Minutes of the University Senate Meeting,
Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Present: B. Blonigen, L. Bowditch,
V. Cartwright, D. Conley, D. Dugaw, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Fuller, D.
Hawkins, D. Herrick, M. Holland, P. Keyes, K. Lenn, D. Leubke, G. McLauchlan,
S. Midkiff, S. Morgen, A. Morrogh, J. Novkov, C. Phillips, R. Ponto, D. Soper,
D. Strom, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, J. Wasko
Excused: R. Horner, M. Partch
Absent: K. Aoki, E. Bailey, M.
Bayless, D. Beaumonte, R. Cambreleng, J. Earl, M. Hallock, J. Hosagrahar, S.
Jones, L. Kintz, D. Merskin, R. Moore, J. Raiskin, J. Schombert, S. Shauger, S.
Stolp, P. Watts, P. Wright, R. Zimmerman
University
Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the regular meeting of the senate to
order at 3:05 pm in room 110 Fenton.
Minutes from the December 5, 2001 meeting were approved as distributed. (Note: the regular senate meeting for January 9, 2002 was cancelled.)
Question
and Answer period with President Frohnmayer.
President Frohnmayer opened the discussion with remarks regarding the
special legislative session called by the governor to deal with the budget
deficit. He noted that the governor
stated his disappoint with its outcome, characterizing it as a “practice
session”. The governor indicated that
he will veto the a large number of bills that were passed during the session,
and that he would call the legislature into special session again to resolve
the impasse. The depth of the cuts for higher
education are still unknown. President
Frohnmayer also noted that the university is reviewing ways in which it can
expand the capacity of our campus to deal with the crowding that is currently
an issue, and provide the benefit of an affordable tuition on a continuing
basis to students. The floor was then
opened for questions.
Senator
Maury Holland, law, asked President Frohnmayer for clarification of the
difference between the budget that the legislature prepared (threatened to be
vetoed by the governor) and the budget the governor was proposing in terms of
how it affects the university.
President Frohnmayer responded that the impact of the cuts were not
linear, that is, although the university presented cuts in 2% increments as
requested, they are heavily favored toward the upper increments in terms of the
actual impact on the core of undergraduate instruction. In other words, the difference between a 6%
and an 8% cut has a greater impact than the difference between a 4% and 6% cut.
Questions
from the floor regarding the proposed change in tuition structure raised
concerns regarding proposed reductions in Lane Transit District’s (LTD) bus
routes and faculty and student access to late afternoon classes. Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, encouraged
attendance at the February 20th LTD board meeting at which time
route reductions would be discussed.
President Tublitz replied that he would look into the matter. Similiarly, Senator Maram Epstein, East Asian
languages and literature, raised the issue of safety on campus during later
afternoon and evening classes. The
president replied that the university is engaged in long-term work to upgrade
campus lighting, alarm boxes, and the availability of alternative
transportation for women and other students who are concerned about safety
issues. Questions about the
implications of the new tuition model to non-traditional students also were
raised to which the president clarified that the new model would work on the
principal of self-selection rather than segregation. The impact to different groups of student was considered very
early in the creation of the new tuition model; it is being considered as a
pilot project on a limited time basis.
Responding
to a question relating to availability of classroom space (in light of the
planned construction in Gilbert Hall) and the need for classroom refurbishment
and improvement, the president noted that the Campus Planning Committee has
been working for two years to develop alternatives consistent with the UO model
that no classroom is more than a seven minute walk from another. Gilbert Hall will be unavailable for two
years, which accounts for 17% of classroom space. When the project is finished, it will mean a substantial
improvement in term of teaching facilities available.
President
Frohnmayer concluded the discussion by noting that in fall 2001 the university
saw an unexpected but welcomed enrollment surge which he believes is a
wonderful endorsement of the work of the faculty. The percentage of enrollment of Oregon students has recovered
from 18 % to about 23% and is expected to continue toward 25%. Also, with the increase in total number of
students, he remarked that the university is ethically bound to take every reasonable
step to utilize our physical facilities and teaching personnel throughout the
class day to our best possible advantage.
Update
on OUS and the UO budget. Provost Moseley provided
handouts showing an OUS selected program budget reduction comparison and the
impact of the budget reduction plans on various campuses (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~oga/budgetcomparison4.pdf
and http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~oga/campuscomparison.pdf
). The “all cuts” scenario is reflected
at approximately the 10% level, and would mean severe cuts to undergraduate and
graduate funding. The governor’s
proposal included revenues, which would reduce the cell funding for undergraduate
cuts to zero, and would reduce many other cuts as well. However, the governor’s proposal was
rejected by the legislature.
The
legislature’s cuts would result in a 6% net OUS reduction, reducing cell values
by 3% at the undergraduate level and 5 to 6% at the graduate level, eliminating
the funding for non-resident masters.
The UO, at this point, is planning for a 6% OUS cut, which translates
into a 5.2% reduction in the general fund money, or roughly $8 million. Careful planning and the unexpected increase
in enrollment at the UO for the 2001-02 academic year means that we could
manage the cut for this year with minimal reductions from all budgets. No searches have been frozen, salary
increases should continue as planned, with cuts absorbed through peripheral and
administrative areas. The 2002-03
academic year would require approximately $4 million in reductions. The projected 5% increase in enrollment,
will generate $1.5 million and each percentage increase in tuition above the 3%
increase currently anticipated should generate an additional $1 million. The anticipated 3% percent faculty salary
increase would cost about $1 million, so currently the UO is looking at various
cuts that could be made, which includes either deferring or foregoing the
salary increase.
Senator
Chris Ellis, economics, asked how the legislature might react to a greater
increase in tuition. Responding,
Provost Moseley reiterated that in his view the legislature does not want to
increase tuition. Ideally, the 3% increase
would have been adequate, and the legislature would realize that they cannot in
good faith cut the budget, and not fund additional students, yet expect the
university to provide those students services without a tuition increase. If the legislature cuts cell funding for
undergraduate education by 3% and does not fund the additional student
enrollment, a 3% tuition increase is the minimum that would be needed.
The
secretary raised a question regarding the policy of each OUS university’s
ability to change tuition independently, or if a consensus is required. Provost Moseley replied that the State Board
of Higher Education entered into this discussion in their recent meeting. Legally, the board, not the legislature, has
control over tuition. The board
indicated a willingness to consider variation in tuition amount and plans, but
the legislature can control expenditure limitation, and hence that provides a
balance. Currently, UO funding is
approximately 60% from tuition and 40% from the state general fund.
Senator
Marie Vitulli, mathematics, asked about the desirability of increased
enrollment at the university if the legislature does not want to fund it. The provost replied that the legislature
does not fund the additional students, but the UO gets the additional tuition
money. This increase in tuition money
will be directed toward instructional and student service programs that
directly serve the additional students.
It would create adequate funding for students during that year. This year 75% of such incremental funds went
to the schools, colleges, and the library.
The provost went on to say that this is not a strategy that can continue
because the UO cannot continue to support these students on tuition alone. Once the legislature gives the UO an idea of
how many students they will fund, we can make decisions regarding any
enrollment cap. There are no specific
plans to increase the number of tenure related faculty, however each school and
college controls its own budget, through which decisions regarding additional
tenure related faculty will be made.
President
Frohnmayer responded to a question from Senator Linda Fuller, sociology, as to
the extent campuses are able to collaborate to work together with the
legislature by saying that the university has been in touch to the extent that
our calls are returned and university representatives can meet with the small
number of senators actively proposing the budget cuts. Such a process is different from the usual
legislative process in that it lacks the openness and accessibility and it is
difficult to know with whom to talk.
Provost
Mosley shifted the discussion to the issue of increased enrollment, saying a
dual challenge is presented in terms of student access: first, how additional
students will be served, and second, as tuition rises the university must
attempt to lessen the impact on students.
The provost referred the senators to a handout regarding plans to
increase access and offer lower cost tuition options (see http://provost.uoregon.edu/tuition.html
). The proposed tuition policy is a new
way of meeting these challenges by spreading classes more broadly across the
day, spreading tuition more equitably among students based on credits taken,
providing lower cost tuition alternatives, and providing more choices in class
times, costs, and number of courses offered.
The
provost explained that currently students who are taking 14 or fewer credit
hours are subsidizing those who are taking more. The proposed policy would spread tuition so that students who are
taking 12 credit hours would actually be paying less than if they took 13 or
more credits. The plan narrows the
credit plateau to 14-16 credit hours, reducing the cost per credit hour. Current tuition structure is $78.00 per
credit hour up to 12 credit hours. At
that point the cost per hour reduces to approximately $50 a credit hour up to
18 credits, and rises again above 18 credit hours. The proposed tuition policy would provide more choices of class
meeting times, more times available, and more classes from which to
choose. The idea is not to raise or
lose money, but rather to balance tuition among students.
Senator
David Strom, physics, expressed concern that by narrowing the credit hour
plateau, students that are currently taking 18 or more credits would be
preferentially affected in an adverse way.
Provost Moseley responded that there were advantages and disadvantages
of the plan for students, but that the plan was designed to infuse more
equitable tuition costs and better use of physical facilities for the greatest
good. A concern was raised about
students opting not to take a larger class load due to the new policy. The provost noted that fewer credit hour
students are subsidizing those taking more credits. Several questions were asked regarding the implementation of the
plan. Senator Robert Ponto, music,
inquired whether waivers would be considered, saying that such a tuition plan
would greatly affect music students performing in multiple ensembles; Senator
Fred Tepfer, campus planning, asked what type of classes would be scheduled for
late afternoon. The provost replied
that the issue of a waiver has not yet been decided and he invited a discussion
on this topic. Concerns and comments
can be forwarded to jtm@oregon.uoregon.edu
or aleavitt@oregon.uoregon.edu. Further, he noted that classes available at
other times of the day, typically lower division classes, will be offered late
afternoon. The university would have to
do some experimenting to find how the plan can best work, thus the proposed
plan would be run as a three-year pilot program to see if a real difference in
student behavior occurs. The goal
remains to design a positive balance between the students and the
university.
Spring
Elections. The secretary announced that
a web page is set up listing open positions and nominations for the senate and
elected councils and committees. She
encouraged senators to actively invite their constituent faculty members to
stand for election. A link from the nominations web page is available listing
information about the various councils and committees and who is eligible to
serve. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/
nominate12.html). Also, online
balloting will be used for the first time this year.
Wayne
T. Westling Award. Vice President Greg
McLauchlan, sociology, noted that a call for nominations for the first Wayne T.
Wesling Award for Leadership and Service was recently sent out. The senate established this award last fall
award to be given on an annual basis to an individual who has provided
longstanding exemplary leadership and service to the university and community.
Upcoming
Events. A community meeting
was scheduled for February 14th in the EMU Gumwood room from 12:00-1:00
p.m. to provide an opportunity for public input into the OUS Chancellor
Search. Further, the State Board of
Higher Education meeting will be held later that afternoon in the EMU Fir room
from 3:00-5:00 p.m. Although there will
be no public input on the chancellor search during the board meeting, it may be
an appropriate to express your opinion to any available board member prior to
or after the meeting. Lastly, the Town
Hall meeting tentatively scheduled for February 25th to discuss the
budget situation was postponed until more definitive budget information becomes
available.
Classified
Staff Representation in the Senate. Senate President Tublitz noted that the Executive
Committee is looking in to the possibility of changing the senate bylaws to
include some representatives of the classified staff as non-voting participants
in the senate. A motion to that effect
would be forthcoming in a future senate meeting.
University
Logo Update. Vice President of University Advancement
Allan Price provided some of the history regarding the desire to update the
university’s graphical image. He noted
that Landry and Company completed an evaluation on the university’s
communication strategy, which reported a lack of commonality and no overall
linking of the various types of communications that emanate from the
university. Further, he said the
responses from polled parties included the notion that negative images were
being created by the lack of conformity in purpose. Hence, plans to design a communications strategy that will help
to better graphically present the University of Oregon as part of a larger
communications plan were undertaken.
Input into the strategy from the public included: (a) the duck remaining
the mascot of the athletic department; (b) the seal remaining for very formal
academic purposes, such as commencement and diplomas, honorary degrees, but not
on parking permits and other degrading sorts of uses; and (c) select the O or
linked U and O for our logo. During a
solicited public comments period, preferences were toward a strong connection
with the seal and a strong connection with the Oregon O with the words
University of Oregon. Examples of the
proposed stationery and business cards were provided to the senators. The vice president noted that a public
comment period through March 1st was available on the University
Advancement website page. He also noted
that if departmental logo’s are chosen in unison with the university logo, the
university will need to outline a policy on when and how to incorporate these
into stationery.
Responses
from senators to the proposed logo included concerns regarding the O’s
appearance as a “corporate logo” rather that a symbol of a university. Senators were dismayed at the seeming lack
of opportunity for faculty input into the process, and were particularly
concerned about the proposed loss of the seal for official faculty
correspondence. Comments were also made
regarding the licensing rights Nike may have to the Oregon O and its perception
as an athletic logo rather than an academic one. Vice President Price clarified that the university owns the O,
but that Nike has a contractual licensing right to apparel only, which is due
for renewal in the next year.
STANDING
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Interinstitutional
Faculty Senate Report. IFS representative Peter
Gilkey, mathematics, deferred an oral report from the IFS and instead provided
a written report of the recent IFS meeting (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ifs/IFS1Feb02.html).
Update
on PEBB deliberations. Ms. Mylea Wray, Public
Employees Benefits Board (PEBB), informed the senators that PEBB is now making
decisions for next year’s benefits even though processing for this year’s
benefits have not been completed. PEBB
has new board and committee leadership who are reviewing offerings for 2003.
Each year PEBB completes a two month analysis of all the data on regional
carriers and the national market then negotiates the best quality and
affordable coverage for employees in the state. Within the next four weeks, through a series of 4 hour long
public meetings, board members, representatives and stakeholders would provide
input for that analysis. Preliminary
meeting already have been completed with the carriers who are this year’s
pool of both medical and dental coverage.
To
a question from Senator Sandra Morgen, Center for the Study of Women in
Society, Ms. Wray said that health benefits subsidy discussions are determined
by the individual university through collective bargaining. Across the state, there are approximately 16
different subgroups who negotiate contributions and subsidies each year. PEBB is trying to disburse information to
those decision-making groups as fast as possible regarding the 2003 costs.
Information on this plan design is available on PEBB’s the website at http://pebb.das.state.or.us.
With
no other business at hand, President Tublitz adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary