Minutes of the University Senate Meeting April 13, 2005

 

 

Present: E. Chan, A. Emami, S. Eyster, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Haynes, L. Huaxin, N. Hudson, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, K. Kennedy, P. Keyes, C. Lachman, L. Lindstrom, S. Maier, W. A. Marcus, A. Mathas, J. McCole, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, M. Raymer, L. Robare, P. Scher, E. Scott, A. Shaw-Phillips, E. Singer, D. Sinha, S. Stoll, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, L. Wellman, S. Wells, R. Yang

 

Excused: C. Cherry, L. Feldman, P. Gilkey, C. McNelly,

 

Absent: D. Eisert, G. Epps, A. McLucas, G. Sayre, K. Sheehan, S. Simmons

 

 

 

Call to Order

 

Senate President W. Andrew Marcus called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in 282 Lillis. The president noted that the May 25^th organizational senate meeting will be in the Browsing Room in the Knight Library.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes from the March 9, 2005 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

State of the University

 

Remarks from Senate President W. Andrew Marcus. President Marcus gave a brief overview of the activities for the remainder of the academic year. Processes for the NTTIF Committee recommendations and implementation are under way, with a report due at the next senate meeting. The Student Conduct Code Committee has made laborious progress on revising the code, but it is not yet ready for Senate action; instead, the senate will pick up work on the code in the fall. The president also noted that the Diversity Working Groups have made substantial progress. It is their hope to have a senate ad hoc diversity committee to help bring eventual recommendations to fruition. Lastly, President Marcus asked senators to think about the upcoming elections, noting that a numbers of positions remain open with no nominees, including several senate positions. Nominations close April 22^nd.

 

Remarks from Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley began his remarks with budget news, saying there is roughly a $150 million difference between the Senate and House budget versions concerning K-12 funding, but it appears that higher education will receive what was in the governor’s initial budget. In addition, $32.5 million is proposed to “buy-down” tuition in order to keep it at current levels. Provost Moseley said the proposed tuition buy-down does not help the UO with additional funding needed for enrollment growth, faculty salaries, and so forth. Budget negotiations still are proceeding, and the provost remains optimistic that the UO will receive the governor’s budget amount plus some other incremental funding.

 

Turning to other topics, Provost Moseley commented that the legislature has had serious discussions about how to better interface lower division courses within OUS and community colleges to have a smoother transition from one institution to another. Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies Karen Sprague is spear-heading the university’s interests on this front. Further, the provost report that a common course numbering system (as proposed in one legislative bill), is not likely. The provost indicated that administration is preparing for the anticipated salary increases to begin next academic year. Lastly, the provost indicated the search for a new Vice President for Finance and Administration is reaching its conclusion with good candidates having been interviewed. Searches for the Associate Vice President for Information Services and Dean of the School of Architecture and Allied Arts are moving forward as well.

 

Distinguished Service Award Report from Executive Assistant President Dave Hubin The Senate moved into Executive Session from 3:23 p.m. to 3:36 regarding Distinguished Service Awards.

 

 

Announcements and Communications from the floor

 

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Jeanne Wagenknecht, finance, commented that the IFS was concerned to make certain that the quality of the curriculum would not be compromised by proposed legislative changes in articulation among OUS and community colleges. She noted that in response to a request from the governor that universities review sexual harassment policies, the UO’s policies are clear and well-articulated. Lastly, she reported that the IFS also was asked to look into codes of ethics and conduct on the OUS campuses, which will be up for discussion at future IFS meetings.

 

New Business

 

Notice of Motion US04/05-6 regarding Elimination of the Y Grade. . Herb Chereck, Registrar, gave notice of a motion from the Scholastic Review Committee proposing to modify the use of Y grade. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen045/US045-6.html.)

 

Motion US04/05-7 regarding Administration Reports to the University Senate on Proposed Major Capital Construction Projects. Senate President Andrew Marcus indicated he had received the following motion:

Whereas proposed major projects affecting the entire campus are more likely to gain broad support with timely notification and broad consultation; and 

Whereas consensus on proposed major projects promotes both their successful realization and campus-wide morale; 

Therefore, be it resolved that the University Senate requests the provost to report to the University Senate on major intended project(s) at the earliest date that is reasonable and always prior to seeking authorization for funding of capital construction projects. When funding approval must move forward during the summer period, the Provost will report to the Executive Committee of the senate. Projects on which the provost will report include those that:

(1) require authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request;

(2) require authorization from the legislature via the Emergency Board.

Senate Vice President Peter Keyes, architecture, reported that this motion and Motion US 04/05-8 were brought forward by the Senate Executive Committee and evolved from discussions over the past year about the revisions to the campus planning process. The first motion concerns the administration’s reports to the senate on proposed major capital construction projects. Currently, the campus planning committee becomes engaged in a project after the project is fairly well along. The typical process is that a dean or head of a unit makes a proposal for a building or facility, talks with administration about it, and figures out how funding will arise. Donors may be brought on board, and when the package is put together, the specifics of the project are brought forward to the Campus Planning Committee for discussion regarding the logistics of the project and its compliance with the Campus Long Range Development Plan. Many projects may be on the horizon, but they may not reach the Campus Planning Committee part of the process for a few years.

 

In the past, some UO building projects have moved rather far along before the faculty as a whole became aware of them. It is felt that the academic community should know about these types of projects much earlier in the process. Consequently, the motion is a request to the provost to report to the University Senate on intended major projects at the earliest state that is reasonable, and always prior to seeking authorization for funding of capital funding projects. Vice President Keyes added that when funding approval must move forward during the summer months, the provost would report to the Senate Executive Committee. Major projects are defined, but not limited to, those requiring authorization from the legislature, including the capital construction budget and others that would require authorization by the Emergency Board.

 

During a question and answer session, Senator Mike Raymer, physics, asked whether there were any down sides to the proposed motion. Vice President Keyes said that he felt the planning committee and the administration had worked through several questions and issues raised through earlier versions of the proposal, and had arrived at the current proposal as a workable balance between the need for broad discussion and the need to sometimes move quickly on a project.

 

With discussion ended, President Marcus brought the question to a vote. Motion US04/05-7 passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

Motion US04/05-8 regarding Revisions to the Membership and Reporting Clauses of the Charge to the Campus Planning Committee. President Marcus again asked Vice President Keyes to present Motion US04/05-8 on behalf of the Senate Executive Committee. Text of the motion follows:

Whereas transformations of the campus benefit from a fully inclusive process of consultation and consideration;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Campus Planning Committee charge be amended to include the following provisions:

            (1) As part of its reporting duties to the University Senate, the Campus Planning Committee will provide an oral report to the Senate in the autumn on progress on major projects over the previous year and a look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration.  Major projects are defined as those projects requiring authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request or the Emergency Board;

(2) A faculty member of the University Senate will be appointed by the Senate President to a two year term as a voting member to the Campus Planning Committee.  This member will inform the Senate of projects that do not meet the threshold of appearing on the Capital Construction Budget Request, but which might be of interest to the university community.

(3) The Senate will receive announcements regarding Campus Planning Committee meetings and public forums where major projects are being reviewed.

These provisions will be implemented by changing the membership and reporting clauses of the Charge to the Campus Planning Committee to read (additions in italics, no materials have been deleted);

MEMBERSHIP:

Membership of the Campus Planning Committee is not fixed. Typically it shall consist of 8-10 faculty (minimum 5 teaching faculty), 5 students, 1 classified staff member selected from the university at large.  It will also include 1 faculty member who is appointed for a two year term by the Senate President and is in the University Senate at the time of appointment.  In addition, the committee will include the following ex-officio members: a representative of the College of Arts and Sciences; the Dean of Architecture and Allied Arts; a representative of Disability Services; the Director of Facilities Services or designee; the Director of University Planning; and each Vice President or designee. 

REPORTING:

The Campus Planning Committee shall report to the Administration. The Committee shall also provide reports to the University Senate. At a minimum these reports shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Secretary of the University Senate no later than the University Senate meeting in October. As part of its reporting duties to the University Senate, the Campus Planning Committee will provide an oral report to the Senate in the autumn on progress on major projects over the previous year and a look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration. Major projects are defined as those projects requiring authorization from the legislature via the Capital Construction Budget Request or the Emergency Board. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary. In particular, the Senate will receive announcements regarding Campus Planning Committee meetings reviewing the design for major projects and public forums on major projects.

 

Vice President Keyes stated the Campus Planning Committee (CPC) has a dual role: it is a committee of the senate, an thus reports to it, and it advises the university president regarding how projects should move forward and whether the projects are in compliance with the Long Range Campus Plan. As with all advisory committees, its recommendations are not binding; the president is the final authority and decision-maker. That said, Vice President Keyes noted that the intent of the motion is to have the senate be aware of issues confronting the CPC in order to have discussion and input as early in the project stage as possible. The vice president pointed out that there are a few noteworthy changes proposed for CPC reporting and membership. First, in addition to the regular written report all standing committees make to the senate at year end, the CPC would be required to make an oral report fall term to the senate regarding major projects over the previous year, and to look forward to significant projects that are anticipated or under consideration. The CPC would involved in the discussions between planning staff and the administration, and thus would inform the senate of important projects moving forward or perhaps under consideration. Second, changing the membership of the CPC to add one more member, appointed by the senate president for a two-year term, provides the senate with a liaison to the CPC.

 

During a brief discussion period Senator Lisa Freinkel spoke in support of the motion as a means for better communication. No one spoke in opposition. With no other discussion, President Marcus brought the motion to a vote. Motion US04/05-8 amending the reporting requirements and membership of the CPC passed unanimously by voice vote.

 

 

Adjournment

 

With no other business at hand, President Marcus adjourned the meeting at 4:05.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary