Minutes of the University Senate Meeting October 9, 2002
Present: H. Alley, L. Alpert, K.
Aoki, E. Bailey, A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, C. Bybee, V. Cartwright, F. Cogan,
A. Elliott, C. Ellis, M. Epstein, L. Freinkel, L. Fuller, F. Gearhart, M.
Hallock, D. Herrick, P. Keyes, M. Linman, G. Luks, W.A. Marcus, G. McLauchlan,
C. Mc Nelly (nvp), K. Merrell, S. Midkiff, M. Myagkov, R. Ponto, M.
Ravassipour, M. Russo, M. Shirzadegan, E. Singer (nvp), C. Smith (nvp), D.
Soper, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht, M. Woollacott, R.
Zimmerman
Excused: B. Blonigen, R. Horner, D.
Leubke, A. Morrogh, M. Partch, F. Tepfer
Absent: J. Earl, R. Graff, M.
Holland, L. Skalnes, J. Wasko, M. Wilson
University
Senate President Greg McLauchlan called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in
the EMU Fir room. The first order of
business was a welcome to new and returning senators.
Minutes
from the May 8 and May 22, 2002 senate meetings were approved as
distributed. President McLauchlan also
noted that the new student senators from the ASUO have been appointed and will
be joining the senate at the November meeting.
Mr.
Paul Simonds, senate parliamentarian and former senate president, provided some
context to the role of the senate in faculty governance by quoting from the
university’s charter document. It
states that the president (of the university) and the professors constitute the
faculty of the university, and as such, have the immediate government and
discipline of it and the students therein, and have the power to prescribe the
course of study to be pursued and the textbooks to be used. He urged the senators to use their
governance power look at issues of concern to them and their constituents.
President McLauchlan, in talking about the senate’s
agenda for the year, said it is focused on broader, long-term issues concerning
the budget, faculty governance, and the relationship between the university and
the larger community. He identified key
challenges and opportunities for the academic year as having to deal with the
ongoing state of Oregon fiscal budgetary crisis, noting that even if the
proposed income tax passes, it is a temporary and partial solution to a decade
old structural crisis that began with the passage of Measure 5 in 1990. He went on to say that unstable and
unbalanced tax structure results in periodic crises for the public, and that of
all the major sectors of state government, higher education has sustained the
largest and continuous decreases to its budget.
Faced
with the funding crisis this past year, a strategic planning process was begun
last spring to better position the university.
A document titled Strategic Directions was produced by the
administration in consultation with the Faculty Advisory Committee and the
Senate Executive Committee (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/strategic06nov02.html). The document outlines the purpose of and new
directions for the university in terms of strengthening its fiscal support
within the state. The document is
comprehensive and addresses academic quality, salary raises, endowed chairs,
research support, faculty diversity, strengthening the student body, increasing
financial aid, access to higher education, increasing the student experience,
and new directions in linking research with economic development in the
state. Strategic Direction’s
most significant element is a new policy section titled, “The Compact with
Oregon” more recently updated to be called, “The New Partnership with Oregon”
or simply, “The Deal” (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/Partnership.pdf). The partnership represents a desired shift
of the OUS institutions toward greater autonomy and institution flexibility in
setting tuition as well as fiscal and academic priorities. Specifically, main points of the document
note that:
The
general trend toward increasing privatization was discussed. The trend is historically associated with
increasing economic inequality, declining access to public institutions, fewer
services to large sectors, and increasing social and political
fragmentation. To avoid these pitfalls,
President McLauchlan suggested that the university needs to deliberate in an
open, democratic and participatory process in order to flesh out detailed
responses from the university community and the public sector to implement
specific qualities and plans in these two documents. He opined that the University Senate should be a focal point for
these policy decisions.
Remarks
from ASUO President Rachel Pilliod. Ms.
Pilliod reported that the ASUO has many events planned for the year beginning
with the annual Street Fair and the Stuff the Duck drive to register students
eligible to vote in the November state elections. ASUO is also working with OUS and the UO administration to
understand the New Partnership with Oregon, which they are supporting along
with the Oregon Students Association, subject to further collaboration. ASUO’s involvement includes lobbying
directly to the state legislature and in Washington, DC. Although restricted to nonpartisan
functions, ASUO can educate students regarding the impact of yes or no
votes. ASUO is forming lobbying teams,
committees, and groups to create a strong voice from students, administration,
and faculty in order to lobby for the prioritization of higher education. Upcoming activities included: national
“Coming Out” week; student advocacy (ongoing); national Affirmative Action Day;
Weaving New Beginnings, a reception for students and faculty of color to get to
know each other (moved to January); co-sponsoring a teach-in about the possible
war with Iraq; and hosting a series of town hall meetings throughout the
term. Regarding the West Campus recent
rioting incident, the ASUO has been active publicly and behind the scenes to
show that only a limited number of UO students participated and they are not
reflective of overall student activism.
Further, she felt that the university’s students should not be subjected
to negative attention because of the actions of a few.
Remarks
from Vice President for Academic Affairs Lorraine Davis. Vice President Davis spoke first about the budget situation at
the university. She indicated that the
university is planning to receive $147 million from the state this biennium. The university had a $4.2 million budget cut
going into the biennium last year and this year. It now has another $500,000 cut due to budget recalculations
during the 5th special legislative session, and the UO is facing an
additional $6 million cut if the January 2003 income tax ballot measure does
not pass. On October 2nd, the
university turned in a budget reduction plan to OUS outlining the budget cuts
of $6.5 million in a general form; that is, $3.6 million from instruction; lose
150 full time employees; cut back 2,900 students, and so forth. A revenue plan was put together after
consulting with faculty groups and students which includes a 10% tuition
surcharge in winter and spring terms 2003 that will generate about $4 million,
or 2/3 of the required budget cuts.
Tuition surcharges would not be collected until March 1, 2003 and May 1,
2003. Since the ballot measure election
is on January 28, 2003, the university wants to lobby the legislature for other
opportunities to lessen or avoid cuts and perhaps eliminate the need to collect
the surcharges.
Turning
her remarks toward enrollment and campus growth, Vice President Davis noted
that as of October 4th, the university had enrolled 19,689 students
and expects the numbers to total 20,200 to 20,300 students by the end of the 4th
week of enrollment. She said that the university
needs to make decisions on enrollment management. Three to four years ago, the optimal size of the UO was shown to
be between 20,000 to 22,000 students.
That should be the maximum enrollment, but it creates management
problems. We want to have the best
Oregon freshman we can recruit, but we need enough out of state students who
pay (higher) tuition bills, and enough graduate students to maintain the
quality of research for which the UO is noted, while maintaining the sense of
community and service that we value.
This could be accomplished by a positive response to the New Partnership
document. The importance of the New
Partnership is to allow the UO a certain level of state support that is not
impacted by other institutions. As part
of OUS’s Strategic Planning Committee, the new chancellor has taken portions of
the UO’s original New Compact with Oregon document and incorporated interests
of other OUS institutions, renaming it The Deal.
Finally,
the vice president noted that the university is in the initial phase of a $600
million comprehensive fundraising campaign spanning the next 5 years. Efforts last year plus a few months brought
in the first $125 million of the campaign.
An internal comprehensive campaign advisory council to the president
will be formed. Many deans have already
initiated the processes within the schools and colleges, and faculty will be
key regarding campaign priorities. Vice
President Davis concluded her remarks reminding everyone of the Convocation to
be held October 25th at 2:30 p.m. in Beall Hall. She added that this year and for ensuing
years, the fall term University Assembly meeting will be combined with
Convocation, and new tenure-related faculty members will be introduced.
A
brief question and answer period followed Ms. Davis’ remarks. Senator Chris Ellis, economics, asked if the
UO received any response from Salem regarding The Deal document. Vice President Davis responded saying the
document is being addressed outside of the State Board of Higher Education. She continued to say that Salem is hesitant
to give an opinion and has not yet been addressed in a manner requiring
response. Mr. Tim Black, governmental
affairs, added that meetings with legislators, gearing up the alumni
association and foundation board members, making contacts, writing letters and
opinion pieces, and so forth, should prepare legislators by January. He hopes the legislature will recognize The
Deal as the only viable option they have.
Senator
Dave Soper, physics, asked if there is a plan to keep the number of dollars per
student from dropping. And if so, how
is the university going to get people to agree to such a plan. Vice President Davis pointed out that The
Deal document is the plan, and reaching an agreement will require lobbying. To a question from Senator Laura Alpert,
art, regarding funding comparisons between the UO and other OUS institutions,
Vice President Davis answered that we now are close to having the same funding
matrix cell values as other institutions.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, noted that all of these issues focus on maintaining and increasing the quality of the student experience and asked if the administration has been thinking about the quality of our student dormitories and housing. Ms. Davis answered that the housing situation is on the table and will filter up as part of the comprehensive campaign. Mr. Mike Eyster, housing, added that there is a proposal in the capital construction process to build more housing. The earliest possibility would be in the fall of 2005, pending some important decisions.
Senator Ken Merrell, special education, asked what implications would the document have for ceilings and numbers of students over time. The vice president responded that this is under consideration and there is an Enrollment Management Committee working on how to accomplish these goals. Senator Frances Cogan, Honors College, asked if there is a percentage guaranteed for instate students. The vice president answered that there was no guaranteed percentage, but added that politically it is unlikely the university would move to a situation where more than 1/3 of our students were from out of state or country, unless the state is not willing to support us at all, because the UO is a state and public institution.
Report from the 2nd annual Faculty
Leadership Caucus. Senate Vice President Lowell
Bowditch, classics, reported on the Faculty Leadership Caucus (see summary
document at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/FacLeadershipConfSep02.html). She noted that many of the issues raised
during this senate meeting were also discussed during the caucus. Action points and issues were outlined for
further Senate discussion over the year as follows:
1.
Begin
conversations on the status of the UO as a member of the American Association
of Universities (AAU). Only a small
segment of faculty members are aware of the implications of AAU status, which
affects some of the priorities being set in the Comprehensive Campaign.
2.
Establish
communication and operational links between the Strategic Directions document,
the UO Mission Statement, and the Comprehensive Campaign. There is concern regarding the
presentation of research areas weighing too heavily in terms of the UO
economic development, and less significant mention of the UO’s core mission as
a liberal arts institution.
3.
Continue
meaningful input into the Comprehensive Campaign from the Faculty Advisory
Council, deans, and department heads.
There is concern about making inaccurate assumptions regarding which
program areas are easy or difficult in fundraising.
4.
Establish
guiding principles for the Comprehensive Campaign.
·
Identify
other principles beyond AAU status.
·
Clarify
the UO as a public university with great reliance on individual donors. Particular agendas could dominate and lead
to less accessibility to higher education.
Need based scholarships should be a strong priority of the Comprehensive
Campaign.
·
Spell
out connections to the Mission Statement and the degree to which these
principles, as the goal of the campaign, should be articulated.
5.
Anticipate
the ways the Partnership with Oregon document might impact the faculty, as well
as increase efforts to track the effectiveness of faculty governance in the
past few years and in the future.
6.
Look
at the university’s agenda for athletics, such as how much money from the
campaign will go to athletics, and should we have a donor tax or sharing to
move part of athletics’ money into academics.
There is concern about UO games being broadcast on a radio station that
airs programming counter to the mission and diversity statements of the
university.
7.
Address
concerns over the optimal size of the institution and size of enrollment. Question whether an increase in faculty size
will offset this impact on class size.
8.
Examine
UO relations with outlying communities and the environment and how they are
affected by increased enrollment.
9.
Begin
discussion about breach of student conduct codes on and off campus.
10.
Continue
to strive toward achieving the Senate Budget Committee’s White Paper goals
regarding salary issues affecting faculty.
Senate
President McLauchlan thanked Ms. Bowditch for her report and announced that the
Faculty Leadership Caucus will be reconvened once or twice a year. Further, Vice President for Advancement
Allan Price has been invited to the senate meeting in November and will speak
about the comprehensive campaign, roles faculty might play, and ways to make
the campaign a success.
Discussion
of the senate’s role in campus governance.
Senate
President McLauchlan introduced members of the Senate Executive Committee,
reminding the Senate this committee, in consultation with the senate president,
sets the senate’s meeting agendas.
Because it is important for senate members to communicate with their
constituent groups, the president urged senators to consult with a multitude of
people, including the Senate Executive Committee, about concerns they would like
to have addressed by the senate.
President McLauchlan noted that future senate meetings would have 10
minutes of open forum included as a regular part of the agenda for senators and
faculty to speak to any issue they feel is important.
A
general discussion regarding ways to improve upon the discourse of senate
meetings ensued. Suggestion included
relegating committee reports to a smaller portion of meeting time, having more
frequent campus wide town hall meetings, and using a better room arrangement to
facilitate discussions. (Note:
due to multiple ongoing construction sites on campus, the senate is meeting in
the EMU Fir room rather than the usual class or lecture room locations.)
Senator
Malcom Wilson, classics, raised the issue of how much legislative authority the
senate has at the university. For
example, does the senate have authority to legislate university policy?
Responses to this question were mixed.
Mr. Paul Simonds, parliamentarian, responded by assuring that the
University Assembly, which was the legislative body on campus prior to
delegating its legislative authority to the senate when the senate was
reorganized in 1996, passed legislation affecting operations of all campus
areas. His belief is that the senate
body has the authority to deal with any governance issue on campus, that there
is no limit in the original charter that separates the president from the
professors, and together they constitute the faculty with governance of the
university.
Senate President McLauchlan interpreted the
authority of the senate in a slightly different way. He noted that as a representative body it could not be involved
in running day-to-day business operations of the university. There is an extensive division of labor
between the administration and faculty regarding the governance of the
university. He noted that in many ways
the senate functions as a policy making body on matters of curriculum and
course proposals, in particular. But it
also has worked closely with the administration through various committees and
task forces to develop policy on broader issues such as salary improvement and
campus planning, as was done with the Senate Budget Committee and Riverfront
Research Park development. Although it
is doubtful we can legally enforce the senate’s resolutions about park
development, the university president said he would abide by the senate’s
resolutions and recommendations.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Community
member Bruce Miller was recognized by President McLauchlan and voiced his
opinion that the university has not been well served by OSPRIG. He suggested that monies used to fund OSPRIG
be used instead to develop a different model of legislature on campus with the
purpose of developing a more effective lobbying effort to “sell” the
university. In response to Mr. Miller’s
efforts to present his ideas at great length, President McLauchlan pointed out
that this agenda item is only for brief announcements and communications, and suggested
that Mr. Miller contact the Senate Executive Committee regarding any agenda
items he may wish to put forth for future senate discussion.
Senate
Secretary Gwen Steigelman, academic affairs, announced that the legislation
passed last spring to include members of the classified staff as non-voting
participants in the Senate was being implemented fall term. The elections will be completed before the
November 13, 2002 senate meeting.
Senate
President McLauchlan announced that Mr. Peter Gilkey, mathematics and former senate
president, has been appointed to the Non-Tenure Tract Instructional Faculty
Committee. President McLauchlan also
serves on the committee as a senate liaison.
Members
of the Senate Nominating Committee were appointed and include Julie Novkov,
Gene Luks, Maram Epstein, Virginia Cartwright, and Dave Soper. President McLauchlan also noted that a
proposed Ad Hoc Comprehensive Campaign Advisory Committee will not be
constituted in order to minimize duplication of efforts since the current internal
campaign advisory committee already has ample faculty representation on it.
With
no further agenda items, the meeting was adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
Gwen
Steigelman
Secretary