List of 11 Items of Importance for the Year from President Frohnmayer

This list was presented in June of 1995 and consisted of the following items which were expected to be of special significance for the university during the coming year: Governance; Salaries; Goal Setting; Relationship With OSSHE; Portland Presence; Morale and Campus Communication; "Oregon Model"; Oregon Campaign; ROTC, Policy and Process; Affirmative Action, US Supreme Court; Ethnic Studies as Major.

Evaluation of Teaching and Learning

This issue remained an agenda item throughout the year, initially brought to the FAC in October. Prof. Rice has been involved with this matter for over two years and developed revisions to the proposed policy over the course of the year to be able to bring it before the "new" Senate. The proposals to strengthen the evaluation of teaching grew out of the work of the previous Teaching Workgroup of 1993 and the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development and input from such groups as the Faculty Personnel Committee. Eventually this proposal was broken down into two separate measures for legislation: one entitled "Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning" and the other entitled "Peer Evaluation of Teaching and Learning".

Some of the discussion in the FAC centered on how many courses were to be evaluated and on the distinctions in the policies as related to tenured or untenured faculty. Eventually there was consensus on the evaluation of all courses taught by tenured and untenured faculty with enrollments greater than 10. The disposition of signed written student evaluations (which has been inconsistent on campus) was also clarified and a section on "procedure" was added to the policy regarding peer review.

Toward year end the policies were sent to the Senate and some adjustments have been made including reference to z-scores as requested by the Senate. The FAC still feels that some method of comparison is helpful and recommends that perhaps a Task Group be formed next year to seek a common and more valid comparison technique. It was also felt that a teaching evaluation process for Instructors and GTFs needs to be developed.

It was suggested that a similar evaluation process should be established for Department Heads, Deans, and Provosts. It was noted that there are policies covering such reviews, but they occur at longer intervals. This was regarded as a good issue to bring to the Senate with the thought that administrators seek an informal annual review from peers as helpful to improving performance in these roles.

Oregon State System of Higher Education Strategic Planning Process - Higher Education Reorganization

This was another issue which consumed several meetings of the FAC. Chancellor Joe Cox with the State Board had initiated a study of the Structure of the State System at the end of September calling for a major look at "restructuring" opportunities to meet the needs of higher education for the 21st Century. Prof. Paul Simonds, President of the Senate joined us for our initial discussion on this topic. President Frohnmayer articulated the principle that "restructuring must be accompanied by re-investment." This whole effort is being largely driven by the Portland business community which is calling for statewide improvement in the system. Much concern was expressed about early models of two primary campuses - the UofO and OSU and the fallout from that consideration. There was also concern that our true goals as a system be looked at before jumping to restructuring proposals.

Soon this process involved Governor Kitzhaber, who in October issued a significant letter calling for a comprehensive examination of all facets of education in Oregon from K-12 to the Community Colleges and Higher Education. For this "educational continuum" concept he outlined four principles as : Quality; Responsibility; Access; and Cost Effectiveness.

The subsequent development of this process led to the formation of four Task Groups with statewide membership from various constituencies to look at Undergraduate Education; Economic Development; Lifelong Education and Professional Development; and Graduate Education and Research.

The FAC has been involved with reviewing outcomes of this process and advising the university administration. Among concerns are those that a rationalization of the funding stream across the continuum is necessary, that the process is overly driven by a corporate model which treats knowledge as a commodity, that there may be too much emphasis on technology and professional programs and not enough stress on the liberal arts mission, a concern about public understanding of the meaning of a research institution, and questions about where the process was leading in regard to a model of centralized or decentralized decision making within the system.

The initial aspect of the process is expected to be completed in June with the identification of overall strategic objectives.

Issues of Restructuring of UO Affirmative Action and Discrimination Resolution Policies

The FAC devoted 8 meetings to this topic. It was introduced through a memorandum in February from President Frohnmayer which included the administration's initial response to a set of requests coming from the ASUO regarding the Restructuring of UO Affirmative Action and Discrimination Resolution Policies.

This followed the administration's clarification within existing policy guidelines that henceforth all written reprimands regarding sexual harassment issues were relevant and would be included in faculty files (for promotion & tenure).

It was apparent that the grievance procedures on campus were not perceived to be working well and there existed a high level of tension between the Office of Affirmative Action and the Office of Student Advocacy. The FAC held separate meetings of just the elected members first with Marlene Drescher, Director of the Office of Student Advocacy, Jennifer Williamson, President of the ASUO, and Bill Washburn, ASUO External Affairs and Affirmative Action Officer, and second with Kenneth Lehrman, Director of the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. We learned a great deal from each of these meetings and affirmed that a clear problem existed, but that their were common goals in reducing incidents of inappropriate behavior.

These sessions resulted in the development of a 4 page report from the FAC to the President entitled "Issues of Restructuring of UO Affirmative Action and Discrimination Resolution Policies" (13 May, 1996 and available through the President's office). Without going into detail, the report included the following headings: 1. General Comments and Observations; 2. Issue of an Independent Off-campus Office of Discrimination Complaint Resolution; 3. Membership and Role of the Affirmative Action Advisory Council (AAAC); 4. Open Up the Conclusion of the Complaint Process; 5. Evaluation of These Complaints in Tenure and Promotion Decisions (Issue of Faculty Personnel File); 6. Rule on Student-Faculty Sexual Relations. (See new draft of Conflict of Interest Policy); 7. Informal/Formal Complaint Process; 8. Conclusion.

Part of the conclusion states that "We believe the time is ripe for taking those actions which will further serve this process by clarifying expected standards of behavior, communicating clearly the avenues open in the redress of grievances, exercising sanctions which will further establish the seriousness of these matters, and further educating members of the campus community in regard to the avoidance of unwelcome behaviors."

University of Oregon Policy on Sexual Relationships Which Create Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power (Note: This item is linked to the item above and is incorporated in the 13 May, 1996 Report) In November the FAC met with Prof. Caroline Forrell of the Law School and Kenneth Lehrman, Director of the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity to review a draft of what was then called "University of Oregon Statement on Consensual Relationships" which they as part of a small committee had been developing since this group had met 2 years before with President Brand. The FAC generally endorsed the thrust of this policy, but identified some controversial items including those related to the reporting process which might compromise student rights of privacy.

Later in the year the FAC received a revised and much improved draft of this policy which was now titled "University of Oregon Policy on Sexual Relationships Which Create Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power." Several recommendations were made by the FAC and included within the FAC's report to the President under Issues of Restructuring of UO Affirmative Action Office and Discrimination Resolution Policies. In particular, the FAC chose to recommend the retention of language referring to "substantial mitigation" (of potential conflicts of interest), but to clarify how this might be accomplished. The policy has come before the Senate, which has recommended adjustments, and the FAC at its final meeting urged that the President hold a hearing on the matter before the year was concluded and seek implementation of the policy by the Fall of 1996.

Relationship of FAC and Senate Leadership This issue concerned the degree to which the current composition of the FAC and that of the Senate might be merged in some fruitful way. President Frohnmayer had pointed out that at the University of Minnesota the equivalent of our FAC consists of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. Prof. Rice also introduced a memo drawing on experience with the Committee on Governance Reform of 1994-95 and urged consideration of much closer ties between the two bodies. The FAC debated this issue recognizing the virtue in overlap, but also recognizing some issues of time commitment and confidentiality. The FAC also thought that there was great value in having an advisory group that did not have legislative responsibility. Later in the year the FAC fully endorsed the Senate proposal that the Senate President, or designee, be a member of the FAC with full privileges.

University of Oregon Library - Serials Cancellation Project :Recognizing the campus wide concern of faculty over the University Library Serials Cancellation Project, the FAC met with Mr. George Shipman, Ms. Deborah Carver, Assistant University Librarian for Public Service and Collections Development, and Mr. Peter Gilkey who chairs the University Library Committee.

It is clear that this is an increasing problem internationally and that the severity of inflationary costs of journals has reached crisis proportions. The need was identified to cut $500,000 from the serials budget over a 3 year period and this is what the Library Committee has undertaken to advise on. Serials budgets at the University have normally increased in the 3-4% range, but now annual inflation cost are in the 10-12% range. The ratio of serials budget to monographs budget used to be 60/40 and now is 70/30. The Library Committee broke the analysis into three groups: Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences, with each assigned a different rate of reduction.

The FAC was very concerned about the impact of such cuts in a research institution. There was special concern about the opportunity to continue to acquire new journals which are often of considerable importance, as well as to maintain serial collections unbroken in significant areas. The FAC, having received considerable data, was particularly aware of huge differences in the serials budgets of different disciplines on campus. The FAC recommended a longer and more careful look at this with an overview toward an appropriate and balanced allocation not based alone on historical circumstances. Provost Moseley indicated the need for universities collectively to take a strong stand against publishers who are inflating prices at an unreasonable rate. It was also urged that the Capital Campaign include strong support for endowments for library collections and Mr. George Shipman goals in this regard.

University  Mission Statement: The FAC was asked to review a draft of the University of Oregon's Mission Statement. Such a mission statement had also been worked on by last year's FAC, but the current effort was to draw up a more concise statement for the general public. There are are about 9 brief statements in this new outline and an attempt was made to keep then comprehensive and informative. Prof. Posner suggested that they might be called a "Statement of Purpose" rather than a "Mission Statement".

University Productivity Plan: In a meeting of only the elected members of the FAC, the main topic of discussion was the University's "Productivity Plan," which was felt to be a difficult issue to discuss openly on campus. The faculty in general are apprehensive about a plan which appears to adopt a strategy of planning the university on the basis of student credit hour production. This model has exacerbated conflict and competition among schools and colleges as funding appears to be tied to a rate of increase above target figures. There is pressure to teach very large courses and a shift of teaching resources away from the support of graduate programs. This was seen to be especially ironic in a research university. It also appears to contradict what we are trying to do with regard to improving undergraduate instruction.

The FAC felt strongly that the plan needed to be monitored to bring a balance of qualitative issues relative to those of quantity. We also identified the need to reflect on the wisdom of putting too much faith in technology and distance learning. Other topics which the FAC reviewed subsequently with President Frohnmayer included monitoring of GTF contracts, harassment issues, the importance of developing the Portland plan, and questions of training and fostering leadership within the university.

We were reminded of the sobering reality that 2000 more students are expected by the year 2000 without obvious new resources. Regarding the Productivity Plan, Provost Moseley made a detailed presentation at a mid-April Senate meeting.

Nomination Procedures for Faculty Elections Both Keith Richard, Secretary of the Faculty, and Prof. Judith Eisen, Chair of the Committee on Committees brought this issue to the FAC. There is an increasingly acute problem with the dearth of nominations for filling both elected and appointed university committees. Furthermore, the current nomination and election process consumes huge amounts of paper each year. Prof. Eisen and Prof. Hubin attended an FAC meeting to discuss this problem. The COC is at a loss and does not plan to do recruiting. Instead it would like to examine the current structure of committees. The FAC urged that this happen and that several committees might be eliminated. It was recognized that participation in governance was a problem especially with the work loads and expectations for research on the part of junior faculty. A particular problem seems to be the unwilling participation of senior faculty. This whole issue has been brought before the Senate by the COC. The FAC also urged that from now on the nomination process be handled electronically instead of through the paper process.

Policy Statement Regarding Conditions for Salary and OPE Adjustments While on Non-sabbatical Leave for Major Fellowships  The FAC reviewed and supported changes in the wording of policies created through the Provost's office and related to the provision of salary and OPE augmentation for faculty on non-sabbatical leave who have received a major fellowship such as a Fulbright or a Guggenheim. The policy change clarified that in such cases the university would provide up to 30% of the faculty member's designated salary for the period of the fellowship (not a longer period) to cover the difference between the salary support awarded by the fellowship and the regular salary (and 100% of OPE for this same period).

Other Items Ballot Measure 8 and the PERS Pickup President Frohnmayer clarified at various times for the FAC the status of Ballot Measure 8 which would eliminate the state contribution to the employee's portion of the PERS retirement fund. It was explained that the measure was being appealed to the higher courts in the state and that it was the Governor's and the Legislature's intent to continue to pay the 6% contribution to PERS on behalf of employees while the cases were pending.

Early Retirement Incentive Plan Vice Provost Davis brought this item for review by the FAC. The FAC supported this one-time opportunity which would provide for 7 years of health insurance subsidy for eligible persons who agreed to retire not later than June 30, 1997. For tenured faculty, the 6% salary increase would not be granted, but they would be eligible for up to 3 consecutive 599-hour appointments. (Approximately 30 people have availed themselves of this process).

Undergraduate Advising at the University of Oregon A Charge to the Undergraduate Advising Task Force, prepared by the Provost's Advising Task Force was brought to the FAC for review. The FAC recognized and supported its key argument that "advising is integral to the teaching responsibility of faculty...".

Appointments to Other Committees Following a request from the UofO Foundation, the FAC recommended Professor Charles Frazer, from the School of Journalism and Communications to serve a three year term as one of the three faculty appointees to the University of Oregon Foundation Board of Trustees. Following a request from the President's office, Paul Goldman was named to serve as the FAC ex-officio member of the Johnson Memorial Award Committee. In addition, Bill Gilland served as the FAC member representative on the University Distinguished Service Award Committee.

Naming of Facilities The FAC endorsed the naming of the "Vivian Olum Child Development Center". The FAC endorsed the naming of the "Romm Room" in Walton Hall. The FAC supported the request from MEChA to name the addition of two modular classrooms in honor of Cesar Chavez. The FAC endorsed a naming committee for the naming of the New Housing Complex to replace Amazon.

Campaign for Oregon At one of its meetings the subject of faculty participation in the Campaign for Oregon was brought up. The actual item was a question on the part of the UofO Foundation about how to go about soliciting campaign contributions from faculty. The FAC had expected the issue to be more about how faculty could assist in other ways with the campaign, through articulating the values represented in the university, illustrating excellence in teaching and research and helping to define where new resources were most needed.

Concealed Weapons Policy The FAC briefly reviewed and unanimously endorsed new legislation affecting the Student Conduct Code which was necessary to clarify that the possession of a gun permit does not allow one to bring a concealed weapon onto university facilities.

Law School Facility and University Space Resources The President and the Provost, close to the end of the academic year announced that a decision had been made to build an entirely new Law School facility (through private funding) since this would only require $5 million more than remodeling the existing facility. This would benefit the whole campus through the release of 82,000 sq. ft. of prime space for other campus instructional and research uses. (This was followed on May 21 by the stunning announcement of Phil Knight's $25 million gift to the university, $10 million of which will go toward the new Law School, and $15 million of which will go toward endowed professorships throughout the campus).

Respectfully submitted,

Francoise Calin Carl Bybee Wilmot Gilland, Chair Paul Goldman Kenneth Helphand Elaine Green Jack Rice, Vice Chair Linda Kintz Diana Sheridan Michael Posner