Minutes of the University Senate Meeting February 14, 2001

 

 

Present: B. Altmann, R. Cambreleng, S. Cohen, D. Conley, S. Khader, R. Darst, J. Dawson, J. Earl, C. Gary, M. Holland, L. Kintz, S. Kohl, C. Lachman, K. Lenn, L. McLean, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, J. Raiskin, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, M. Weiner, T. Wheeler

 

Excused: M. Bayless, E. Campbell, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, R. McGowen, P. Mills, M. Reed, D. Strom, P. Wright

Absent: L. Alpert, D. Dinihanian, D. Dugaw, D. Hawkins, J. Hosagrahar, K. Howard, S. Jones, R. Kellett, R. Moore

 

 

Open Forum Discussion and Panel.  Prior to the regular business meeting of the University Senate an open forum discussion on the mission of the university was held featuring a panel comprised of faculty members Sandra Morgen and Cheyney Ryan, philosophy; Michael Kellett, chemistry, Jeffery Hurwit, art history; Steven Shankman, humanities center, and Caroline Forrell, law school.  University Senate President James Earl opened the discussion, followed by comments from the panelists.  Text of President Earl’s opening comments and those of several of the panelists can be found on the web at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/PAN15Feb01.html along with some questions and comments from senators and others in attendance.

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Senate President James Earl at 4:40 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the January 10, 2001 were approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Committee Report – Senate Budget Committee. President Earl recognized Mr. Wayne Westling, law school and member of the Senate Budget Committee (SBC), for a progress report on efforts to implement principles outlined in the SBC’sWhite Paper, approved last year by the senate, in an attempt to improve faculty salaries.  Mr. Westling had hoped to report on progress regarding the second stage of salary improvement implementation.  Unfortunately, he remarked that the SBC is stymied because the members have no idea what the university budget looks like for the next year so until the state’s budget appropriation for higher education is finalized. Mr. Westling reaffirmed that the White Paper remains in place, and that significant progress was made in the in the first step of the process with salary increases that went into effect in fall 2000.  He further stated that salary enhancement remains the single most pressing budget issue at the University of Oregon. 

 

Mr. Westling went on to say that the budget committee and the administration remain committed to attaining the 95% parity goal for faculty salaries, and are equally committed to making progress toward that goal this year.  The most pressing problem is that the governor’s budget presented to the legislature and the budget from the Republican Joint Leaders both underfund the current operating level, albeit by differing amounts of money.  The governor’s budget underfunds by about $100 million whereas the Republican Joint Leader’s proposed budget underfunds by about $70 million.  Assuming that the legislature adopts the proposed tuition increase, it would account for adding back $25 million.  Consequently, the remaining deficit from current budget levels would be between $45-70 million for the university system over the biennial.  For the University of Oregon, the biennial shortfall would be approximately $17 million.  Mr. Westling reiterated the importance of individuals contacting their legislators to make known their views about the importance of funding higher education.

 

During a short discussion period that followed, Senator Jim Schombert, physics, asked why we continue to have state budget woes when the economy seems to be booming.  Mr. Paul Simonds, anthropology, responded that one problem was that capital gains from stock sales have gone down dramatically, and capital gains have been a contributing factor driving higher income for the state.  Additionally, Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, noted the changes in income tax deductibility increased from $3,000-$5,000 as well as the passage of Measure 7, which reimburses land owners for loss of property worth when caused by the government actions.

 

Mr. Peter Gilkey, mathematics, remarked that higher education is indeed taking a larger share of cuts than other agencies; most other agencies are seeing some growth in their budgets.  When asked by another audience member what the $25 million from tuition increase means in percentages, Mr. Westling indicated a 4+4% tuition increase was suggested, but that everything is still in the negotiating stage; the tuition hike could be more or less.

 

President Earl summarized by saying that until the budget processes is clearer, the budget committee is stalled and stymied.  The White Paper is dependent year after year on finding the funds to fund it, so in a sense, it is at a lower priority than other fixed programs.  If the political situation does not resolve in our favor, the salary raises that the White Paper projects may not be coming to fruition.

 

Mr. Westling replied that much is unknown at this time.  If the budget projections in the governor’s budget come true, many agencies may see cuts.  We might still have the salary raises, but it might be at the expense of something else.  It could be a very significant trade off.  It would require approximately $5 million to implement salary improvements similar to those of last year.  Senator Norm Savage, geology, remarked that talk about faculty salaries is not as self-serving as it sounds.  Many excellent faculty members have left the university for better paying jobs.  Low salaries erode the whole quality of the university and it is in the best interest of the university to pursue these salary enhancements.  Mr. Simonds concurred, adding that when people talk to their legislators, the point that should be made is that the quality of the university is the real issue.

 

Senator Schombert opined that the people of the state do not care about the quality of this university because the UO does not overtly provide the state with the kind of educational needs they want, such as services from an agricultural school, a medical school, or an engineering school might provide.  Vice Provost Lorraine Davis disagreed, noting that for teachers of kindergarten through 12th grade, the UO provides more graduates than any single institution in the State of Oregon, according to a June 1999 survey.  Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, also pointed out that among other things, the UO provides a quality education for taxpayer’s children.

 

President Earl added that there is a rich traditional rhetoric that justifies liberal education.  He further stated that we have to not be embarrassed to go to the people of the state and explain what this university does, because it is not very clear to many individuals what the value of a liberal education is.  It is a case that has to be made with legislators, with parents, and with taxpayers.  One of the functions of our administration should be a constant and eloquent public lobby for the mission that we have.  President Earl explained that although ours is an extremely important and powerful mission, it is very easily misunderstood by those who are not within the orbit of university life.  He concluded with a comment that this is a teachable concept --one can explain to people what liberal education is for -- and it is not just for creating professional jobs.

 

ADJOURNMENT 

 

With the hour growing late and with no new business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary