Excused: D. Leubke, F. Tepfer, J. Wasko

Absent: K. Aoki, M. Bayless , D. Beaumonte, B. Blonigen R. Cambreleng, D. Herrick, R. Horner, S. Jones, S. Morgen, A. Morrogh, J. Raiskin, S. Shauger, S. Stolp, P. Watts, P. Wright

CALL TO ORDER

President Nathan Tublitz called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, indicated that a question attributed by him in the April 10, 2002 minutes was not his. The minutes stood approved as corrected.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY UO Budget Update. Provost Moseley reported that there was no apparent change in the budget situation. The latest information is slightly more positive but no less certain than several weeks ago. He indicated that the administration is confident that the budget is in balance this year and anticipates any discrepancy to be small and easily coverable within the small reserves. Next year, however, is shaping up as a $3 million deficit after setting aside the amount of money projected from additional enrollment to put back into the system to serve those students.

Tuition and fee proposals have been submitted to the chancellor's office. There are a number of increases in those fees resulting from an increase in costs. We propose a 5% increase ($15) in the Educational Technology Fee. Our use of bandwidth and its cost is rising, with enormous student use of bandwidth, which also increases costs. These fee increases are designed, in part, to make up for other fees that are fixed for a number of years and cannot yet be adapted to meet rising costs.

The provost noted that he was hopeful that there will be a good resolution of the budget situation and that we will be able to continue to make progress on salaries while having adequate money to teach every student. Further, the administration also is looking at how the state and university relationship needs to change in order to stop the steady dilution of state funding. The university cannot and will not continue to accept arbitrary numbers of student while state funding decreases. This is a discussion that needs to happen in the legislature, and the administration is meeting with the legislature and business community members to instigate change in this area. Finally, the provost reminded senators of a planned Town Hall meeting for next Monday, May 20th., when there will be discussions regarding the trade offs and issues pertaining to the budget decisions.

During a question and answer period, Senator Diane Dugaw, English, asked the provost to speak talk about the legislative targeting of research centers in regard to the budget cuts being discussed in Salem.

Provost Moseley responded saying that in the new budget model there is a line in the formula that drives money to campuses for research. It is a formula based on the number of faculty and amount of research grants and drives about $4 million in research funding to the University of Oregon over the biennium. This line replaced Centers of Excellence money and is larger. We have added various line items that were directed as statewide public service organizations such as LERC. Those two items have been specifically reduced by 20%. The university will have to follow legislative instructions even if not legally required to. If the university breaks the allocation process for any single entity subjected to these cuts, the provost believes it will open the door and as soon as we do that, the amounts of money that we receive will not be sufficient to fund adequately undergraduate education nor allow for salary increases.

The provost continued saying that there are a number of things that affect our status as a research institution and the university has resisted those budget cuts in the firmest of terms. If this 20% cut is made the university must abide by it or other programs that are equally important will be affected. When asked if the 20% cuts in research centers suggested by the governor have to be acted on by the legislature, Provost Moseley replied that they do not. The governor exercised his authority to rebalance the budget. He has the authority to rebalance by across the board cuts, but there is question as to whether he has the authority to make line item cuts. The attorney general says "yes" and the governor has done that, which in turn may prompt a lawsuit challenging his line item budget cutting authority. The budget is likely to come from the legislature. If Measure 13 does not pass, there will be a $220 million additional increase in the state budget deficit. Early indications predict that the economy will not show improvement and that there may be $300 million or more added to the projected deficit.

Senator David Strom, physics, asked the provost to comment on how Measure 13's passage would affect the university. He replied that Measure 13 would take $220 million from school endowment funds to partially fill the deficit gap for this year. It is using money from another fund to eliminate a hole in the budget this year that will immediately reappear, unfounded, in the next biennium.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

Assembly and Town Hall meeting planned for May 20th. A brief (10 minutes) assembly meeting will preceded the town hall meeting discussion consisting of panelists giving a 5 minutes presenatation followed by 75-80 minutes of questions and answers form the audience. This meeting is open to the entire university community of faculty, staff, and students.

Wayne Westling Award Announcement. Vice President Greg McLauchlan announced that the first recipient of the Wayne Westling Award for Leadership and Service is Peter Gilkey, mathematics. The main presentation will be made at the senate organizational meeting May 22nd.

Spring election results. The secretary reported that voting on line for the first time went very well with no flaws. The voting turnout was slightly less than previous years using paper ballots. Results have been posted on the senate web page and sent out via campus mail. Change in Order of the Day. President Tublitz asked for a change the agenda moving items 5.3 and 6.2 to precede the standing committee reports. Hearing no objection, the agenda was adjusted.

AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Non tenure track instructional faculty committee (NTTIF) report. Ms. Gina Psaki, chair of the ad hoc NTTIF committee, spoke to the senators regarding the content of report and the need to continue the committee as a university standing committee. The decline of support for public higher education and the increase in demand for higher education has caused the university to hire non-tenure track instructional faculty. This group of faculty works outside the protection of the tenure system, so data was collected to take a closer look at working circumstances and the numbers of faculty involved. There was an attempt collate the formal policies in print regarding issues of terminating, recompensing, and rewarding these faculty members (see NTTIF report at ). Forty one units responded: 7 department heads forwarded policies, 14 confirmed they had no specific policies, 17 confirmed that no policies existed but that they had "practices", and a few said they have no NTTIF in these categories. A full survey of the NTTIF is a primary goal for next year and to collect data from comparator institutions. The committee recommends making this a visible and important topic at every level, thus the committee also recommends creating a standing committee. Until there is more concrete information available, it is difficult to make appropriate changes where needed. We currently have a two-tier instructional system, and conclude that taking the moral high ground on this issue would be beneficial to the entire faculty and the institution.

A number of questions were raised concerning who is considered to be a member of this faculty group, whether post docs were included, whether salaries varied widely by department, how much course loads varied, and what the composition of a new committee might be. Senator Dave Conley, education, commented that it makes a difference who is in the group and acknowledged that it is a multifaceted group of about 730 people. Ms. Psaki further remarked that where current policies do exist, they vary widely, and that it is indeed a complex group of faculty members, hence the need for an ongoing, standing committee.

NEW BUSINESS

Motion US01/02-8: Establish a university standing committee on the concerns of non- tenure track instructional faculty. Gina Psaki moved that University Senate establish a standing committee on the status of the non tenure-track instructional faculty as follows (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/US0102-8.html for additional supporting text):

Charges and Responsibilities

The University Standing Committee on the Status of nontenure-track instructional faculty (NTTIF) shall focus on addressing the needs of nontenure-track instructional faculty at the University of Oregon. The responsibilities of the committee shall include the following:
 

1. Assess NTTIF needs, identify priorities and develop proposals to meet them;
2. Recommend ways to educate the University community as a whole on the issues relating to and arising from nontenure-track status for instructional faculty;
3. Pursue long-range planning for NTTIF issues and advocate for NTTIF input into University decisions affecting NTTIF;
4. Act as a channel for communication and community among members of the NTTIF
5. Gather information on nationwide trends in and research on NTTIF employment;
6. Review and consider other NTTIF issues as appropriate.

Membership

Membership of the NTTIF committee shall be appointed by the Committee on Committees for two-year terms (staggered) and shall include four members of the tenured faculty, four members of the nontenure-track instructional faculty, and an undergraduate or graduate student. Each UO school / college in which NTTIF are employed should be represented on the committee at least every second year. The Vice President for Academic Affairs or his/her designee shall serve ex-officio in a non-voting capacity.

Reporting The Status of the NTTIF Committee shall report to the University Senate. At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Secretary of the University Senate no later than the final University Senate meeting in May. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary.

The floor was opened for discussion.

Vice President McLauchlan called for an amendment to change the committee membership to include one undergraduate student and one graduate student. The amendment passed by voice vote. Senator Conley expressed concern that policies made fit the various constituents in this faculty group, and that one policy might not be appropriate for the whole group. Ms. Psaki noted that the individual departments or units would be creating policy. President Tublitz remarked that the goal is not to advance one group at the expense of another.

With no further discussion, the Motion US01/02 ? 8 passed by voice vote.

Before returning to the original agenda, President Tublitz announced that President Dave Frohnmayer had recently been elected as a Fellow of the American Academy fro the Advancement of Science for the Advancement of Science, congratulating him and saying that the university was honored to have to have him as president.

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senate Budget Committee Report. Mr. Mike Kellman, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, provided a summary of the annual SBC report, focusing primarily on progress made on the SBC White Paper goal to bring to faculty compensation to 95% parity of our peer institutions. The average salary improvement last year was 6.6% for tenure track faculty.

Although there was progress toward implementation of the White Paper, the progress in relation to peer institutions was a modest 3%. Salary compression improved largely due to regression of assistant and associate professors while full made a reasonable gain. (For the full report, see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/SBC08May02.html). Mr. Kellman noted that the SBC was recommending a 3% salary increase for January 2003 and hoped that was possible given the uncertainty of the state budget situation.

Senator Phillips wondered if there was any data indicating how comparator institutions were doing with the current economic climate. Another SBC member replied that Washington, California and Colorado have all had serious budget crises in their states at the same time. Senator Chris Ellis, economics, remarked that Oregon is suffering a more serious recession than many other states. Provost Moseley added that the RAM budget model has the cells in it that are determined and added up to fund the bottom line and national benchmark. In the last biennium the cell values were at 88% of the national benchmark. This year, the cell values were at 84%, but with the current budget cut information just received, the cell values are at 80% not accounting for additional students beyond those originally budgeted. The cell values over a 2- year period have changed from 88% and are affected by inflation.

(A senator asked that the graph supplied in the SBC report be included with minutes and can be found as Addendum A.)

Committee on Course Report ? Spring 2002 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Committee chair Paul Engelking noted the following course numbering corrections: ANTH 322 is ANTH 328 - ANTH 916 is ANTH 44; ANTH516 is ANTH 541; ANTH 431 is ANTH 452; ANTH 531 is ANTH 552; ANTH 475 is ANTH 474; and ANTH575 is ANTH 574. Additional updates in course were provided by a handout. Senator Phillips suggested that History 358, American Jewish History, sounded confusing and asked that it be reworded. The change was duly noted for incorporation in the final report. With no further corrections, the report was approved by voice vote. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/s02cur.html for the final report.)

AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORTS

Housing Committee. Mr. John Lysaker and Senator Jim Schombert, physics, who co-chaired the committee, with assistance from Director of Housing Mike Eyster, began their report saying that students live in outmoded facilities built between 1947 and 1967. They consist of cramped rooms, inadequate bathrooms, and lack of storage. Outmoded residence facilities undermines recruiting and retention; having first year students on campus enables the university to offer them more support and increases the likelihood they will stay at the university. Students living off campus are less likely to participate in campus events or pursue intellectual issues outside the classroom. Inadequate housing encourages living off campus and thus undermines these issues. The committee recommends that a formal committee be assembled to produce a plan that includes new construction and renovation of old housing, a method of paying for the construction, and a timescale of less than one year. Sixty five percent of freshmen currently live off campus and the university does not have room for all freshman should they want to live on campus.

Senator Strom asked about financing new dormitories to which Mr. Eysteyr answered that we participate in a system wide debt pool, so yes, we are subsidizing some construction at of ther campuses. That pool is frozen, so there is no money for new dormitories there. President Tublitz thank the chairs for their report saying the recommendation would be given to President Frohnmayer to determine its qualifications as a university standing committee, and will follow up with the senate.

September 11th Aftermath Committee. Co-chairman Shaul Cohen, geography, reported that In a campus related response to the events of September 11th, David Frank and he created the committee composed of people from the teaching faculty, administration, and students. They were eager to be inclusive and open, with voices from a range of political and emotional spectrums, and were careful in working to tie the views to those expressing them and not to the university, per se. The committee disseminated information in campus events, by web site and through counseling services for students. Primary goals were to facilitate education, look out for the welfare of campus community, and be alert to those select groups in the student body who were directly affected. All went well.

MORE NEW BUSINESS

Motion to approve granting of degrees for 2001 ? 2002. Gail Unruh, Academic Recruitment Committee, made the following motion:

The Senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2001-2002 and Summer Session 2002, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

The motion was approved by voice vote without discussion.

Resolution US01/02-9, Restoration of Financial Support of Higher Education. Mr. Peter Gilkey, mathematics, and Senator Margaret Hallock, Morse Center for Law and Politics, moved the following resolution.

During the regular session of the State Legislature in 2001, the Oregon University System (OUS) budget was not increased to meet continuing service levels - thus imposing what amounted to a budget cut at that time. Recent budget cuts have worsened the picture significantly - with the Governor's line item cuts in March, the budget for the OUS has been cut $71.8 million (8.6%) from an initial state allocation of $834.3 million to $762.5 million.

The governor and the state have reduced support for instruction to OUS -- the cell funding for graduate/professional students was reduced by $10.6 million (6.3%), the cell funding for undergraduates was reduced by $8.2 million (2.2%), and funding for non resident masters was eliminated ($1.7 million). These reductions come at a time when enrollments are growing to record numbers and when our graduates need the critical thinking and analytical skills that allow them to adapt and thrive in a world defined by increasing complexity and rapid change.

The governor and the state have cut $3.2 million (20%) in support for research to OUS. The University of Oregon is a member of the highly selective American Association of Universities. The creation and application of knowledge is a central part of our mission - the educational and research missions are the heart of the University. Research contributes to the well being of Oregonians both now and in the future.

The governor and the state have cut $1.5 million (20%) in support for campus based public services to OUS. These programs enrich the lives of Oregonians by encouraging lifelong learning, promoting appreciation of the arts, fostering civic engagement, and conducting research on vital social issues. Programs on the UO campus that receive funding under this category include the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management, the Museum of Art, the Museum of Natural History, KWAX, and the Labor Education Research Center. These public service programs strengthen public support for higher education at a critical time when adequate funding for OUS is threatened. They also directly connect the University to the community, integrate teaching, research, and service, and energize the state's economic, cultural and political structure.

Therefore, be it resolved that the University of Oregon Senate urges the State Board, the Chancellor, and friends of higher education to continue to lobby the governor and the legislature to restore adequate funding for higher education both during the next special legislative session and during subsequent regular legislative sessions.

Provost Moseley encouraged anyone with access to external groups to get them to direct their energy to Salem. He said the numbers are misleading. The actual effective cut in the education programs is 10% to undergraduates and 15% to graduates. Further, advocacy groups need to ask for increased funding, not shifts from one place to another. Senator Hallock emphasized that the point is to focus our attention on the legislative and political process.

President Tublitz also spoke in support of the resolution saying that cutbacks occur quickly, but recovery takes a long time. The university is working hard to change the budget situation through OUS. Mr. Paul Simonds, anthropology, suggested that personal contact works better than anything else. Similarly, Senator Dugaw noted it was important to enlist those people who are not writing with UO letterhead to put on pressure on the legislators not top make the budget cuts.

The resolution was brought to a vote and passed unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Gwen Steigelman Secretary