This is exerpted from the Minutes of the Assembly October 1997

Faculty Advisory Council Final Report 1996-97

Major Issues for the FAC

The FAC met weekly during 1996-97, generally with President Frohnmayer, Vice President/Provost Moseley, and Vice-Provost Davis. The FAC also scheduled two faculty-only meetings each quarter. We note that five members of the FAC were also members of the University Senate, including Senate President Bybee, Senators, Engelking, Hurwit, and Kintz, and Vice President Tedards who served as the Senate's designated representative. We also note that members Elaine Green (Assoc. Dean and Student Conduct Coordinator) and Susan Plass (Asst. Vice Provost and co-chair of the Accreditation Task Force) were closely involved in some of the year's key issues.

The conflict of interest in intimate relationships and student conduct code, the university fiscal situation and legislative affairs, the productivity plan, and University governance dominated discussions during much of the year. From October to March, the FAC spent two to three hours per month discussing the conflict of interest policy, responding to drafts, campus reactions and commentaries, and weighing the implications of alternative language. The final version accepted by the President and published for comment reflected these sessions and the FAC's long discussions and collective consensus. The FAC also discussed the proposed changes in the student conduct code, contributing to final language. These discussions were facilitated by the Student Conduct Coordinator, Elaine Green.

The administration regularly briefed the FAC on the University fiscal situation, the potential, and later actual, consequences of Measure 47, UO and OSSHE legislative strategies, the progress of the legislative session, and changes and potential changes in the UO relationship with the state system. The President, Provost, and Vice-Provost attempted to keep the FAC current with rapidly changing developments and to use the committee as a sounding board for possible political and organizational strategies.

A third major recurring issue was the university productivity plan, its philosophy, administration, and especially its consequences for departments, faculty, and quality of education at UO. The administration provided a great deal of current budgetary and student credit hour information, giving the FAC a detailed picture of the context of the university budget and the extent of its dependence on increasing student numbers, the credit load each student takes, and retention. Nonetheless, discussion reflected faculty unease about the productivity plan. Special sources of concern were the sense that some colleges and departments had not been treated fairly by the productivity plan and the perils of balancing curricular priorities with budgetary concerns. The FAC stressed the importance of being mission-driven rather than budget-driven even in these difficult times.

A final recurring issue was University governance. The FAC noted three significant events that have changed the context of faculty involvement in governance: restructuring of the Senate as a governing body, delegation of more authority to Deans, and, most important, curriculum review has come to have more significance than curricular generation (still the province of the Curriculum Committee). The lack of faculty input/review of potential program cuts resulting from ten-year department reviews and/or failure to meet productivity targets remains a significant FAC concern.

The FAC discussed and advised Administration a large range of other issues on an ad-hoc and occasional basis. Specific topics included the question of how the President should address controversial issues (a generic issue but one that in which discussions were sparked by the Gardenburger boycott), process and procedures for the CAS Acting Dean and the Faculty Secretary positions, policy on the Knight Chairs and the Presidential Chair, appointment of the faculty representatives the UO Foundation, naming of the Paul Olum Atrium, the University Environmental Policy, and discussing themes for President's State of the University, Convocation, and Investiture remarks.

The FAC also reviewed, commented on, and made minor contributions to the Draft Accreditation Report. This discussion was led by FAC member Susan Plass who co-chaired the Accreditation Task Force, a committee that also included FAC member Engelking. FAC members attended the opening and closing Accreditation Visit meetings. In order to provide informed input on emerging issues, the FAC received a series of detailed briefings: Joanne Hugi, George Shipman, and Peter Swan on problems and policies regarding electronic networking, Anne Leavitt on ongoing and proposed recruitment/retention strategies, and from Curt Lind on new ideas for generating revenue/providing service through external programs such as Continuing Education. As part of the FAC's efforts to become more informed, we requested and now receive minutes of the Council of Deans meetings and of the Administrative Council.

Potential future issues

The FAC suggests two general courses of action for the next year, both for the committee itself, but more importantly for campus-wide discussion. Faculty, administrators, and students need to understand more about the changing American university generally and the changing University of Oregon specifically. The evolving UO mission is not clear to all internal stakeholders, and it is likely that most faculty have not fully grasped the dimensions of the short-term and long term fiscal threats (and implications for their behavior). At the same time, administrators have not been successful in addressing faculty (and student) disillusionment and discouragement. We suggest that the Fall Convocation address these issues head on and that additional convocations be held each quarter to continue the discussions. Ideally classes could be canceled for at least some of the convocation to encourage both faculty and student participation.

The second recommendation is that the FAC, the Senate, or some other representative body undertakes a full evaluation of administrative changes that have taken place during the past five years. Specific changes include the devolution of increased authority to college deans, changes in the Provost's office affecting the Graduate School and Research and Sponsored Programs, the reorganization of the CAS Dean's Office. A related issue is the 10 year departmental review, how it is administered, and how it may be affecting department budgets and program directions at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. 


Web page spun on 6 June 2002 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises