Minutes of the University Senate Meeting, Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Excused: S. Jones, D. Merskin, S. Stolp, F. Tepfer

Absent: K. Aoki, M. Bayless, D. Beaumonte, R. Cambreleng, D. Conley, D. Hawkins, J. Hosagrahar, R. Moore, J. Raiskin, S. Shauger, J. Wasko, P. Wright

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Nathan Tublitz called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:07 p.m. in room 110 Fenton.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the February 13, 2002 meeting were approved as distributed. President Tublitz asked for a change in the order of the day to accommodate University President Frohnmayer who had to leave the meeting early. With no objections, the discussion concerning use of the university seal and logo was moved to follow the question and answer period.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Question and answer period. President Frohnmayer opened the floor for questions. With no specific questions posed, the president thanked the faculty for their help in communicating the university's concerns about the looming budget cuts. He remarked that we were in a reasonably good position to deal with the proposed cuts, which would be discussed later in the meeting by Provost Moseley. Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, commented about enrollment projections, and how they affect the faculty, suggesting the need to be attentive to the long-term projections of our student population pool. He noted it is often as hard to "contract" the university as it is to expand it. The president replied that the university has good projects through 2008. The easiest way to expand Ð or contract Ð the size of the university is through non-tenure related faculty, but that option has certain implications with it.

Resolution US01/02-7 concerning use of the university seal and logo. Senate President Tublitz recognized Senator Maury Holland, law, who moved the following resolution:

Be it resolved that, regardless of whatever changes might be made to the appearance or uses of University of Oregon logos or other emblems and insignia, the letterhead stationery and business cards customarily provided to members of this faculty and to officers of administration should continue to show the traditional official University of Oregon seal without any other logo, emblem, or insignia.

Senator Holland spoke to the resolution saying that there was a consensus of opinion throughout the law school against the discontinuance of the university seal on university letterhead and business cards, as has been proposed. Senator Holland acknowledged that although judgment on whether the Oregon "O" logo is best left to President Frohnmayer and his advisory board, the use of the university seal on letterhead and business cards is a concern for faculty. He continued, saying that the UO seal is viewed as traditional and the UO community values tradition, thus it is most appropriate to maintain the use of the seal for academic communications on letterhead and business cards. Senator Margaret Hallock, an officer of administration, added that a major concern was with the seal's academic uses, and said she felt the seal better reflects the academic nature of the university.

Senate Vice President Greg McLauchlan, sociology, requested clarification as to the resolution's intent; the wording implied there is no choice between using the new "O" and the seal. Senator Holland replied that the issue of having a choice was not discussed. Senator Phillips remarked that the resolution could be interpreted to not rule out having a choice between the logo and the seal. Senator Holland stated that although not its intent, the resolution might be understood to mandate only one format to be used.

President Frohnmayer spoke on the issue stating that a great deal of consultation has taken place in a variety of settings. The Faculty Advisory Council reviewed the many ways in which the university expresses itself. He also noted that the consultative process has not yet concluded and stressed that to pass a rigid resolution such as the one under consideration would substitute a political process for a consultative process, as well as constrain some of the people who would prefer to use the logo and seal in combination. For example, if the new "O" were adopted, the stationary used might also include the seal as a watermark. Further, since consultative process has not yet concluded, the adoption of this resolution would make an untimely intrusion into that process.

Senator Eric Bailey, ASUO, voiced his agreement that there should be a choice, but was disappointed in the lack of input solicited by the administration from the students. Senator Bailey suggested a presentation before the student senate may have been an appropriate forum for student input. Senator Peter Watts, ASUO, then suggested replacing the word should with could for greater clarity and to provide a choice. Senator James Earl, English, voiced his agreement with the spirit of the motion but supported the president's argument that it would be more responsible to proceed with consultation first. In agreement, Senator Phillips moved to table the resolution to a time certain, the next senate meeting, April 10th. The motion to table Resolution US01/02-7 regarding use of the university logo and seal until the April 10th senate meeting was passed by voice vote.

Update on OUS and UO Budget. Provost Moseley informed the senators that the governor announced an additional budget cut while vetoing $80 million in spending transfers that the legislature had passed. Included in the $80 million budget deficit to be made up was $28 million specifically for OUS. This latest $28 million cut is in addition to the $43 million cut the OUS system was preparing to make. Most of the new $28 million cut was in statewide public services, extension offices, agricultural programs, and forestry at OSU. There was a further cut in budget cell values of $3.1 million effecting graduate students, which includes $1 million for campus services. At the UO, the progression of cuts, add backs, and more cuts meant that the UO has approximately an $8.2 million budget cut ahead. Making matters worst, the state budget also has lost all ability to fund any enrollment increases; consequently the UO will have 1,000 students coming to campus next year without any state funding behind them. This lack of funding for increased numbers of students effectively means an additional $1 million budget cut. And because the legislature has capped any tuition increase at 3% for resident undergraduates, there is no flexibility to raise additional revenue through tuition increases.

Provost Moseley summarized the budget cuts to date as representing approximately $10 million in budget cuts over this biennium; of that, $4 million has been managed this year without cutting academic programs, freezing faculty searches, or eliminating the planned January 2002 faculty salary increases (which averaged 5%). Savings were found solely within administrative units. The UO currently is facing a $6 million shortfall for next year. Items that may be affected are $4 million earmarked for faculty salaries, $2 million to cover the roll over for salary increases this year, $1.5 million originally budgeted for a 3% average salary increase next year, $2-3 million to cover expected increase in PEBB benefit cost, and $750,000 in PERS increases. These estimates do not include the coats associated with the additional 1,000 students expected next year. So, over the two years of the biennium, the UO faces about $12 million to make up in order to continue to continue at the current service level. Tuition will account for approximately half of the needed $12 million, and the provost is working with the Senate Budget Committee and the Deans to find the best resolution to the remaining $6 million shortfall.

Responding to a question from Senator Linda Kintz, English, on how the US congressional stimulus package will impact this budget, Provost Moseley said that it might. The governor's line item cuts in the legislature's appropriated budget may be challenged, and if it is, the court's ruling may impact the budget. Senate Budget Committee Chair Mike Kellman, chemistry, asked how the budget picture would be effected if the economy improves. The provost replied that it is unlikely the economy will pick up quickly enough to create a reserve for this biennium.

Senate President Tublitz then solicited input from the senate with regard to the Town Hall meeting previously scheduled on this subject, but delayed due to the uncertainty of the final budget. General consensus among members was that a town hall meeting should be held shortly after spring break. (The Town Hall meeting on the budget has been scheduled for Monday, May 20th from 4:00- 6:00 p.m. in room 177 Lawrence.)

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Spring Nominations for Senate and Elected Committees and Councils. Senate Secretary Gwen Steigelman announced that the nominations page on the web was now operational, with explanations regarding eligibility for service as well as lists of recent past and current memberships (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/nominate12.html). She asked senators to encouraged members of their constituent groups to stand for election to university committees and councils. Nominations are due by April 5, 2002 with on-line elections occurring the end of April and beginning of May.

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Preliminary Winter Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee of Courses, noted that the preliminary winter 2002 Curriculum report has been made available on the web and distributed to members of the senate for review. There were no corrections or additions and the report (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/w02cur.html), which was passed unanimously by voice vote.

Senate Budget Committee (SBC) Update on Salary Compression. Senate Budget Committee chairman Mike Kellman distributed a progress report on faculty salaries as of fall 2001 based on the goals stipulated in the SBC's earlier White Paper. Mr. Kellman indicated that compression was a major problem and the focus of his report. He stated that data shows that the majority of the problem lies with the senior staff where salaries are lagging most noticeably, then for professors, and then for administrative staff. Even with the current budget issues, the UO has moved from 82% to 87% parity with peer institutions, with further progress being anticipated for this year. Despite these gains, salary compression is worsening. Chair Kellman utilized a graph illustrating last year's progress, (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/SBC9Oct01.pdf, Figure 1) which showed the assistant professor are making good progress but full professors are falling further behind. Senator David Herrick, chemistry, asked how the data would appear if a ratio of UO senior faculty salaries were divided by the incoming faculty salaries. Mr. Kellman replied that the assistant professors (aggregate salaries) are increasing far more quickly than those of full professors, which contributes to the compression problem. Senator Maram Epstein, East Asian languages and literatures, asked if there were any figures related to gender bias. Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs, replied that last year there seemed to be no large discrepancies between males and females within the salary ranges. It is important to take into consideration there are more males in senior level position for longer periods of time. Of the 14 different comparisons made of data broken down by specific ranks and units, one rank and one area with a small sample size was statistically significant.

Mr. Kellman returned the discussion to the recommendation made by the SBC for differential pay increases for different ranks, focusing on the higher ranks. He concluded that the university might not achieve the goal for senior faculty in the projected 2-4 years of the White Paper, and that a renewed focus on compression issues will be needed. Mr. Kellman remarked that he believes the goals of the White Paper are still worthwhile in that competitive salaries for senior faculty at the university are worthwhile. However, he suggests that greater consideration needs to be given to the importance of competitive salaries, especially at the senior level, to the future of the university, and how urgent that need is.

Senator Chris Ellis, economics, asked about the demographic situation created by the retirement of the "60s" generation, and whether that had been factored into the analysis. Mr. Kellman replied the SBC data are not adjusted with regard to time and service, noting that it was a good point that needs to be reviewed closely. Senator Sandra Morgan, Center for Study of Women in Society, raised a concern that the university should find a way to include factors in addition to the market factors to make salary decisions. She continued saying that the university may have a harder time retaining faculty if a positive salary future is not likely. She noted that a family friendly institution is necessary along with a good salary to encourage faculty to stay at the UO.

Senator David Strom, physics, questioned whether addressing the compression issue at the full professor level would require asking assistant professors who are doing a good job to not receive a raise until attaining the rank of associate professor. Mr. Kellman expressed his disagreement with this notion and reiterated the salary increases over the last few years have been significantly above the cost of living. Senator Dave Soper, physics, asked if our comparator institutions were the "right" model for comparisons, to which Senate President Tublitz explained that external others frequently compare the UO with the selected eight universities on a variety criteria, thus faculty salary comparisons with these institutions seemed logical to remain competitive.

Senate Vice President McLauchlan asked how the percentage of salary increases translates into dollars at the various ranks. Vice President Davis replied that in January 2002 full professors received a 6.8% raise which cost $1.1 million (average raise approximately $5,000); associate professors (n=233) received a 6.4% increase of about $800,000 (average raise approximately $3,500); and assistant professors (n=97) received a 6.5% increase of about $300,000 (average raise of approximately$3,100). Thus, it costs the university about the same amount to increase the full professors salaries as it does for the associate and assistant professors combined.

In response to a question from Senator Virginia Cartwright, architecture, asking how the White Paper fits into the overall university budget issue, Mr. Kellman explained that Provost Moseley would like to see a 3% salary increase for next year, but there is a real possibility that the looming budgets cuts will result in no salary increase. The university will have to make decisions on how to spend the money it has; if faculty salary increases are funded, it will be at the expense of something else. Senator Cartwright added that in addition to salaries, there are many other factors affecting faculty lives at the UO such as facilities, research, and student load which need to be considered as part of the budget discussion.

To a question concerning the automatic increase that accompanies a promotion, Vice President Davis clarified that the salary increase from associate professor to full professor is factored into her previously stated data; however, that issue has not been discussed as related to policy. Senate President Tublitz added that the issue was last addressed with the creation of the post-tenure review document, which provides a set salary increase for faculty that complete the review in addition to the standard increase amount. Senator Phillips pointed out that the salary increase for promotion at the UO is rather low when compared with other institutions, suggesting this may be a factor in compression of full professors' salaries. He emphasized the need to address the question of how important it is for the UO to provide competitive salaries for full and associate professors to retain them on the faculty. Similarly, Mr. Kellman noted that faculty salaries are at the bottom for AAU institutions, which may be a factor for faculty considering beginning their careers at the UO.

With the discussion drawing to a close, President Tublitz remarked that the SBC would pursue the compression issue in concert with current budget constraints.

NEW BUSINESS

Notice of Motion US01/02-5 ÐParticipation of Classified Staff in the University Senate. Vice President McLauchlan gave notice of a motion from the Senate Executive Committee that the senate membership be expanded to include participation of three classified staff members who would serve as non-voting participants (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/US0102-5.html). The classified staff members would have the right to the floor for discussions and would abide by regulations adopted by the senate. Vice President McLauchlan noted that the executive committee felt that if the university is to be successful it must address concerns of all the people at the university. The motion will be on the April meeting's agenda for discussion.

Notice of Resolution US01/02-6 Ð Scheduling of Athletic Games During Dead and Finals Week. Mr. Richard Sundt, art history, gave notice of his intent to put forth a resolution banning the scheduling of athletic games during dead weeks and final exam weeks of the academic year (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen012/US0102-6.html for full text). Mr. Sundt provided an overview of the resolution and stated that athletic events should not be scheduled to occur during dead week or finals week in order to not interfere with students' studying and exam preparation. He noted that a plan announced by the athletic department recently schedules a football game on the weekend between dead week and finals week for two consecutive years. Mr. Sundt suggested that this action contravened a senate resolution adopted by the senate last spring (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/US0001-4.html). Mr. Sundt further elaborated that the resolution does not interfere with PAC-10 or NCAA governance issues, but rather relates to circumstances under local control, and if passed, would give the faculty more control of the academic agenda. President Tublitz advised this resolution would be discussed fully at the April senate meeting.

Committee on Committees Replacement. President Tublitz indicated that a vacancy had occurred on the Committee on Committees, and because it is a senate committee, the senate must elect a replacement member. Mr. David Luebke, history, has been nominated and agreed to serve on the committee for the remainder of the academic year. Mr. Luebke's election to the committee was affirmed by unanimous voice vote.

Discussion of the proposed credit plateau tuition plan. President Tublitz opened the discussion by explaining that the newly proposed plan for restructuring credit hour tuition reflects a narrowing of the credit hour tuition price plateau from 13 to 16 credits without an increase in tuition. The 17th and 18th credit hour would increase in cost. President Tublitz went on to say that Senator Robert Ponto, music, provided an explanation, which was posted on the web and circulated for review by the senators, of how the proposed change in tuition structure would impact music programs.

Senator Ponto commented briefly about the conflict the proposed tuition plan has caused within the music school. Yet, he commended the provost for devising a creative plan to address a very difficult situation. Senator Ponto stated that he thought the plan would have repercussions for other programs in the university similar to those in music, and that these problems need to be vetted. However, Senator Ponto did not want to discard the entire proposal, so he decided not to pursue the discussion of impact on the music school on the floor of the senate, but rather will continue a discussion with the provost in order to minimize the effect of unintended consequences on various programs throughout the university.

Provost Moseley expressed his appreciation to Senator Ponto for bringing the adverse impact in the music school programs to his attention. He noted that the concerns stem from students in music, architecture, and journalism programs having to take more than 16 credit hours to graduate in a timely fashion. In response to this issue, the tuition model can be adjusted to provide flexibility and incentives for students during underutilized times. For resident students, the 17th and 18th credit hours if not taken at a discount would cost $29.00 each, compared with a "per credit hour" cost of $80.00. In addition, there will be other discounts built into the system. The provost added there may be an imperfect resolution to this issue, however, the university will observe the effects of the new tuition plan and make changes accordingly. A second issue concerns equity of tuition costs for all students. Equity was not a prevalent issue when state support was high and tuition was low. The proposed tuition plan intends to address equity as state support continues to decrease. Ultimately, the goal is to find a solution that optimizes the situation for both students and the university.

Responding to a question from Senator Bailey, Provost Moseley explained the proposal would charge a lower per credit hour cost than is charged currently. Per credit hour cost is prorated through the 13th credit hour, instead of the current plateau at the 12th credit hour. Under the new proposal, if students took three 4-credit courses, then paid for one additional credit hour, they could receive the next three credit hours free, thus encouraging student to take a full load of 16 credit hours per term. Questions from the floor included concerns about the definition of full-time status for students, and whether the proposal had any flexibility in it. The provost responded saying that the model has great flexibility in that tuition can be added on a straight per credit hour basis, and students can take a discounted course at any point.

Senator Epstein asked what the tuition rates for non-resident students would be, noting that the plan would likely be more expensive for many of the language students. Similarly, Senator Bailey wondered about students now taking a very high number of credits to finish quickly because they cannot afford tuition in extra terms; under the proposed plan they would be paying more. Provost Moseley responded that students could offset the increased costs by taking courses at the discounted times, mostly in the 3:00 Ð 5:40 p.m. time slot.

ADJOURNMENT

With the discussion winding down and no other business at hand, President Tublitz adjourned the meeting at 4:50 pm.

Gwen Steigelman Secretary