Minutes of the University Senate February 8, 2006
Present: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, S. Gary, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, P. Keyes, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,
Excused: N. Fujii, A. Hornof, L. LaTour, L. Richardson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard,
Absent: E. Chan, A. Djiffack, L. Karim, K. Sheehan, K. Wagle
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in Lillis 282
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Due to late availability, approval of the minutes from the November and January meetings were postponed.
State of The University
President Dave Frohnmayer spoke briefly on several topics of interest. First, the president indicated that enrollment levels have been sustained at least at the levels expected. Although admissions for the coming year will likely be flat, they will reflect the mix of students – national and international, in-state and out-of-state – that will be good for the diversity and fiscal health of the university. Secondly, the president spoke about the strategic planning process of the university that has been taking place through the State Board of Higher Education. Part of the planning involves addressing governance issues in respect to the relative autonomy of each OUS institution, but at this point, there is no clear indication of what the board may be thinking on this issue. Next, President Frohnmayer commented on the extraordinary effort the Diversity Plan executive working group has made to ready the draft plan for review by various groups, such as the Faculty Advisory Council, the Senate Executive Committee, and student groups. After several weeks of feedback from these groups, a more precise document that outlines the roll out of the diversity plan, including timelines and implementation, will be made available.
Lastly, the president updated the senate on the Westmoreland proposed sale matter. He noted that the Department of Justice has okayed the request for sale proposal and that the university is proceeding. There is not likely to be any action on the proposal before May. The president further noted that the administration was proposing the sale in response to a housing crisis identified in an ad hoc 2002 senate report noting the poor conditions and inadequate housing for students on campus. At that time, no monies were available to improve housing. The proposed sale of Westmoreland would help remedy the housing situation for all students. If a buyer, acceptable to both the university and the state board is found, the proceeds from the sale would be used for several purposes: renovation of existing residence halls, paying off our debt share (about $1 million per year) of the OUS consolidated debt pool created by other campuses’ buildings; purchasing other properties (the Romania property from the UO Foundation, and the Department of Transportation property in the south part of Franklin Boulevard); and remediation for students and families if displaced from Westmoreland. Additionally, child care issues are being addressed by a working group to make plans to meet those needs through other campus child care facilities. With his remarked concluded, the president opened the floor for questions.
Senate President Peter Keyes asked President Frohnmayer to comment on the possibility of medical programs being offered at the UO in conjunction with OSHU and Peace Health. President Frohnmayer responded that in the face of an aging cadre of health providers – doctors—50% of whom will retire in 10 years, he was approached about a year ago to see if the UO would be part of a consortium to help provide medical education. He said there were many upsides to participating in such a consortium, such as better health services eventually and a better library. If the plan develops further, perhaps the 3rd year student cohort would be on campus this summer. He noted that CAS, the departments of Biology and Human Physiology, and the Graduate School have been examining these possibilities for doctoral programs. Senator Regina Psaki, romance languages, expressed her amazement that the senate had not had any discussion on these new programs. The president responded that it is difficult to know when to share an idea that is still only a notion more broadly. He noted that the FAC was consulted. Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, confirmed that his department has been talking about the medical education possibility for a while, but recently the idea has started to come together very quickly. He offered his opinion that it was a great opportunity. Concerns were expressed about the allocation of resources, for the library, for example. President Frohnmayer indicated the program would only be expanded if new resources were provided.
Questions then focused on the proposed Westmoreland sale. Senator Mike Pangburn, decision sciences, asked when the Westmoreland units would be replaced. The president answered that until there is knowledge on who the buyer is and how the property might be used, there is no way to know at this point how many, if any, of the housing units will go away. Senator Jon Jablonski, library, asked about the loss of $400,000 that is generated by Westmoreland. President Frohnmayer replied that cash from the sale enables bonding and can be leveraged many times over. Next, Senator Matthew Dennis, history, expressed his belief that more communication, as well as the kind of communication between the administration and the faculty would be welcome. He also said that to the extent that a possible controversy or concern can be anticipated, involving more people in the discussion and decision process sooner would be helpful. He noted that a concern about the sale is that the students at Westmoreland are often international, graduate, and/or with children, and that their needs are being sacrificed for the undergraduate student needs. Elimination of Westmoreland housing will affect graduate student recruitment. President Frohnmayer responded by saying that it is hard to talk about the sale without creating uncertainty, thus until the university is really ready to pursue the project, one does not wish to cause unnecessary concern. He commented that he is very concerned about the entire campus and the quality of our students’ lives – to delay the process further delays action to help solve the housing problem. Further, he suggested that he is quite aware of our international student population, and the way to deal with recruitment issues is through financial aid and other academic inducements beyond the housing issues.
Senators Shaul Cohen, geography, and Nathan Tublitz, biology, engaged the president in a lively exchange regarding the senators’ desire for more inclusion, consultation, and shared decision-making before major decisions at the university are announced. The president expressed his belief that the university charter recognizes there is a difference between the core matters of academia, such as curriculum and academic reputation, and the responsibilities of administration. Faculty governance does not extend to co-decision-making on administrative decisions of the kind that involve university housing and axillaries; it has never been the province of the faculty through shared governance. He continued that there is a difference between faculty and administration responsibilities and co-governance as exhibited through lines of accountability. Senator Cohen responded saying that he differed in that view of shared governance, and to be told that the faculty should only be concerned with academic issues was very disenfranchising. He continued that the faculty, many of whom work here for decades, are very invested in the decisions that the university makes. President Frohnmayer clarified that throughout his tenure as president of the university he has purposefully not drawn a line between the roles of the administration and faculty and does not intend to do so. His example was one that simply (and legally) identified the areas of his accountability to the governor, the state board and to the university as a whole.
Senator Tublitz then raised two issues. First, he clarified that the report from the ad hoc committee on housing that he was involved with did not mention balancing the need for improved housing on the backs of graduate students, such as the ones in Westmoreland. It did mention a need to free up funds, but the human costs in the Westmoreland sale are very large and go beyond the campus. He contended that the human costs have not been fully considered by the administration. Second, Senator Tublitz asked the president if any action has been taken regarding the two recent senate resolutions (a) to waive the fees charged to Westmoreland Tenant Council for their public records request and (b) to restart the process of considering the sale of Westmoreland. President Frohnmayer replied saying that he disagreed with Senator Tublitz’s comment suggesting that he had not considered the human factors involved with the proposed sale. Regarding the public records request, the general counsel has asked the requesters to narrow the scope of the request and, if done so reasonably, the request would be free of charge. He was not aware of any response from the requesters. As for restarting the sale process and involving stakeholders in future planning processes, the president indicated that there is no actual proposal from buyers at this point, so beyond the comments and current discussion, there is nothing at the moment to discuss further. Senator Tublitz lamented that there had not been an open conversation before a decision was made to sell Westmoreland. Referring to the need for shared governance between the administration and the faculty, Senator Tublitz made the analogy that the head of a family (e.g., the university) must consult with members of the family before making important decisions. The discussion drew to a conclusion as Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, urged both the administration and the senate members to try to come to terms with their differences, believing that we all have the best interests of the university in mind, though there may be different views on how best to achieve it.
ANOUNCEMENTS
President Keyes announced that a senate forum on the issue of Department of Defense funded research on campus was tentatively scheduled for February 22nd with 6 panelists: 1 current DoD funded researcher, 2 professors opposed to DoD funded research, 2 in favor of DoD funded research, and 1 speaking from the AAUP’s academic freedom viewpoint. (Note; the forum was subsequently rescheduled to March 1st.)
Senator Jablonski reported that the fee for documents requested by the Westmoreland Tenants Council had been reduced from $2,967 to $1,967. He noted that the Family Housing Board, a university committee, submitted its own much more narrowly focused request for information related to the Westmoreland sale. It is hoped that these documents in conjunction with those requested by the tenant’s council will provide the information needed to argue against the sale. Senator Jablonski thanked Interim Vice President for Student Affairs Mike Eyster, who heads the Family Housing Board, and other senators who supported the resolution (US05/06-3) to waive Westmoreland document request fees, citing his professional obligation as a librarian to foster open access to information.
President Keyes next moved the conversation back to faculty governance issues. A regular 10 year review of senate representation and/or reapportionment is due this year (2006). The president remarked that it would be a good time to look possible changes that might provide improved governance. He suggested several topics to consider: expanding the candidate pool for the senate president position; reviewing the status of classified staff representatives as participants in the senate; and adding the senate vice president as a member of the FAC. President Keyes also suggested a broader structure for consultation and advising on campus in which a senate committee would specifically advise each top administrator and would, in turn, have its committee chair be a member of the Senate Executive Committee. For example, the FAC advises the university president, the Senate Budget Committee advises the vice president for finance and administration, an academic quality committee advises the provost, a research policy committee advises the vice president for research, and an advancement committee advises the vice president for advancement.
In commenting about the proposed advising structure, Associate Dean Priscilla Southwell raised a philosophical question as to whether senate representatives were representing their own viewpoints or the views of their constituents. President Keyes responded that as a senator, he tried to get a sense of what his constituents felt about various issues, and Parliamentarian Paul Simonds concurred that representing constituents’ views was the intent when the senate was reformed ten years ago. Further comments noted that it is not always possible to have constituent views known, and that a “worldview” may be more appropriate.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Ad Hoc Committee on the Student Conduct Code. Senator Lisa Frienkel, English, noted that the proposed revisions to the code are available on the web page. She provided a timeline for how the process for revision has emerged over the past 10 plus years. Broader revisions have focused on issues of violence and sexual assault, especially when it occurs off campus. The Student Conduct Code Committee provided a draft revision last year to the ad hoc committee for final polishing and formatting. The code revision will be reviewed in the March senate meeting, have small group meetings for feedback the following several weeks, and get a final vote on the code at the April senate meeting. Senate Frienkel made clear that there was no intention to put aside the work of previous committees, but rather to finish and polish the document and get it ready for review, feedback and eventual promulgation. A member of the Student Conduct Code Committee asked for clarification as to when they would have a chance to respond to the revised code so that they could answer questions they may receive from students. President Keyes said there would be opportunity to get feedback in small group meetings after the March senate meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion US05/06-5. Mr. Andrew Marcus, geography, introduced briefly the motion US05-06 -5 to change the senate by-laws to permit emeriti faculty members access to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. The motion grew out of work done last year during his term as president, and came up during discussions about convening the University Assembly. The senate charter does not include emeriti as members of the assembly, and consequently, emeriti faculty do not have access to the senate floor for discussion or to introduce legislation as do members of the assembly. Another question arose concerning the definition of emeriti and whether emeriti have governance roles in their respective departments. The motion will be voted on at the March senate meeting. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/US0506-5.html for full text of the motion.)
IFS representative election. Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht preceded the election of new IFS representatives with a brief update on the IFS meeting held on the UO campus recently. Topics at the meeting included, institutional differentiation, research, state funding, benefits and salary rebalancing, background checks from human resources, general education requirements, strategic priorities, academic excellence, and access and affordability. Another issue discussed was the IFS faculty representative to the OUS board. Ms. Wagenknecht said she has more information on all these topics if senators want more information. Finally, John Nicols, history, has indicated a willingness to serve on the IFS for a 3 year term (January 2006 through December 2008). With no other nominees, the senate voted to appoint Mr. Nicols to the IFS. If others are interested in serving on the IFS, please let Ms. Wagenknecht know.
Senate ad hoc Committee on Research Policy. President Keyes suggested that perhaps it is time to revise the charge and make-up of the Technology Transfer committee, whose activities have changed as technology transfer has grown at the UO. Changes might be that it reports to the senate and advises the vice president for research. Issues that the committee might immediately address include outside funded research and also university defense of faculty research. Currently, the university will defend faculty research but not faculty publications, citing freedom of speech issues.
Ad hoc Committee on Academic Excellence. The new provost, Linda Brady, already is working with deans to define academic excellence. The senate feels this is a topic of concern to it as well, and thus the notion is to form an ad hoc committee on academic excellence that will meet with the new provost to discuss these issues. Out of the meetings with the new provost, the committee would present a report or perhaps white paper to the senate by the end of this academic year. Mr. Dave Hubin, executive assistant president, suggested that the proposed academic excellence committee should have a member on of the accreditation committee on it as well.
ADJOURNMENT
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty