Minutes of the University Senate Meeting January 9,
2008
Present: C.
Bengston, G. Berk, P. Boye, H. Briston, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, R. Davies, D.
Falk, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E. Herman, D. Hernandez, J, Hunter*,
K. Kennedy, P. Lambert, D. Levin,
P. Lu, B. Malle, A. Mathas, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner, J. Newton, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, C. Parsons,
S. Paul, E. Peterson, F. Pyle, M.
Redford, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, A. Schulz ,L. Stephen, A. Taylor, T. Toadvine, N.
Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar, L. Vandenburgh. *denotes non-voting participant
Excused: R. Illig, D. Olson, N. Rajabzadeh
Absent: C.A. Bassett, R. Bramhall, L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, C. Martinez*, C.
Moore, P. Rounds
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the
University Senate was called to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 150 Columbia. Before starting into the agenda, Senate
President Gordon Sayre commented that he had received a denial of his request
to PEBB to make available to faculty a professional liability insurance policy
as was discussed during a senate meeting fall term. Expressing his disappointment in PEBB’s response, he
encouraged faculty members to consider looking into their own personal
professional liability insurance as they deemed appropriate. Additionally, Senator Peter Gilkey,
mathematics, commented that he would not be bringing motionUS07/08-9 to the
floor until the February senate meeting as he received a memo from General
Counsel Grier that a ruling regarding the motion was anticipated from the
Department of Justice in the next several weeks (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/MelindaGrier9Jan08.pdf). President Sayre reminded the senators
of the special senate meeting on the arena project scheduled for January 23,
2008 in room 150 Columbia from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. He indicated that any motions or other agenda items for the
special senate meeting must be received by January 11, 2008.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Minutes from the November 14th
and 28th 2007 regular senate meetings were approved as
distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from University President
Dave Frohnmayer. The president began his remarks acknowledging
two losses to the academic community – one person killed in a recent
automobile accident, and another still missing. He then commented that he had shared highlights of his
concerns in his January letter to the campus community (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirFrohnmayer/FrohnmayerW08.html).
President Frohnmayer remarked
that he was gratified to acknowledge an upcoming television special on NOVA
concerning Absolute Zero for which Professor Emeritus Russell Donnelly was a
key contributor. Similarly, he
noted Professor Garrett Epps received an Oregon book award for his recent book
concerning the passage of 14th Amendment and its impact on USA
society, and that creative writing professor Ehud Havazelet authored a book
named by the New York Times as one of the most notable 100 books of 2007. Further, the president noted that Campaign
Oregon will officially close in December having raised more than $740 million,
the largest campaign in private philanthropy in history of the state of Oregon.
Concerning issues before the
state board, the president mentioned several items, in particular, governance
in the university system, higher education in Portland, and consolidating
tuition and fees to a single fee.
The governance issued was prompted by the UO’s recent report to
the board commenting on how far state support has fallen for the state’s
only AAU institution – we have lower support than any other AAU
institution or OUS institution.
The president noted that there is a task force looking at higher
education in Portland, which may generate legislative proposals down the line,
as the UO proceeds with its own development of a presence in the White Stag
building in Portland
Another concern is the
creation of sticker shock that may act to the detriment of our students if we consolidate
all tuition and fees into a single fee. The board has extended the time frame, for us to move to
variable tuition or higher tuition, until 2011. The UO will have issues to face in the future, for example,
should we charge a variable tuition, how would it impact the UO, and what would
be the academic consequences.
The president next turned his
attention to plans for building on campus. He noted that he has received the first round of suggestions
from the faculty and staff concerning building proposals. He remarked that an enormous number of
very pointed and valuable suggestions were made, and thanked everyone who
participated in the process. Moving
to the basketball arena project, the president thanked the hard working members
of the Senate Budget Committee’s sub committee on the financing of the proposed
arena. He referred to the sub-committee’s
recently released report, saying that although he has only had 24 hours to
examine the report’s recommendations since its release, two concepts of
the recommendations already have his full support. The first is that there should be adequate transparency in the
athletics department’s financial situation delivered at regular
intervals. Saying that information
should be easily accessible to the IAC, FAC, Senate Budget Committee and others
who wish to review it, the president pledged to take whatever steps necessary
to make sure that would be the case.
Second, in accordance with
another recommendation, the president said that the athletics department will
be responsible for debt service to the bonds. The president pledged that academic funds will not be used
for the debt service, and that the athletics department would not be released
from being fully self-supporting.
In addition to his own assurances, the president said that the State
Board of Higher Education limits the payment of debt service to the sources
that are approved in the project description, and in this project, athletics
department revenues are the source for the repayments. The way the law operates, other
auxiliary funds would have to be used before any academic funds could be used; in
essence, there are two firewalls in the financing process. The president noted that he will fully
review the other recommendations in the report, which he takes very seriously, before
making further statements at this time.
However, the president did make one last point regarding parking issues,
saying that they need to be taken into consideration with the university as a
whole, and noted that the administration has been in touch with city officials
on a regular basis about parking and an internal group has been working
diligently on parking issues that will be the subject of other reports.
REPORTS
Annual Report from
Athletics Director Pat Kilkenny. Athletics Director Kilkenny echoed
sentiments regarding the diligent work that resulted in the report released by
the sub committee on financing the arena.
He noted that he will spend more time discussing the report during the
special senate meeting scheduled for January 23rd. He then turned his attention to
highlighting some broader comments regarding the athletics department during
the past year (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Kilkenny9Jan08.html
for full text). Director Kilkenny commented
that the athletics department sees itself as a window to the institution and
has initiated a number of efforts to utilize athletic events and media coverage
to recognize faculty excellence and programs of regional and national
significance. He remarked that the
department is dedicated to the principles of equality, opportunity, and freedom
from discrimination; athletics is one of the most diverse departments within
the university and play a significant role in attracting minority students to
the campus. He assured everyone
that athletes are students first, and like all other parts of the university
the goal is to ensure the students receive the best possible experience
academically as well as athletically. The department’s goal is to graduate as many
student-athletes as possible. He
noted that many student athletes serve as positive role models on campus and in
the community. The director added
that the athletics department must be fiscally responsible, passing from a
self-supporting department to a self-sustaining one, which can only be achieved
with the cooperation and support of the entire university community.
Regarding issues of student
athlete welfare, Mr. Kilkenny commented that the department is making a
concerted effort to coordinate such areas, which includes the construction of a
new academic learning center. He
noted that there were no major NCAA violations to report, although the
department was still on probation for signing violations that occurred in 2003. Concerning program and facility
expansion, Mr. Kilkenny reported the intent is to terminate the wrestling
program and replace it with baseball (for men) and competitive cheer (for
women). The new baseball staff is
in place with students arriving in fall 2008, and staff for the competitive
cheer team will be in place this spring.
He noted, too, that money to support the operation and facilities for baseball
and competitive cheer comes from donations to the department for these
activities. The baseball facility
is moving closer to resolution and, again, it will be paid for with new
donations.
On other topics, the director
said that university athletic events continue to have significant impact on the
local economy. He cited the
upcoming Olympic track and field trials, football games, basketball games, and
the recent men’s cross country championship as examples. Of significance, too, is that all five men’s
basketball seniors have complete degree requirements; of 17 senior football players,
seven have graduated, six more will graduate by winter and the rest by end of
academic year. A number of student
athletes were named to All- PAC-10 teams and others were selected as academic
all Americans. Some of the UO
athletes have received or been nominated for the most prestigious awards in
college athletics.
Mr. Kilkenny then spoke about
the financial situation of the department. Total revenue for the budget year 2007-08 is approximately
$47 million. The breakdown is approximately 70% from football, 15% from men’s
basketball, 6% from other sports, and the rest from non-sport specific
sources. From an expense
perspective, football expenses are $13.5 million, $3.1 million for basketball,
other sports are $12.6 million dollars and non-sport specific is $17 million,
which is primarily the administrative body along with all of the facilities. Mr. Kilkenny said that the expected
Legacy Fund gift of $100 million and the expected revenues from the new
basketball arena are needed to provide long-term stability for the
program. Currently, revenues less
expenditures yield a net of about $200,000 after all the bills are paid, so the
financial situation is fragile. There
are no reserves at this time, and no substantial reserves are anticipated until
the Legacy Fund is in place, fully funded, and functioning as intended, as well
as the additional revenue the new arena can provide.
The director concluded his
part of the report and turned to Mr. Dave Sparks, a UO Foundation Trustee and a
retired CPA, who provided further financial information. Mr. Sparks provided a simple chart that
demonstrated where the athletics department is now financially, and where it is
going. Stated in millions of
dollars, Mr. Sparks said the gross revenue for FY 2007 was $48, and the
department is asking to borrow $200 for the new arena, paid back in revenues
from the arena. The Legacy Fund
gift is $100; by Mr. Sparks’ estimates and those of the consulting
company (CLS), and by investing the Legacy Fund wisely, the department would
have between $6 and $18 million in reserves after five years.
Report from the Senate Budget Committee (SBC). Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Marie Vitulli, mathematics, spoke briefly about three main issues before the budget committee: the new budget model, faculty salaries, and the arena project. The committee expressed some concerns about the new budget model and will be receiving revised versions in meetings to come, so the committee was not prepared at this time to give a report or opinion on the new model.
Moving to faculty salary
issues, Ms. Vitulli reported that the budget committee was waiting for data
from central administration to do an analysis, and hopes to work with the
provost on a renewed look at the White Paper on salaries written in 2000 in
order to refocus and update goals of the paper. She noted that many faculty members were disappointed with
the recent raises especially related to cost of living adjustments, which were
2%, while November estimates were approximately 3.3% or 3.4%. Other OUS institutions such as OIT and
SOU are about to announce faculty raises for the biennium of nearly 14%. She noted that the UO raises were for
the first year of the biennium and thus she anticipates another round of raises
for the second year. Ms. Vitulli
commented that both the OIT and SOU campuses have unionized faculties, and she
referred to one of the handouts available that announced a meeting on January
25th (3:30 in the Ben Linder room) to discuss collective bargaining
on this campus.
Lastly, Ms Vitulli lauded the
arena project sub committee members – John Chalmers, Dennis Howard,
Gordon Sayre, and Paul van Donkelaar, aided by UO administrators Frances Dyke
and Melinda Grier, and athletics administrators Laura Hazlett and Dave Sparks. She opined that the sub-committee has
written an excellent report that the full budget committee unanimously endorses
(see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/SBC-ArenaReport-09Jan08.pdf
for full report).
Report from the SBC Arena
Project sub-committee. Sub-committee Chairman John Chalmers,
finance, explained that the charge to the sub-committee was to provide a
comprehensive review of the arena financing plan and issue a report to the Senate
Budget Committee, the University Senate, and President Frohnmayer that provides
an assessment of the arena plan and its impact on the UO budget. The committee was to collect and distill
information, evaluate risks to the UO budget, and offer recommendations. The group consulted with legal experts, and
committee members were involved with focus groups. The report was vetted with the IAC, the FAC, and members of
the administration with opportunity to offer comments, and, as Ms. Vitulli
reported, the SBC reviewed and unanimously endorsed the report.
Mr. Chalmers identified the
key aspects of the report as the history and background on the arena project,
estimated cost of the project, details of the financing plan, revenue
projections, and the committee’s recommendations. From a historical perspective,
replacing Mac Court has been on the agenda since at least 2003, and in its
current condition, it is outdated with safety concerns; remodeling would cost
as much as a new arena. The
announcement in August 2007 of a $100 million gift “legacy fund” to
the athletics department brought the arena issue to the forefront of planning activities. The goals in building the arena are to increase
seating capacity, enhance experience of athletes and fans, and increase
revenues to the athletics department in order to stabilize its self-sufficiency
well into the future. The
estimated cost of the project is approximately $196 million with an additional
$27.4 million to purchase the land for the arena. The project financing would be through State of Oregon
General Obligation Bonds, that is, self-supporting and self-liquidating
F-bonds. Mr. Chalmers noted that
the sub-committee did not have the financing of any parking facilities as part
of its charge.
The essence of the financing
plan is to borrow $200 million for the arena -- the university has already
borrowed $27.4 for the land purchasing – incurring an estimated $13
million in debt service for 40 years.
Projected repayment sources include arena revenues ($12 million/year),
Duck Athletic Funds, and the Legacy Fund as needed to balance the budget. Mr. Chalmers noted some debt service constraints
the committee considered as well.
There are firm guidelines that limit the proportion of debt service on F
bonds to 7% of annual budget, consequently borrowing the $200 million in bonds
will consume approximately 26% of our bonding capacity, and thus might limit
future borrowing for other buildings, such as new dormitories, for
example.
Mr. Chalmers highlighted some
of the more detailed aspects of revenue estimates found in the report, saying
that if revenues are large, the funding plan works well; but if revenues are
smaller than expected, the committee looked at a number of scenarios of how to
repay the debt. The sub-committee
estimated that Mac Court currently brings in $3.76 million with operating costs
of $1.3 million, so the operating income is about $2.5 million. The new arena revenues would be about $11.5
million and the increased operating costs would leave about $8 million in
income. By comparison, the recent
report from the consulting firm, CSL, estimated that conservatively $13.9 million
in revenues would be generated and minus operating costs, income would be
approximately $10 million a year.
Part of the difference in projected revenues was based on the
interpretation of focus group data when asked about willingness to buy men’s
basketball season tickets if projected ticket prices rose from $352 (average per
seat currently) to $844 (average per seat projected)..
The committee looked at
several scenarios if revenue projections were 100%, 75%, or only 50% of the
outside consultant’s estimates.
If 100% of estimated revenues are realized, there is no problem repaying
the loan; if 75%, the Legacy Fund would be reduced to $69.3 million, which is
not desirable, but still a substantial cushion. If revenues were only 50% of estimates, the Legacy Fund
would be exhausted by 2024, which is a lot of time to solve the problem, but
less than an ideal picture. Another
financing issue considered by the sub-committee was that the Legacy Fund is not
fully funded at this point, and earning interest; full funding of this source
of back-up funding will occur in $20 million allotments over five years. The arena will not generate revenues
until it is built (2010), but expenses go on, so preserving the cushion
provided by the Legacy Fund is crucial, especially in the early stages of the
project.
Mr. Chalmers concluded his
report by listing the recommendations of the sub-committee:
1. Transparency of financial outcomes, that is, a means
to make sure the financial information on the project can be monitored in an
easy, collegial way.
2. Containing risk until such time as cost and revenue
uncertainties are resolved, that is, limiting exposure of the Legacy Fund to
market volatility.
3. Budget allocations in adverse situations, that is, the
athletics department bears the burden of making the arena project work, and if
it does not work, budget cuts will be in athletics.
4. Remediation and/or demolition costs for Mac Court,
such as returning Mac Court to academic purposes, without paying for it from the
academic budget.
5. Use of construction fees to reduce outstanding debt
and reduce risk.
6. Revenue sharing with the university general fund if
the project goes well.
7. Study the costs of providing parking faculties.
During a discussion period, a
question was raised about the parking issue, saying that a permit from the city
is required to build the arena and that parking facilities will be part of the
permit, thus leaving parking out of the arena financing seems a major
omission. Mr. Chalmers replied
that parking was a concern of the sub-committee but was not part of its
charge. Ms. Vitulli added that the
issue was not overlooked, but that neither the SBC nor the sub-committee was
given any information on parking. She opined that a new parking facility could be very expensive,
as much as $40-55 million, but the SBC has not done any detailed analysis. Athletics Director Pat Kilkenny
commented that athletics has retained a consultant to do a traffic impact study
but the analysis has not yet been completed. He anticipates that parking will be a challenge, but he has
a high level of confidence the issue can be resolved.
A senator asked what percentage
of men’s basketball season ticket holders are also football season ticket
holder, and might not the higher basketball season tickets force them to
choose. Sub-committee member
Dennis Howard, business, did not have a direct answer, but noted there will be
an additional fee associated with basketball season tickets that ticket holders
have not paid before. Mr. Kilkenny
speculated there will be a significant number of ticket holders that overlap.
Senator Nathan Tublitz,
biology, asked why there was such a difference in revenue estimates in the
consultant’s 2003 report and the current report. Mr. Chalmers did not have a direct answer
for the differences, saying only that the numbers were slightly greater line by
line. Mr. Kilkenny then added that
the 2003 report was never finalized.
Revenue generating items have changed since then, with more premium
seats and the overall quality and types of seats improving with the new design,
and of course, inflation is a factor.
Senator Tubiltz also asked if the budget committee was making an
endorsement. Ms. Vitulli replied
that at this point the budget committee was endorsing the sub-committee’s
report – the budget committee’s task was not to endorse (or not
endorse) the arena project, per se, but to try and understand the fiscal impact
of the project on the university.
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee chairwoman Anita Weiss, international studies, asked if the arena would be used for campus academic events as well as for athletic events, and if there would be a charge for such use. President Frohnmayer replied that whenever the university needs to use the arena for academic purposes, it will do so. He could not think of a university in the country that does not use its arena structures for convocations, graduations, speakers, and so forth. The president said the university would not pay athletics for such events. He noted that there may be some set up fees, but those disappear in white noise.
Senator Bertram Malle,
psychology, asked for more information on the focus groups used to collect data
regarding willingness to pay higher ticket prices. Mr. Chalmers replied that two groups were in Portland and
four were in Eugene-Springfield.
The people in Portland were less adverse to the increased prices than
those in Eugene-Springfield. Mr.
Howard added that a web-based survey and the focus groups accounted for several
thousand responses to price sensitivity questions. Three target prices were tested with response choices of definitely
pay the price, likely pay the price and, possibly pay the price. There was considerable price
sensitivity and push back for the “club seats” ($1600 for the
season ticket). Mr. Howard
indicated that more details were available in the report’s appendix.
With the discussion winding
down, President Sayre reminded everyone of the special senate session on the
arena project scheduled in two weeks, January 23rd. He instructed that notice for any
motions for that meeting, whether on parking issues, environmental building
issues, or other issues, must be received by Friday January 11th.
REPORTS
Interinstitutional Faculty
Senate (IFS) report. IFS representative Peter Gilkey,
mathematics, brought two items to the senators’ attention, and provided
an informational handout. The
first item concerns preparations for town hall discussions commemorating the
bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, spearheaded by Portland State
University. The second item
concerns a request for faculty input regarding plans for new high school
graduation requirements. Senator
Gilkey stressed the importance of faculty responding to the state board’s
direct request for faculty views and comments on the matter. He noted that the IFS, OUS, and Vice
Provost for Undergraduate Studies Karen Sprague seek faculty comments on the
proposed new graduation requirements, and asked that comments be sent to vice
provost Sprague or to him in preparation for upcoming discussions (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/EssentialSkills.pdf;
http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/EssentialSkills-2.pdf;
http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/HS-Requirements.pdf;
and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/Sadofsky-Berger-10Dec07.pdf
for relevant documents.
Interim report of the ad
hoc committee for on-line course evaluations implementation. President
Sayre noted that Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, was ill and not available for
an update on the results of the pilot trial run for the new on-line evaluation
system at this meeting, but that a full report will be provided shortly. Further, President Sayre announced the creation
of a joint senate/academic affairs committee on course evaluation
implementation, charging the committee to:
President Sayre said the goal
is to have the new required evaluation question, use policy, and relevant legislation
in place by Fall 2008, thus senate motions/resolutions related to these changes
would have to be passed by the end of the Spring term 2008.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND
COMMUNICATION FROM THE FLOOR
The president commented that
he is looking into creating an ad hoc committee to examine the creation of a
system for evaluation of the university’s top administrators; it would
require defining the scope, procedures, kinds of questions, use of the results,
and so forth. He has begun talking
with the administration on the matter.
NEW BUSINES
Revised Motion US 07/08-2
that would permit the senate to call a University Assembly meeting with full
legislative authority. Mr. Frank Stahl, emeritus biology,
spoke to the motion, which had been previously tabled until the current
(January 2008) meeting. He noted
the text has been revised (simplified) in the interim and now reads:
Moved
to,
Amend
Section 6.6 of the Enabling
Legislation of May 3-17, 1995 as follows (new words in bold):
6.6
The University Assembly, with full legislative power, shall be convened by
an affirmative vote of the University Senate or after a petition to so convene has
been signed by 33 % of those eligible to vote for non student senators, as
provided by other sections in this legislation. Assembly meetings called by
the Senate shall be held in accordance with section 6.6, as amended.
Mr. Stahl said that a meeting
of the University Assembly with full legislative authority was attempted in
January 2003 on the topic of the war in Iraq (that meeting failed to achieve a
quorum). There was a substantial
petitioning effort to call that meeting.
Since then the senate has passed legislation relating to procedures to
help achieve a quorum. This current
motion simply confers on the senate the ability call such a meeting, with full
legislative authority, if it deems necessary.
Mr. Stahl further clarified
that when the assembly turned over principal governing authoring to senate (in
May 1995), it retained some functions, among them to meet once each term
(without legislative authority), and, if called by petition of one-third of the
voting faculty, to meet with full legislative authority. The quarterly assembly meetings have
not occurred, and the fall assembly meeting was blended into the fall
convocation. The only (seemingly)
worthwhile function of the assembly is to meet with full legislative power so
that it can act on motions before it.
Due to the size of the assembly and the numbers needed to have a quorum
(approximately 1100 people); it is still a formable task and not likely to
happen for anything other than an extremely important matter. This motion enables such a meeting to
be called by the senate, in addition to the petitioning means for calling an
assembly meeting. He added that
students have a voice in the assembly through the ASOU executive members (25),
the constitutional court (5), and student senate members (18), although they
have indicated they would like greater representation in the assembly and would
likely vote against this motion.
An ASUO senator confirmed that the student members of the senate feel
that student representation in the university assembly is inadequate, and thus
they are against the motion.
President Sayre called for a
hand vote on the motion with results of 23 in favor of the motion and 5
opposed. Motion US07/08-2 to
enable the senate to call a meeting of the University Assembly with full
legislative authority carried.
Notice of motion US07/08-10
regarding the state’s opening meetings law and quorum requirement for
passing legislation. Mr. Frank Stahl gave notice that he
intends to present a motion asking the state attorney general for a clarifying
opinion regarding the number of people necessary to pass legislation at an
assembly meeting once a quorum for the meeting is met. He disagreed with President
Frohnmayer’s January 2003 interpretation of how many are needed to pass
legislation. President Frohnmayer
replied that the opinion he used in 2003 came from the Office of the Attorney
General in preparation for matters of parliamentary procedure, thus the state’s
attorney has ruled on this issue.
Mr. Stahl then commented that the November 2003 document is somewhat
obtuse, and he is asking for greater clarity. Parliamentarian Paul Simmons stated that the senate’s practice
is that when there is a quorum (half of the membership plus one), a majority of
those present at the meeting can pass legislation.
ADJOURNMENT
With no other business at
hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary of the Faculty
| Web page spun on 07 February 2007 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |