Minutes
of the University Senate Meeting October 11, 2000
Present: L. Alpert, B. Altmann, R.
Cambreleng, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, D. Conley, S. Khader, R. Darst, J. Dawson,
D. Dugaw, J. Earl, K. Howard, S. Jones, R. Kellett, L. Kintz, K. Lenn, R.
McGowen, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, C. Phillips, J.
Raiskin, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, D. Strom, F. Tepfer, N.
Tublitz, M. Vitulli, M. Weiner, T. Wheeler
Excused: C. Ellis, C. Gary, D.
Hawkins, C. Lachman
Absent: M. Bayless, D. Dinahanian,
M. Epstein, M. Holland, J. Hosagrahar, S. Kohl, L. McLean, M. Nippold, M. Reed,
P. Wright
The
first regular meeting of the University Senate for academic year 2000-01 was
called to order by Senate President James Earl at 3:08 p.m. in 240C Grayson.
Minutes
of the May 10, 2000 regular senate meeting and of the May 24, 2000
organizational senate meeting were approved as distributed.
President Earl welcomed all new and returning senators to
the first senate meeting of the 2000-2001 academic year. He indicated that he
wants to institute a forum agenda style for the first 30 to 45 minutes of each
meeting, and hopes for a lively airing of campus issues followed by the
business on the agenda. President Earl
urged senators to feel free to bring up any campus issues they would like
addressed and to inform colleagues to do the same; that is, there will be an
opportunity for faculty as well as senators to air such concerns at the
beginning of each senate meeting. In
the absence of opening debate, the meeting will proceed to the business part of
the agenda.
President
Earl briefly reviewed the afternoon’s agenda noting in particular that the
senate would be electing a new vice president at this meeting because there
were no candidates for the position last spring. He indicated there are now two senators who have agreed to be
candidates. On another matter, the
president noted that he was appointing a senate ad hoc committee to examine
some of the problems faced by instructors and temporary faculty members as a
follow-up to the faculty salary and compensation issues work begun by the
Senate Budget Committee last year.. Two
senators have indicated an interest in serving on the committee and president
Earl invited others with a similar interest to join as well.
Senator
Greg McLauchlan, sociology, drew the senate’s attention to the upcoming
election, in particular, several measures on the ballot that have critical
implications for the future mission of the university. Specifically, ballot measures 91, 93, 8, and
7, if passed singly or in combination, would have significant revenue effects
on Oregon’s general fund state budget.
Projected budget cuts potentially could range as high as $5 billion
dollars or more per year. The
implications for the impact on university and K-12 funding are
considerable. He stated that we have an
obligation to be sure that the university community is informed about the
gravity of these ballot measures and urged senators to encourage faculty and
students to be sure they are registered to vote, to become informed on the
issues, and to vote.
Interim report from the
Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) Oversight Committee. President
Earl noted he had received an interim report from the WRC Oversight Committee
that had been appointed at the previous (May 24th) senate meeting and asked
committee chairman David Frank, honors college, to highlight the report. Professor Frank stated that at President
Earl’s invitation he, and former senate presidents Ann Tedards, music, and
Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, formed a committee to study the issues surrounding
the WRC controversy. The committee has
finished an interim report which is posted on the senate website. (See
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/dirWRC/wrcoversight.html.) The charge of the committee was to bring
clarity to the issues surrounding the WRC.
During the course of the summer and early fall, the committee met with a
number of individuals who are knowledgeable about or have opinions on the WRC,
including students, faculty, alumni, trustees, experts in the field, and
representatives from Nike. In addition,
they consulted a wide variety of books and articles on the issue and also held
several long discussion sessions. They
identified seven primary issues and provide their perspective on those issues. The process was extensive and as inclusive
as possible. At the end of the
deliberations, the committee offered four conclusions.
1.
Continue
to research this issue in the form of an expanded committee, suggesting that
President Earl should reconstitute the committee to be more inclusive of those
with strong opinions.
2.
Keep
focus on the main issue, the licensing Code of Conduct. Unfortunately, in the discussions about
monitoring agencies, the Code of Conduct has been obscured. There is a wide-scale consensus on the
values embraced in the Code of Conduct and any discussions about the WRC, the
FLA, or any monitoring agency should begin with the Code of Conduct.
3.
The
university should align itself with creditable and viable governmental,
non-governmental, human rights industry, and labor organizations to ensure
compliance with its licensing Code of Conduct.
Although the committee was not charged to question or required to judge
the WRC and the Fair Labor Association (FLA), the committee did look at both
organizations and concluded that both the WRC and FLA are, at this time,
potentially viable monitoring organizations that may deserve our
allegiance.
4.
As
a research university, we should sponsor research on this issue; research it
diligently and thoroughly because it was clear, based on the study of events of
last March and April, that the university was taken by surprise on this
issue. We should have been better
informed and should start now by engaging in thorough research on this issue
and engaging in the civil discourse and argument that is necessary if we are to
reach reasoned decisions.
President
Earl thanked Professor Frank for his report and good work of the
committee. He accepted the first
recommendation to reconstitute the committee, saying that he will expand the
committee so that between now and March when the final report will be due, the
committee will consist of the following: the current three members, Ann
Tedards, Jeffry Hurwit, and David Frank; Professor Lynn Kahle, business, who
has attended the WRC meetings and is an expert on sports marketing; Professor
Jim O’Fallon, law, who will be running one of the many research projects on
campus on the subject; Mr. Matt Dyste, Director of Merchandising, Office of
Public Affairs and Development; Professor Margaret Hallock , director of the
Labor Education and Research Center; and four student members who will be
appointed by the ASUO. President Earl
asked that Professor Frank continue to serve as chair of the committee, and
President Earl again will serve as an ex-officio
member.
During
the discussion period that followed, Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, asked
if any opponents of the WRC are members of the committee. President Earl responded that he did not
know where the new members of the committee stand on this issue, that they were
appointed on the basis of their expertise, and none of the committee members
were quizzed on their position. Over
the months it has been apparent that there is strong diversity on the current
committee and no propagandizing or any political position has been taken.
Senator
Nathan Tublitz, biology, added his thanks to the committee for their work
saying that the clarified the issues without adding “fuel to the fire.” Senator Jane Dawson, political science,
inquired about the university’s recent joining of the FLA. President Earl stated that the committee
that worked over the summer felt quite naturally that the question opened up
from the WRC to other monitoring agencies.
The report does in fact talk about both. Now that the university belongs to both organizations, the committee’s
charge will expand to include all monitoring agencies. On the same theme, Senator Jim Schombert,
physics, asked about the role of senate with regard to FLA: the senate was
asked by the university president to vote on joining the WRC, but not on joining
the FLA. President Earl responded that
the role of the senate is advisory rather than legislative for this issue. The senate is free to offer whatever advice
it wishes. There is no legislative
prohibition that prevents the senate from advising the president on continued
membership in the FLA and WRC, nor is there any legislative demand that the
president act in accordance with the senate’s advice. President Earl anticipates that the committee will give advice on
membership in both organizations.
Senator Ellen Campbell, music, pointed out that these monitoring
agencies are in their infancies and continuing to develop. Currently, neither is doing any monitoring,
so ideas about both organizations may change as they develop. Professor Hurwit concurred, saying that the
WRC was different organization in May than it is in October.
Senator
Randy Moore, music, asked how research would be done on organizations that were
still in the process of formulating themselves. President Earl responded that the committee has been doing
research over the summer and that one of the major functions of the expanded
committee will be to keep track of the progress of the organizations. Professor Tedards added that among the several
reasons to expand the committee was a desire to bring in faculty members and
students who already have done, either by the nature of their academic
discipline or their particular interest, a lot of research on this issue. She said the ad hoc committee looked at the
mission of the university and governance procedures to identify the issues, and
recommended that people who might be considered experts in the area be brought
into the discussion for the oversight process.
Senator David Conley, education, concluded the WRC discussion period
with a suggestion to consult with President Frohnmayer on the intended purpose
of the committee, its timelines and guidelines, and to invite him to provide
feedback.
OUS branch campus in Bend
proposal. Provost John Moseley
reported that over the summer the State Board of Higher Education, as a part of
its budget process, decided to put into its request for the next biennium
budget, a specific line item funding to establish a branch campus in Central
Oregon. Specifically, this would be on
the campus of Central Oregon Community College (COCC) in Bend. The board has requested as a part of that
budget process, $7.2 million over the biennium, an amount arrived at through a
consultant’s study looking at what the cost would be to begin such a branch
campus given the anticipated enrollments and the programs that are currently at
Bend offered through the Central Oregon University Center. The consultant also determined that a branch
campus was the most efficient way to provided consistent four-year degrees in
Central Oregon. The consultant’s report
also shed light on the subject of establishing another four-year institution in
Central Oregon, which was deemed a much higher cost proposition.
During
the deans’ retreat this summer, some time was devoted to discussing their views
on this issues and what the university's position should be regarding applying
for this branch campus. The intention
as stated by the Board was to put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
branch campus to which any of the OUS institutions, or some consortium of OUS
institutions, could propose. After a
good discussion of pros and cons, the deans were unanimous in that a viable
proposal had to be submitted or we would be viewed in Central Oregon, or east
of the Cascades, as unconcerned about their problems, which would further
isolate the University of Oregon. There
was very strong opinion that the branch campus could be a big benefit to the
university, assuming that cost analysis was correct and the appropriate funds
could be available. Rather than drawing
students away from Eugene it could lead to more students both in Eugene and in
Central Oregon.
A
steering committee consisting of deans and people who are involved with
recruiting and admissions was formed to examine in more detail the feasibility
of proposing for such a campus as well as what the real cost of that would
be. When the fall term began and the
Faculty Advisory Council reconvened, it was discussed with the FAC and at the
department heads’ retreat. It has also been discussed in other venues. As the process has proceeded, the Provost
indicated that he has spent a fair amount of time talking with people at
COCC. He has also spoken with other community
leaders and members of the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board (CORAB),
which has been the driving force for filling the higher education needs in
Central Oregon for the past two years.
The steering committee has become increasing enthusiastic about the
opportunity in Central Oregon; Provost Moseley stated that if done correctly,
he believes a branch campus of the University of Oregon in Bend would give the
university another item in our recruiting strategies to attract students to
Eugene while also attracting students to Bend.
The
provost noted that the institution with which we have the most overlap in
students and where we lose the most students in recruitment is the University
of Colorado at Boulder. There is reason
to assume that our university would be more attractive to those students if
they felt that they could spend a part of their higher education experience in
Central Oregon. Also, as a region,
Central Oregon has the lowest participation rate of high school seniors in
four-year college education in the state.
Having a campus in Bend would help attract many of those students who
now do not think a four-year education as a good option for them.
The
provost cited several other indications that a Central Oregon campus would be a
plus in attracting more students. The
university has had a very successful general science program in place in Bend
for three years and has graduated its first class. A general social science program begins this fall and plans are
well underway for a humanities program.
The structure for an arts and sciences core in Central Oregon is also
ready. These programs provide a good
basis on which to estimate costs and student demand.
Provost
Moseley indicated that the administration is moving ahead with the
proposal. The RFP came out in late
September and the proposal is due on December 1st. After review by the CORAB board and leaders at COCC, it will go
to the chancellor’s office. A
recommendation from the chancellor will go to the state board at its January
meeting. The only other institution
that is making a proposal is Oregon State.
Eastern and OIT decided to join in the OSU proposal. The provost was optimistic regarding the
university’s chances of producing a proposal that is accepted. The budgeting is not yet completed but he
assured that what we are ultimately going to propose is affordable within the
budget that the state board has requested.
The Senate Budget Committee has been consulted and they are working
along with the provost. In summary, the
proposal is being prepared and will be submitted by the December 1st deadline.
Leading
off a discussion period, Senator Phillips asked about the range of majors that
can be offered for the $7.2 million every two years. The provost responded that there is also tuition money, which
depends on the number of students. The
$7.2 million is for the first biennium.
Depending on the number of students and the success of the program, that
number might be different the second biennium.
The initial proposal period is for five years with the assumption that
if this is successful after five years, it will be fit into the normal funding
cycle. The provost said that he is
anticipating a core arts and sciences program built around general science,
general social science, and general humanities degrees, two of which are
already being offered and the third which is planned to be offered independent
of a branch campus in the fall of 2001.
As we recruit and the numbers of students grow, there would be minors
where there is interest, and as the numbers of students are there, minors would
grow into majors. We would start with
possibly the science/mathematics area, and perhaps start with a minor in
computer science and biology.
The
provost went on to say that the desire is to raise the participation rate of
high school seniors; we need to attract students from other areas to come into
the Central Oregon area to be a part of this branch campus. We are considering a couple of minors in
each of the areas mentioned along with the general degree as a starter. The fourth area under consideration is education. The provost noted that education is a high
demand area of study and that Dean Kaufman and Professor Nancy Golden from the
College of Education have been working with the superintendents of the Central
Oregon school districts. The consensus
is that we will be able to launch a very popular program in education as
well. Another consideration is having a
business minor in the social sciences.
All of these proposed degrees would be University of Oregon degrees with
our accreditation, offered under our auspices, by either our faculty or by
faculty we have approved. The provost
pointed out that this is the way the general science degree is being offered
currently; Professor John Leahy has laid the groundwork in the general science
area regarding the appropriate way to build these kinds of programs.
Senator
Conley asked about the criteria under which the proposals will be judged. Provost Moseley replied that the RFP
outlines some criteria, but not in a highly quantitative way. It would be difficult to be very
specific. Senator Barbara Altmann,
romance languages, asked if more students would translate into more faculty
members on our campus. The provost
replied that if this is a successful venture it will certainly result in
increased faculty lines on this campus as well as in Bend. In the first two years, there would be a
very small numbers of students and we would look for faculty in Eugene who want
to take some time and teach in Bend.
The home department would be fully compensated for the faculty member in
Bend. We would look toward 600-hour
faculty, for example, who may already be in the Bend area. We would also use COCC faculty. The COCC faculty has the highest percentage
of faculty with Ph.D’s of any community college in the state and nearly the
highest percentage in the country.
Their faculty were hired under an earlier assumption that COCC would
grow into a four-year school. Although
they are not typically the research active faculty that would be tenurable at
the University of Oregon, they are a very high quality faculty who are
excellent teachers. Those faculty who
do teach in our program have to be approved by the department here and are
given visiting faculty appointments here.
There is also the opportunity to hire instructors or adjunct instructors
from the community. Ultimately, new
faculty lines will be added but it may not be until the end of the first
five-year period, depending on how fast the enrollment grows.
Senator
Schombert observed that the branch campus appears to be a “teaching campus” and
he wondered about the availability of research labs. The provost responded saying that in the first five years of this
proposal there would not be a plan to add research labs. However, that does not mean that none of the
faculty will be doing research. On the
contrary, we do a lot of research in Central Oregon right with many field
studies programs in areas such as geology, anthropology, and archeology. When we get to the point of hiring faculty
members whose primary assignment is in Bend, then the issue of doing research
and qualifying for tenure is something we will have to address.
Senator
Tublitz inquired about the usefulness of a senate motion of support for the
proposal to be put on the November 29 agenda, and he gave notice of his
intention to make such a motion.
Provost Moseley replied that a motion of support would strengthen the
proposal because it would show campus support and also would allow a more
thorough review.
Senator
Phillips asked about seeing the proposal, to which Provost Moseley said that a
version of the proposal could be viewed on the web but some aspects would need
to be kept confidential. In concluding
the discussion, President Earl stated his belief that funds from the
university’s budget should not be siphoned away to the branch campus
development, and secondly, the Senate, being responsible for curricular issues,
should have input into the development of new curriculum. The senate should exert some manner of quality
control concerning the Bend campus faculty to guarantee that there is not a
second tier faculty created.
Election of the senate vice
president. Two senators were nominated as candidates
for senate vice president: Jim Schombert, physics, and Nathan Tublitz,
biology. Asking if there were any
further nominations from the floor and hearing none, the secretary passed out
written ballots. Senator Nathan Tublitz
was elected vice president of the senate by a 20-10 vote tally. President Earl congratulated him and
reminded the new vice president that he is a member of the Senate Executive
Committee and also chairs the Committee on Committees this year before becoming
president next year.
MOTION US00/01-1 Proposed Amendments to Student Conduct Code
(OAR 571-021-055).
President
Earl asked Mr. Chris Loschiavo, director of Student Judicial Affairs, to
introduce his motion. Noticing the
difficulty in getting students to be involved with the Student Conduct Hearing
Board, Mr. Loschiavo and the Student Conduct Committee examined the recruitment
process for the board. The board
generally hears the most serious violations of student conduct. They are the only group on campus that has
the authority to suspend, expel, or place a notation on the student’s academic
transcript. For that reason, it is a
very important committee and one that fortunately, is not used very often. The currently requirement of four law
students and four other students has been prohibitive in recruiting and
appointing the panel in a timely manner.
Mr. Loschiavo conferred with the ASUO University Affairs Coordinator
from last year and crafted the proposed amendments that shifts some of the
recruiting responsibility, but not the appointment responsibility, to the
Office of Student Judicial Affairs where there is a little more consistency
from year to year.
In
the proposed amended procedure, the Office of Student Judicial Affairs would
advertise the availability of student appointment positions, encourage students
to apply for them, interview the students, and let the ASUO select students
they will appoint to the committee. It
is so important to have this committee in place early in the academic year so
that if a student is a serious threat to the campus community, action does not
have to be delayed. One of the purposes
of the peer board is to have it be representative of the university
community. Mr. Loschiavo noted that the
requirement of having four law students out of a total of ten students
appointed was over-representation of the law school.
The
other proposed amendment is a minor wording change. Under the types of sanctions that can be served, one is described
as community service which variously included such activities as
community service hours, educational research papers, meeting with a counselor
or having counseling, or meeting with a campus administrator. The community service term caused some
confusion, so the proposed new term is educational activity of which
community service may be one of the sanctioned educational activities. (Full text of the proposed amendment to the
student conduct code can be found at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/US0001-1.html)
Senator
Ron Kellett, architecture, inquired if there was any change in the terms of
service. Mr. Loschiavo replied that
there was no change and that students can be reappointed. Other questions concerned the reason that so
many law students were on the board initially.
Mr. Loschiavo replied that originally there was little legal advisory
presence and law students wree deemed useful in helping the system to
work. However now the university’s
General Counsel, Melinda Grier, acts as advisor to the Board, thus there is no
longer a need for an excessive number of law students on the board.
President
Earl asked if there was any more discussion on the motion and hearing none, put
the motion to a vote. Motion US00/01-1 amending the Student
Conduct Code methods of recruiting members of the hearing board and changing
community service sanctions to fall under the broader term of educational
activity passed unanimously by hand vote.
With
the business of the meeting concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary