Excused---Fagot, Girling, Kintz, Koch, Riedl, Tepfer, Tomlin.

Absent----Boyd, Carter (2), Fisher (2), Good (3), Howe (2), Lyons, Sprague, Stave (2), Weeks, Yeoh.

Senator Good has been removed from the rolls of the University Senate as he has been absent 3 times--January, February and March.

CALL TO ORDER

President Paul Simonds called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. in 204 Condon. The minutes of the February 8, l995 meeting of the Senate were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The business of the meeting, President Simonds announced, would be a broad and general discussion of the "Report of the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development." Because of this the President stated that within the context of Robert's Rules, 9th edition, the Senate would not be requested to "endorse" the Report, but instead would vote to pass each and every part without exception. He further stated that Appendix B was not the same statement on family support that was the subject of the February meeting of the Senate, and Appendix B was not to be considered a part of the Report. In conclusion the President stated that amendments to the Report would be in order.

{This Report is too lengthy to put into these minutes. The official copy of the minutes of this meeting, on deposit with the Secretary, shall have available a copy of the Report for future reference. The Report was distributed to each member of the Senate, but for some reason was not re-distributed to the student senators in the packet sent to the Student Senators),

OLD BUSINESS

The Report was introduced by Mr. Daniel Udovik, Chair of the Commission that prepared the initial Report which the Senate discussed in October. Mr. Udovik pointed out that the Report consisted of the first 16 pages and that the other material accompanying the report were 1) the original Report which was not longer a valid candidate for discussion, and 2) the remainder of the Report which, although poorly marked or identified, serves as supporting documents to the Report.

Ms. Sarah Douglas, Chair of the Faculty Advisory Council, was recognized to speak on the FAC's discussions on the Report. She stated that the FAC had discussed the report over an extended period, but that the revised version was not what they discussed so it would not be proper to state that the FAC passed on the Report. She suggested that the Report should be returned to the FAC for further discussion before the Senate takes any action on the Report.

Senator Barnhard was recognized to give the report of the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee Report noted the following problems: A. page 14, Item 6.B. "Post Tenure Review"

1. The sentences: "... each tenured faculty members' record of performance should periodically undergo...."

-not should but mandated by OAR 580-21-140, by faculty legislation of April 8, 1977, April 10, 1985, UO Policy Statement 3.150, and ORS 351.070.

2. for each faculty member, the post-tenure review typically should involve..."

-change should to will as already prescribed every five years.

B. Appendix B: "University of Oregon Statement on Family Support"

This is not the statement the Senate considered at the February 18, 1'995 meeting. The Rules Committee suggest the statement most recently reviewed and considered by the Senate, or not be included as part of the commissions report.

C. Page 5 of GUlDELINES: "Written Evaluations"

This section is not in keeping with ORS [Oregon Revised Statues] 351.065 (3)(f)(g). The caveat printed in a box at the top of the next page addresses such a problem but only mentions OAR [Oregon Administrative Rules]. The section must be rewritten to comply with both the ORS and OAR.

D. Page 4 of RECOMMENDATIONS: "Evaluation Procedure"

This section is not consistent with the previously noted Written Evaluations of page 5 in the GUIDELINES. This section must also be consistent with ORS, OAR, faculty legislation and UO policy statements.

E. Page 7 RECOMMENDATIONS: "On-going, Post Tenure" Several grammatical problems exist in this line.

F. Page 7 of RECOMMENDATIONS: "Thus:"

This section is not consistent with page 14 of the commissions report.

G. The Rules Committee has a concern for the "endorsement" of the report as requested. What does endorsement of the report mean? Does it mean the report will be adopted as policy or faculty legislation?

Beyond these changes the Rules Committee felt the grammar/wording had to be cleaned up and suggested that when ORS, OAR, and Policy Statements exist and legislation is proposed that associate with these particular laws, rules and policies it would be best to note that in what is being proposed in order to give the legal background as to the base of the proposed legislation.

In conclusion Senator Barnhard, speaking for the Rules Committee, suggested that the Report should be defeated with the understanding that it will be re-done (that is correct and complete Report with all confusion removed as to what is what) and resubmit the new Report to the Senate for action. \

Senator Sanders stated that the found some several problems with the Report one of which was no concrete statement in the full recognition of service to the institution as being a criteria within the report as a part of the reward structure. The institution should recognize service as being a good citizen of the University. As it is, the recognition of service is almost entirely lacking in the Report.

Senator Holland moved to adopt the Report. Discussion was now in order. Senator Gray noted that the fifth bullet "Evaluation of teaching should follow the recommendations of the l993 Teaching Workgroup found in 'Guidelines for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching at the University of Oregon"' needed a through discussion especially if the "Guidelines...." are flux. Mr. Udovik stated that the Bullet could be taken out through an amendment.

Vice Provost Lorraine Davis spoke to the good spirit of the document and the hours that had been spent in creating the initial document and the necessary fine tuning that took place afterward. The Report was under discussion and discussion should take place, changes are possible but the document does contain some necessary ideas that should be accepted if these ideas are to take hold and develop on campus.

President Simonds pointed out that the Senate could divide the Report and at the end bring all the parts--amended if necessary-back together again. The Supplements are just that--supplements he emphasized.

University President Frohnmayer pointed out that the Report was very important, if not critical, and that it must move forward. The Report places an emphasis on classroom instruction and that this must be acknowledged and supported.

Senator Goldschmidt stated that he found the Report confusing and inconsistent. The approach to the Report should through focusing on the conceptual aspects on page one.

Senator Murphy suggested that the approach should be approved in a separate statement and the Report itself should be postponed. Vice Provost Davis suggested that a sub-committee be appointed to put the report together and bring it back to the next Senate meeting.

Senator Sanders made a substitute motion for the main motion which would be the passing of page 3 with a revision of number 2. The substitute motion reads:

The Mission Statement should reflect the important role of teaching as well as scholarship within the unit's reward structure, and should show that the University expects some contribution to the institution and the community through service; and it should establish procedures and criteria for evaluating and improving both.

President Simonds divided the motion and called for a vote on the amendment only. It was defeated by voice vote. The substitute motion was not taken up.

Senator Murphy moved that the Report be postponed to a time certain, May 10, 1995. And that the Senate pass the following motion to and instruct the Secretary to formally forward to President Frohnmayer the motion so he may present evidence that the UO Senate does indeed support the thrust of the Report in its strong support of classroom instruction. The motion:

The Senate of the University of Oregon endorses the work of the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development in its effort to clarify the policies and procedures governing faculty appointments, advancement, and development.

The Senate believes that the Commission's draft report of October 28, 1994, embodies the general philosophy of the faculty of the University of Oregon regarding the importance of teaching. Although the Senate has delayed formal adoption of the report because it is not yet in final form, that delay should in no way be interpreted as a lack of support for the general principles contained in the report.

The motion had vocal support and during the discussion of support the suggestion that a committee be appointed to clarify and focus the Report was made. Senator Goldschmidt asked if the Senate was prepared to sign-off on page 1 of the Report? President Simonds did not think so as substance was an open item of discussion and that the substance had to be agreeable to the Senate if the Senate was expected to "pass" the Report. Senator Gray agreed that modifications were needed.

Senator Hosticka thought the Committee should be instructed through a motion--point out specifics--e.g., p. 5, concerning the top 3 applicants passing for a tenure review during the initial stages of the hiring process might be difficult to achieve. Vice Provost Davis suggested the sub-Committee could deal with this. Senator Gray found problems with the Department Teaching Plans and annual evaluations. Associate Vice Provost Jack Rice stated that the Recommendations document replaced the Guidelines so that Senator Gray's concerns are not a problem.

By voice vote the Senate formally removed the Guidelines portion of the Report from the Report.

The discussion that followed pointed out that the Faculty Personnel Committee has for years addressed the problem of granting tenure to off-campus candidates with less evidence than was necessary to grant tenure to on-campus promotion and/or tenure cases. Either the FPC should be involved or it should not be involved in the search process and the granting of tenure.

In general the idea of having the Senate President appoint a review committee to work on the Report was endorsed. A call for a Quorum was made at this point. The Secretary called the Roll. The following were present: Baker, Barnhard, Black, Boren, Dufek, Edwards, Fuller, Goldschmidt, Gordon, Gray, Grosenick, Hayes, Holland, Horner, Hosticka, Klein, Klinghammer, LaFrance, MaitlandGholson, Murphy, Plass, Sanders, Simonds, Talarsky, Terborg, Trombley, Wade, Whitlock. The quorum was met.

The vote was taken on Senator Murphy's motion and passed without dissent.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the meeting concluded with the loss of the quorum at 4:30 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary

Web page spun on 24 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