Minutes of the Meeting of the University Senate March 12, 2008

 

 

Present: P. Boye, H. Briston, C. Cherry, M. Chong*, R. Davies, P. Gilkey, A. Gladhart, N. Gulley, E. Herman, D. Levin, P. Lu, B. Malle, , A. Mathas, L. Middlebrook, T. Minner, C. Moore, J. Newton, D. Olson, M. Pangburn, A. Papailiou, , S. Paul, E. Peterson, N. Rajabzadeh, M. Redford, J. Rowell, G. Sayre, L. Stephen, N. Tublitz, P. van Donkelaar. *denotes non-voting participant

 

Excused: R. Bramhall, L-S. Chou, A. Coles-Bjerre, D. Falk, P. Lambert, C. Martinez*, F. Tepfer, L. Vandenburgh

 

Absent: C.A. Bassett, C. Bengston, G. Berk, D. Hernandez, J, Hunter*, R. Illig, C. Parsons, F. Pyle, P. Rounds, A. Schulz, A. Taylor, T. Toadvine

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by the Senate President Gordon Sayre at 3:05 p.m. in room 150 Columbia.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the February 13, 2008 meeting were approved as distributed. A question arose regarding circulating of the minutes (via paper copies), to which the secretary replied that minutes are posted on the senate page (and have not been circulated in paper copy for several years).

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks from Vice President for Administration and Finance Frances Dyke. Vice President Dyke spoke in place of President Frohnmayer, who was out of town on university business. Vice President Dyke began her remarks by reminding everyone of the honoring ceremony on April 6th to present honorary degrees to 19 Japanese American students whose studies at the university were interrupted during World War II when they were ordered by the federal government to go into internment camps. Six of the 19 former students are anticipated to attend the ceremony to be held in Gerlinger Hall, as well as family members of those who could not attend. The awarding of the degrees on OUS campuses was permitted by Oregon HB2823.

 

Ms. Dyke spoke next regarding Spring and Fall 2008 enrollments, saying that spring enrollment increases are slightly over expectations, and the outlook for fall is positive. She noted that freshman applications are up 40% and we expect to enroll between 3,500 and 3,750 students, an increase of between 250 and 400 freshman students. Overall undergraduate headcount increases approximation 200 students. Nationally, high school graduates peak in 2008-9 and then decline until 2013.

 

Ms. Dyke next spoke about Pathway Oregon, a new scholarship program providing both full financial support and advising. Target group are those students needing the most financial assistance and who likely are the first generation in their family to attend college. A combination of federal, state (under the shared responsibility model), and university funds, both public and private, will support the program. The financial aid office has identified over 700 individuals who would be eligible, with 400 likely to attend the UO. President Frohnmayer is sending letters to eligible students inviting them to apply for the program, and follow-up letters and phone calls are planned (see http://pathwayoregon.uoregon.edu).

 

The vice president continued her remarks commenting about the economic situation in the state, which is not looking good. The current economic downturn has resulted in the governor withholding some of the biennial compensation package for state agencies (approximately $7 million for the UO, which was meant to cover salary and health benefit increases) and it is unlikely any will be released this year. It is unknown now whether all or some will be released next year. The administration is discussing options to deal with the shortfall, but the information was just received, so the administration will have further consultations when they have had a chance to digest the information.

 

Ms. Dyke spoke next about recent events that resulted in the city approaching the university regarding McKenzie Willamette Hospital’s desire to build a new hospital on the Riverfront Research Park property (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/RRP-v5final080312.pdf for the UO’s letter in response). The university responding to the city by identifying a number of issues to overcome, including leasing and relocation costs, access to the site, and a few hundred million dollars to replace the park. Nevertheless, the city voted unanimously to look into the matter further. Vice President for Research Rich Linton added that the university is not looking to change the nature of mission of the research park; the discussion was prompted by the city. He noted that many facilities south of the railroad tracks would need to be relocated, and thus there were timing as well as expense issues. He there would be further discussions with the city, the developers, the Fairmont neighborhood group, and the university. The vice president noted that there is no commitment of any kind from the university other than to listen to what is being proposed.

 

REPORTS

 

Update on parking and the new arena project. Vice President Dyke reported that an East Campus Planning Committee is being formed under the co-leadership of a faculty member and an administrator. The group will look at parking and transportation issues in relation to the East Gate development part of the campus, in particular, the proposed new basketball arena and other buildings proposed for the area (alumni center and academic learning center). There will be opportunity to recommend amendments to the existing plan.

 

In addition, Ms. Dyke noted that parking fees for the current year and proposed for next year are set to fully fund existing obligations independent of new East Campus parking improvements. Current parking fees do not cover the current parking program expenses for operations, maintenance, and staff. The proposed fees for next year also will cover $2.7 million in existing debt for bicycle sheds, parking improvements, and debts from the ‘80s and ‘90s. She said that a hearing for special fees (including parking fees), fines, and penalties is scheduled for March 31st at 5:00 p.m. Both verbal and written testimony is accepted at that hearing.

 

Transportation issues present opportunities and challenges in the areas under construction (education and music buildings) and soon to be under construction (basketball arena). Ms. Dyke commented there have been conversations with LTD regarding changing bus services because a number of employees at Peace Health Hospital will soon be going to work at the River Bend hospital site. The UO is currently working with LTD to assure sufficient bus service on routes currently serving Peace Health, and about the availability of space in parking structures for both regular daytime and event parking. All parking solutions must balance transportation needs with sustainability. Underground parking in the East Gate area is being considered to accommodate housing expansions, the alumni center, the academic learning center, and the arena. The arena site itself will include approximately 200 spaces (there are about 220 spaces on the current Oregon Hall lot). Surface parking at the Romania site and ODOT (when purchased), and possibly property available through other purchases or trades may also help with parking needs. An above ground structure is possible further west on Franklin Boulevard with other partners such as the city and other local institutions.

 

Underground parking for up to 500 cars would be possible under 13th Street with access to the alumni center, arena, and offices near 13th and Agate. The cost is higher than above ground parking, but it would provide close in access for UO employees and preserves above ground sites for other activities including housing, research, and learning. Ms. Dyke said they are waiting for a cost proposal from the design team consultants. Cost saving is available by combing this parking project with other projects, and gifts are available to cover 40% of structure cost if the university chooses to go underground. Two biennia ago the UO received authority for F-bonds for parking facilities on the west side of campus, but could redirect it to the east side if that route is chosen. Ms. Dyke said the university is looking at a financial plan to cover 65% of debt service. The plan will be reviewed by Senate Budget Committee subcommittee on the arena. Also, the Traffic Impact Analysis is expected later in the month, which should address impact of an underground parking structure. The city will review the Traffic Impact Analysis and the possibility of an underground structure.

 

During a discussion period, Chris Ramey, campus architect, indicated that if an underground parking structure were built it would be done at the same time as the arena for cost savings. Just as is the case with current construction on campus (the education and music buildings), we would lose some parking spaces before we got them back, and we would need to find ways to deal with that problem.

 

Senate Vice President Paul Von Donkelaar, human physiology, asked whether the 200 spaces available on the arena site would be for general university use, and not for just for athletics’ use. Ms. Dyke replied that she did not have information on that question yet, but would make it available when she does.

 

Senator Nate Gulley, ASUO, asked if the plans for the arena have upstaged the plans for more student housing. Ms. Dyke replied that Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes was away last term on an ACE fellowship but is now on campus and will be providing the leadership to move plans for student housing forward in concert with the Strategic Housing Plan.

 

Update on the Senate Budget Committee Subcommittee on Arena Financing. Vice President van Donkelaar indicated that the subcommittee is continuing to work with the administration to create memo of understanding about the seven recommendations made in their recent report. They have been working to understand the timelines and financial information concerning the underground structure for parking and how it relates to future development. The timeline is important because the decision regarding the underground parking structure has to be made on very short-term basis whereas the campus parking committee is looking at parking in more general terms and will have more time.

 

The vice president reported that he provided an update on the committee’s work at the March meeting of the State Board of Higher Education. The legislature has approved $200 million in bonds for the arena project and the governor is expected to sign off in the near future. The final administrative step is State Board approve most likely at the May meeting. Although the board had a number of questions concerning the justification for high funding level, but were generally satisfied given the athletic legacy fund. Mr. Van Donkelaar noted the subcommittee will continue to provide the board with updated information as available, and they will submit a letter reiterating many of the points made in our verbal report. Mr. Tim Black, governmental affairs, reported that the governor has signed the bill authorizing the $200 million bonding.

 

Winter 2008 Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking, chair of the Committee on Courses, presented the curriculum report. Senator Gulley raised the issue of whether the many current multicultural courses listed are actually multicultural in nature and speak to issue of multiculturalism, especially for the lower level courses. Mr. Engelking replied that the Undergraduate Council is in the process of reviewing the multicultural requirement. The council conducted a review of all multicultural courses offered and identified a dozen or so that they felt did not meet the original intent of such courses and should be reexamined. The Undergraduate Council intends to bring a motion or a report to the senate so that there is discussion about what to with the requirement. The council is also reviewing a policy of reducing the number of 400 level courses. Currently the structure across 100 to 400 level courses is very top heavy at the 400 level. Mr. Engelking noted that any recommendations for changes would first come to the senate for approval. He indicated the council hopes to complete the general review this spring and make any recommendations then. With no other questions and no corrections to the report, the winter preliminary curriculum report was approved. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/CurRptW08.html for the the version distributed to the senate and http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/FinCurRptW08.html for the final version.)

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

 

Appointment of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Academic Freedom and Scholarly Publishing. President Sayre announced the following members to the task force, charged with working to meet the concerns raised pursuant to senate legislation passed previously (see http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-17.html). JQ Johnson, library, will chair the task force which includes members Dev Sinha, Alex Mathas, Andy Karduma, Elizabeth Peterson, and Chuck Williams.

 

Proposal to have course syllabi available prior the first day of classes. Student body president Emily McLain addressed the senate on an issue of importance to the students: having course syllabi posted and available for students prior to the first day of classes. Her goal in speaking to the senate was to begin a dialogue to encourage faculty members to utilize Duck Web and prepare their course syllabi in time for registration. She said the objective is to provide adequate information about course work for students during the planning stage of their next term’s course work. Having the syllabi earlier would decrease the number of dropping and adding classes during the beginning of the term. She explained that Duck Web has the capability for faculty to post links to their own websites or to their course syllabi. She opined that by having more information available earlier in the registration process, student would make better choices in finding the appropriate course for them. A discussion ensued, urging flexibility and a variety of possible solutions, such as an archive of previous course syllabi for reference. Generally, the sense was that faculty might be able to have syllabi ready a few days earlier, but it was unlikely they would uniformly be available two weeks before the start of the new term. Ms. McLain asked that any suggested be emailed to her at asuopres@uoregon.edu.

 

Update of resolution 07/08-10 requesting the Attorney General’s clarification regarding the University Assembly quorum issue. It was reported that a draft of a letter to be sent to the attorney general is nearly ready and will be made available to the senate shortly. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen078/US078-10.html for relevant legislation.)

 

Spring Elections. The secretary reminded everyone that the beginning of spring term will mark the nominations period for election to the University Senate and other university level elected committees and council. She encouraged the senators to talk with colleagues and encourage them to stand for elections to the various positions. The usual web page of nominations and candidates for positions will be posted on the senate web page and updated frequently up to the close of nominations on April 18th. Voting will begin the following week and run through May 5th.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Motion US07/08-13 concerning parking issues raised by the proposed arena project. Mr. Peter Keyes, architecture, explained that the motion was originally brought the floor for discussion in January, and then was postponed until March with the expectation that more tangible information would be available in the interim to make a better decision about the motion. However, no more tangible information is known now than was known in January. Thus, Mr. Keyes suggested that the senate proceed with the discussion and vote on the motion, which follows:

 

Whereas the City of Eugene Code may require up to 2778 parking spaces for the proposed arena, and

 

Whereas it appears that the current design for the proposed arena includes a minimal amount of new parking capacity,

 

Be it moved that:

 

(1) the Athletic Department shall make available the results of any traffic impact and parking study it has commissioned.

 

(2) the cost of providing any additional parking for the proposed arena (whether as a condition for approval by the city of Eugene, or as a result of further market analysis), shall be included in the base budget for the arena project, and shall not be paid through increased parking fees for university faculty, staff, and students.

 

Mr. Keyes argued that no one knows at this point how the parking structure situation is going to turn out and won’t know for years. If we build an expensive parking garage and no one wants to buy those parking spaces and people park on surface streets, so how will it be paid for. He saw no sense in withdrawing the motion, and asked for a vote on it.

 

President Sayre wished to speak on the motion and consequently yielded the presiding chair to Vice President van Donkelaar to moderate the discussion. President Sayre commented that there was additional information from Vice President Dyke as explained earlier in the meeting in laying out a number of different scenarios. He argued to postpone action on the motion. A lengthy and somewhat disorganized discussion ensued. Senator Malle, psychology, said he would not want the Senate to pass motions which are a bit sloppy, saying that the first part seems straightforward and easy to enforce, but second part gets a bit muddled. He was very much in support of asking the administration to update the Senate, but unsure of the second part. Senator Amalia Gladhart spoke in favor of the motion saying that additional costs of arena parking should be included in the arena budget. Senator Ron Davies spoke in opposition to the motion. He was concerned the last part of second statement; how do we determine if increased parking fees are due to inflation or if parking structure costs are being passed along to us? A determination of how we view increase should be included. President Sayre then moved to postpone the motion until the April meeting, and it was seconded by Senator Gulley. Senator Gulley then spoke in opposition to postponing, saying that the original motion was self-evident and should be voted on. President Sayre urged voting to postpone the motion to have an opportunity to revise the second part for greater clarity. A vote to postpone the motion until the April meeting was defeated by voice vote. The main motion was again on the floor. Without further discussion, the question was called. A voice vote did not provide a clear majority so a hand vote was taken. Motion US07/08-13 passed with 13 in favor and 9 opposed.

 

Motion US07/08-7 (revised) regarding changes to required course evaluation questions.

 

Vice President van Donkelaar brought the following motion, seconded by Senator Malle, to the floor for discussion:

 

Preamble

 

Student evaluations play an important role both for improving teaching and in providing an opportunity for students to contribute to information included in the yearly evaluation of faculty. The 2006-07 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on Student Evaluations recommended that the current four required university-wide questions be replaced with a more comprehensive set of questions that would more accurately and consistently probe students' evaluations of course and instructor performance. In their report, the committee outlined a new set of questions that have subsequently been slightly revised by the 2007-08 Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on On-line Course Evaluation Implementation and vetted by each college/unit and various faculty governance and administrative units.

 

The proposed new required university-wide questions will have a 7-2-3 structure. In particular, the first 7 quantitative questions plus the subsequent 2 qualitative questions will be the only university-wide questions used in the evaluation of faculty in yearly reviews and promotion & tenure cases. The remaining 3 questions related to course attendance, workload, and expected grade will allow instructors to better interpret the patterns of the main evaluation questions. It is important to note that these 3 questions will not be used to evaluate faculty. Finally, students will have access to responses to all of the first 7 quantitative questions. Additional questions beyond those contained in the 7-2-3 structure are the responsibility of individual departments/units.

 

Be it moved that:

 

The required university-wide questions for UO course evaluations, as adopted by the University Senate on May 8, 1996, and amended in US 97/98-10, be replaced with the following required university-wide questions.

 

Please share with us your basic perceptions of the course: 

1. What was the quality of this course?            

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

2. What was the quality of the instructor’s teaching?  

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory 

3. How well organized was this course?    

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

4. How effective was the instructor’s use of class time?            

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

5. How available was the instructor for communication outside of class?             

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

6. How clear were the guidelines for evaluating students work in this course?    

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

7. The amount that I learned in this course was:              

Exceptional | Good | Adequate | Somewhat inadequate | Unsatisfactory

 

Please share with us your thoughts on the course:

 

1.   Please comment on the instructor’s strengths and areas for possible improvement.

 

2.   Please comment on the strengths and areas of possible improvement for the course as a whole.

 

Please tell us a little bit about yourself:

 

1. How often did you attend class?  

       90-100%   

       75-90%   

       50-75%   

       25 to 50%   

       Less than 25%   

       Does not apply

 2. How many hours per week did you spend on this course, other than time in class? 

       More than 10   

       8 to 10    

       6 to 8    

       4 to 6    

       2 to 4    

       Less than 2

3. What grade do you expect in this course?   

       A

       B     

       C or P     

       D     

       F or N

 

Vice President van Donkelaar explained that the latest revision of the motion made a change from the currently required 4 questions to a 7-2-3 question structure. He noted that the committee responded to feedback from faculty with several changes to the questions. From a student’s perspective, they now will have 7 new questions in place of the 4 previously required questions (these are quantitative questions). Two qualitative questions follow, and lastly, 3 questions will be used by faculty members top gain a better understanding of how student are evaluating them.

 

During a discussion period, Senate Patrick Boye, ASUO, was concerned about the last three questions saying that students’ grad might be affected if faculty members knew who answered them prior to assigning grades. Mr. Van Donkelaar answered that faculty do not have access to the evaluations before grading. Another student asked about the grammar used, suggesting that the questions seemed to ask for an adverb for a response, but adjectives are provided. Mr. Van Donkelaar responded that the set of responses to the questions was felt to be uniform for all the questions; attempts at rephrasing the questions led to unwieldy questions. Senator Deb Olsen, education, was concerned about Question #5 and faculty availability, saying that removing the phrase “in office hours” is problematic. Also, faculty in the College of Education would like a question about diversity added, perhaps dealing with classroom climate or respectfulness. Mr. Van Donkelaar said that the committee considered this issue, but decided not to include it with the required questions, but would advise departments and unit to include diversity questions among their separate questions as appropriate for their unit.

 

Faculty member Tom Bivins, journalism and communication, said he had reservation about the use of the word “quality” in the questions; he opined that students have no basis for judging the quality of the course or faculty teaching -- quality is entirely subjective. A similar concern was asking how much was learned in the course. Senator Malle answered that the comments reflect the overarching concerns the committee faced, which ultimately comes down to the fact that with particular questions, if we want to have evaluations from students, they are going to be subjective in nature. We are in part asking students about their subjective experience in classes.

 

Senator Melissa Redford, linguistics, followed up on Senator Olsen’s question and wondered what the argument was against including a diversity-related required question. Mr. Van Donkelaar said that faculty members on campus were concerned that responses might be used against them. Senator Lynn Stephens, anthropology, added that faculty are concerned especially regarding their promotion and tenure cases, and the weight of student evaluations on those cases. She added that Academic Affairs is ramping up the requirements for peer evaluations to be done in a systematic fashion by colleagues who will write about their colleagues’ teaching in a much more detailed manner. Peer reviews are to be weighted as heavily as student evaluations.

 

Senator Mike Pangburn, business, asked two questions: was there any intent to frame questions so that a typical answer is or normalized? Associate Dean Priscilla Southworth, who chaired the evaluation committee, explained that the student representatives on the committee preferred questions in this format. She said faculty had a concern having to do with incentive given to student to complete the evaluation, but generally most students felt the proposed new questions are tremendous improvement over previous questions. Data will be viewed in aggregate, so a student’s consistently low evaluation across all questions would be factored in with all the other responses. Senator John Rowell, architecture, asked if there is any flexibility for when the evaluations are done. Mr. van Donkelaar answered that right now there is no flexibility – the evaluations are done during “dead week”. However, in the future that may be possible.

 

Senator Gulley commented that the senate should consider adding a question about classroom atmosphere, which was met with caution from some others about unintended consequences when amending legislation that a committee has spent the better part of a year considering. Senator Malle spoke in favor of the questions as they are presented in the motion, saying that although the question set may be imperfect, it is a vast improvement over the current question. He urged passage of the motion.

 

There was a motion to call the question, which passed. Motion US07/08-7 to replace the four required course evaluation questions with 12 new ones was put to a voice vote and passed with one vote in opposition and two abstentions.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion US07/08-17 regarding the office of International Affairs was withdrawn by Senator Ron Davies, saying that the circumstance regarding the employment issues that prompted the motion had been resolved satisfactorily.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary



Amended 12 May 2008 to correct the spelling of the name of ASUO President.
Web page spun on 7 April 2008 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