K. Aoki, D. Beaumonte, L. Bowditch, V. Cartwright, D. Conley, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, L. Fuller, D. Hawkins, D. Herrick, M. Holland, P. Keyes, L. Kintz, K. Lenn, D. Leubke, G. McLauchlan, S. Midkiff, R. Moore, S. Morgen, A. Morrogh, M. Partch, C. Phillips, S. Shauger, D. Soper, D. Strom, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, P. Watts, R. Zimmerman

Excused:

B. Blonigen, C. Ellis, R. Horner, J. Hosagrahar, S. Jones, D. Merskin, J. Novkov, S. Stolp

Absent:

E. Bailey, M. Bayless, R. Cambreleng, M. Epstein, M. Hallock, R. Ponto, J. Raiskin, J. Schombert, J. Wasko, P. Wright

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

The president further reported that he and Senate President Tublitz have spoken regarding appointing a presidential committee on the study of intercollegiate athletics. Selected committee members are in the process of being contacted prior to appointment. The committee's purpose is to advise the president, who is the PAC-10's representative on the NCAA Board of Directors, on issues surrounding intercollegiate athletics, especially regarding the upward spiraling costs of the programs. In response to a question from Senator David Herrick, chemistry, clarified that this presidential committee's charge will not encroach on the responsibilities of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, which has been primarily focused on relationships with the athletic department and the academic community. The new committee will be broader based for campus discussions which include issues external to our campus and about which it will make recommendations to the president

With the floor opened up for other questions, Senator Fred Tepfer, university planning, asked about the faculty's role in the search for the new OUS chancellor as well as the importance of the new appointment. President Frohnmayer reiterated how critical the chancellor's position is -- the chancellor's office is the principle staff for the state Board of Higher Education; it makes policy level decisions, and the office frames the great majority of issues that are forwarded to the board. Continuing, the president said that the faculty's voice in the search process would be exercised through the appearance of the finalist list before members of the faculty and staff. The board anticipates the process concluding with campus visits sometime in February or March 2002.

On another topic, Senator Maury Holland, law, asked about the status of the state legislature's negative comments toward higher education in regard to student fees being set beyond what was passed in the legislature. President Frohnmayer replied saying that the situation was a good faith misunderstanding. The rise in energy costs and the PEBB settlement proved to be budget breakers, to which the board responded by exercising their long-standing statutory power and approving an energy surcharge fee with an upper limit of $30 per term. The board then reported to the September meeting of the state Emergency Board regarding acceptable tuition. The informal tuition agreement had been for a 4% increase, with the exception of 5% for some graduate programs. And although not required to, the board reported the Energy Surcharge Fee. When tuition and surcharged fees were grouped together, as the OUS fiscal officer chose to do, it resulted in an increase larger than the 4% legislated. Our response to the negative feedback included 90 letters to 90 legislators as well as contacting the legislative leadership personally. The misunderstanding stemmed from the manner by which the increase was presented, and the breach has been repaired.

Update on the governor's OUS budget reduction request. Provost John Moseley indicated that it appears as though budget cuts will be in the range of 6%. The chancellor's office draft budget reduction plan being considered by the board will reduce non-academic programs first, with the largest reduction being in statewide public services. Other central services are also reduced at a substantially higher rate than academic programs. If the budget reduction level were at 6% of our general funding, the campus would experience a reduction of 3.6% overall. Because part of this reduction is being taken centrally, the end cut would be approximately 2% from academic programs. The University of Oregon generates more in tuition than it receives from state general funds ? our expenses are made up of 40% state general funds and 60% tuition. The requested cut is specific to the state general funds, and thus is discounted by that amount as well. And, because the university began the biennium with a balanced budget, it is in the best place in recent years to deal with these cuts at the 6% level. Further, the university has made the commitment to go forward with a 4% salary increase this year and expects to continue with another 4% increase next year. This "catch-up" salary increase had been built into the initial budget planning rather waiting to see if there was any balance left for salaries after other expenditures. President Tublitz thanked Provost Moseley and other administrators for working especially hard after Measure 5 was enacted in order to keep the university afloat and in good position with sound fiscal planning.

Question and answer period with state Board of Higher Education student member Tim Young. Board member Tim Young distributed a draft of OUS's proposed budget reductions to the senators and and then fielded questions from the floor. He noted, in reference to the budget reduction plan distributed, that both he and board member Geri Richmond, chemistry, were disappointed in the proposed 20% reduction in research dollars. He pointed to the capacity of research dollars to generate economic activity in Oregon and thus asked the chancellor's office to return with an alternative plan to the 20% research reductions.

In response to a question from Senator Jim Earl, English, Mr. Young stated that the involvement of the board members to the chancellor's search is currently a point of contention. He explained that when the full board in not in session, the smaller executive committee is delegated much of the board's responsibility. As a result, the executive committee (appointed by the board president) is the primary entity in the new chancellor search process. Mr. Young continued saying that the full board's preference would be to offer their perspective in the initial stages of the search process, however they have been excluded, with confidentiality issues as the stated reason. Mr. Young states that the university presidents will have input during the later stages of the search, as will community leaders, students, and faculty. However, Mr. Young reiterated that in his opinion the search committee should have included one university president, one faculty member, and one student in addition to the board executive committee.

Senator Sandra Morgan, sociology, asked about the type of person the board is seeking. Mr. Young responded saying that the issue is muddied somewhat by the current commission to study government structures in K-12, higher education, and private schools as mandated by HB 2015. The outcome of the study will be a recommendation to the board and the legislature regarding higher education governance structure in Oregon. It would have been helpful to have this study concluded before searching for a new chancellor, but unfortunately that is not an option. The criteria for choosing a chancellor will be forwarded to the search committee initially, then passed through the virtual network for community leaders, students, and faculty for input. Those recommendations will be channeled through the chancellor's office and forwarded to the board and the board will make a recommendation to the search committee regarding what the final criteria should be. The search committee will have final authority on the criteria for the new chancellor.

Senator Peter Watts, ASUO, raised a different question with Mr. Young concerning the lack of student vote and communication with students on the energy surcharge fee issue. Senator Watts asked what could be done to better inform students of these issues in the future and to ensure student voices are heard by the board. Mr. Young replied that the university presidents are responsible to articulate to the student leadership any changes in tuition. Further, Mr. Young noted that he has had a motion passed by the board to add the Oregon Student Association as a formal agenda item of the board, and to have both OSA and Ininstitutional Faculty Senate agenda items at the beginning of the board meeting in order to allow student and faculty input prior to decision making. Mr. Young defended his yes vote on the energy surcharge issue saying he has great faith in the university's fiscal management construction and, after sitting through the budget and finance committee meetings in the legislative session, he felt there was no alternative. He noted that assurances and a satisfactory rationale from the chancellor's office was furnished. Moreover, with budget cuts already made in the legislative session, it would not have been in the university's best interest to cut the budget further.

Senator David Strom, physics, asked why the Oregon Graduate Institute is not affected in the research reduction, which will occur at the 6% percent level. Mr. Young clarified that Oregon Health Science University is merged with the Oregon Graduate Institute, and is viewed as an affiliate institute. Despite having one board member who sits on the OGI board of directors, the institute is viewed as autonomous.

Responding to a question from Senator Lowell Bowditch, classics, regarding the type of cuts the board envisions for undergraduate education at the 6% reduction level, Mr. Young stated that the chancellor's office has done its best to protect undergraduate in-state instruction. The budget model groups different disciplinary areas of instruction into different values, associates a number with those values, called cell values, and then asks how much it would cost to teach students in each discipline. The cell values were developed in comparison with peer institutions. Full funding of the cell values is the largest budget item, and is very expensive, so the cell values may need to be adjusted. The legislative leadership has decided to look at smaller groupings than the cell values; for example, the new OSU branch campus, engineering, and smaller school adjustment funding. Mr. Young remarked that he personally has concerns regarding the expansion of the OUS system in the Bend campus, while at the same time cutting current projects.

Provost Moseley responded to a question from Senator Soper asking for the definition of "central services", indicating that it refers to funding for the chancellor's office and for funding that goes through the chancellors office and through individual campuses. These services affect our budget as well, but central services are largely at the system level through the chancellor's office. Although they may include programs the university uses, they are not critical. As an example, Provost Moseley pointing out that the Resource Allocation Model (RAM) is cut; this results in very little funding if enrollment is realized. The effect on the university is not substantial because that additional funding is not built into the budget.

Mr. Young closed by commenting that faculty and students, in that order, are perceived by the board as the most effective and believable advocates for OUS; he encouraged the senators to write a letter, talk with a state senator or representative, or possibly testify before the House or the Senate. (Mr. Young can be contacted electronically via the board's web site at http://www.ous.edu.)

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

As the discussion began, Senator Earl and Senator Holland asked related questions wondering if there was any funding that went with the award. President Tublitz responded that awards that have an accompanying stipend are funded through specifically donated endowment funds, so currently, there is no stipend for the award. However, the foundation has been contacted for a possible funding source, but has yet to respond. Senator Linda Fuller, sociology, expressed concern about establishing a service award that has no stipend when there are teaching awards that have stipends ? it sets up a two-tiered system that the university is trying to overcome. She agreed with the suggestion to look for a private donation from the foundation to possibly fund this award.

Senator Marie Vitulli, mathematics, stated her preference to have a separate committee put together a slate of candidates for the award rather than have the Senate Executive Committee screen nominations. Senator Dave Soper, physics, noted the lack of senators willing to serve on committees and suggested a combination of the Senate Executive Committee and the Committee on Committees to review nominations. President Tublitz agreed with the difficulties of appointing an additional committee and clarified further that the Senate Executive Committee is appointed by the senate president, includes the senate vice president who also chairs the Committee on Committees, the secretary, other senators, and an IFS representative, ex-officio.

Further discussion ensued regarding the structure for soliciting and reviewing nominations. Several senators voiced concern that the award needs to be viewed as a prestigious one. President Tublitz took all comments under advisement saying that the executive committee will return with an alternative proposal that will address these concerns at the December meeting.

As the last of the announcements, President Tublitz welcomed and introduced the five new student senators for the academic year: Suzie Shauger, Peter Watts, Eric Bailey, Dominique Beaumonte, and Rebecca Cambreleng.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution US010/02-3  Inclusion of OUS Faculty and Students for Chancellor Search

Whereas the principle of shared governance is no less critical to the successful administration of the Oregon University System than it is to the successful administration of the individual campuses;

Whereas the Oregon State Board of Higher Education has outlined a search process for the next Chancellor that does not include formal faculty and student participation; and

Whereas such participation is imperative to ensure a selection process and a result that enjoys the full support and confidence of the OUS faculties and other constituencies of the next Chancellor;

Therefore, be it resolved by the University of Oregon University Senate that President VanLuvanee and the Directors of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education should create a new process that specifically includes formal participation by representatives of OUS faculty and students in the evaluation of candidates and the selection of the new chancellor.

To begin the discussion, Mr. Larry Dann, chair of the FAC related that he participated in a recent teleconference meeting of the state board's executive committee for the purpose was of launching the chancellor search process. The executive committee was designated by board president Don VanLuvenee to be the search committee. Mr. VanLuvenee indicated that he may ask a former board member to chair the search. The search committee is in the process of selecting an executive search firm to assist in seeking nominations and applications, refining the position description, and screening candidates. The closing date for the search firm selection is sometime later this month (November). The search firm will narrow the applicant list to 25 candidates with input from the search committee. Both the search committee and the search firm will then narrow the candidates to about 8-10 people at which point the search firm will complete background and information checks on the semifinalists. The search committee and the search firm will then identify 3-5 finalists whose names will be disclosed to the public; at this point there will be opportunity for public input. The FAC is drafting a letter to be sent to Chancellor Cox and members of the board providing input regarding qualifications, attributes, and characteristics that may be important in a chancellor. Chancellor Cox has solicited input for the search process from a small group of people. This resolution will be one step in this search process.

To a question from Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, regarding the use of a search firm Provost Moseley responded that using a search firm is very common and necessary in order to have complete background checks performed on each candidate. A search firm at this level can also be very useful in identifying appropriate applicants. Senator Tepfer commented on the possibility of initiating a process in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) that will guarantee more faculty and student representation in the chancellor search process. President Tublitz replied that an OAR would be considered through the Institutional Faculty Senate. Mr. Gilkey stated his willingness to take any specific suggestions to the IFS meeting.

Mr. Dann went on to say that he had a phone conversation with Mr. VanLuvenee after the teleconference meeting in which he encouraged Mr. VanLuvenee to consider faculty and student participation in the earliest stages of the search process. Mr. VanLuvenee's responded that he felt involving faculty and students earlier in the process would make the search open for breaches of confidentiality. Mr. Dann felt this point was a genuine misunderstanding, despite his attempts to further discuss the issue. Senator Strom added input into the search process before candidate names are made public is important because confidential comments may need to be made about candidates. Mr. Dann agreed, saying that faculty and student participation would also send a message that their views are important and that they are important constituencies.

Getting back to the text of the resolution, Senator Phillips remarked that the resolution did not appear to be the same as the one he viewed at the IFS meeting. Mr. Gilkey replied that the faculty felt the role of students was not sufficient in the discussion and that most of the other campus senates have altered the wording to include student input as well. Because the FAC, the Senate Executive Committee, and others have passed this resolution, it would complicate the process if further alterations were made.

With no further discussion or comments from the floor, President Tublitz called for a vote. Resolution US01/02-3 concerning the inclusion of OUS faculty and students for chancellor search passed unanimously by voice vote.

Motion US01/02-4 Amend University Senate By-Laws Article VII, Section 1 to create process for filling vacancies on elected committees. The secretary of the senate brought a motion to the floor explaining that currently there is no mechanism in the senate by-laws for filling vacancies that arise either from attrition or lack of candidates for the university's seven elected committees and councils. In practice, the secretary has followed the enabling legislative election process for vacancies arising on the senate. The proposed amendment parallels the process for filing vacancies on the senate with one notable exception: unlike the senate where, if there is no eligible candidate from the most recent election the position remains vacant, the proposed amendment empowers the Senate Executive Committee to fill elected committee and council vacancies when there is no other eligible candidate from the most recent election.

During several recent elections, a number of positions on elected committees and councils have not had a full slate of candidates, or have had only the minimal number of candidates. Consequently, if a vacancy occurs ? either because there were not enough candidates during the election, or through mid-term resignation ? the position would remain vacant until the next election cycle when an attempt was made to fill the vacancy by election. The proposed amendment provides a mechanism by which such vacancies can be filled prior to the next election cycle. The secretary continued that it is desirable, of course, to have all committees at full strength, but it is particularly crucial for the two elected appeal committees, the Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee (FGAC), and the Promotion, Tenure, Retention Appeal Committee PTRAC). These two committees are externally mandated by OARs and have a fix number of members. The proposed amendment provides a mechanism to keep these committees operating at full strength as mandated. With this explanation, the secretary moved Motion US01/02-4 as follows:

Motion US01/02-4 Amend University Senate By-Laws Article VII, Section 1 to create process for filling vacancies on elected committees

Moved that, section 1 of Article VII of the University Senate By Laws be amended to add the following text (in bold type) to the current text (in regular type):

7.1 Since 1991-92, all non-elected committees established by faculty legislation are appointed by the Committee on Committees, a committee appointed by the University Senate. The Secretary of the Faculty shall coordinate the elections of faculty to elective committees. The secretary shall arrange for the filling of vacancies on elected committees and councils by notifying the next eligible candidate, determined in descending order of the number of votes received in the most recent election for the relevant committee or council. If no eligible candidate is available to fill the vacancy, the Senate Executive Committee, with advice and recommendations from the Committee on Committees, shall appoint an eligible faculty member to fill the vacancy until the next regular election cycle. Filling a vacancy shall not preclude the appointee from standing for election to the same committee or council during the next election cycle if eligible.

Vice President Greg McLauchlan, sociology, agreed with the intent of the amendment, calling it a good change. However, he worried about the case in which a vacancy would be filled using the next highest vote method that would result in a candidate who received a very small number (percentage) of votes being placed on a committee. To avoid this scenario, he suggested the qualifier that the next appointed person must have received at least 20% of the vote in the relevant election. The secretary responded that if the senate chooses to adopt the 20% of the vote criteria, it should do so for all elected positions, that is, the senate elections as well. She continued that in light of small number of faculty willing to run for election, the suggestion would not necessarily solve the problem of vacant positions, and potentially, the executive committee might end up filling a vacancy with someone who did not chose to run in preference to a bona fide candidate.

In responding to a question from Senator Virginia Cartwright, architecture, concerning vacancies on PTRAC, the secretary clarified that this committee meets only when there is an appeal of tenure, promotion, or retention, which may or may not occur each year. More importantly, only faculty who have served on the Faculty Personnel Committee, but not during the previous year, are eligible to serve on PTRAC; and, if there is any conflict of interest with a case, the conflicted committee member must be removed from the case and a replacement, if there is no alternate, appointed. These qualifiers greatly limit the number of people who are eligible, yet alone willing, to serve on this committee. In recent years it has been difficult to keep the appeal committees at full strength through the current election process. Addressing the concern of a possible "outlier" elected to the committee, the secretary reminded everyone that in the case of grievance appeal committees, the committees make a recommendation that goes to the appellant which in turn may be appealed to the president for final disposition.

Senator Stephanie Midkiff, library, wondered how long voting records are kept, suggesting that perhaps candidates from previous elections might be pressed into service. The secretary responded all the records have been kept but in many cases there are no prior candidates from which to draw who may meet the qualifications of specific committees. Senator Vitulli suggested a web-based election as a possible means for attracting more candidates to run for election, thus avoiding the vacancy problem. The secretary noted that the mechanisms for web-based voting are not available at this time, but that she intends to move in that direction in the near future. President Tublitz added that some of these committees are time sensitive, making it important to fill vacancies in a timely manner. He noted that in past years, senate presidents have been obliged to make an appointment to these committees, and he does not feel comfortable with this unwritten appointment rule continuing.

With no further discussion, Motion US01/02-4 to amend section VII of the senate by-laws concerning filling vacancies on elected committees and councils was brought to a voice vote and passed unanimously.

Nominations and elections of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative and alternate. The term of office for current IFS representative Ann Tedards and alternate, Chris Phillips, expires in December, thus the senate needs to elect two faculty members to replace these IFS representatives. President Tublitz indicated that Senator Earl had agreed to stand for election as IFS representative, and former senate president Carl Bybee, communications, agreed to stand for the alternate position. After asking if there were any other nominations from the floor for either of theses position, and hearing none, the president asked the senate for a confirming vote by voice. With unanimous approval, Senator Earl and Mr. Bybee were elected to serve a 3-year term as IFS representative, and a 1-year term as the alternate representative, respectively.

ADJOURNMENT

Gwen Steigelman Secretary