Minutes of the University Senate Meeting December 3, 2003

 

 

Present: A. Berenstein, L. Bowditch, G. Epps, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, F. Gearhart, P. Gilkey, J. Harding, S. Haynes, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, E. Luks, W.A. Marcus, K. McPherson, D. Pope, G. Psaki, L. Robare, M. Russo, G. Sayre, M. Sherman, E. Singer, D. Sinha, L. Skalnes, B. Strawn, C. Sundt, N. Tublitz , J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, M. Woollacott

Excused: H. Alley, C. Bybee, C. Ellis, M. Raymer, P. Scher,

Absent: L. Alpert, F. Cogan, K. Curtin, R. Graff, M. Holland, A. Lindquist, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. Sheehan, M. Shirzadegan, M. Wilson

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m. 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

One correction was noted in the minutes from the November 12, 2003 meeting, changing a preposition from "in" to "by" in the paragraph before the motion concerning the arena.  The correction has to do with restrictions being placed, or not being placed, on donors.  With no other corrections, the minutes were approved as amended.

 

President Bowditch announced that the second half of the January 2004 Senate meeting would include a panel, jointly sponsored by the senate and the AAUP, to discuss issues concerning athletics reform and the future of intercollegiate athletics such as those raised in the framework document presented at the November 2003 senate meeting.  The panel will not be debating specific points of the document; rather, the aim is to provide information and a discussion about the broad issues involved with intercollegiate athletics.  Debate on the framework document will occur at the February senate meeting. 

 

President Bowditch also announced that university President Dave Frohnmayer has asked the ad hoc Task Force on Athletics to continue its work.  In 2002-2003, the task force investigated issues regarding student athletes (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen023/RptAthCom15Feb03.pdf).  In addition, the task force held an independent forum to provide commentary from faculty, staff, and students at the UO and established a website with the report, informational documents, and a place to submit further comments.  This year the task force has been charged with three main items: (a) to advise President Frohnmayer on significant national issues related to intercollegiate athletics, particularly those involving the fiscal impact of increasing competitiveness among institutions (the commercialization of athletics) and post season competition; (b) to examine the current relationship between the UO Athletic Department and the university and make recommendations to the president about steps that can be taken to further enhance that relationship, including examination of current faculty governance structures; and (c) to continue to examine issues related to academic integrity for student athletes. 

 

In order to carry out these charges, the task force will host small discussion sessions with members of the senate, interviewing senators in a focus group format to get an informed sense of faculty perceptions about athletics.  These small discussions groups will take pace after the January 14, 2004 panel discussion.  President Bowditch encouraged senators to sign up for the discussion and to talk to colleagues and get a sense of their perception of the relationship between athletics and an institution of higher education, what it should be, and what it is here at the UO.  Senators wishing to sign up for a discussion group can contact Suzanne Clark or Wendy Larson, who are organizing these seminars. 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

University President Dave Frohnmayer thanked the Senate President Bowditch for an opportunity to address the body and began his remarks by responding to the basketball arena issue discussed at the previous Senate meeting.  President Frohnmayer said the arena matter was considered carefully by the senate and, in response to the senate resolution, read the following formal reply: 

 

December 3, 2003

 

TO:                  Lowell Bowditch

                        University Senate President

 

FROM: Dave Frohnmayer

                        President

 

RE:                  Senate Resolution US03/04-1 regarding the siting process for the University basketball and events arena

 

I acknowledge receipt of and have given thoughtful consideration to the motion passed by voice vote by the University Senate urging and expecting “the University Administration to submit its proposal to the Campus Planning Committee for review and to follow other established campus planning procedures for the siting of the arena and associated facilities.”

 

I have already written to the Campus Planning Committee describing my expectations for its involvement in the arena project now that the preferred site has been selected.  A copy of my memorandum is attached. Let me now comment on the decision to site the arena.  Over the five months of the site selection process, I received comments from many individuals both off and on campus as well as the report from our consultants.  The consultants met with the Campus Planning Committee, even though site selection is not an automatic consideration of the Committee, most notably, for example, in the case of the Science Complex and the School of Law.  The process that was followed and the choice of Howe Field as the site for the new arena seem reasonable, appropriate, and well informed and I, therefore, respectfully decline your advice in so far as it would require a site review ab initio.

 

President Frohnmayer next reported he had an opportunity to comment about the state of the university to the OUS Board on Friday, November 21, 2003.  The circumstances were unusual in that a number of board members had just submitted their resignations.  The president noted that it was important to make a public case for the University of Oregon, that is, to have the board validate the goals and objectives of the university, to have an idea of our comprehensive planning process, and to hear what the board’s loan request had been.  His comments also included issues affecting the UO, the Oregon University System, and the state of public universities around the country.  He noted that the precipitous withdrawal of state funding support comes at a time when enrollment is increasing and the needs for its products and processes (most notably the advancement of knowledge and fundamental research) are more necessary, yet more debased by the lack of funding.  President Frohnmayer’s presentation to the board concluded with the following eight concerns.

 

1.     How can the UO continue to provide our students and the state of Oregon quality instruction, research, and services that are comparable to our peer universities when they have an average of 50% more revenue per student?  The average per student FTE expenditure for our peer universities (included in the RAM model) is $17,000 per year, per student.  The UO’s average is $11,000 per year, per student.  The UO’s average revenue per student has declined by $800 per student since the year 2000.  Even thought tuitions have increased at rates protested by students as being too high for them to afford, the overall support per student is directly traceable to the withdrawal of state support.

 

2.     How can the UO continue to attract and retain quality faculty?  The state of Oregon is very fortunate to have such quality faculty at the University of Oregon and it is extraordinary to have an AAU university in the northwest.  There are only two AAU universities in the entire greater northwest states including Nevada and Utah, and there are likely to remain only two.  To have faculty come from AAU universities (80% of recent hires) and remain with the UO is a tribute to the loyalty of our faculty.  The UO is likely to be at a salary level of 80% of our peers by the year 2004-2005 if dramatic steps are not taken.  Given the unfortunate salary decrees dictated by the legislative and administrative branches of government, these steps are not likely anytime soon. 

 

3.     How can the UO continue to provide graduate programs to meet the states needs?  The university is a graduate, doctoral institution – criteria by which an AAU institution is judged.  The UO has no real state funding anymore for graduate students, and yet the students, the laboratories, the teaching environment and culture of which they are a part are critical to the state’s economy, research, and quality and effectiveness of teaching. 

 

4.     How can the UO maintain the size and quality of its research programs?  State supported research has been reduced by 20% in recent years.  Thanks to the collective efforts of UO senators and constituencies represented, the funded research from the federal government is at an all time high and has grown 30% over the last two years.  This is a striking example of what quality faculty members can do, not withstanding the absence of the state infrastructure support that should be part of the seed money for the research enterprise as it is carried out for the state university.    

 

5.     How can we continue to attract non-resident students, including international students, if we cannot maintain the quality of academic programs?  The UO generates more money in tuition dollars from non-resident and international students than it receives in tax dollars from the state of Oregon.  Those dollars are possible because of the international attractiveness of the University of Oregon for international students.  Although domestic security issues such as visa and immigration restrictions have cost us 100 to 200 students this year, students have attended because of the over all quality of the university.  If the quality of a UO education begins to erode, the university becomes vulnerable regarding the diversity of our student body, international flair, and revenue issues. 

 

6.     With increasing tuition how can the UO maintain the economic diversity of our student body?  The University of Oregon has a public mission.  The Oregon admissions act from February 14, 1859 contains two promises.  The first is a grant of land to establish a system of common and conformed schools; the second is a grant of land to establish a public university.  It was an unusual promise at a time when only one quarter of one percent of the population possessed a college degree and most of them from the elite private or religious institutions of the East.  The conception of education that is accessible to a much larger population is part of what it means to help develop a territory into a state of citizens.  The promise has been broken.  The promise of maintaining public universities is one we have seen erode to the notion that public education is somehow a private good rather than a public good.  President Frohnmayer also informed the board that student financial aid is a top priority in our comprehensive campaign.  The goal is $100 million in endowed scholarships.  The $30 million dollar level has been reached in the second phase of this campaign.  There is much hope, but the university is assuming a burden the state should have. 

 

7.     How can the UO protect the state’s investment in campus facilities, let alone construct the new ones we need, given the lack of state support?  The university has relied (in our construction, over the last ten years) on private fund-raising dollars with a few exceptions, which are almost exclusively bonding.  Those dollars are not as readily available as they should be in some areas of greatest need, such as music, education, and the humanities.  Funds are lacking for maintenance, although facilities staffing has been beyond heroic in their maintenance work.  The UO’s deferred maintenance bill now exceeds $100 million dollars, and the legislative measure that would have improved the situation did not make it out of the last legislature.

 

8.     How can we convince private donors to invest in the university while the state is withdrawing its investment?  Donors do not want to replace state funds.  Donors want to help achieve new levels of excellence.  Gift dollars cannot be set-aside on a one-to-one ratio because endowments pay out at a rate of 4% in order for them to be sustainable over an area of generational quality.  The intention is for endowments to be worth the same amount of money and generate the equivalent amount of support 50 years from now as they do today.  The story of the private institutions is the spending of their endowments in the late 1990s and early 2000s before the "dot.com" bubble burst.  The UO will not do so.  For every million dollars of endowment, there is an annual payoff of only $40,000.  The amount of endowment required to replace state funds is daunting.  For the University of Oregon to generate funds equivalent to those the state currently provides, an endowment in the excess of $3 billion dollars is needed as estimated by Provost Moseley and President Frohmayer. 

 

The president spoke of the governor’s recent actions to change board membership as decisive and deliberately intended to call attention to the plight of higher education in the state.  In past 30 there has not been another governor that has made such a statement and accompanied it with dramatic action.  The governor repeated his statement in a surprise visit to the OUS Board and again at the second annual economic summit in Portland (to 1,300 business and government leaders from around Oregon).  The governor has made a public commitment to stop the disinvestment in higher education.  His reasoning almost precisely mirrors the UO’s strategic directions, including the need to have access by students, with or without means, to all the educational opportunities that this university can offer.  The governor has made the statement that research is essential for the future of the world, the state, and the region.  Although the emphasis on research is on applied research, the kinds of things the UO does including the work in our Brain, Biology and Machine initiative as well as our MMD initiative, and basic sciences have received explicit note and executive approval.  President Frohnmayer predicted an era of higher visibility and more specific priority for higher education, and believes the governor’s higher education agenda is not fully fleshed out.  The first job of the governor, if the upcoming tax measure vote fails, will be to cut budgets.  Any gains made in the legislative session can only be marginal if not in the governor’s original budget.

 

President Frohnmayer concluded his remarks with two final comments. The opening of the new Lillis building provides 20% more classroom space at the university and offers the world's most modern classrooms economically, ergonomically, and environmentally.  It is a source of pride for the university and it is unfortunate that public dollars could not do what the philanthropy of the university's friends has done.  Also, the American Association of Universities (AAU) during October 25–27, 2003, recently visited the university.  The weather was spectacular and the campus looked beautiful.  The president indicated that he continues to get letters from the presidents and chancellors of peer institutions who expressed delight at the hospitality and amazement at the quality of this institution as an AAU brother/sister.  He thanked the senate for their contributions. With no questions from the floor, President Frohnmayer concluded with an invitation to email him with any future concerns or questions.

 

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Fall 2003 Preliminary Curriculum Report.  Paul Engelking, Committee on Courses chair, noted one change to the Fall 2003 Preliminary Curriculum Report.  In the “dropped courses” list, Folk Art and Material Culture (on page 18 -- FLR413/513) will be retained and not dropped.  There were no other errors or changes noted.  Technical corrections can be emailed to Linda White lindaw@oregon.uoregon.edu, Gail Freeman gfreeman@oregon.uoregon.edu, or Paul Engelking engelki@oregon.uoregon.edu.  The report goes to press on December 15, 2003.  With no objections, the final version for fall 2003 was approved unanimously (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/CurRptF03Fin.html). 

 

Remarks and discussion concerning revisions to OARs.  Melinda Grier, General Counsel, began her remarks saying that the student records policy was adopted in the 1970s under the guidance of the former legal counsel (Dave Frohnmayer) and soon after the Family Educational Rights and Family Privacy Act (FERPA) was adopted.  There have been some minor revisions and no major revisions over the last 15 years.  Ms. Grier noticed upon her arrival 5 years ago that the policy was due for an overhaul but workload issues prevented it.  The overhaul was needed for two main reasons.  First, there had been changes to FERPA which were not incorporated into the rule and that meant complying with FERPA did not always comply with the rule.  We are required to comply with federal law.  Second, the incorporated policies in the rule, such as student policies and university procedures for handling student records, were out of date and did not meet current criteria.  The university had evolved a lot in that 30-year period and the rules had become hard to understand and people could not make sense of them.

 

The purpose of the records policy is to make sure students know how their records will be handled.  In 2002 Randy Geller was hired as director of policy and legal affairs, and was assigned to redo the student records policy.  Because the registrar’s office has become a central location for student records, Registrar Herb Chereck assisted with the changes.  Previously, records were handled in individual areas and students had to go from place to place for particular information.  Over the years a centralized system has been recognized as a more efficient way to handle records and better protect the privacy of students.  Having an out-of-date policy made it difficult to inform students of the best way to get records.  People from outside the university requesting records were not informed of the most efficient way to obtain them, and it was harder to ensure adequate protection of student records. 

 

Mr. Geller and Registrar Chereck, along with other contributors, worked on a draft of rule revisions and began obtaining feedback from many people.  The draft revisions were ready last spring (2003).  The timing was such that if notice is given on the 15^th of the month, the first time something can be published is the 1^st of the next month.  The way the process played out meant that a hearing on the rule revisions could not be held until after school had adjourned for the summer.  The rules needed to be in place before the start of the next academic year because there is a lot of publicity at the start of the year in order for students to know about their records.  Also, an agreement with the graduate teaching fellows involved changes in the student records policy.  An additional hearing was scheduled.  Vice President for Student Affairs Ann Leavitt, Registrar Herb Chereck, General Counselor Grier, and Mr. Geller met with many campus groups, including ASPAC, both administrations of the ASUO Executive, the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, the Faculty Advisory Council, the Student Affairs Counsel, the Dean’s Council, the Student Senate, the Residence Hall Association, the National Programs, and the EMU Board.  Consequently, many people had an opportunity to see and comment on the drafted rule.

 

An unofficial hearing was scheduled on June 3, 2003, before school adjourned, and the official hearing was on June 20, 2003.  At that time, concern was raised about whether the rule and the timing of its adoption had been done in order to allow the UO to comply with the USA Patriot Act.  Counselor Grier said there were changes in the student records policy pertaining to subpoena rules that allowed the university to disclose, without prior notice, student records in response to a lawfully issued, law enforcement subpoena that expressly instructs the university not to disclose the existence of a subpoena.  These subpoena-related changes stemmed from the 1994 change to FERPA, and not from the USA Patriot Act.  Occasionally, the university has received such a subpoena, but not relating to the USA Patriot Act.  The university is obligated to follow the federal government’s authority and the change in the student records policy gives students notice concerning how responses are handled regarding subpoenas.  Changing the rule could not change how the UO responds to a law enforcement subpoena that specifically instructs not to give prior notice to the student.  In general, when the university receives a civil subpoena or a law enforcement subpoena, notice is given and the student has an opportunity to try to quash the subpoena – to object to the subpoena; however, changing rules does not change the university’s legal obligation to comply with federal law.  Because people had voiced concern regarding the subpoena issues, and because the rules needed to be in place for the start of the school year, the deadline for time to comment was extended and the rules were adopted with the understanding that the sentence in the rules acknowledging response to law enforcement proceedings would not be in effect until December 10, 2003.  That provided an opportunity for discussion of the provision. 

 

Concerning the role of committees in rule making, Ms. Grier noted that the state’s Administrative Procedures Act sets up the procedures for rule making, that is, how rules should be adopted and the use of a committee.  The procedure is set up for use by all state agencies.  Most state agencies are adopting rules in a different environment than that of the UO and are not getting input from the community around them.  There is no requirement for a hearing, but it is important for people to have notice and opportunity to comment.  The university schedules hearings on every rule even though it is not required.  Part of the purpose of the committee process is for use by those agencies that regularly adopt rules without a hearing or any kind of additional input.  The UO gives notice on and off campus, and to the media, Senate Executive Committee, legislators, and so forth.  There is a different view of rulemaking, and although a committee could be established, it is optional.  Many times a committee is not the best way to adopt a rule and public comment is more important; that is what is being strived for in this process.  

 

Ms. Grier continued that the motion to come before the senate later in the meeting was to repeal the rules that are currently in place.  She was concerned that the motion requires that the old rules be put back in place, which would make the UO out of compliance with FERPA, and that students would not be notified how their records actually are going to be handled.  In meeting with people who had some concerns, Ms. Grier said an amendment was discussed that would make it clear that all law enforcement subpoenas would come to the general counsel’s office and would be reviewed by legal counsel to make certain that they are valid before any records are disclosed.  If a subpoena comes, it is not taken lightly and it is refused if not valid.  It is true that subpoenas can show up around campus, and it is important through the rule and in other ways to give notice to the recipients so they know how to handle the subpoenas to make sure they get full legal review.  Ms. Grier expressed appreciation for the willingness of those concerned to work towards compromised solutions and reiterated that the purpose of the rule is to make sure students privacy and records are protected.  It is important for the community to understand that the General Counsel is available to help students with legal issues and to assist them if they receive a subpoena.  She reiterated that no information is given out unless there is a valid, legal obligation to do so.  (See email correspondence #6 and #7 between F. Stahl and R. Geller for background information at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/letters034.html.)

 

During a follow-up question session Senator Jeffery Hurwit, art history, asked how many subpoenas the UO receives in a year and how many of those are valid?  Ms. Grier replied that the registrar receives the most subpoenas and the general counsel’s office receives about 40 or 50 a year, with an estimated 25% being not valid.  Most invalid subpoenas are from out of state.  In California, any practicing lawyer can issue a subpoena and the state has a system of subpoena processing companies that the UO does not validate.  Under Oregon state rules, records for a deposition need to allow 14 days for response or are treated as invalid.  Many subpoenas are for divorces or are regarding former students.

 

Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, asked Ms. Grier to explain what changes happened as a result of the Patriot Act.  Ms. Grier responded that the USA Patriot Act did not change FERPA.  The US Attorney General always had authority to issue exparte subpoenas.  The effect of the USA Patriot Act was to extend that authority without amending FERPA.  Senate Vice President Andrew Marcus, geography, asked if any federal subpoenas have been received.  Ms. Grier replied “yes”, but pointed out that many federal subpoenas are actually local issues that are simply going through a process.  Occasionally the UO receives law enforcement subpoenas, such as a few years ago when the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was on campus.  That particular subpoena was related to the UO itself.  If the general counsel determines a subpoena is not valid, the response reflects that; the issuer of the subpoena must then go through a process with the Oregon Department of Justice if the party wishes to pursue the matter.  The general counsel’s office strives to support students with legal issues they may encounter. 

 

Senator Karen Kennedy, academic advising, expressed concern about not notifying students when a subpoena is issued and asked if students would be contacted at all.  Ms. Grier reiterated that if a subpoena is valid and specifically restricts informing the student, giving notice to said student would be criminal and could result in sanctions against the university.  This rule was established under FERPA in 1994 and has not changed because of the USA Patriot Act.  The difference is that more subpoenas specifying confidentiality may result from the USA Patriot Act.

 

Senator Fritz Gearhardt, music, requested a fictitious example of a subpoena that might be issued with instructions not to notify the student.  Ms. Grier replied that the most common subpoenas restricting notification of students pertain to financial aid fraud.  Often auditors want to make comparisons without alerting anyone.  Another example would be subpoenas requesting information for authorities that want to contact a student without the student being alerted they are trying to do so.  A final example would be a subpoena requesting directory information that the student may have requested suppressed.

 

Senator Christine Sundt, library system, asked if a student is automatically contacted if the subpoena is not restrictive.  Ms. Grier replied that students are likely to be notified, but if the student has legal representation, it is the lawyers who are notified.  If a subpoena is invalid, it is possible the student would not be notified at all, as no action was taken.  Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, questioned the hurried timing in changing policy.  Ms. Grier said the process was delayed until the end of summer, but the following reasons necessitated the change: bargaining with the GTF needed to progress, the UO was out of compliance, and student communications involving email addresses required consideration before fall 2003 term deadlines.  Ms. Grier concluded her remarks with a reminder that the portion of the revised OAR of greatest concern was delayed in implementation in order for further dialogue to take place.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US03/04-5 -- to repeal recently revised OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy) and restore to its previous version.  The first item of new business concerned the motion regarding revisions to the student records policy.  Prior to formal debate, the sponsor of the motion, Senator Daniel Pope, history, distributed copies of the motion and Ms. Grier’s document regarding the referral of subpoenas to the Office of the General Counsel.  Senator Pope endorsed Ms. Grier’s assessment of their meeting and reiterated that the conversation was positive and constructive, and that he appreciated the language used in Ms. Grier’s draft.  As an historian, Senator Pope said he is inclined to look to the past and therefore has a different perspective than Ms. Grier.  He believes the reasons for amending the OAR were inadequate and flawed and resulted in a procedure that did not take into enough account important concerns regarding privacy, civil liberties, and academic freedom.  He referred to the context of these concerns in a document distributed by Frank Stahl at the October 2003 senate meeting that provided a chronology from last March to the end of September.  Senator Pope read a quote from Academe’s special report on academic freedom after the events of 9/11 which said, “Sections of 507 of the USA Patriot Act amends FERPA by creating a procedure in which a senior official in the US Department of Justice may seek a court order to collect educational records deemed relevant to an investigation or prosecution of terrorism as an exception to the requirements of confidentiality.”  The article also pointed out that after the passage of the Patriot Act in October of 2001, record keeping requirements were waived concerning the existence of these “gag rule” subpoenas. 

 

Senator Pope went on to say he believes amending the OAR without consideration that the university may receive USA Patriot Act related requests is insufficient.  The procedure for student records policy revision was done as administrative housekeeping and a way to rectify anomalies and errors of fact to a 20-year old rule; but to carry out the process without consideration of the new category of exparte subpoenas that do not permit disclosing information to the person whose records are being requested is not an adequate response, and thus the basis of the motion he wishes to bring to the floor.  Discussion with colleagues led to the conclusion that starting over in drafting revisions may be the best solution.  The meeting with Ms. Grier resulted in wording that helps to make clear that a subpoena is not automatically valid and that the recipient does not need to immediately hand over information, and it establishes a procedure for examining the validity of the subpoenas.  Further, Senator Pope said the provision for publicity is a good step.  Notification of students through an article or supplement in the Daily Emerald was suggested, as well as information in relevant handbooks.  He indicated that notifying involved parties that they do not have to comply with a subpoena without first requesting legal counsel’s review is most important.  The possibility of a public policy statement from the UO was discussed regarding the UO’s reluctance to turn over information readily, and that such action is a matter of considerable concern that requires examining the legalities in each case. 

 

Senator Pope stated his concern that an individual office worker, faculty member, or administrator may be asked to turn over records as a result of a terrorism investigation and that the person might feel morally obligated to resist the subpoena as an act of civil disobedience, either by not complying with the request for information, or by notifying the subject of the request.  In such an instance he hoped the university would not punish the individual for acting on one’s conscience for that type of situation, but he was unsure how the university could make a policy supporting that position.  In terms of the motion he proposes to bring forward, Senator Pope said that if the university is moving in the direction of meeting some of the afore mentioned concerns, with language drafted by Ms. Grier, further publicity arrangements, a commitment to a policy statement, and an understanding that the university is not going to discipline someone acting in conscience in resisting an exparte subpoena, he felt the broader purposes of this motion would be met, and left the direction of the motion up to the senate members.

 

Several comments came from the floor.  Senator Dev Sinha, mathematics, asked for clarification on what Ms. Grier’s document meat in relationship to the motion and to the original OAR.  Senator Peter Gilkey, in response, noted that in order to save paper, copies of the motion (all of its versions) and all relevant documents could be found on the senate’s web page.  The handout is a draft by Ms. Grier suggesting additional procedures for processing subpoenas that could be used in conjunction with the current OAR.

 

President Bowditch then read aloud Motion US03/04-5 and, hearing a second to the motion, opened the floor for debate.  The motion reads as follows:

 

Motion US03/04-5 – Repeal OAR 571-20 (Student Records Policy) as adopted September 5, 2003 and restore prior text

MOVED that

(1) The Senate calls upon the UO Administration to undertake immediately all steps necessary to restore OAR 571-20 to the text as it existed prior to September 5, 2003, and to declare null and void the Permanent Administrative Rule OAR 571-20 that was adopted on September 5, 2003.

(2) Pursuant to ORS 183.025(2), the Senate calls upon the University to involve the public in the drafting of a revision of Student Records Policy by, among other measures, appointing the UO Senate as an advisory committee to represent the interests of persons likely to be affected by the revision.

 

Senator Garrett Epps, law, began the debate by remarking that he was encouraged by the information presented, but said that he opposed the motion at this time.  Senator Epps suggested the senate form a committee to work out some of the concerns mentioned, and moved to delay the vote until the January 14, 2004 senate meeting.  President Bowditch indicated that during the term break interim a committee could be appointed to further improve the records policy.  Senator Gilkey, as a point of information, asked if the postponement of this vote would affect the rule scheduled to become valid on December 10, 2003. 

 

President Frohnmayer entered the discussion saying that he is familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act and helped write some of the procedures being discussed.  He noted that whichever way the vote goes on Senator Pope’s motion, there would be further rulemaking required by the UO.  If the senate wishes to restore the status quo, the repeal would require the UO to give notice to the secretary of state, and to all of the constituencies.  To repeal the rule would put into effect the old rule that does not inform students of what the law is and does not protect them further and allows the UO to adopt a policy that is no longer in effect and may prohibit students from using their email or an instructor from using the blackboard system.  Restoring the status quo would not only create all of the issues that left the adoption of a rule in its non-controversial purposes in the first instances, but would also be publishing a rule about a law that does not exist and that is problematic.  To adopt the language, or a version of the language Senator Pope and others have developed with Ms. Grier, would required rulemaking.  President Frohnmayer asked the Senate not to adopt a request to repeal a rule that restores a law that no longer exists in its present form and would have the capacity to mislead UO students and faculty about what the law is.

 

Noting that the impending holidays and finals schedules made it beneficial to postpone Senator Pope’s motion until the February senate meeting, and hearing agreement from Senator Epps, the motion to delay voting on Motion US03/04-5 until the February 2004 senate meeting was brought to a voice vote and was passed.  In the interim, the requested committee would be appointed.

 

Senator Pope requested that the senate discuss his motion to give the proposed committee a better idea of how to pursue this issue.  In response, Senator Epps suggested that a discussion be added to the January senate meeting agenda since the committee’s presentation is scheduled for the February meeting.  The suggestion met with approval.

 

As the discussion wound down, several additional comments were made.  Senator Psaki noted that Ms. Grier spoke clearly about the content of the revised OAR, and supported the notion of a senate subcommittee formed to hone the language for a new OAR, saying it would involve the senate in an area of student records with which it should be involved.  Mr. Frank Stahl suggested that when a difficult subpoena comes as a result of the USA Patriot Act, one has hesitancy in responding and should recognize the ethical and moral issues involved.  He pointed out President Frohnmayer’s offer to examine any such subpoena.  Lastly, Senator Gearhart expressed appreciation for Ms. Grier’s explanation regarding OAR revisions and rule making. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Senate President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:55p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

 

(The secretary gratefully acknowledges the valued contributions of Ms. Jennifer Burton in drafting the minutes of the meeting.)