a= point under the topic of undergraduate education. President Tedards replied= that it had been included in earlier drafts and was mistakenly omitted in= this one =96 it will be added to this report.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Notice of motion from the Faculty Advisory Council(FAC). The= president recognized Ms. Marjorie Woollacott, chair of the FAC, who gave= notice that the FAC intended to put forth a motion at the May 13, 1998= senate meeting concerning proposed revisions to the post tenure review= policy. Ms. Woollacott indicated that the proposed policy revisions were= developed from an earlier 1994 report on rewards and development of faculty= as well as the recent 1997 accreditation report.

 

Notice of motion from the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC).= Senator Gilkey, chair of the FPC, was recognized to give notice of his= intention to move for several revisions to the FPC=92s charge at the May= senate meeting. He noted that current legislation for the committee is= rather scattered, and that his committee will suggest some changes in their= charge.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other new business forthcoming, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00= p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty

 

 

 

 

ADDENDUM

 

Riverfront Research Park Review Committee, Spring 1998

 

Members

 

Paul Engelking, chemistry

Debbie Gautelli-Steinberg, anthropology (graduate student)

Tom Hoyt, attorney (975 Oak St., Eugene)

Dave Hubin, president=92s office

Joanne Hugi, computing center

Michelle Johnson, ASUO (student senate)

Theodore Palmer, mathematics

Marian Smith, music