May 5, 1997

Minutes of the University Senate meeting April 9, 1997

Present: Acres, Altmann, Anderson, Belitz, Bennett, Chadwell, M. Davis, DeGidio, Farwell,
Gerdes, Gilkey, Halpern, Hawkins, Hurwit, Isenberg, Kimball, Kintz, Krishnamurthy, Leavitt,
Lees, Luks, Maxwell, McGee, Morse, O'Keefe, Owen, Page, Pope, Ravits, Rogers, Ryan, Soper,
Stavitsky, Tedards, Unger, Westling, P. Young.

Excused: Berk, H. Davis, Ellis, Engelking, Ostler, Paris, Wolfe, J. Young

Absent: Anderson-Inman, Blandy

CALL TO ORDER

President Carl Bybee called the meeting to order at 3:07 in room 110 Fenton Hall and thanked
everybody for his or her attendance, noting that the senate meeting time coincided with the
dedication of the Willamette Hall atrium to former President Paul Olum.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the March 12, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

The University of Oregon 1997 Accreditation Report was available for distribution. Senators
were asked to pick up a copy and familiarize themselves with its content, as this is the document
used by the accreditation team that visits the university April 21st-23rd. President Bybee
reminded senators that they might be invited to participate in discussions with the accreditation
team during their review of the university. The president also noted several adjustments to the
meeting agenda, noting that the parking and transportation alternatives information as well as the
background information on tuition remission for faculty and staff has been moved to the May
14th agenda. Secondly, due to the confidential nature of the Distinguished Service Award, the
senate would move to executive session at 4:40 in order to discuss the recommendations of the
committee concerning this year's award winners.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The first item of unfinished business was Motion US 97-5 from the Student Conduct Code
Committee (SCCC) to amend the formal hearings process section of the Student Conduct Code,
OAR 571-21-055. This part of the code concerns complaints against students in which the
resulting sanction may affect the student's academic standing at the university, such as by
suspension, expulsion, negative notation on transcript, or revocation of a degree. The amending
language proposes to replace the attorney hearings officer with a jury-like panel comprised of
faculty and students. In addition, the proposed amendment reiterates the standard of proof in
student conduct hearings as a "preponderance of evidence". (Full text of the proposed
amendment may be found as an addendum to these minutes.)

Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, moved to suspend the senate rules (unanimous consent) to
permit students Ms. Mandi Hood and Ms. Jenna Wasson, members of the SCCC, access to the
senate floor for discussion of the motion. Ms. Hood spoke from a student's perspective stating
her belief in the importance of students and faculty coming together to address issues such as
academic dishonesty. She indicated that student involvement in this formal hearings process
would provide a sound outside the classroom educational experience for students on the hearings
panel. Further, it would include the UO with all other OSSHE institutions that already have both
students and faculty on their hearings panels.

Ms. Wasson also spoke in favor of adopting the proposed amendments, adding that the ASUO
was in full support of the changes. She opined that as a community of students, faculty, and
administrators we were capable of jointly making decisions about student sanctions within the
university community rather than relying on decisions by a single attorney from the Eugene
community. Because students and faculty set the rules of the student conduct code, it seems most
appropriate to have students and faculty be directly involved in their implementation.

Mr. Steve Thoms, SCCC member, spoke in support of the motion from a faculty member's point
of view. He recounted some faculty members' indifference to the current formal hearings
process, believing that academic dishonesty cases heard by attorneys outside the campus are not
taken seriously, and that seldom does anything happen in these cases; in other words, the system
is "broken". Ms. Lisa Frankel, SCCC co-chair, reiterated that the charter of the university states
that faculty members are responsible for discipline of the students. This responsibility has been
delegated to an attorney whose judgments are made from a context outside the academic
community. Ms. Frankel believes it is important that such issues should be addressed on the
campus by faculty and students, thus reaffirming part of the mission of the faculty in its
responsibility to the university and its relationship with students.

Discussion of the motion ensued. Senator David McGee, ASUO, questioned the change from
"one free strike" dismissal of the hearings officer without cause. Ms. Elaine Green, student
conduct coordinator, indicated that the proposed changes would permit an accused student to
request as many changes in the hearings panel composition as necessary to prevent bias in the
hearings process. Senator Dietrich Belitz, physics, raised two issues: first, the danger of gaps
developing between community standards of offenses and punishments and university standards,
and second, the absence of a legally educated individual on the hearings panel. Ms. Wasson
responded that these issues were considered and addressed by having a third year law student
included on the hearings panel. Ms. Frankel added that the intention behind the change from an
outside attorney to a university faculty-student hearings panel was that it was too much like
criminal proceedings processes. She noted that the academic community is different than the
world at large and the way we maintain the values of our academic environment are not always
well suited to criminal proceeding processes. Senator Gilkey mentioned that other OSSHE
institutions do not have a formal legal process and they appear to function quite well. He noted
that there are other places on campus that hear rather contentious cases that may have legal
repercussions and which function without a lawyer. He believes that reasonable people can
function capably in handling such proceedings.

Senator Ben Unger, ASUO, took issue with section 2 (c), which states that "the standard of proof
required to find a student responsible for violation of the Student Conduct Code is a
preponderance of the evidence." Senator Unger indicated he believed the statement dealing with
evidence only muddled the clarity of the proposed code changes, and moved to strike section 2
(c). Senator Catherine Page, chemistry, inquired as to what would be the effect of striking this
section to which Ms. Green replied that status quo would be maintained. The standard of proof
currently is a preponderance of evidence, as determined by rulings from the court of appeals;
however, this standard is not written anywhere in the code. Section 2 (c) was added for clarity
and to reduce the cumbersome process of going to other sources or to getting a ruling for the
standard. Senator Dave Soper, physics, also spoke with concern about the standard of proof. He
agrees that charges of academic dishonesty are serious charges and, as such, should be dealt with
seriously. But he stated that rather than striking the section, the standard of proof should be more
than a preponderance of evidence, which are minimally 51 percent of the evidence, for the
hearings panel to suspend or expel a student from the university. Senator Unger said that his
purpose for striking the section was to have the SCC give the evidence issue greater
consideration. Ms. Green replied that SCC members from the past two years had given
considerable thought to this issue before settling on the standard used in the university, by other
universities, and in civil court proceedings. The vote on the motion to strike section 2 (c) was
unfavorable and the motion failed.

Senator Soper then moved to amend the end of section 2 (c) to include, "except that no student
shall be suspended or expelled from the university unless the hearings panel finds that there is
clear and convincing evidence that the student is guilty of the alleged violation". Discussion of
the Soper motion to amend resulted in a further motion to amend from Senator Unger to strike the
words "suspended or" from the Soper motion, based on sentiments that suspension was less
extreme than being expelled from the university. The Unger motion passed, as did the Soper
motion. Final wording of section 2 (c) then read,

The standard of proof required to find a student responsible for violation of the Student Conduct Code is a preponderance of the evidence except that no student shall be expelled from the university unless the hearings panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the student is guilty of the alleged violation.

Hearing no further discussion on the main motion (US 97-5) to amend the formal hearings section
of the Student Conduct Code (OAR 571-21-055), the motion was put to a vote and passed.

The next order of business was a presentation of background information to launch debate on the
issue of providing benefits to domestic partners in preparation for the consideration of Resolution
US 97-6 on the same issue. (Full text of the resolution can be found as an addendum to these
minutes.) Ms. Maram Epstein, co-chair of Task Force of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and
Transgender Concerns (GLBTC), began the presentation by indicating that as a prospective
faculty member several years ago, she had concerns about health care for her partner. Once a
faculty member, she was struck by the lack of discussion about domestic partner benefits,
especially in the face of so many high tech and private industries in the state offering such
benefits to their employees. She noted, too, that attempts to begin raising the issue were met with
comments about it not being a "good time". Her committee was acutely aware of the special
relationship the university has with the legislature with funding issues at the forefront of the
legislative session, but it never appears to be a good time to ask that benefits policy be reviewed.
Further, Ms Epstein remarked that given the number of announcements about businesses and
government agencies that will soon be offering domestic partner benefits, it was not a bad time to
have this discussion on our campus.

Ms. Linda King, director of human resources, spoke about domestic partner benefits from the
perspective of recruiting, retaining, and motivating the work force to support the mission of the
university. Ms. King stated that the compensation package, which includes benefits, is a very
important part of recruiting and retaining good quality employees -- faculty and staff --at the
university. In addition, equity of benefits is another important issue in attracting and retaining
good quality employees. An analysis of the cost of such benefits for the UO campus has not been
made. Because we are part of the state system, the governing benefits boards must make the
decision to offer benefits to domestic partners. This senate discussion, and the resolution that will
be voted on later in the meeting, is an attempt to begin that process.

The next presenter, Senator Marilyn Farwell, English, related several stories of UO employees
who have borne heavier financial burdens because domestic partners or family members were not
covered with medical benefits in times of sickness and ill-health. She noted the demoralizing
nature of being an employee and having family members excluded from the safety net of health
benefits at a university whose official policy is one of nondiscrimination. Senator Farwell
estimated that the loss of income due to paying for health insurance coverage for a domestic
partner not covered elsewhere was approximately $2,500 - $3, 000 per year. In situations when
the nonuniversity domestic partner becomes ill, health care expenses are far greater in those
instances where private insurance coverage is not as good as the university's plan. Senator
Farwell commented that when health insurance is a necessity as it is in this age, and when such
coverage is available to one kind of family but not to another, the employee's work, morale, and
finances suffer, the results of which affect everyone in the university community.

The final background information presenter on the domestic partner benefits issue was Mr. Dom
Vetri, law. He spoke to the issues of equity and fairness in having a domestic benefits policy,
noting that heterosexual as well as gay and lesbian domestic partners were included in the
proposed resolution. Mr. Vetri explained that people may choose not to get married for a variety
of reasons, but they still form loving family relationships, and still have health care needs. He
pointed out that the university already recognizes the principle of fairness and equity in places
where it does not cost them any money, such as: access to library and recreational facilities,
eligibility for sickness and bereavement leave, the employee assistance program, the counseling
center, and the trailing partner and spouse employment programs.

Mr. Vetri raised the issue of costs of this benefit and indicated that every study done in places
where domestic partners benefits have been implemented has shown that costs have increased
only .2 to 3.5 percent. Average enrollment increase has been about .3 percent, not 3 to 9 percent
as were some early estimates. Nearly 60 colleges and universities have implemented domestic
partner benefits, all without any dire consequences. The 1993 Harvard study indicated that most
plans have essentially no increases at all. Mr. Vetri further suggested that a domestic partner
benefits policy was in the best interest of the university because unmarried couples would have
the peace of mind that they had some support in times of health crisis. Businesses know that
employees who have such peace of mind are more productive, hence it is good business sense to
offer these benefits. It enables employers to attract the best-qualified employees and offers a
nondiscriminatory, welcoming atmosphere. Mr. Vetri concluded the background information
presentation by asking for support of the resolution. He asked that President Frohnmayer join
with other OSSHE presidents to ask the state to review and reconsider its policy on domestic
partner benefits.

President Bybee asked for discussion of the proposed resolution, which had been distributed
earlier and which reads, in part,

WE THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVE that the University of Oregon seek to provide employment insurance benefits to the domestic partners and children of university employees in domestic-partner relationships in the same fashion as is provided for married employees, and we respectfully request that the university president and vice president for administration actively pursue and advocate for the timely extension of such employment insurance benefits with all public entities having jurisdiction in this matter including, but not necessarily limited to, the State Employees Benefits Board (SEBB), the Bargaining Unit Benefits Board (BUBB), the Oregon State System of Higher Education (OSSHE), other public universities

Ms. Kalpana Krishnamurthy, ASUO, spoke in support of the resolution, saying that it just makes
sense that people in committed relationships deserve the same benefits as married employees. In
an effort to keep discussion at a minimum and vote immediately on the resolution, Ms.
Krishnamurthy suggested the question be called. Senator Gilkey called the question, but failing
to receive a two-thirds majority vote, discussion on the topic continued. Senator Soper asked for
clarification on whether singles are partially subsidizing married couples benefits, which was his
understanding. If that is true and domestic partner couples are added to the married couples
group, singles would then be subsidizing an even larger amount of benefits. Ms. King responded
that it is true that in the tier structure of the health benefits plan, the cost is weighted slightly
higher for the single person (without children) than for the family plan. This formulation of
benefits has been in existence for a long time.

Senator Belitz raised the point that since no serious cost-benefit analysis has been done, it is hard
to form an opinion about the issue, simply from an economic viewpoint. Senator Michael Davis,
ASUO, supported the notion of extending the same benefits to all faculty members on a moral
basis, regardless of the cost-benefits. Senator Daniel Pope, history, also supported the resolution,
indicating that the benefits of this policy have been pointed out clearly by earlier presenters, and
with the "cafeteria" method of providing benefits, the cost is coming out of the employee's
pocket. Having the opportunity to add other family members does little to diminish the amount
that an individual employee pays.

Senator Soper then moved to amend the resolution under discussion by adding that, "any subsidy
to any of the beneficiaries be minimal." In explaining his amendment, Senator Soper wished to
advise administrators pursuing this policy minimize the amount of "tax" or subsidizing that the
single employee makes, an issue that he alluded to previously in the discussion. Senator Barbara
Altmann, romance languages, was not supportive of the amendment, saying that whether singles
subsidize married couples health benefits is a different question and issue than that to which the
resolution speaks. Subsidy, as a separate issue, should be dealt with separately and not within the
text of this resolution. Senator Martha Ravits, women's studies, responded that the question of
extra cost for domestic partner benefits has been minimal where implemented, thus she was
against the amendment. Senator Soper replied that the discussion had focused on equity, and the
difference between single employees and married employees health insurance rates was indeed an
equity issue. At that point, Senator M. Davis successfully called the question on Senator Soper's
amendment. The vote on the amendment to the resolution failed. Senator Davis again
successfully called the question, this time on the main resolution, Resolution US 97-6 concerning
domestic partner benefits. The resolution was put to a vote passed, with two abstentions.

NEW BUSINESS

President Bybee instructed senators to fill out and return copies of the Spring 1997 Senate Survey
that were handed out, and reminded senators to pick up their copy of the accreditation report.
Additionally, Senator Susan Anderson, Germanic languages, indicated that the senate Nominating
Committee was taking nominations for senate vice president up until May 14th to establish a
candidate slate, and would take additional nominations at the May 28th organizing meeting for
new and current senators. The Committee on Committees is also receiving nominations for the
five new members of that committee.

With the time being 4:40 p.m., President Bybee moved the senate to executive session to consider
candidates for the Distinguished Service Award (DSA), with apologies to University Librarian
George Shipman and the Committee on Committees whose presentation and motions,
respectively, would be carried over to the May 14th senate meeting. Credentials of three
candidates were presented by Mr. David Hubin, DSA committee member, for the Distinguish
Service Award that will be awarded at graduation. All three candidates were confirmed in
unanimous votes.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty

===============================================================
ADDENDUM

US 97-5 -- Formal Hearings. Amendment to OAR 571-21-055, replacing (1) and (2) in their entirety, with the following:

(1) Membership: Selection; Hearing Board Chair; Presiding Officer; Refusal; Removal
(a) Student Conduct Code formal hearings are heard by a panel on which faculty and students are
represented, drawn from a pool known as the "Hearings Board".
(b) The Hearings Board shall consist of eighteen members, all of whom must be appointed by the University President:

(i) Ten students, of whom four must be second or third year law students. The student members shall be registered students at the University of Oregon and shall have been recommended to the President by the ASUO. Each student member is appointed for a one-year term and may be reappointed for additional terms. Two of the law students shall be recommended by May 1 and two by Sept. 15.
(ii) Four University officers of instruction, all of whom the Committee on Committees shall recommend to the President. Half will serve a one-year term and half will serve a two-year term.
(iii) Four University officers of administration, all of whom the Committee on Committees shall recommend to the President. Half will serve a one-year term and half will serve a two-year term.

(c) A "Hearings Panel" shall consist of three students, one whom shall be a second or third year
law student, and two faculty members (one officer of instruction, and one officer of
administration) selected from the Hearings Board. A hearing cannot proceed with fewer than four
(4) members present.
(d) Presiding Officer at Formal Hearings. Each Hearings Panel shall select from among them a
presiding officer who shall:

(i) Administer the process of the formal hearing; and
(ii) Issue final rulings on behalf of the panel.

(e) A Hearings Panel member shall be excused from hearing a case if:

(i) The member is from the department or school in which the incident allegedly took place; or
(ii) A majority of the Hearings Panel members vote that there would be substantial bias to
the accused student if the panel member were to hear the case.

(f) Hearings Board Chair. The appointed Hearings Board members shall select a Hearings Board
chair from among their members. The chair must be a faculty member or a Hearings Board
member with at least one-year of experience. The chair shall:

(i) Assist the Coordinator of Student Conduct in administering the formal hearings
process;
(ii) Coordinate selection and assignment of panel members who shall hear a case; and
(iii) Have authorization to sign, and thereby ratify, negotiated settlements presented and signed by the Coordinator of Student Conduct and charged student.

(g) Removal for Nonperformance of Duties. A member of the Hearings Board may be dismissed
if the member consistently does not perform his or her duties. The Board Chair may consult with
the member in question, explain concerns and develop work plans to improve performance of
duties, or with the majority vote of the Hearings Board authorize the member's dismissal pursuant
to final approval of the University President.
(2). Powers
(a) Upon commencement of a formal hearing the Hearing Panel shall have the power to:

(i) Make findings of fact;
(ii) Determine whether or not the student has violated the Code;
(iii) Impose any sanction listed in 571-21-038 of the Student Conduct Code.

(b) Any decision of the Hearing Panel shall be made by a simple majority of the tribunal.
(c) The standard of proof required to find a student responsible for violation of the Student
Conduct Code is a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) Decisions made by the panel may be appealed to the University Appeals Board as provided in
571-21-072.
(3) Policy on Open and Closed Hearings (Unchanged)
(4) Procedures as per APA (Unchanged)
(5) Conduct of Hearings (Unchanged)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full text of Resolution US 97-6 - Domestic Partner Benefits

The Standing Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns and other
members of the faculty and staff of the University of Oregon submit the following resolution to
the University Senate:

WHEREAS, the University of Oregon and the State Board of Higher Education provide
employment insurance benefits to the spouses and children of employees because it is in the
employer's best interests to do so, in that it boosts workplace morale, creates a more efficient
work environment, and provides a sense of security to employees about family health expenses;
and

WHEREAS, a number of university employees, lesbian and gay and heterosexual, are living in
spousal equivalent relationships --domestic partnerships -- and it is similarly in the university's
and in the state board's best interests to provide employment insurance benefits to the partners
and children of these employees to boost workplace morale, maintain a more efficient work
environment, and provide a sense of security to such employees about their family health
expenses; and

WHEREAS, current university and state board policies provide for such benefits as sick leave,
bereavement leave, family counseling, trailing spouse benefits, and library privileges in a non-
discriminatory fashion to all employees and their families, heterosexual and lesbian and gay; and

WHEREAS, the university and the state board have non-discrimination policies that include
sexual orientation and marital status; and

WHEREAS, the denial of employment insurance benefits to the domestic partners and children of
unmarried employees - lesbian, gay and heterosexual - who are living in domestic partnership
relationships is inconsistent with the university and state board non-discrimination policies
because the denial sets different and unequal terms and conditions of employment for employees
who have domestic partners; and

WHEREAS, the denial of employment insurance benefits to the domestic partners and child
dependents of unmarried employees - lesbian, gay and heterosexual - who are living in spousal
equivalent relationships results in a substantial financial cost over an employee's work life and
can pose an extreme hardship in some cases; and

WHEREAS, providing such employment insurance benefits to domestic partnership relationships
will not impose an economic burden on the university or the State of Oregon because the
experience of other academic institutions (now totaling more than sixty), numerous
municipalities, and many private corporations show that the enrollment rate for domestic partner
benefits averages 1 percent to 2 percent of potential beneficiaries with no appreciable increase in
premium costs; and

WHEREAS, a policy of offering insurance benefits to the domestic partners and dependents of
heterosexual, gay and lesbian employees will improve the ability of the University to attract and
retain outstanding academic and administrative faculty and staff members; and

WHEREAS, the experience of more than sixty other academic institutions throughout the United
States demonstrates that workable, efficient regulations can be adopted to implement a policy of
employment health benefits for employees in domestic-partner relationships;

WE THEREFORE HEREBY RESOLVE that the University of Oregon seek to provide
employment insurance benefits to the domestic partners and children of university employees in
domestic-partner relationships in the same fashion as is provided for married employees, and we
respectfully request that the university president and vice president for administration actively
pursue and advocate for the timely extension of such employment insurance benefits with all
public entities having jurisdiction in this matter including, but not necessarily limited to, the State
Employees Benefits Board (SEBB), the Bargaining Unit Benefits Board (BUBB), the Oregon
State System of Higher Education (OSSHE), other public universities