On the Westmoreland Resolution (US05006-4).

 

January 11, 2006

 

I support the motion for two reasons:

• I have serious questions and concerns about the impact of the proposed sale of Westmoreland on the educational mission of the university, which have not been addressed by the administration.
• I have concerns about the process that has produced this initiative, which has not been consultative, and as a consequence has alienated stakeholders and failed to anticipate genuine problems attendant to a sale (some of which might have been avoidable).

 

The proposal to sell Westmoreland was presented to us as a fait accompli. 

The articulated reasons for doing so have shifted over time, but the commitment to effect this sale seems rock-solid.

 

Let me note: The administration might, in the end, be right in taking this course.  It is possible that the sale makes sense fiscally, and that it best serves the long-term interests of the university educationally.

Note that the resolution does not say that under every circumstance, we stand opposed to the sale of Westmoreland.  Many of us are skeptical but open-minded.  But we need to hear the case.

 

And the administration has not made its case credibly.

• It has presented inaccurate or incomplete information about the nature of Westmoreland’s occupants, their situation, their needs, the state of the physical structure, its earning power, and so forth.
• The administration seems not to have fully taken into account the impact of the sale on its residents, especially international students and their families, and on the less tangible matters of “community” that Westmoreland embodies.
• The measures taken to ameliorate the disruptions on current residents seem inadequate and after-the-fact.
• And there’s been no discussion of how the administration would act to mitigate the impact on future graduate students, international students (particularly their recruitment), and nontraditional students (issues of accessibility).
• At present, the sale at least raises questions about how it might be consistent with the university’s mission statement (see Mission Statement text).
• Finally, the administration has been vague about what it will do with the funds generated by the sale.  We have some assurances that, eventually, a like amount will go into student housing, but details are lacking (which students, for example?), and we get the sinking feeling that future consultation with the Senate or stake-holding groups will, once again, fail to occur.

In short, concerns—compelling concerns—have been voiced that require a genuine response—before, not after, the decision to sell Westmoreland has been reached.

 

The process might have gone differently—consultation in advance of the decision (to actually inform the decision) could have identified concerns, mobilized expertise within the university community, generated solutions to potential problems, and cultivated support for whatever decision was reached.

This resolution merely recommends that the process be restarted (not stopped)—on a new, consultative basis. 

Very simply, the resolution asks that the administration take seriously the university’s governance structure.

 

 

Trust and Governance

The administration—see, for example, the president’s January 10, 2006 letter to Senators—asks for our trust.  I trust that the administration has the best interests of the university in mind.  But I don’t necessarily trust that the administration’s plans in this instance are prudent, humane, or in the best interests of the university.  Like the administration, as a member of the faculty, I am pledged to advance the university’s mission, based on the university charter, which stipulates that the faculty, with the president, are responsible for the governance of the university.

 

Let me quote President Frohnmayer’s remarks to the University Assembly on May 31, 2000:

 

On the occasion of the completion of the academic year in 2000, President Frohnmayer commented that he had

“. . . watched the processes of governance of this institution off and on at least for the last thirty years. And I do have an enormous sense of appreciation for what it is that this system involves because as all of you know we need to be reminded occasionally. It didn't come by some happy accident. It began in the legislation of 1875 with the beginning of the university in 1876 that established the president and professors as the faculty of the University of Oregon and those responsible for the governance of the institution. . . . That charter has remained as faithfully observed as any piece of legislation which has lasted for more than a century, that I can recall. And it is the basis upon which we reach decisions, not all of them unanimous, not all recommendations of the faculty accepted, but all of them debated and all of them part of the sense of community in which we all feel a sense of belonging and a sense of power.”

 

President Frohnmayer identified as one of his objectives that he

“ . . . would do everything possible as President to make sure that the system of governance worked and was not in fact marginalized by the administration, even inadvertently.”

 

He continued:

“But that also could occur only if there were extraordinary leadership within the University Senate.”

 

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~assembly/frohnm31may00.html

 

 

We need to accept that challenge—to be leaders, to embrace our responsibilities in the governance of the university, to perform our “due diligence” on the Westmoreland question.

 

And we need to challenge the administration to fulfill its responsibility to consult with us—genuinely consult—to trust us as we are asked to trust the administration—and to accord us the role—as outlined in the university charter—to help forge the best path for the university.