Minutes of the University Senate Meeting December 1, 2004

 

Present:  E. Chan, C. Cherry, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Feldman, P. Gilkey, SL. Huaxin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, A. McLucas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, R. Moreno-Villamar, L. Moses, L. Nelson, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, G. Sayre, P. Scher, E. Scott, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons, D. Sinha, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman

 

Excused: D. Eisert, G. Epps, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, . Haynes, E. Singer

 

Absent: S. Hart, J. Hurwit, K. Kennedy, M. Pangburn, E. Sousa, S. Stoll, S. Wells

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 207 Chapman Hall.  President Marcus noted that future University Senate meetings for winter term would be moved to Lillis 182. 

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the October 13, 2004 meeting we approved as distributed.  Minutes from the November 10, 2004 meeting had one correction: page 4 paragraph three stated, “Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, and Mr. Nathan Tublitz, biology, spoke in support of the amendment,” which was corrected to say, “spoke in opposition to the amendment.”  Minutes for the November 1, 2004 meeting were approved as corrected. 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley.  Provost Moseley provided an update on the governor’s proposed budget that was made public December 1, 2004.  As the report only was released earlier in the day, the provost’s comments were based on current understanding and were subject to revision after the budget has been studied in greater detail.  He summarized the context of the report by saying the governor indicated the budget it is not enough, but is a stable amount; it is what is affordable with current revenues.  The provost reflected the governor’s comments that if the state’s revenue situation improves over the next six or seven months, there may be the opportunity to increase some of the allocations. 

 

Provost Moseley continued by saying the budget report was better than expected (for higher education) considering the poor revenue situation.  The state revenue shortfall from the Essential Budget Level (EBL) is about 10%, partly because the legislature used “one-time” money to avoid budget cuts in the 2003-05 biennium; those funds are no longer available for the 2005-07 biennium.  Although state revenues have increased, the “one time” expenditures had to be covered first.  The overall reduction in general fund allocations for the OUS campuses is 5.6%.  The provost interprets the relatively less stringent budget cuts for higher education as a positive statement from the governor, an attempt to protect higher education as much as possible.  The governor also approved the UO’s recommended tuition increase of 5%, plus 5% in the following year.  The university also may have the possibility of an additional 2% tuition increase, recognizing that higher education is short of the EBL; the 2% would make up about half of the proposed budget cuts from the EBL.  To mitigate these tuition increases, the governor proposes more than doubling the Oregon Opportunity Grant, raising it to $91 million, and recommends phasing out fee remissions caps.  The Oregon Opportunity Grant is the primary source of state funded financial aid, and fee remissions are our primary institutional source of financial aid. 

 

Provost Moseley continued his assessment of the governor’s proposed budget by stating that unfortunately there was no funding for enrollment growth, which the UO will have to overcome on its own.  The system as a whole this year has no enrollment growth; the UO is the only OUS institution that has a positive enrollment growth (some other campuses have head-count enrollment growth, but are down in FTE).  Further, the governor recommended $100 million to fund deferred maintenance and capital repair over and above the general fund amount proposed.  In addition, the governor kept alive the UO’s request for capital funding for a new College of Education building (by putting a placeholder in the budget at $1). 

 

Taking questions from the floor, the provost noted that the salary freeze of the current biennium would likely be lifted.  There is a compensation package for all state employees, but it is minimal because it is compensation that has to cover increased costs in benefits, PERS, as well as salary increases.  Likely, it will be a 2% plus 2% cost of living allowance over the biennium.  Although the governor recognized the need for higher education to be more competitive in faculty salaries, he was unable to finance a policy package; he included a nominal amount of $1 million (about 1/30^th of the amount requested).  Nevertheless, with the salary freeze lifted, it allows the UO to do more for salary enhancement internally if we can manage our own budget in such a way to be able to do that.

 

What does this mean for the UO?  Provost Moseley said if we can maintain our enrollment overall, grow our non-resident enrollment modestly, keep a tight rein on expenditures, and if the governor’s budget is approved, we can make some progress on faculty salaries.  The provost indicated that the governor has laid out a long-range plan going four to five biennia into the future, based on the best projections of revenue, inflation, and current costs.  If implemented, it would allow the university to grow from this new budget base in a positive way.  The provost opined that he felt the governor has stood behind his words of support for higher education; he is aware that he has not provided what is needed, but he has prioritized higher education within his budget.  Whether the budget will hold up in the legislature remains a question, especially because other state agencies are facing 10% budget cuts.  He concluded his remarks emphasizing how important it is to maintain resident enrollment at current levels.

 

President Marcus asked if the 5% per year tuition increase is distributed equally between instate and out of state students.  Provost Moseley replied that the 5% tuition increase is a total amount of expenditure authority for the system; how that amount is divided is not necessarily the same for all campuses.  Tuition increase amounts will be an issue discussed by the Board, as well as whether we will be requesting the additional 2% tuition increase.  Overall, the provost felt that the tuition increases would be balanced out by the tremendous increase in the Oregon Opportunity Grant, and the lifting of the fee remissions cap. 

 

Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) on OUS activities.  IFS President Peter Gilkey, mathematics, summarized IFS activities for the calendar year of his term of office as president.  Notably, Senator Gilkey indicated that the problem surrounding the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) and ensuing lawsuit is now settled.  The chancellor is talking with the governor about proposing legislation, which reflects the minimal “fix” in place now, to make the fix permanent (and not decoupled from the PERS rates).  Senator Gilkey felt this was indeed good news for the affected employees.

 

Secondly, Senator Gilkey reported on substantial progress concerning the General Education Transfer Module, now called the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM).  He explained that the OTM proposal, developed by one of the board’s working groups in conjunction with the Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC), was designed to overcome difficulties, perceived or real, that students may have in transferring from one school (usually a community college) to another school (usually a university) within the state system of higher education.  The proposal was presented to all OUS campuses to provide opportunity for faculty feedback during fall term 2004.  Toward the end November, the Council of Instructional Administrators (CIA), the Provost’s Council, and JBAC meet with the board’s working group for some revisions to the final OTM proposal.  Senator Gilkey was pleased that the IFS, as a faculty governance organization, was instrumental in providing a faculty voice in the proposed transfer module.  He noted that there has been some interest among state legislators to pass curricular legislation regarding general education requirements for all state higher education institutions.  The proposed OTM, if adopted, should allay many of the legislators’ concerns on this issue. 

 

Senator Gilkey commented that the Undergraduate Council met and approved the motion to adopt the OTM, and, later in the meeting, he will give notice of motion for the senate to consider the OTM in the January meeting.  The proposal will be considered by the other OUS campus senates as well.  He concluded his remarks regarding the OTM by saying that an enormous number of people have put a lot of time, thought, and effort into the proposed, and that he hopes the senate will consider it carefully. 

 

Provost Moseley followed Senator Gilkey’s remarks by commenting that an issue on the legislative table for the upcoming session is the OUS performance indicators, which have been around for quite awhile.  They will likely be looking at refining the indicators. 

 

President Marcus acknowledged and thanked Senator Gilkey for the exceptional leadership he has provided in serving on the IFS, especially during this past year as its president, by insuring that the voice and opinions of the various OUS faculties were heard.

 

Standing Committee Reports

 

Fall 2004 Preliminary Curriculum Report.  Mr. Paul Engelking, chemistry, and chair of the Committee on Courses, noted two omissions in the preliminary fall 2004 curriculum report:  first, MUE 602 Supervised College Music Teaching, with the changed title of Supervised College Teaching, was inadvertently omitted; second, CLAS 303 Classical Greek Philosophy will be removed from the dropped courses list.  Hearing no other additional corrections to the report from senate members, the report was accepted as corrected.  (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/ CurRepF04Final.html for the final report.)  .

 

Report from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Implementing Changes in the Incomplete Grades Policy.  In response to the new incomplete grades policy passed at the November senate meeting (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/US0405-1.html), Mr. Herb Chereck, registrar, reported that the ad hoc committee has drafted, and is circulating for comments, a 6-step process to inform both faculty and students of the necessity of completing work for incomplete grades (an “I”) within one calendar year to avoid the “I” grade being convert to an “F” for the course.  The committee suggested that if faculty members are not doing so already, they should work out contracts with students for the work to be completed to remove the “I” grade.  Students will be provided with timely notice regarding their incomplete grade(s) in winter and spring terms via email, and departments will be reminded to run a report each term that lists all incomplete grades for the term.  Also, as students apply for graduation they will receive email notice if they have any incomplete grades, which must be removed within 30 days after the degree is awarded.  If an “I” grade is converted to an “F” grade, students will be informed by email that the action has been taken.  Mr. Chereck indicated that the Undergraduate Council would provide the final version of the process to the senate at the January meeting.

 

Senator Ann Dhu McLucas, music, commented on the problem that many students are not using their official UO assigned email address.  Mr. Chereck admitted that is a potential problem, but explained that he is working on email policies to convey official information to students, which would go into effect fall term 2005.

 

Report on the Long-Range Campus Development Plan.  Mr. Chris Ramey, university architect, provided a slideshow overview of the existing campus plan and the Long-Range Campus Development Plan.  He noted that President Frohnmayer asked his department to create a plan to sustain growth that goes beyond the normal 10-years planning timeframe and instead look toward planning ahead for the next 50 to 75 years. 

 

Mr. Ramey commented that we do planning for a variety of reasons, including: to accommodate our teaching, research, and serving the state missions; to have a powerful recruiting tool (a beautiful campus); to avoid mistakes of the past; to preserve the campus and its open spaces; and to create new open spaces.  Mr. Ramey continued that the fundamental precept of the UO plan is that we make decisions by following a process rather than a fixed image.  The advantage of this flexible planning process is the ability to make decisions as you go, but still work within a framework of policies.  This planning technique has served the university well for the last 15 years or so.  Because the future is largely unpredictable -- assumptions made 50 years earlier seldom are accurate – fixed image planning has not worked well for our campus.  For example, in 1962 it was thought that students would want to live in the dormitories at the same rate as the returning veterans from World War II had wanted.  The university, based on this plan, bought property on the east side of campus for the expressed purpose of building dormitories; but the need to build those dormitories did not materialize, so the plan’s premise was broken from the beginning.  The area now houses the Knight Law School, Museum of Natural History, child-care centers, and current plans do not include building dormitories there.

 

Mr. Ramey explained the current Long Range Plan, dated 1991, includes several key principles: form participant user groups in the early stages of project planning to hire and work with architects; build on the worst part of the land, not the best part; create positive open spaces around buildings; put classrooms in 10-minute walking circles to enable students to get to consecutive classes; separate study areas around campus, with permanent green spaces; increase density in the heart of campus, but preserve open space connections (see Lillis, for example); and, maximize ability to grow while preserving open spaces that make the university campus attractive.

 

Currently, Mr. Ramey indicated his office was reviewing the processes identified in the plan to take advantage of what has been learned in the last 15 years, and make the process better.  They intend to look at how sites are selected for buildings, adding to or amending open spaces, refreshing building patterns, walking circles, and transportation policies.  He noted that there would be a series of smaller focus groups which will fine tune issues that the advisory group or staff have raised. During the winter term, they will move into the Campus Planning Committee phase of the review, which will include a campus open house and will be a check-in with our campus neighbors to be sure they know what the UO is doing.  Finally, during spring term, the planning committee will hold a hearing to review the plan and take comments.  The Campus Planning Committee reports to the president; it makes recommendations to the president for implementation. 

 

During a question and answer session Mr. Ramey responded to a question from Mr. Engelking regarding when and where there will be input opportunity for transportation issues.  Mr. Ramey noted the Open House would be the first time to see what the committee is thinking about, but indicated they are not thinking of changing much regarding transportation at this point.  Working on both a long-range plan update and a transportation plan update in the same year was deemed too unwieldy.  Instead, they want to make sure the essential elements of our current transportation plan are represented in the long-range plan update, then, in the future revise the transportation plan (which dates to 1975).  In another transportation related question, Mr. Ramey indicated that current policy is to encourage everyone who can to come to campus via alternate modes of transportation to do so, while at the same time being realistic about providing affordable parking for those who must drive their cars.  He remarked that maintaining the balance between the two issues is very interesting, as it gets into the economics of whether it is cheaper to build parking structures or to provide other methods for people to come to campus.  Several other questions raised topics that will be examined during the year’s review, including East Campus planning and processes for “outside” building projects.  Mr. Ramey concluded his remarks saying that he thinks there is an opportunity to work with the Getty grant program for heritage resources around our campus, which would provide an opportunity to study these issues in the future. 

New Business

 

Notice of Motion on Implementing Recommendations of the President’s Task Force on Athletics.  President Marcus stated that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) has been reviewing recommendations made in last year’s report from the President’s Task Force on Athletics.  The IAC will bring two motion before the January senate, one dealing with changes to the IAC’s charge and responsibilities, and the other concerning communications between university athletics and the senate (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/ dirsen045/US045-2.html and http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-3.html). 

 

Notice of Motion on Adopting the Oregon Transfer Module.  Senator Gilkey, mathematics, reported that the Undergraduate Council has approved the Oregon Transfer Module (OTM) as endorsed by Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) on November 19, 2004, and gives notice that he will move that the University Senate approve the OTM at the January meeting (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/ ~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-4.html).  He also commented that Registrar Chereck reported to the Undergraduate Council that there would be no financial impact from adopting the OTM.

 

Nominations and election of alternate Senator for Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)--President Marcus asked if there were any nominations from the floor for the UO’s alternate representative position for the IFS.  The secretary reminded senators that the alternate position is a 1-year term, which can be renewed.  In addition she clarified that this person need not be a member of the senate, but must be a faculty member.  The IFS alternate attends IFS meetings if one of the representatives cannot attend (maximally, there are five two-day meetings a year).  Seeing that there were no nominations from the floor, President Marcus asked senators to revisit the issue with suggested nominees at the January meeting.

 

Request for Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Course Numbering System.  Mr. Engelking, speaking for the Committee on Courses, asked President Marcus to appoint an ad hoc committee to examine the university’s course numbering system, in particular, the use of generic and experimental numbers.  There was general agreement among senators that such a committee was a good idea and would benefit the university.  President Marcus agreed, and indicated he would proceed to appoint the ad hoc committee. 

 

Adjournment

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty