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