to participate in small group discussions of the proposed revisions. A vote on the final document is planned for the March senate meeting. Moving on, President Keyes reported that the two groups created after the controversy surrounding the release last spring of the UO Diversity Action Plan had been busy throughout the summer months. The senate ad hoc committee worked toward developing a process to enable input and feedback on the diversity plan from a broader spectrum of people within the campus community. Similarly, the Diversity Executive Working Group, a group of both staff and faculty members on campus, worked throughout the summer to revise the draft of the diversity plan document, which will be made available in the next few months. President Keyes commented that discussion during the recent Faculty Leadership Caucus suggested that there should be discussion on principles related to diversity on campus, and not solely the Diversity Action Plan alone. CODAC may sponsor a forum in January with a few days of panel discussions of issues related to the plan; the goal is to set up processes for input before the plan is officially released.

 

President Keyes continued his outline of the year’s agenda by noting a number of issues have been raised regarding policies on externally-funded research. Most prominent is the question of military funding for research on campus. Also related to this issue is the Oregon Entrepreneurship Tax Credits, recently passed by the legislature, which provides tax advantages for people who want to sponsor research conducted at the universities that would lead to economic growth and development. The implications of such research must be considered as well as how we function as a research university. And, President Keyes also noted that commercial and corporate funding for campus research might raise issues that should be examined. For example, some universities have had issues with sponsored research when the sponsors did not want the findings freely released. Some faculty members are not clear about the UO’s research policies and whether they adequately meet campus research interests. Consequently, the senate likely would create a senate ad hoc committee to look into these issues, review UO policies, and look to what is done nationally to see if these policies need to be revised. Vice President for Research Rich Linton is amendable to this idea, noting the merit of having a faculty committee with which he could consult and work with as an advisory group.

 

Another item to be considered this year concerns questions about the University Assembly membership and protocols, specifically, how membership is defined and has changed over the years, and if it is adequate or needs revision. A second issue regards the protocols for the unusual circumstance when an assembly meeting with full legislative authority is called and necessitates achieving a quorum. President Keyes noted that the difficulty in convening such a meeting was apparent a couple years ago, thus various proposals have been suggested for how this might work, whether attendance should be mandatory, when the meeting should be held, and the costs involved. The president also indicated that a motion would be forthcoming giving retired emeritus faculty rights to participate in the senate. Also up for discussion is the status of classified staff in the senate, in particular, voting membership (currently, classified staff elects three non-voting participant members to the senate).

 

President Keyes commented that the Non-Tenured Track Instructional Faculty (NTTIF) Committee and a working group in Academic Affairs headed by Vice Provost Russ Tomlin are developing policies and principles for implementing “best practices” for academic units to use for matters concerning non-tenure track faculty. Depending on the nature of the polices, senate legislation may not be needed. Turning his attention to the topic of campus planning, President Keyes noted that as a result of the greater clarification of planning procedures accomplished last year, especially when planning involves outside-funded projects on campus, the senate now has a representative on the Campus Planning Committee, Michael Fifield, architecture. President Keyes stated, too, that the planning office has received a very large Getty Grant to study the historical core of the campus, and that the principles we learned from the grant should be applied to future campus expansion.

 

The president noted that the revised Senate Charter is now in its 10^th year, which requires a consideration of membership reapportionment. The senate will look at possible reapportionment as well as other revisions that might be warranted, such as expanding the pool of senate president candidates beyond the confines of senate membership. Shifting to the topic of fiscal resources, salaries, and budgets, President Keyes indicated that a number of important fiscal issues would come before the Senate Budget Committee this year. In addition to concerns about meeting the principles and goals delineated in the White Paper, allocation models for distributing recourses across campus will be explored, as well as discussions about the relationship of the financial budgetary issues and educational quality at the UO. President Keyes suggested that budget decisions and solutions that made sense 20 years ago may not make sense today, and changes will need to be made to ensure that quality public education remains economically viable.

 

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from Lorraine Davis, Vice President for Academic Affairs. Vice President Davis updated the Senate members on two items, the upcoming university accreditation process and the Provost Search. The accreditation occurs every 10 years via the Northwest Commission. Accreditation affects not only the university’s status and stature, but our ability to receive federal financial student aid as well. A 12 person accreditation visitation team will be on campus April 17^th and 18^th in 2007. The UO’s self-study is due around this time next year, and will involve all components of the university. Using the standard accreditation format we would be required to respond to 214 indicators. However, we are hoping to use an alternative plan so that the accreditation process can be more meaningful to us as a campus by identifying our strengths, weaknesses, and future directions. Overall, the document could be very useful for the campus. The commission has given the permission for the UO to use a new process; co-chairs of the process are Joanna Gray, economics, and Dave Hubin, executive assistant president. They will head a fairly large steering committee and have already begun discussions with the Undergraduate Council, along with some of the other standing committees. Members of the senate will be involved in providing input throughout the process as well.

 

Vice President Davis continued her remarks with updates on the current search for a new senior vice president and provost. The committee has been working with an external search firm, and after seeking initial information on a small sub-set of candidates, expects to bring three or four candidates to the campus for a 2-day interview processes during late October and November. The search committee hopes to have a new provost by the end of fall term. There will be opportunities for participation in that process via interviewing panels of faculty leadership; officers of administration, classified staff, student leadership; the council of deans; vice presidents; the vice provosts. In addition, there will be a formal public presentation and informal interaction opportunities with the candidates, including representation from the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, and a campus and community climate sub-group with student participation in the whole process. Vice President Davis encouraged members of the senate to actively participate and provide feedback to the search committee. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, expressed a desire for more opportunities for faculty to interact with the candidates. The vice president replied that the interview schedule is very full and it is difficult to have candidates on campus for more than two days. Nevertheless, she said she would take the request into consideration.

 

Remarks by Provost John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost. Provost Moseley focused his remarks on the Summary General Fund Operating Budget that was passed out at the Deans’ Council the previous day. The last budget session saw some progress in funding after 3 or 4 years of declining state budgetary support for higher education and the UO. The provost noted that the budget for 2004-05 had very little growth in general operating funds, and although it was technically not a budget cut, it has had that effect because there were no provisions for inflationary increases, such as in salaries. The UO did not generate enough revenue in the first biennial year to pay operating costs, but did so during the second year. He also commented on a negative $4.1 million figure for FY 2005 that appeared on the summary. The figure represents the amount from student tuition dollars that the state claimed the PERS revisions were going to save us on non-general funds; basically, the provost suggested, it represents a general fund cutback by another name. If we had been able to keep those funds there would have been a substantial amount of money that could have been spent last year. Provost Moseley then said the good news is the state did not continue this type of cutback, and did appropriate a non-trivial increase to the UO general fund for the new biennium. There was a cap on tuition which makes tuition growth smaller, but in the overall picture the budget shows room for growth. Unfortunately, a lot of the budget growth is consumed by increases in health benefits and PERS costs; but on the academic side of picture, we definitely see significant growth in dollars available. He said the biggest part of those expenditures was used to fund salary increases.

 

The provost continued his remarks commenting on the UO internal budget process which in the past has mirrored the budget process by which we received state funding, that is, the process uses the now 10-year old Resource Allocation Model. The model funded programs differentially based on a study of the various campus programs. More recently, each campus has kept its own tuition dollars. The UO budget was based on the Resource Allocation Model and on tuition; some money came from both RAM and tuition models to pay for the operation of the campus. Over the years there have been some changes made (for example, the state does not fund non-resident Masters students, but the UO does it internally). We felt there were inequities in the model and found it was necessary in some units to make ad hoc adjustments from year to year. As time has gone on, the model has become more and more out-of sync, due mostly to the shift over this time period in how much of the schools and colleges budgets is being paid from the state allotted general fund and how much from tuition; there has been a major shift from general fund dollars to tuition. The net effect was to create an increasing divergence when we tried to compare these budgets back to peer comparative data. This year will be a trial year looking at comparative data; the new provost will have to decide where to go with the data. No new budget plan will be implemented this year, but we intend to use peer comparatives in the final budgeting process much more than we have done in the past. Provost Moseley made clear the eventual goal is equitable funding of all units; academic and otherwise. Unfortunately, there is not a perfect set of peer comparators available with which we could make comparisons and decisions to fund all our schools and colleges equitably. Each dean has been asked to identify a set of peer comparator institutions for their school or college. Those institutions and our AAU peers will help provide data to improve the overall equity of our budget allocations. Provost Moseley concluded his remarks saying that it appears we will be able to balance our budget this year. He hopes to be able to do some salary and budget catch-up in the second year. And, although salaries are not where he would like them, the university has managed to maintain the level of benefits.

 

During a question and answer session, the provost clarified for Senator Jon Jablonski, Knight Library, that he has been talking about the educational, or general, funds that support our educational activities. The main sources of these funds are state appropriation and tuition dollars. (Fees are not included in these funds and are allocated directly to the unit charging the fees.) These funds represents about half of total UO budget; the other half is comprised of the grants and contracts, that include the overhead, auxiliary services, which includes athletics, dorms, EMU, among other things for fee service, as well as foundation money. One issue that is always looked at is when comparisons with a peer comparator are made is what is included in the comparator’s data set; generally, institutions don’t include fees in their data. In some cases where fees are specifically resource fees, such as in law schools, fees are arguably just differential tuition, and they might show up on a tuition line. But differences in fees assessed for resident and non-resident student also exacerbates the kinds of peer budget comparisons that can be made and which are reflected differently in budget lines.

 

Provost Moseley finished with comments about the State Board of Higher Education meeting, and one item that will be monitored is a strategic planning process. They will be looking at potential changes and new directions in the higher ed system. Also, they will get be advised about how precarious the whole system is financially, which will help them understand the pressures that we face. It will be an important theme at the State Board meetings this year.

 

 

Report on Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)—Senate Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht reported on a couple of items that will need to be addressed soon and may appear on the November Senate agenda. She noted that are normally three representatives on the IFS from the UO, and stated with great regret that Senator Nathan Tublitz has resigned from the IFS. Consequently, we need to elect a replacement for him and for Paul Engelking, whose terms expires in December, as well as someone for the alternate position. This coming year the IFS is looking very closely at issues of definition and measures along with strategies for better levels of academic quality. Ms. Wagenknecht continued her report by saying they have been working on the sexual harassment and consensual relationship policies for quite awhile. Further, when comparing the UO’s policies with other institutions, we have appropriate policies well in place and have done a good on this issue. In response to an existing sexual complaint, OUS created a sexual harassment policy to which all institutions need to adhere.

 

 

Announcements and Communications from the floor

 

Frank Stahl, biology, commented he wanted to talk about the US Patriot Act but Melinda Grier, general counsel, was not present.

 

Senate Representation and Senate Reception. President Keyes reminded senators that the senate is a representative body and encouraged senators to become more engaged with their constituents. He encouraged the senators to think about whom they represent and how can they connect with them. Lastly, he announced an invitation to a welcome reception for the senate on Saturday, October 29^th at 6:00 p.m. at his house.

 

 

Adjournment

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty