Senator Weeks has been removed from the rolls of the University Senate as he has missed three meetings in 1994-95.

CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF MINUTES

President Simonds called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m., in Gilbert 231. The minutes of the April 12, l995 meeting were approved as circulated.

OLD BUSINESS

Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Steadman Upham was recognized to introduce the "Guidelines for Good Practice in Graduate Education." He requested that after discussing the guidelines the Senate adopt the guidelines. (The guidelines are available in the Graduate School and with the Secretary.)

The discussion raised one concern from Senator Terborg. He expressed an interest in having an inquiry made into the areas where masters and PhDs are not based on originaI research and see how these programs could be brought under the umbrella of these guidelines.

The vote on the guidelines was positive and thus the Senate adopted the guidelines.

The next item on the agenda was the presentation of the Report of the Committee on Committees. Mr. James Isenberg, Chair of the Committee was not able to be at this meeting so Ms. Susan Plass, a member of the Committee, made the presentation. Included in the Report was a motion to amend the existing legislation on the membership of the International Affairs Advisory Council.

I move that the International Affairs Advisory Council membership be reconstituted to include the following individuals:

• Chair, Foreign Studies Programs Committee
• Director, Officer of International Education and Exchange
• Director, International Studies Program, or his/her designee
• Chairs (or their designees) from the Asian Studies Committee, the Russian/East European Studies Committee, the Latin American Studies Committee, and the European Studies Committee
• Three additional teaching faculty members selected atlarge by the Committee on Committees for staggered two-year terms to insure adequate representation across campus one student each appointed by the ASUO and ISAC

Several Senators questioned the committee membership given in the motion to amend the membership of the IAAC. Senator Roland Greene asked why no person from the humanities was on this committee as it appears the committee is heavily social science. Language and literature should be represented. Senator Russ Tomlin wondered why all of the relevant area study groups are not represented on the committee. Ms. Plass stated that several come under the wing of a larger group, e.g., S E Asia is under Asian Studies. Ms. Plass stated that one of the desires of Vice Provost Steers was to kept the committee small and thus all of the major areas are represented. No established membership was required when the faculty created this committee and so the membership can change and still be in line with the legislation that created the committee.

Senator Tomlin said that the present alignment did not provide a voice for the smaller areas and ignores completely the areas of the curriculum that do work in the area of concern to the committee. One of these he pointed out was linguistics.

Senator Chris Kantrowitz asked if the student members were very active on this committee. It was pointed out that the students were not because they were usually appointed at the end of fall term or during winter term. Senator Martin Fisher suggested that a change in the motion to amend would be best if it allowed some flexibility in the appointment of the student members.

Senator Kantrowitz moved to amend the motion to amend by adding to the last line "One student each appointed annually by the ASUO and ISAC" to read "One student each appointed annually by the President of the University upon recommendation of the ASUO Student Senate President" and etc. This amending motion was passed without opposition.

The amended motion as passed now read:

• Chair, Foreign Studies Programs Committee
• Director, Officer of International Education and Exchange
• Director, International Studies Program, or his/her designee
• Chairs (or their designees) from the Asian Studies Committee, the Russian/East European Studies Committee, the Latin American Studies Committee, and the European Studies Committee
• Three additional teaching faculty members selected atlarge by the Committee on Committees for staggered two-year terms to insure adequate representation across campus
• one student each appointed by the ASUO Student Senate President and one by the ISAC

Ms. Plass then introduced a motion to revise the membership of the Committee on the Curriculum. [changes are bold and underlined.]

Fixed. Seven faculty (for staggered three-year terms-no two from the same school or college, with the exception of up to four from the College of Arts and Sciences (no more than two from any one of the three CAS divisions of Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities: one student (one year term), plus the following ex officio, nonvoting members: Catalog Editor, Director of Academic Advising or designee, Registrar or designee.

This motion was passed.

President Simonds recognized Vice Provost Lorraine Davis to present the report on faculty rewards. Ms. Davis pointed out that the report is a revised version and differs from the earlier one presented to the Senate. This version has been perfected by a Senate Committee headed by Senator Jo Anna Gray.

REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY REWARDS AND DEVELOPMENT

The committee was charged with reviewing the Report of the

Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development. The committee recommends adopting the major recommendations of the commission as modified below and the listed concerns.

• 1. Each academic unit should develop a written statement ~ describing the unit's vision of its contributions to the University's mission as a comprehensive research university, and ~ confirming the important and independent roles of teaching, scholarship (including creative work), and service within the unit's reward structure. Each statement should clearly set forth promotion and tenure procedures; expectations with regard to scholarship, teaching and service; methods of evaluating teaching, research and service, and faculty development programs directed towards meeting expectations in these areas. The following should be implemented.
• l.a. The academic unit's performance criteria should focus on an appropriate balance between quality and quantity within each of the three areas of research [including creative work, teaching and service].
• l.b. The unit's written procedures and performance criteria should be part of every promotion and tenure file sent forward.
• l.c. Methods of evaluating teaching should be established, drawing from suitable sources, such as "Recommendations for Evaluating and Rewarding teaching at the University of Oregon", which grew out of the report of the Teaching Workgroup of 1993.
• l.d. Methods of evaluating scholarly productivity [including creative work] should be established, drawing from the University of Oregon Faculty Handbook, the college and school manuals (i.e. the 'College of Arts and Sciences Owner's Manual') or other appropriate documents.
• 2. Normally, demonstrated accomplishment in teaching and scholarship should be a requirement for appointment into a tenured faculty position. The Provost should approve invitations for on-campus interviews only after determining that the candidate's file is complete as possible with regard to evidence for both teaching and scholarly accomplishment. In unusual situations where such demonstration is not possible (for example, hiring from industry), some assessment of teaching potential should be part of the candidate's file.
• 3. Only faculty members with tenured or tenure-track positions should be eligible to vote for elections to the Faculty Personnel Committee.
• 4. Associate Professors with indefinite tenure must receive a thorough post-tenure review in preparation for promotion no later than five years (for timely review to enhance the record for promotion, a review three years after promotion to associate professor is recommended). Full Professors must receive a post-tenure review and develop a plan for meeting stated professional goals every five years.
• 5. Normally promotion to full Professorial rank should be primarily based on accomplishments since promotion to Associate Professor.

• A. In the Report of the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development, Appendix A: Family Support Policy should be replaced with the current updated statement on Family Support Policy.1
• B. The committee is concerned that the recommendation by the commission that the FPC review the file of new hires with tenure during Fall quarter is unworkable and should be reconsidered.
• C. Wherever there is a reference in the commission's to the "Guidelines for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching at the University of Oregon," it be changed to refer to the document titled "Recommendations for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching at the University of Oregon. l'2
• D. In section 4 of the commission's report, the recommendation to acquire letters from former graduate students should be flagged for caution. There are concerns whether such letters can be unbiased.
• E. In addition, the "Recommendations for Evaluating and Rewarding Teaching at the University of Oregon," contains a number of issues that need revisiting before implantation as any part of units' written statements.

Senator Fisher moved to excise the words "comprehensive research university." He stated that this narrows the mission of the university and does not speak to the teaching mission as the university has a much broader mission than these three words indicate. The motion to excise was defeated.

In number 5. the word "primarily" is used and Senator James Terborg asked why. Ms. Davis stated that it was preferred over other possible words. Senator Terborg asked how far back in time would the record be researched for promotion to the next rank and what is included and what is excluded. The answer was that it is difficult to ignore the past and it must be included. To this the question was that if you used everything for the previous promotion why should you get to use it again. Should it not be what has been accomplished since the last promotion and how do you apply this to outsiders who anticipate tenure upon hire.

It was moved to remove the word "primarily" from number 5. This was passed.

The report was now before the senate and it was adopted as amended. The entire report now reads:

REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE  ON FACULTY REWARDS AND DEVELOPMENT

The committee was charged with reviewing the Report of the Commission on Faculty Rewards and Development. The committee recommends adopting the major recommendations of the commission as modified below and the listed concerns.

• 1. Each academic unit should develop a written statement 1) describing the unit's vision of its contributions to the University's mission as a comprehensive research university, and 2) confirming the important and independent roles of teaching, scholarship (including creative work), and service within the unit's reward structure. Each statement should clearly set forth promotion and tenure procedures; expectations with regard to scholarship, teaching and service; methods of evaluating teaching, research and service, and faculty development programs directed towards meeting expectations in these areas. The following should be implemented.
• l.a. The academic unit's performance criteria should focus on an appropriate balance between quality and quantity within each of the three areas of research [including creative work, teaching and service.
• 1..b. The unit's written procedures and performance criteria should be part of every promotion and tenure file sent forward.
• 1.c. Methods of evaluating teaching should be established, drawing from suitable sources, such as "Recommendations for Evaluating and Rewarding teaching at the University of Oregon", which grew out of the report of the Teaching Workgroup of 1993.
• 1.d. Methods of evaluating scholarly productivity [including creative work] should be established, drawing from the University of Oregon Faculty Handbook, the college and school manuals (i.e. the 'College of Arts and Sciences Owner's Manual') or other appropriate documents.
• 2. Normally, demonstrated accomplishment in teaching and scholarship should be a requirement for appointment into a tenured faculty position. The Provost should approve invitations for on-campus interviews only after determining that the candidate's file is complete as possible with regard to evidence for both teaching and scholarly accomplishment. In unusual situations where such demonstration is not possible (for example, hiring from industry), some assessment of teaching potential should be part of the candidate's file.
• 3. Only faculty members with tenured or tenure-track positions scold be eligible to vote for elections to the Faculty Personnel Committee.
• 4. Associate Professors with indefinite tenure must receive a thorough post-tenure review in preparation for promotion no later than five years (for timely review to enhance the record for promotion, a review three years after promotion to associate professor is recommended). Full Professors must receive a post-tenure review and develop a plan for meeting stated professional goals every five years.
• 5. Normally promotion to full Professorial rank should be based on accomplishments since promotion to Associate Professor.

President Simonds pointed out that this report came so late that the Senators have not had time to read or study the report. Senator Klein then moved to "Adopt with an understanding that the report will be looked at more thoroughly next year." Senator Steve

Goldschmidt stated that to do this would be cumbersome ¥s it would tie a motion to a future action by another body over which the present Senate has no control. Senator James Boren stated that to ratify, etc., would be out of order as it is not the responsibility of the Senate to create or pass administrative procedure rules.

Ms. Davis stated that the report contains rules that the UO has been following for about three years. Senator Fisher responded by stating if the rules have been in force for three years why not just let them stand. Senator Carl Bybee said that if the rules have been operating well and no change is anticipated why not have the Senate pass a motion of no objection on the procedure. Senator Holland stated that the Rules Committee did not feel the Senate needed to get bogged down in the details of the report and that Senate should not be consumed with a lengthy study and analysis of the report.

Senator Holland moved that the Senate has no objection to the procedure as presently established in the Report. This passed without objection.

NOMINATION OF OFFICERS FOR THE FACULTY 1995 SENATE

Senator Cynthia Girling, reporting for the Nominating Committee moved the following:

President: Paul Simonds Vice President: Carl Bybee

Committee on Committees: Gaylene Carpenter, PPPM; Joe Wade, Academic Advising; Anita Weiss, International Studies; Diane Dugan, English.

President Simonds stated that further nominations could be made by Senators. None were forthcoming. It was pointed out that the officers--President and Vice President--would only serve through December 1995 as the newly constituted senate would take over in January 1996. However, the legislation passed on May 17th by the Assembly does require that the officers of the newly constituted senate be elected in December 1995 by the Senate that was elected this Spring along with one-half of the present Senate.

It was moved to have the nominations close. This was done and the ballot was elected without objection.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the meeting having concluded the 1994-95 University Senate adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary

Web page spun on 25 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