This relates to US09/10-2
The following email is posted with the kind permission of Frank Stahl.

Subject: Re: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Franklin Stahl
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:24:20 -0700

Dear Peter,

Thanks for including me in this correspondence. My take on our present governance structure is that the Senate can make (propose, really) changes in the gov. doc., which become effective upon ratification by the Statutory Faculty (President plus "Professors"). Thus, I think Nathan can't vote until after the Senate proposes the change to the Statutory Faculty (which can be done this November).

Best, Frank

Franklin W. Stahl Molecular Biology 1229 Univ. of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1229

Subject: Re: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Tracy Bars
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:56:50 -0700

Dear Peter:

The rules committee will be pleased to present this motion to the Senate at the October meeting.

Best, Tracy


Subject: A possible motion concerning voting rights in the UO Senate for the UO Senate Vice President
To: tbars@uoregon.edu, aemami@uoregon.edu, mhenney@uoregon.edu
Cc: tublitz@uoregon.edu, gwens@uoregon.edu, simonds@uoregon.edu, fstahl@uoregon.edu, hubin@uoregon.edu
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:57:20 -0700

Dear Tracy, Ali, and Michele:

I have been in correspondence with Paul Simonds (the Senate Parlimentarian) and there is a bit of technical housekeeping that perhaps needs to be done given that Nathan Tublitz is to be the Senate Vice President in 2009/10 and that he does not at present hold a Senate Seat. Rather than recapping things in this email, I will simply point you to the web site http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen090/PGPS3Jun09.html where the relevant correspondence between me and Paul is posted (and where I shall post this email presently) -- I am trying to be as transparent this year as possible. So I am asking you to draft a housekeeping motion along the lines of

And, if you concur that this is a good idea, I will ask you (i.e. the Senate Rules Committee) to present the motion to the Senate at the October meeting for approval. Of course if you do not concur that this is a good idea, please so inform me and I shall not proceed further in this regard. I shall be guided by your advice in this matter and I wish in no way to infringe on your perogatives in this matter as the Senate Rules Committee. Furthermore, I claim no monopoly on wisdom in this matter and you should feel free to rewrite this motion! In particular, please consult the Senate Charter http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/SenateCharter.html to make sure we do not thereby create some absolutely horrible conflict in the Charter. I forsee no significant financial impact from this motion.

Concerning amending the charter, I think the operative words are perhaps "... amended by a two-thirds vote of the University Senate at any meeting, provided the amendment has been proposed in writing to the Secretary, and a copy of the proposed amendment has been sent to each member of the University Senate at least thirty days before the meeting at which the amendment is to be considered." I am copying this to Professor Stahl to solicit his input as well as he is well versed in such matters as perhaps he might feel that only the statuatory faculty could amend the charter. I have consulted with Nathan and he most graciously left the decision on whether to proceed further up to me. I am also copying this to Dave Hubin as he is most knowlegable in matters of faculty governance. Surely more input is to be preferred to less! But I emphasize. The final decision is up to the Senate Rules Committee!

Again. Thank you so very much for your work on this crucial Senate Committee. Please keep me informed as to your progress on this and also on US09/10-1.

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey UO Senate President 2009/10



Subject: Re: Voting rights of the Senate Vice President
To: Peter Gilkey
From: Paul E. Simonds
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:42:08

Dear Peter, I think the motion you propose to give the vice-president (who is not a senator under present circumstances) senate membership is probably a good idea. She or he will usually attend the meetings and be involved in the usual vice-presidential committee work. Adding voting privileges makes sense to me. Having already allowed voting in a prospective president who is not at the moment a senator, I see no reason to deny a slot as senator for full participation in the senate. It should be considered also as part of whatever new governance system is approved. Have there been any contrary opinions?


Subject: Voting rights of the Senate Vice President
To: Paul E. Simonds
From: Peter Gilkey
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:28:26 -0700

Dear Paul.

I am writing to you about a potential sticky point for next year. The Charter of the UO Senate states "4.8 With a total of 51 Senators, or less if constituencies are not represented, the quorum for the University Senate is one more than half, as presently constituted. No business shall be transacted unless a quorum is present"

Last year as Vice President, I was NOT a senator and thus did not count toward the quorum nor did I vote. Then Senate President Paul van Donkelaar afforded me the courtesy to make various procedural motions, raise points of order, etc. And in any event, I extend the same courtesy to Nathan. But I never voted nor was my presence counted in any quorum question.

A similar question arises concerning Senate Vice President Nathan Tublitz this year. So I am just writing to you to get your take on the question cited above. I am copying Nathan and Gwen and Dave to invite them to weigh in as well -- Gwen in her role as Secretary of the Senate and Dave through his long standing involvement in Faculty Governance. Do you think we should ask the Senate Rules Committee to write a motion to amend the charter along the lines of "if the Vice President of the UO Senate is not a serving UO Senator, he shall serve ex-officio on the Senate with full voting authority and the membership of the Senate will be temporarily increased to 52 Senators for the period in question concerning questions of quorum".

Of course, Nathan has the right to the floor to speak to motions, introduce motions, etc. What is at question is solely whether he counts towards a quorum and whether or not he can vote.

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey


Web page spun on 4 June 2009 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