Present: Present: B. Altmann, M.
Bayless, R. Cambreleng, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, R. Darst, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C.
Ellis, D. Hawkins, K. Howard, C. Lachman, K. Lenn, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, L.
McLean, P. Mills, R. Moore, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, M. Reed, L. Robare, N.
Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, M. Weiner
Excused: D. Conley, J. Dawson, M.
Holland, L. Kintz, D. Strom
Absent: L. Alpert, D. Dinahanian,
M. Epstein, C. Gary, J. Hosagrahar, S. Jones, R. Kellett, S. Khader, S. Kohl,
D. Merskin, J. Raiskin, J. Raiskin, T. Wheeler, P. Wright
Senate
President James Earl began the meeting by stating that the first 45 minutes of
the meeting would be used for open discussion of issues of interest, after
which the regular meeting of the senate would be called to order. Before proceeding, he asked President
Frohnmayer for any comments concerning the election of the preceding day. Although offering no prepared remarks,
President Frohnmayer commented on the outcome of several measures affecting the
university. Specifically, he reported
that Measures 8, 91, and 93, each of which would have significant negative
effects on the state higher education budget, were defeated. Measure 88 (increasing the maximum
deductible on federal income taxes paid from $3,000 to $5,000) passed, with a
cost impact estimated to be approximately a negative $168 million in the 2001-2003
biennium. Governor Kitzhaber and his
staff are looking into contingencies for meeting the budget shortfall if the
measure is to go into effect in this biennium.
Ballot Measure 7 (compensating private landowners for loss of land
value) also passed. There are dire
predictions on what this will cost the state (estimated in the billions) and
that it would effectively end the Oregon Beach bill. Much about this measure is ambiguous, and it will likely prompt
legal challenges.
President
Frohnmayer fielded a question from Senator Richard Sundt, art history, who
wondered how passage of Measure 1, which states that the legislature must fund
school quality goals adequately, might affect the university. The president noted that this measure
requires implementation by the legislative assembly and is not a
constitutionally mandated expenditure of funds. Still, it means that the legislature must follow through on the
appropriations process by which various education priorities are made.
The
discussion then moved to the Bend branch campus proposal. Provost John Moseley was available to update
the senate on the proposal preparations in progress. Senator Marie Vitulli, mathematics, noted that the faculty is
charged with curricular oversight and asked what the plans were for ensuring
there would be widespread faculty involvement with what transpires at the
proposed Bend campus. Will our existing
committees have an additional charge or will there be new committees
formed? Will branch campus courses be
diluted?
Provost
Moseley replied that the curriculum issue specifically has to do with our
various degree authorities and the curriculum that we offer. Any program that is offered off-campus,
whether in Portland, at the coast, or in Bend, has to go through our processes
here on campus. The same would be true
for the branch campus in Bend. Degrees
will not be offered in Bend that have not been approved by normal curricular
procedures on this campus. The
accreditation comes through the UO, and all the authority continues to rest
with our faculty committees and with our processes.
The
provost went on to say that there is no additional curricular process; it is
the same process that we use for any program.
There is no need for new committees and there should not be a large
impact on the work of existing committees because we are only offering a few
new programs, and currently, no new degrees or minors that we do not already
have degree authority to offer. The
dilution question raises staffing issues.
Faculty would primarily be drawn from two sources: regular UO faculty,
some of whom may be recently retired and on 600-hour appointment or who are
volunteering and interested in teaching in Bend; and, Central Oregon Community
College (COCC) faculty who have been approved by the UO department that has the
authority for the program in which they will teach. They will all be hired through our regular processes.
Senator
Sundt expressed disfavor with the competitive nature of the request for
proposal process, wondering why the strengths at each school are not combined
in a joint venture rather than compete.
The provost noted that such was offered from the beginning and that OSU
rejected it. The provost remarked that
he is equally uncomfortable with pitting campuses in competition. The UO has been very open in its willingness
to work in partnerships with other institutions that would bring their programs
to the proposal. We are trying to
position ourselves as an institution that wants to cooperate with other institutions
to meet the higher education needs in Central Oregon, focusing on our core of
liberal arts.
Senator
Jim Schombert, physics, wondered what the impetus was for putting in a proposal
at all. Provost Moseley spoke at length
debunking the myth that only land-grant institutions have statewide educational
missions. He noted that historically
the UO was the state’s first public university established by way of a land
grant, and further that the University of Oregon currently has various
substantial programs in Portland, and in the Oregon Institute of Marine
Biology; we have a large number of programs in Central Oregon already, such as
the College of Education’s educational administrator’s program, numerous field
studies programs, programs in PPPM and the community services workshop, and the
RARE program. A branch campus in
Central Oregon would facilitate all of those activities.
A
second reason for proposing a branch campus is that the people in Bend, most
prominently people on the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board (CORAB), want
an actual college with an arts and sciences core, not just a set of
programs. We are offering to meet the
educational needs that Bend authorities have determined exist through their own
surveys. And, it is important
politically to have a presence state-wide.
Senator
Martha Bayless, English, asked how programs are designed, who heads them, and
how are they chosen. Provost Moseley
replied that the operational structure is one that essentially sets up
administrative divisions. Those
divisions will offer programs from the UO and, for example, if we are offering
an English minor, the department head in English will be the key person in the
selecting faculty. There will be a
division director who will work with the appropriate campus departments to get
the program staffed. Division directors
for the early, developmental phases have been identified using current faculty
at the UO and at COCC; if the proposal is accepted and funded, the provost
expects that all positions would be filled in manners similar to those on campus,
which in some cases means an external search, in some cases an internal search,
and in some cases an appointment by a dean.
Senator
Lindsay McLean, ASUO, asked what the impact on students at the UO might
be. The provost answered that students
both here and in Bend will all be University of Oregon students, accepted into
the programs both here and in Bend under the same standards as we accept any
students to the University of Oregon.
Students will be free to go back and forth between campuses depending
where the courses/majors are offered.
The
discussion then moved on to another topic, the Workers' Rights Consortium
(WRC), when Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, questioned the soundness of
President Frohnmayer’s decision, on advice from university General Counsel
Melinda Grier, not to pay the university’s affiliation fees to the WRC. Senator McLauchlan pointed out that problems
concerning the WRC’s certificate of incorporation, tax-exempt status, and indemnification
of members raised by Ms. Grier in advising non-payment of fees had been
responded to convincingly, according to Senator McLaughlan, by WRC board member
Professor Mark Berenberg of Columbia Law School. In Mr. Berenberg’s opinion, the WRC is not a membership
organization, and, he is confident that affiliated
universities are not legally liable for any actionable claims that are made
against the WRC. Senator McLauchlan
acknowledged that risk is an important issue for universities, but suggested
the broader issue is that the university as a public institution has to weigh
risks of not doing certain things against the risks of doing them. He suggested that factory workers around the
world producing UO logo apparel take health risks by working at their jobs
under very strenuous conditions.
Senator McLauchlan asked what specific actions must the WRC take for the
university to become affiliated and pay its fees.
President
Frohnmayer responded that the senate has established a review committee, which
met with Ms. Grier after she issued her opinion. It determined that it should continue its work. Further, the president stated that he does
not agree that Mr. Berenberg has resolved all the issues that were raised in
Ms. Grier’s opinion. Under Oregon law,
we are bound by the opinions of the Attorney General’s office and the opinion
written by Ms. Grier was approved by the Attorney General’s Office. The opinion recognizes that conditions may
change that might alter her judgment.
At the time she wrote her opinion, she advised not paying the membership
or affiliation fee because of the risk of liability, which she pointed out
could be substantial. She further
indicated that additional information is needed to determine what level of risk
would be acceptable. That includes what
kind of monitoring, inspections, or other activities the organization engages
in; and, is the fact that the WRC is a non-member organization sufficient to
insulate affiliate organizations from legal liabilities, especially in a
foreign tribunal which may not recognize the immunities of our law. The president reiterated that these are
important questions that are appropriate for Ms. Grier to discuss with the
Senate’s review committee, and that he must be deferential on behalf of the
institution to our counsel and the Attorney General’s Office best view as to
what the level of risk is.
With
the allotted time for the open forum slightly exceeded, Senate President Earl
called an end to the discussion and proceeded to the business portion of the
meeting.
The
regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Senate
President James Earl at 3:52 p.m. in 240C Grayson Hall.
President
Earl asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. Hearing none, the minutes were approved as
distributed.
President
Earl began by announcing the creation of two new committees. The senate’s WRC oversight committee has
been reconstituted as was recommended in its interim report. Although there was considerable discussion
whether to continue in the wake of the decision to not send affliation fees,
the committee decided that there were many reasonable goals still to be
achieved surrounding the licensing issues regardless if the university joins, or
then renews, its membership in the WRC.
David Frank, Honors College, chairs that committee and is joined by Ann
Tedards, music, who was on the previous committee; additional members are
Margaret Hallock , Director of Labor Education and Research, Lynn Kahle,
business and sports marketing, Matt Dyste, marketing and licensing, students
Anna Holcomb, Serene Khader, Zach Smith, and Chad Sullivan, and President Earl,
who serves ex officio. The committee’s report will come to the
senate at the March 21st meeting.
Also,
an ad hoc committee on instructors has been created to look into the problems
of instructors and other non-tenure track faculty on campus. President Earl noted this issue was a
nationally recognized problem in the structure of instructional faculties. Responding to a number of requests to look
into the way in which this problem manifests itself on our campus, the
committee was formed and is chaired by Gina Psaki, romance languages, and
includes Shaul Cohen, geography, Susan Fagan and Henry Wonham, English, Wayne
Gotchall, romance languages, and Jim Long, chemistry. This committee also will also report at the March 21st
senate meeting.
Senate
representatives on various other committees include Fred Tepfer, university
planning, serving on the Educational Technology Committee, and Katy Lenn,
library, and senate president Jim Earl representing the senate on the
Intercollegiate Athletic Committee.
Interinstitutional Faculty
Senate (IFS). IFS representative Paul
Simonds, anthropology, encouraged senators and other faculty members to
consider serving on the IFS replacing him as his terms expires in
December. The IFS consists of 20
members, with representatives from each campus, and meets five times a year on
the various system campuses primarily to address system-wide issues of concern
to faculty members. The IFS has been
active as a group advocating for higher education during legislative sessions
and identifying faculty members who are willing to provide their expertise to
legislators when they need to be informed about relevant legislation. The president of the IFS reports to the
state board at each of its regular meetings, providing an avenue for faculty
concerns to be presented to the board.
The IFS members regularly deal with substantive issues in the
educational process to affect some influence on the decisions that are
made. (For more IFS information, see
their web page at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ifs/ifs.html.)
President Earl reminded everyone that any faculty member, not just senators, may be a nominee for the open IFS position
Senate Budget Committee
(SBC). Wayne Westling, law, updated the senate on
the budget committee’s activites. Mr.
Westling reminded the senators of the three documents prepared by the SBC and
passed by the senate last spring: Basic Principles of Compensation, the SBC
White Paper, and the Implementation Guidelines. The Implementation Guidelines were the focus of Mr. Westling’s
remarks. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/budgetcom9900.html.)
From
1992 to 2000, the average faculty salary across the board at the UO, increased
about 2% per year, averaged from different sources. Many of those salary increases came with the budget from the
legislature, which restricted what the campus could do with it. In the first year of the new plan, the
average salary increase campus-wide was 6.75%.
There were a number of factors operating simultaneously which allowed
this to happen. First, the new budget
model gave the campus more autonomy over our own budget and how we made
allocations. There was a growing
awareness of the disparity between salaries on this campus and salaries at
other major public universities with whom we compare ourselves. That awareness was shared by the faculty,
the administration, and by the students.
There was a resolve last year to do something about it and the task was
given to the Senate Budget Committee, working with the provost, to put together
a plan that could be implemented over a period of time that would help redress
that situation. So the SBC came
together and created a plan for widespread salary enhancement. One of the goals was to give an increase to
virtually every tenure-related teaching faculty on campus, and to that end
there was a cost of living adjustment built into every pay raise, including the
one most recent one (effective November 1st). Next, the provost found a way a way to fund
it. Part of that was through state
allocation and part was through reallocation of funds from within our own units
on campus. The goal of the White Paper
was to achieve a 5% salary increase across campus and the implementation
actually exceeded that percentage by a significant amount, primarily because
the deans and department heads dealt with individual cases of inequity. When this was added to the general across
the board increases, the overall increase was in excess of the targeted 5% (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/Nov2000salaryincreases.html). He noted that on average, salary increases
for every rank in every school are over 5%, with the exception of full
professors in the business school, which is 4.96%.
To
a question asking why was there a difference between departments, Mr. Westling
replied that the guidelines were reaching the 95% of comparative equity,
addressing compression, redressing salary inequities, and insuring the vast
majority receive significant increases in attaining the 80% salary floor. These guidelines would be interpreted
differently in different department, depending on where the department was in
these areas. One of the basic
principles was that every satisfactorily performing faculty member should have
a salary no lower than 80% of people with similar ranks in similar departments. This was largely achieved.
There
were two procedures involved in the implementation of the guidelines. Each department was to establish a set of
systematic principles and procedures for merit raises that was to be discussed
within the department and completed last spring. The second procedure was that
any deviation from the basic principles including this 80% principle had to be
explained and justified to the provost and accepted by that office. There were only 10 cases not meeting the 80%
measure and these cases were explained and justified to the provost.
Mr.
Westling went on to say that the goal is to reach 95% of parity with our
comparator institutions over the 5 to 7
years of the White Paper plan. As a
practical matter, the SBC will not have the comparators’ salary data until
January or February at which time the committee will report back to the
senate. The SBC will continue working
with the provost on the 5 to7 year plan outlined in the White Paper. Mr. Westling also noted that the SBC will
provide whatever data they find regarding compensation for other instructional
faculty who are not on a tenure-related appointments to the ad hoc Instructors
Committee. Initial attempts to gather
data proved difficult – other institutions do not have this data readily
available.
Senator
Chris Phillips, mathematics, asked where the internal reallocations came from,
and would the same reallocations be made in ensuing years. Mr. Westling replied that there was a total
of $2.75 million generated from the combination of factors that the SBC and the
provost worked with. That was not the
entire amount, but rather equivalent to 5% of the raise: $400,000 came from
reallocation from other parts of campus, a decision by the Provost; $550,000
came from reallocation within each individual school and college -- the Provost
instructed each dean and then each department head to come up with ½ to 1 % of
his or her budget to be used for this purpose; $200,000 came from athletics;
$.5 million came from auxiliary funds that might have otherwise gone to
reserves; $1.1 million came from the state.
In the coming years, the SBC will likely look to monies gained by
increased enrollments, increased external development funds within the control
of each department and colleges, and possible increases in tuition, some of which
might go toward salary increases.
President
Earl mentioned that another potential funding source is the athletic
department’s $2 million subsidy. He has
been looking into it so he can understand the subsidy fully; accordingly, he
has asked Vice President Dan Williams and Athletics Director Bill Moos to
attend the next Senate meeting on November 29th. President Earl is interested in an explanation of what that
subsidy is for and whether it might be phased out faster than what was agreed
to last year.
Senator
Vitulli suggested that it would be useful to have more information to review
regarding the subsidy. Vice President Tublitz, biology, said that the
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee has been briefed several times in the last
few years about the athletic department budget. Perhaps athletics could provide a spreadsheet that outlines the
allocations within the department.
IFS election. President Earl noted that
there were no nominees for the IFS position, thus the IFS election agenda item
would be moved to the next meeting.
Further
discussion regarding the Bend proposal. Vice
President Tublitz indicated that a resolution in support of the Bend branch
campus proposal would be made at the November 29th meeting, after
the Senate Executive Committee had met with the provost for more details on
November 15th. The final
proposal will be available at the next (November 29th ) meeting as
the proposal is due December 1st.
Senator
Vitulli indicated some frustration that more faculty had not been involved to a
greater degree in formulating the proposal.
It was noted that the administration is scrambling to try and put
together a proposal and some of the details are not quite forthcoming. Senator Tublitz reiterated that the senate
executive’s meeting with the provost on November 15th is an open
meeting that senators are welcome to attend.
Further, issues that come up at that meeting can then come back to the
senate before the proposal is submitted on December 1st. He opined that the issue is really one of
shared governance, and how decisions are made on this campus. The proposal will come back for discussion a
final time and a resolution by the senate in support will be put to a vote.
Senator
Bayless remarked that more appropriate and fairer way to design the whole
proposal would have included more faculty input. Senator Del Hawkins, business, said that his understanding is
that if we offer a program in Bend, it would be exactly the same program that
is offered and monitored here. New
programs would require the approval of the colleges and schools here just as if
we changed a minor program on this campus.
The faculty would control the curricular content and the instructional
quality in the same manner that they do now.
President
Earl brought the discussion to a close noting that seeing the whole proposal
would have been more helpful in the discussion. He indicated he would provide the Senate with as much information
as possible before the next meeting.
The
meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary