Minutes
of the University Senate Meeting March 14, 2001
Present: L. Alpert, B. Altmann, R.
Cambreleng, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, R. Darst, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D.
Hawkins, R. Kellett, L. Kintz, S. Kohl, C. Lachman, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, M.
Nippold, C. Phillips, J. Raiskin, M. Reed, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert,
S. Stolp, D. Strom, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, T. Wheeler, P. Wright
Excused: M. Epstein, K. Lenn, R.
McGowen
Absent: T. Arnold, E. Bailey, M.
Bayless, D. Conley, J. Dawson, D. Dinihanian, C. Gary, M. Holland, J.
Hosagrahar, S. Jones, P. Mills, R. Moore, M. Weiner
Prior to the regular business meeting of the University
Senate an open forum discussion included a legislative budget update by President
Frohnmayer and Mr. Bill Linden of the Association of Oregon Faculties. Mr. Linden brought several points to the
senators’ attention:
·
The $100 million that the legislature added to the budget
in 1999 session was a first step forward in reinvesting in higher education in
Oregon.
·
Approximately $1.4 billion additional dollars are available
for the legislature and the governor to spend for the 2001-2003 biennium. It represents a 12% increase over the
current biennium, which accounts for a total general fund of almost $12
billion.
·
The chancellor requested $805 million as the amount needed
to maintain the current level of service within the Oregon University System
and its campuses.
·
The governor’s budget for higher education was $709 million
for a current service level for OUS for the 2001-03 biennium. The $96 million difference between the two
budgets represents about a 12% reduction to the OUS budget that is needed to
continue current services and would provide for no enhancements, no new
programs, and no new hires.
In another portion of the budget the governor proposed
roughly $53 million for four new programs for which funding would be dedicated:
$20 million for engineering, $17 million for enrollment programs, $8 million
for small school subsidies, and $8 million for the campus in Bend. The $53 million does not address any of the
problems created by the $96 million difference in the current service level of
the budget.
Although absolute details concerning the $96 million
funding difference are not clear for each campus, the difference translates to
real cuts of approximately $8 million annually -- $16 million in cuts for the
biennium – that would mean far more difficult cuts than any of the reductions
the university has faced with Measure 5 in the last decade.
As of March 1st, the co-chairs of the
legislative Ways and Means Committee, suggested adding back $29 million in
funding to help offset some of the reductions, $10 million for state-wide
services and $19 million added back into the base budget. But the $29 million figure is not firm and
will be modified due to the lower March revenue forecast (down about $100
million) and the next forecast in May.
Mr. Linden suggested that we need to act to re-establish higher
education as a priority in the governor’s budget. And he reminded senators that
it is very important for legislators to hear from faculty, students, alumni and
other advocates for higher education with a strong message to support an
adequate budget for higher education.
President Frohnmayer continued the presentation with
remarks about the success of the March 6th rally for higher
education in Salem, saying that legislators’ comments were uniformly positive
and that they were awestruck by the turnout in support of higher education
(2-3,000 people with the largest contingency from the UO). He went on to relate that the formal
hearings begin next week and will last for approximately 10 days, and that he
expects to testify 3 of the 10 days. In
addition, there will be time on April 4th for public testimony. Mr. Michael Redding, governmental affairs
associate vice president, may call upon faculty for their assistance in
testifying.
President Frohnmayer indicated several sources of
additional revenue: tobacco settlement funds which are non-recurring, early
payback for the federal retirees lawsuit (about $100 million), and “kicker” funds (if it does not kick
in). The president noted the extremely
partisan politicking regarding the budget this session. Another position taken by some was to pass
the $5.2 billion K-12 portion of the budget first, regardless of what the May
forecast shows. In other words, lock in
the K-12 budget while letting every other budget float unless a tax increase is
mandated through some mechanism of the budget.
That is not a formula that bodes well for higher education.
When the floor was opened for questions, Senator Linda
Kintz, English, expressed disappointment with the notion of K-12 and Birth to
Three programs seemingly pitted against higher education for funding. She further asked what would cause the
kicker to “kick”. Mr. Linden replied
that if revenues are $181 million over the May 1999 revenue forecast, the
kicker kicks in. Revenues are projected
to be about $314 million over that threshold.
One idea being explored is to take an early payment of the federal
retirees’ settlement, which would be about $110 million; but even with that
subtraction from the $314 million, there is likely enough revenue for the
kicker to kick.
With no additional questions, the discussion ended with
Senate President James Earl thanking President Frohnmayer and Mr. Linden for
their comments.
CALL
TO ORDER
President Earl called the regular meeting of the senate to
order at 3:33 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.
APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the February 14, 2001 meeting were approved as
distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
FROM THE FLOOR
The secretary informed the senators that information
regarding the call for nominations for elected councils, university standing
committees, and the university senate is available on the senate web page (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/nominate01.html). Eligibility for the councils and committees,
as well as the list of nominees is update regularly. Deadline for nominations is April 9th. Confirmed nominations may be sent via email
to the secretary or written and sent by campus mail
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
University
Library Committee Report. The University Library Committee,
chaired by Gina Psaki, romance languages, has developed a written report for
the senate (see report on the web at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/LibComRpt14Feb01.html)
regarding the library committee’s concern over the crisis in commercial
scholarly publishing and serials costs. The report describes this crisis, lays
out some possible local and national approaches to dealing with the crisis, and
requests that the UO Senate address the recommendations made.
The rapidly rising costs problem is complex, prompting
extensive research and discussion by the research library community and
university faculties. Initiatives such
as Open Archives, SPARC and Create Change are aimed at reconfiguring the way
scholarly research is disseminated and acknowledged. (An appendix to the report contains links to web page URLs and a
bibliography of documentation and further information on this issue.) During the past decade, due largely to the
commercialization of scholarly publishing, journal subscriptions costs have
increased at an average of 9-11% per year, forcing the UO faculty to identify
journal titles to cancel. As a result,
14% of our titles -- $850,000 or 2,400 titles – have been cut since 1992. These decreases are two-and-a half times the
average of research libraries nationwide, indicating an acute situation at the
UO that must be addressed.
The new budget model does not dedicate an increase to cover
the costs of inflation in books and journals.
The serials inflation rate is approximately 8.5%. Even if we assume an annual budget increase
of 4-5%, another round of cancellations of about $400,000 will be needed in
2003-2004.
One way to address the problem is not just at the point of
purchase but rather at the point of generation of the research. Universities are subsidizing and producing
research but then must purchase the same research at absurdly inflated
prices. The library community is
beginning to respond with a variety of approaches aimed at reforming the entire
system of scholarly publishing. Ms.
Psaki referred the senators to a list of five recommendations in the
committee’s report, and asked for further discussion in the senate and action
on the recommendations after they have been reviewed.
When questions were invited Senator Jim Schombert, physics,
requested a listing of the cost of journals.
Acting Head Librarian Debra Carver responded that the library is in the
process of putting together a database of all the journals. Also, by retaining copyrights, there is an
attempt to have some control of our intellectual material and possibly not have
to purchase the material.
Vice President Nathan Tublitz, biology, stated that there
is a grassroots effort in progress asking that all scientific publications
release material on the web. This
movement has gained so much strength that it is the cause of a major discussion
in large publishing houses. Senator Tom
Wheeler, journalism and communication, remarked that faculty are being
encouraged to disassociate themselves from publishing companies with unethical
pricing structures. He asked if there
are other aspects to pricing structure that might render a pricing structure
unethical. Ms. Carver responded that
she describes unethical pricing structures as something that involves
inflationary increases of 15-20% every year.
There are other questionable practices that do not necessarily involve
pricing, but involve access and ability to share information.
With no other comments or questions regarding the report,
the President Earl thanked Ms. Psaki for the report and moved on to new
business.
NEW
BUSINESS
Notice
of motions for library report recommendations and general education
requirement. President Earl
noted the recommendations listed in the library report just received will come
up for action by the senate during the regular April meeting. He then recognized John Nicols, chair of the
Undergraduate Council, who spoke briefly to give notice of motion regarding
proposed changes in the general education requirements governing the approval
of courses meeting general education requirements and distribution of courses
student must complete within each group.
(See text of the motion at: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/US0001-3.html.)
Mr. Nicols indicated that the text of current legislation
is being reduced by about 50% to make a more manageable and cohesive
statement. He noted that the latest
accreditation report specifically commented on the lack of coherency in general
education offerings, thus the Undergraduate Council has been working to clear
up the hodgepodge of current legislation that has occurred as the general
education requirement has evolved.
More generally, there is concern that general education has
changed over the last ten years, quite significantly in the sense that more
colleges outside arts and sciences are offering more general education courses;
the current structure may not reflect adequately or allow for an inclusive
consideration of proposals that are made.
There has been some uncertainty about what the proper procedures are for
getting general education courses approved.
The Undergraduate Council is concerned with process and that it be an
inclusive process. The motion addresses this issue. There has also been a geometric increase in the number of group
satisfying and multicultural courses.
With this increase departments have found it increasingly difficult to
maintain the legislative schedule. The
catalog must adequately reflect what is being taught, so the motion tightens up
the regulations on how often courses must be offered. Group satisfying courses do occupy a privileged place in the
curriculum, in the catalog, and in the time schedule of classes, so departments
bear a responsibility to offer those courses often so that students can make
progress toward their degree.
Finally, the Undergraduate Council believes that students’
intellectual experience is enhanced by taking group-satisfying courses outside
of the major. It provides for a fuller
intellectual experience in which the student gains breadth and the performance
of the major is enhanced by exposure to other disciplines. These issues are the crux of the proposed
motion.
Preliminary
Winter Term Curriculum Report. Paul
Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, began his report noting that the
committee has been missing members from some of the professional schools; in
particular, members are needed from the School of Music and the School of
Architecture and Allied Arts. He
stressed the importance of having across the board representation when evaluating
courses and proposals.
Several minor editing changes were noted in course numbers
in anthropology, Russian, and art; these edits will be made in the final
version of the report. Senator Chris
Phillips, mathematics, questioned the syntax of the text, “graded for majors
only,” but a brief discussion resulted in general agreement that students are
familiar with the phrase and know what it means.
With no other changes, the curriculum report was accepted,
as amended, and passed unanimously (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/w01cur.html).
Resolution
US00/01-4 Academic calendar and athletic event scheduling conflicts. President Earl stated that this
resolution originated in a suggested motion from Mr. Richard Sundt, art
history, which he received and was subsequently posted via the senate web
page. The president noted that the
motion is being offered to both the UO senate and the senate at OSU. He indicated that both senate presidents
developed the wording. The resolution
reads as follows:
Resolution US00/01-4 Academic calendar and athletic event scheduling conflicts
The Civil War game was rescheduled for 2001 by the
Athletic Departments of UO and OSU to suit the convenience of ABC, which will
televise the game. The game is now scheduled for the Saturday before final
exams. This change was made without due consideration of the academic calendar.
The new date is inappropriate, not only for the players involved but for all
the students of the two universities.
The problem of athletic scheduling has grown worse
in recent years: we note an increase of mid-week travel in many sports, and
also the inappropriate timing of the NCAA basketball finals, which from now on
will be held during finals week of Winter term. Such conflict may be
unavoidable, but every effort should be made to accommodate the academic needs
of our students.
The combined University Senates of UO and OSU
therefore make the following recommendation to our Presidents and Provosts: In
the future, the academic calendar should be of paramount consideration in the
scheduling of athletic events. Major events like the Civil War game must never
again conflict with final exams. In general, we urge a greater sensitivity to
the academic calendar by our Athletic Departments.
The president recognized Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics and
chair of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC). Mr. Shelton spoke against the
resolution. Although he was not against
the essence of the resolution, he said there were several issues specific to
the resolution that should be separated and clearly enunciated. First is the issue of faculty input when
making decisions about athletics that have academic impact. Two recent decisions, the PAC-10 post-season
basketball tournament for next year and the rescheduling of the 2001 Civil War
football game, were made primarily by the athletic department and the
administration with little or no input from the faculty.
Mr. Shelton felt that there was lack of communication with
the IAC, and regardless of the actual decision, they should have had a voice.
The IAC has taken steps to deal with the issue of the lack of communication
with the athletic department by setting up an executive committee structure to
formalize the necessary communication that would allow it to keep track of
these important decisions. Associate
Athletic Director Dave Heeke will be the conduit of information between the
athletic department and the IAC, and the IAC is the conduit of information to
the faculty. Mr. Shelton felt that the
new lines of communication represented a substantial change of operation within
the IAC and asks that the faculty give this process a chance to work.
A second issue Mr. Shelton identified was the language of
resolution. The resolution states
several opinions as facts, and lacks any real substance. There are no procedures set out for
implementing or evaluating the goals. As stated, the resolution serves only as
a slap in the face of the athletic department, while not addressing any of the
myriad problems that exist with the burgeoning of athletics. He recognized that there is a great deal of
frustration on campus and some of it perhaps deservedly is focused on
athletics. Mr. Shelton also agrees that
athletics, nationally, is out of control and should be toned down. It is his hope that the IAC and perhaps the
senate will ask President Frohnmayer to begin a real discussion of how to rein
in athletics. The discussion needs to
happen at the PAC-10 conference level – it is not solely a UO campus
problem. He believes there is too much
at stake and we can do too much real damage to the university if we try to take
rform on all by ourselves.
Senator David Strom, physics, also spoke against the
resolution. Rather than building a
firewall between the faculty and the athletic department, he believes we should
concentrate on the fact that the majority of athletes who come to the
university and who want to play football do not come here because of our
academic programs. Further, he believes
that intercollegiate athletics may be out of control but it is not going to be
reined it in by making it more academic.
Senator Wheeler pointed out that that much of the
resolution was a statement of principles in which the writer has taken pains to
make exception and to allow for interpretation. But the next to last sentence that says, …”major events must
never again conflict”…. Does this mean
that, if it comes down to this, we are not going to hold the Civil War foot
ballgame, or, it is not going to be televised if the only option is to televise
it during final exams? This seems to be
a technical problem with the wording.
Senator Greg MacLauchlan, sociology, spoke in favor of the
resolution, saying it will help serve the goals of reform in the IAC. Stating that the senate needs to take the
utmost care of the academic and scholarly aspects of the university, he opined
that the last thing students need is another major distraction during finals
week.
The discussion moved on to debating the merits of including
all the paragraphs in the resolution, or only the last paragraph. Mr. Shelton supported eliminating all but
the last paragraph. Senator Barbara Altmann,
romance languages, noted several contradictions of tone and intent and an undue
emphasis on final exams; she was in favor of only the last paragraph. Senator Fred Tepfer, campus planning,
agreed, but remarked that the first and second paragraphs provide background or
explanatory information.
Senator Del Hawkins, business, suggested dropping the
second to last sentence in the last paragraph.
He also questioned whether it was factual that there is an increase in
mid-week travel as stated in the resolution.
Senator Debra Merskin, journalism and communication, stated that the last
sentence is editorial in nature.
A
motion was made to amend the word “must” to “should” in the next to last
sentence of the final paragraph. The
motion to amend passed unanimously by voice vote. The
amended sentence now reads:
Major events like the Civil War game should never
again conflict with final exams.
With the amended main motion back on the floor for
discussion, Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, moved to strike the first two
paragraphs and the word “therefore” in the first sentence of the third
paragraph for the motion to read:
The combined University Senates of UO and OSU make
the following recommendation to our Presidents and Provosts: In the future, the
academic calendar should be of paramount consideration in the scheduling of
athletic events. Major events like the Civil War game should never again
conflict with final exams. In general, we urge a greater sensitivity to the
academic calendar by our Athletic Departments.
During the discussion of the proposed amendment that
followed, Mr. Sundt stated, among other things, that the university does not
have any control over when the NCAA basketball finals are held; furthermore,
most universities in this country are on a semester system, and therefore the
NCAA basketball finals do not conflict with their final exams. However, we do have some control over the
PAC-10 basketball tournament and whether is impact final exams.
President Earl asked if there was any more discussion on
the amendment now on the floor. Hearing
none, the president called for a voice vote, which was indecisive, and followed
with a hand vote. The
amendment to strike the first two paragraphs and the word “therefore” in the
first sentence of the third paragraph passed, with 13 in
favor and 10 opposed. The
resolution, as amended, was back on the floor as a main motion.
Senator Phillips then proposed another amendment to add
after the words “athletic events”, the words “and other competitive events for
students,” citing and example of a mathematics competition that is six-hours
long and always occurs on the Saturday before final exams during fall
quarter. The motion failed to be
seconded.
Discussion continued on the amended main motion. Lorraine Davis, Vice Provost for Academic
Affairs, remarked that because of the various amendments, she did not believe
that OSU can remain in the resolution as stated. President Earl responded that the OSU senate meeting is next week
and he will convey the results of this meeting to his counterpart, and will
work to be sure that there is no disagreement between the two motions
offered.
Vice President Tublitz asked whether the first two
paragraphs of the resolution that were struck could be structured as preamble
to the resolution. Senator Marie
Vitulli, mathematics, added that she would like to see the senate, as a whole,
agree on the intent of the resolution.
Senator Steve Stolp, academic advising, then moved to table
the resolution to the next meeting. The
motion to table the main motion, as amended, until the April meeting failed by
voice vote. Before discussion
on the motion resumed, Senator Kintz asking if a quorum was present.
The
secretary called the roll to determine if there was a quorum. The following members were present: L. Alpert, B. Altmann, E. Campbell, R.
Darst, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D. Hawkins, R. Kellett, L. Kintz, S. Kohl,
G. McLauchlan, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, J. Raiskin, M. Reed, L. Robare, J.
Schombert, S. Shauger, S. Stolp, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, P. Wright.
The
quorum count failed with 24 members present and 25 members needed for a quorum.
Without
a quorum, no further action on the main motion, as amended, could be taken and
the motion will carry over to the April meeting. The president adjourned the meeting at 4:47 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary