Absent: Johnson (2), Kintz, Maitland-Gholson, Thomas (2)

Excused: Aitken, Barnhard, Bohme, Dufek, Ferguson, Forell, Klinghammer, Lesage, Ponder, Steeves, Waters 1. Approval of the Minutes

President Soper called the meeting to order at 3:02 P.M. in 129 Law. The senators approved the minutes of the March 9, 1994, meeting of the University Senate.

2. Discussion of Proposal to Make OSSHE a Public Corporation

President Soper introduced Oregon State System of Higher Education Vice Chancellor Weldon Ihrig who reported on the proposal to make OSSHE a public corporation, a proposal which was scheduled for discussion at the April 22 meeting of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE). As he distributed materials giving an overall explanation of the proposal, Vice Chancellor Ihrig said Oregon was, in these times of transition, leading the country in looking toward the future.

He assured the senators that the proposed Oregon Public Higher Education Corporation would have little effect on the present system, and no impact on governance or on faculty membership in the state's Public E-mployees Retirement System (PERS). He said "the goal was to stop higher education from being treated as a state agency.... state agency laws, rules and

He opined that the proposal would keep OSSHE accountable-- there will be an increase in internal auditing"--and at the same time give it relief from the administrative burdens of a state agency, even though the public corporation would be a state agency. He insisted that, unlike Oregon Public Broadcasting which has been privatized, Oregon's public higher education system would not become private under this proposal which envisions something in between the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF) corporation and a state agency. The proposed public corporation would create its own bureaucracy to replace present state authority. He noted two governance changes: OSBHE would become a Board of Trustees and the board would appoint four additional members.

He listed, as advantages of the proposed change, the ability for OSSHE save enough money on administration to allow it to admit 2,000 additional students, and the freedom faculty would have from unproductive state regulations.

Following Vice Chancellor Ihrig's presentation, senators asked a number of questions about the proposal, and expressed concerns about its potential effect upon the UO, about the possibility that private institutions would be able to convince the legislature they had the same status as the public institutions, and about fears that legislative appropriations for instruction might bring with them controls on what to teach.

Much of the discussion related to the entrepreneurial aspects of the proposal which Vice Chancellor Ihrig identified as advantageous. Senators questioned if making higher education more entrepreneurial might result in an undesirable emphasis on profitable programs and duplication of these profitable programs on OSSHE campuses. When asked if the institutions of the state system would benefit from the entrepreneurial efforts of the individual campuses, Vice Chancellor Ihrig said there would be incentives to be entrepreneurial.

When asked about the chances of legislative approval of the proposal, he said, "the pressures are on us to do something about the pressures of Measure 5.... the stars are lined up, a lot of states are doing this now...." He reminded the senators that the proposal was still in draft stage and thus open for their suggestions.

After Vice chancellor lhrig left for another meeting, W. Bobby Lee, a | student member of OSBHE, said the proposal was in the best interest of higher education. The discussion continued as senators questioned the amount of money that could be saved since higher education already has the authority to implement some of the money saving reforms mentioned by the vice chancellor. Senators talked about the need for assurance that savings realized will go to the units which make changes, not to the state system. Senators also wondered about the experience of other systems which have moved toward public corporation status. 3. Motion Relating to Representation on IFS

President Soper introduced a discussion of the role of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, noting that it has no authority but does speak to OSBHE, the governor and the legislature about higher education issues. Explaining that each OSSHE university has three representatives on the IFS and each college two, he asked how the senators felt about a proposal to increase the representation of each institution to three.

Senator Sanders made a motion which was seconded by Senator Relton to instruct UO representatives on the IFS to maintain the status quo and oppose the proposal to give each OSSUE institution three representatives on the IFS. The motion was approved by voice vote with no audible dissent.

4. Discussion of Faculty Governance

Mr. John Nicols, chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, and Ms. Laura Alpert, who also serves on FAC, led a continuation of the faculty governance discussion begun at the March meeting of the University Senate. They said the evolving proposal for a joint university governance committee, which would not take the place of FAC and would not be a governing body, was aimed at real, shared governance so matters can be discussed in a meaningful way, at providing more representative faculty input, and at decreasing the number of ad hoc committees.

During this discussion, Senator Gwartney-Gibbs reported on a meeting with presidents and vice presidents of the faculty senates of public PAC.10 institutions. She said most university senates have no or nominal student representation. When Senator Kelton asked if other senators felt student senators play a threatening role, a number of faculty senators said they did not think so but that that was the perception. Mr. Nicols stated that the faculty won't transfer authority to a University Senate with so many students on it, pointing out that, with a stronger senate, the students though fewer would have more influence.

Other issues discussed included the possibility that the president and vice president of the proposed governance committee would sit in on the UO president's weekly staff meeting, the value of stopping the proliferation of ad hoc committees and of reducing the number of members on standing committees, the credibility of the University Senate, and the appropriateness of having the UO president, provost and representatives of the classified staff on the proposed governance committee.

President Soper said the University Assembly will be asked by the FAC to act on a motion that a committee be appointed to bring a governance proposal to the assembly next year.

At Senator Tepfer's request, President Soper asked for a show of hands of those who favored the strengthening of the University Senate. Most senators raised their hands. Senator Calof explained his vote by saying that reducing the number of student senators would weaken the senate's ability to address problems.

As the discussion concluded, Senator Goldschmidt noted that no one had responded positively to the students' objections to decreasing the number of student senators, and suggested that  further dialogue was necessary on this issue. Upon receiving a favorable response to his suggestion that meeting with student senators might be helpful, Senator Calof issued an open invitation to Mr. Nicols and Ms. Alpert to discuss this issue at a meeting of the UO Student Senate.

The University Senate adjourned at 4:45 P.M.

Nancie Fadeley Secretary

Web page spun on 22 June 2002 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