February 16, 1996

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1996

ROLL CALL     Present--Allen, Belitz, Blandy, Bybee, Clark,
                        DeGidio, Dugaw,Engleking, Ferguson, 
                        Gibson, Girling, Harvey, Haynes, 
                        Holland, Hurwit, Isenberg, Kevan, Kintz,
                        Lesage, Leavitt, Maxwell, Moreno, Owen,
                        Ravits, Ryan, Schachter, Soper, 
                        Tedards, Watson, Welch, Westling.
               Excused--Park.
               Absent---Anderson-Inman, Davis, Wood, Wybourne.

CALL TO ORDER

Senate President Paul Simonds called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m., in 221 Allen Hall on February 14, 1996. The minutes of the January 17, meeting of the Senate were approved with the following two corrections: Senators Dugaw and Kevan were present. The Secretary stated that the permanent minutes would be corrected.

OLD BUSINESS

Ms. Judith Eisen, Chair of the Committee on Committees, requested the Senate allow the Committee she chairs to alter the process of filling committee vacancies this Spring. She distributed the following letter, composed by the Committee, to the Senators.

SUBJECT: REFORMULATION OF EXISTING UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES

The recent reorganization of University governance provides an ideal opportunity to reexamine the structure of University committees. During the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit faculty members to serve on standing committees. In querying faculty about their reluctance to serve, members of the Committee on Committees have come to the conclusion that the current set of standing committees does not adequately serve the needs of the University. Therefore, we propose that the current Committee on Committees, rather than simply selecting individuals to serve on standing committees, take on the task of examining each committee and making a recommendation to the Senate about which ones should be continued, which ones should be disbanded, which ones should be reorganized, and whether some new ones might be necessary. We further propose to clarify the relationship between administrative and advisory committees and to establish clear links, where appropriate between standing committees and the Senate.

To embark on such a mission, the Committee on Committees clearly requires the support of the Senate, which we request in this letter. We further request that the Committee on Committees be granted the power to examine University committee structure on an ongoing basis, so that standing committees whose service is no longer required can quickly be dissolved.

Because of the magnitude of this proposal, the Committee on Committees requests from the Senate the power to change the way of recruiting for standing committees is done this year. We propose to send to all faculty, along with a committee preference form, a letter informing them of this plan, explaining that whatever committee assignments they take for next year will be temporary, and to provide them with a current list of the functions of each committee via the World Wide Web and packets available in Departmental offices. However, if we do not receive sufficient interest in committee participation, other than those prescribed by law or Oregon Administrative Rule, we propose to allow the committee to be composed of only the interested parties. In other words, we do not wish to recruit additional committee members, even if the committee would then be considered short-handed by normal standards.

Ms. Eisen stated that the time spent cajoling faculty to serve on these committee is considerable and that the frustration among Committee members is very high. A study of the structure of the committees and the assigned duties of these committees might very well clarify the mission and purpose sufficiently to become more attractive to faculty to serve the University by serving on these committees. For each individual to serve on a committee it means that the time constraints on each individual has been increased. The satisfaction of service must equate with the time surrendered from other assignments, duties and obligations of the faculty member. For many faculty the trade-off is not equal and thus the lack of interest in serving.

It was suggested by one Senator that the Committee on Committees ask various faculty who have served on various committees for input on what the function and mission of the committees really fits with what the committee did during the tenure of the chair or the member. The Committee on Committees should than evaluate these statement in relationship to the assigned function and mission. This past experience would help put into perspective the committee structure and the value of the committees.

Senator Mark Watson, Library System, moved that the Committee on Committees be given the authority requested in the letter. The Senate approved this motion without dissent.

FORUM ON PARKING

Senate President Simonds introduced Mr. Dan Williams, Vice President for Administration, to make a presentation on the proposed parking fee increase and to answer questions about the subject of parking on campus.

Mr. Williams commenced by stating that the parking problem has no real satisfactory solution. Whatever decision is made will not be the right decision for some faction, while the decision will be quite satisfactory for another faction. Pieces and parts will be ok or not ok. A problem that has not been addressed concerns "expectations." The University has not fully grasped the expectations of all of those involved and thus satisfaction has been made more difficult.

An outside group has been engaged to do a transportation study for the University. This group has interviewed or contacted many persons on campus to help it in its study. The purpose will be to review all aspects of the current program. The final report of this study group will be available when the study has been concluded.

In response to a question concerning permits sold, parking slots, designation of parking slots, and reserve numbers, Mr. Williams gave the following breakdown:


The number of employees on campus is as follows. (This is supplementary to the minutes and is not an official part of these minutes.)

EMPLOYEE FULL-TIME PART-TIME TOTAL
Faculty1148 7711919
Classified/Mgmt1125 3221447
GTF 0 12991299
Students 22506 2508
Temporary (not defined) 0 165 165

[source: Employment Division Report, October 1995]

Total number of FTE students Fall 1995: 16,074
Total number of all enrolled students Fall 1995: 17,138
[source: Office of the Registrar, University of Oregon]


Permits sold:     2,000 to faculty (faculty have access  to 100%
                  of all unassigned, e.g., not reserved, parking
                  spaces) 2,300 to students (students have access
                  to 50% of all unassigned parking spaces)

Slots available:  2,800.

Reserve slots:    around 10% or 280. (This includes disabled slots.)

Slots available for general parking: 2,520.
The University has converted a number of metered slots to dual use. If you have a parking sticker you can park at designated meters without charge. About 150 meter slots are so marked.

If you add the metered slots to the general slots available the total number of available slots would be 2,670.

Since 1990 the University has created 700 new slots and has lost 500 slots for a gain of 200 since l990. With the dual use metered slots included the gain would be 350.

Mr. Williams explained that the parking fund is in what the State of Oregon defines as an auxiliary budget--that is it is not money generated from tax sources. University Housing has such a budget. All parking related expenses must be paid for from the fund, e.g., patrolling the lots, enforcing the rules, pay for the parking stickers, offices expenses related to parking, providing alternatives to the use of the automobile, etc. The fund, as of December 1995, shows the sources as follows:
50% from permits
30% from fines
18% from meters
and about $20,000 from miscellaneous sources.
The total for all of the money collected was: $1,000,000.

Senate President Simonds interjected at this point that the first parking fee was established in 1962 and the cost was $35.00.

In 1988 this was raised to $108.00. The fee increase in 1988 was based on the cost of constructing a parking structure between 16th and 17th and Alder, where the tennis courts are located. This construction would have been less expensive than other proposed sites as the land is sloped and thus the two storey parking structure would not have had to have ramps thus reducing costs. But with opposition coming from neighbors in and around this area of Alder the parking structure idea was scuttled. It was felt the University should not hurt its relationship with those who live in the area where the structure would have impacted most directly.

The Secretary has been informed by the University Planning that the number of parking slots that would have been added to the inventory by the construction of the parking structure wold have been about 330.


Instead of building the parking structure, the revenue was used to contract with LTD for faculty/staff passes, construct new parking areas/slots, putting hard surfaces on the parking lots, pay-off the bonding of $1.3 million used in the construction of the Bean Hall lot, pay the fee charged for water drainage from the parking lots, and to keep up with the inflationary increases related to parking keeping the parking fee at $108. The LTD contract is presently a $95,000 expenditure. This program, in addition to the ASUO purchasing passes for all students, has been successful and LTD has stated that the busiest loading area it has is at the bus stop near the Chiles Center. When Measure 5 passed it was decided to reach into the parking fund to fill in some of the gaps that were created when the budget in public safety was cut and the parking fund had to take on more parking related expenditures. An unplanned hit, that the parking fund takes each year, is the amount the fund must contribute to the "tax" (indirect costs) that President Myles Brand put on auxiliary budgets to help pay for areas that the UO subsidizes for the auxiliary accounts. This has come to about $400,000 so far.

Some of the parking fund has been loaned out--and these loans are either being paid back or have been paid back. One of these was to Intercollegiate Athletics and this is being paid back, and the second was the use of $400,000 to purchase the "Rainer" building. This building is used by telecommunications and the loan has been repaid.

At present the parking fund is in a deficit and has been for two years. This deficit was created when the expenditure side passed the revenue side. No one noticed this event when it occurred and now it must be remedied. The proposed increase in the cost of a general parking permit for faculty/staff (from $108 to $135) and students (from $60.00 to $75.00) will bring the fund back into balance over the next several years. The cost of administering the parking program will be reduced as some security costs will be returned to the general fund budget, and to reduce the indirect cost recovery amount for the short term. No increase in the reserve parking fee of $315 is planned. (The reserve parking fee is presently $108 plus $315 for a total of $423, but because the permit fee will go to $135 the reserve cost will be $458.) At this time Mr. Williams concluded his extemporaneous remarks and asked if anyone had any questions or observations as he would be glad to respond or to direct the question to one of the people that accompanied him to this meeting if the question needed more detail than he could provide.

Senator Jeff Hurwit, A&AA, was recognized and he said that the general feeling among his colleagues was one of frustration with the parking situation. The fact that faculty and staff have family obligations that might require them to arrive after 8:00 a.m. means that they will not find any place to park. The permit, after 8:00 a.m., does not even equal a hunting license. He wanted to know if a certain lot could not be designated as "faculty" parking only? Perhaps a 3-tier system based on cost and location could be devised. The closer you wish to park to your work place the more it would cost and the further away you are the fee would be much lower. Mr. Williams felt this was something that might be worth thinking about.

Senator Julia Lesage, Humanities, stated that her colleagues have a great deal of anger to deal with when it comes to the parking problem. She suggested that the fee charged should be based on income level--the more you make the more you pay. Another suggestion she made was to establish a reliable shuttle system from Autzen Stadium to the campus. Mr. Williams stated that a study sometime back showed that about one-third of the employees at the University came across the Ferry Street bridge to work. Parking in the Autzen Stadium lots and the bussing suggestion have been looked at before, but it will not work until people are fully prepared to embrace it. Studies have shown that the inconvenience must be worthwhile before the shuttle bus idea will be accepted and make the cost a wash. It is possible that this threshold has been reached--but past surveys have not supported this conclusion.

Senator Lesage continued with what became a repeated theme, that is the problem of child care and family responsibilities that preclude getting to the campus prior to 8:00 a.m. before the present lots are full. Added to this is the required coming and going of faculty women who are nursing or have infants and thus they must leave campus and return during the class day.

Senator Cynthia Girling, A&AA, asked if the permits sold are out of line with the number of available spaces. Mr. Williams said that the law of supply and demand controls the situation and that the alignment seems to be all wrong when the lots are saturated, but that this is not true all of the time or all day long and that it is less of a problem on some days than other days. But this balance is a serious problem and one that will be looked at by the Study Group.

Senator Stephen Kevan, Natural Sciences, stated that the people in his department (Physics) that contacted him about their concerns over the parking situation were very upset. The squeeze is between family obligations and teaching and research. The parking situation looms high in this squeeze. As to the metered spots on University Street that are available for parking with permits Senator Kevan pointed out that the entire street seems to be blocked off on some days for athletic events, thus eliminating all of this added space on these days. This makes the spaces unreliable and impacts directly on all other aspects of the parking problem. He concluded that the reserve system is not managed well as these spaces are too freely given without challenge or inquiry as to purpose. Mr. Williams stated that each person requesting a reserve slot must provide a signed written statement that they meet the requirements for a reserved slot. The Department Head and/ or the Dean must pass on this request before it can be sent forward for University level approval. This requirement states that you must come and go from the campus, on University business, several times during the week. A reserve slot is not to be given for the convenience of the individual just to guarantee a place to park.

Senator Wayne Westling, Law, was recognized and suggested that the staff was really being hit hard by the proposed increase. Any increase must be looked upon as a pay-cut, and the staff have not had any pay increases recently, they have been or will be hit by Measure 8, and this increase will be another hit. Some of the people in the Law School have said the failure to build the parking structure following the last increase in the parking fee amounted to fraud, that is, taking money with no return on what was promised. OPEU signed-off on the increase with the understanding that a parking structure would be built, and did not get what was promised. Mr. Williams strongly disagreed with the charge of fraud and stated that parking slots have increased in number and that opposition from neighbors made it impossible to build the parking structure without offending these people. The decision to find a different "solution" at the time was well publicized.

Senator Jacqueline Gibson, Officers of Administration, confirmed the anger and frustration and added that the anxiety that is created by the parking situation adds unneeded pressure to the start of each work day. The pressure must be released and the best way is to find a remedy to the situation. Senator Paul Engleking, Natural Sciences, in good humor, thanked the administration for adding to his health by having him walk long distances due to the fact that he had to park so far from where he worked. He then added that he felt most people would be willing to pay the proposed increase if a reasonable assurance existed that a place to park could be found and not just to have the fee increased to make the hunting license more expensive and not provide the needed assurance.

A student, Ms. Susan Anderson, asked if the ASUO used student fees to purchase the LTD pass for students, and the University Administration used the parking fee to purchase the LTD pass for faculty/staff, was this not a case of the students who purchase a parking permit paying twice for the LTD pass which, with the UO purchase of the LTD pass with parking permit funds, resulted in the students paying for a benefit for which they are ineligible to receive. Mr. Williams stated that this was one reason why students did not pay the same amount for a permit as faculty/staff.

Senator Suzanne Clark, Humanities, added that the housing situation for faculty and staff would not ease, that is affordable housing near the campus that would allow individuals to walk to work or ride bicycles daily will never be available. The automobile will not go away and thus the parking situation will not go away.

Senator Martha Ravits, Humanities, added that the situation that requires people to come and go during the day because of family obligations was a real problem. Mr. Williams stated that Ms. Karen Logvin, Human Resources, has made special arrangements for nursing mothers in the past that did allow these mothers to come and go from campus. Each situation is addressed individually and Ms. Logvin would be the person to contact to see if a remedy is available for a given situation.

Senator Anne Leavitt, Officers of Administration, added that because of the lack of parking slots you have no option to pursue when you do not get a place to park--even a reasonable, but inconvenient slot is not available. Senator James Isenberg, Natural Sciences, stated that a number of employees work late and if the shuttle bus idea was to be adopted the busses would have to run late into the night and on a regular schedule. Senator Hurwit added that the bus schedule must be dependable if the shuttle bus option was to be adopted.

Senator Girling inquired about parking near and about the Physical Plant. An example she gave was where the wood waste pile had been in the Physical Plant area, could this be turned over to parking? Mr. Christopher Ramey, University Planning, stated that the wood waste area is a part of the Research Park and not available to parking.

In conclusion Mr. Williams summarized many of the statements made and added that the intention is not and has never been to eliminate the use of the automobile, but to discourage the use of the automobile through the presentation of alternatives to select from in replacing the automobile as a commuting tool.

INQUIRY

Senator Ravits asked if the rules and laws of the Senate are available. President Simonds replied that the various laws and rules are being put into order and will be available shortly. The composition of these items fall into three categories: 1. The establishment legislation from Assembly that created the New Senate containing legislation that the Senate cannot alter or change; 2. Rules of the Senate that can only be changed by a 2/3ds vote; 3. and the By-Laws that the Senate has adopted and can change by majority vote. The President said that he is working on the final form of all of this and would have copies available shortly.

Senator Hurwit asked that the President invite Provost John Moseley to a senate meeting to discuss the student credit hour model and why this has pitted department against department for students creating an unhealthy competition for enrollment at the department level. Senator Davison Soper, Natural Sciences, suggested that representatives from the Undergraduate Education and Policy Coordinating Council be invited at the same time so a thorough discussion of undergraduate education could take place. President Simonds stated that he would contact Mr. Moseley and the Chair of the UEPCC to arrange a time when they would both be available for such a meeting.

Senator Westling recommended that the issue of parking--budget, fees, etc.,--be turned over to the Senate Budget Committee for study and recommendations. Mr. Williams stated that the public comment hearing on the fee increase would be on February 29, 1996. This date indicates a short period for the Budget Committee to react but all faculty and staff are invited to the hearing and to make comments at that time.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the meeting having concluded the University Senate adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Keith Richard
Secretary


UO Senate Homepage