March 14, 1996
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE: MARCH 13, 1996
ROLL CALL: Present -- Allen, Belitz, Blandy, Bybee, Clark, Davis, Dugaw,
Gibson,
Haynes, Holland, Hurwit, Kevan, Kintz, Lesage, Leavitt, Maxwell,
Moreno, Park, Owen Ravits, Ryan, Schachter, Soper, Tedards,
Westling Wood.
Excused -- Anderson-Inman, DeGidio, Girling, Harvey, Isenberg, Welch.
Absent---Engleking, Ferguson, Maxwell (2), Moreno, Watson, Wybourne
(2).
CALL TO ORDER
The March 13, 1996 meeting of the University Senate was called to order
at 3:05 p.m., in 221 Allen by Senate President Paul Simonds. The minutes
of the February 14, 1996 meeting of the Senate were approved after the Secretary
announced two corrections. On page 4, last sentence on the bottom of the
page, the date 1962 should be 1967 and on page 8, first paragraph, Senator
Dietrich Belitz should be named and not Senator Stephen Kevan.
OLD BUSINESS
Senate President Simonds recognized Ms. Elaine
Green, Student Conduct Coordinator, to introduce the following motion to
amend OAR 571-21-030 (10): (amendment in bold print)
Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms, ammunition,
explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on University
property or at University-sponsored or supervised activities except as expressly
authorized by law or University regulations. Possessing a concealed weapons
permit does not constitute such authorization. The otherwise lawful possession
of a firearm inside a dwelling unit of a University of Oregon Family Housing
facility by a person lawfully dwelling therein is not covered or prohibited
under this offense.
Senator Jeff Hurwit, AAA, asked if the latter part of this amendment would
allow weapons to be kept in dormitories or family housing units if one had
a permit. Mr. Peter Swan, Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs,
stated that dormitories are not defined as "family housing facilities"
which is a dwelling and not just a room, so the amendment does not apply
to dormitory rooms. Senator Davison Soper, Natural Sciences, inquired if
the permit could override the rule because of state legislation and local
laws governing permits. Mr. Swan said that the UO is being consistent with
the laws and the use of the words "family dwelling."
Mr. Swan was asked if it was not possible to have the rule state that the
weapon had to be disabled if it was kept in a University of Oregon family
housing unit. Through the disabling of the weapon any children present would
be protected from harm if the weapon were to be used as a plaything or inadvertently
became available to children. The answer was that such a rule would be better
kept to the contract that is signed when someone rents such a unit and not
in the OAR, but Mr. Swan did acknowledge that the University would have
such an authority.
Senator Dietrich Belitz, Natural Science, asked why it was necessary to
propose this amendment at this time. Mr. Swan replied that some individuals
have stated that they have a permit and thus have the right to carry a weapon.
The amendment was put to a vote and it passed without dissent.
NEW BUSINESS
Senate President Simonds introduced the following motion. It will be on
the agenda at the April 10, 1996 meeting of the Assembly.
The University Senate President or her/his designee shall be a member of
the Faculty Advisory Council as a voting member.
President Simonds explained that the new governance structure giving considerable
authority and influence to the University Senate created a greater need
for better communication and coordination between the University Senate
and the Faculty Advisory Council.
FORUM
The legislation and rules that govern the University Senate was distributed.
This contains not only the by-laws but the enabling legislation that the
University Assembly enacted last May creating the Senate and transferring
governing power to the Senate. President Simonds pointed out that the process
to get a motion before the Senate required a considerable amount of time.
In conjunction the rule to get motions into the hands of each Senator 10
days prior to the meeting at which the motion will be acted upon required
a definite period of deadlines in order to meet the 10 day mandate.
Thus, in order to facilitate the 10 day rule, deadlines are established
within the rules that should enable the proposed motion to flow through
all of the hoops and be in the hands of the Senators by the mandated 10
days. Because the motion has to be printed and distributed--a process that
is not easily controlled--the use of electronic imaging, e.g., e-mail, has
been made a part of the rule. The 10 day mandate can now be met through
electronic imaging as long as each Senator has a hard copy of the proposed
motion or resolution at least one day prior to the day of the meeting at
which the motion or resolution will be acted upon.
Senator Soper, Chair of the Senate Rules Committee, stated that the situation
concerning motions might be corrected by having the rule state that all
motions must have two readings. This would allow each Senator more time
to think about the motion, discuss it with her/his colleagues, and the Rules
Committee to perfect the motion. Amendments are a problem, he pointed out,
as quite often the amendment is not clear and the Senate is asked to vote
on the amendment. The Senate might consider having a "time-out"
for amendments, that is to stop proceedings and have the Rules Committee
read the amendment and report back to the Senators--all at the same meeting.
Senator Belitz suggested that the answer might very well be a second reading
at a second meeting. This would allow for amendments to be reviewed and
understood. Senator Hurwit was not in favor of a second meeting. It was
noted that procedure does allow a second vote when someone on the prevailing
side moves for reconsideration at the next meeting. Senator Anne Leavitt,
OA, added that the chance of making an error in passing legislation increases
with the technicalities of the amendment or in offering several amendments.
It might be best to close the meeting and take up the amendments at a second
meeting if the Senators feel the complications have made the process more
difficult.
Senator Wayne Westling, Law, stated that the Senate is not the place for
a public hearing. Amendments should be prepared and presented to the Senators
as the motions are circulated well in advance. Senator Martha Ravits, Humanities,
said that the Senate should require all amendments to be presented in writing.
Senator Cheyney Ryan, Humanities, said that it is possible that several
changes in past legislation will be presented soon. Several of the proposals
would impact on the rules of procedure for sexual harassment and it is possible
that legislation concerning sexual relations between faculty and students
would be ready for introduction at the April 10, 1996 meeting of the Senate.
This would mean that the legislation would be on the May agenda.
President Simonds stated that it is possible that some preliminary discussion
could take place at the April meeting. Not during the meeting, but at the
end of the meeting--a sort of forum. Senator Julia Lesage, Humanities, endorsed
this idea--a "non-binding session" she called it. She also called
for Senators to discuss freely with their colleagues motions that are on
the agenda as well as sounding out colleagues about coming or proposed legislation.
Senator Ryan thought that a non-binding session would allow for a free discussion
of the legislation and would allow the proposals to be perfected.
The meeting was now opened to a discussion on the topic of where is the
Senate going? Since the Senate is now the representative governing body
of the faculty what are some of the thoughts that the Senators have as to
how the Senate should operate or govern. Should the Senate be reactive?
This would be a Senate that waited for motions or resolutions to be presented
for Senate action. Or, should the Senate be proactive and seek out through
conversation with their colleagues situations or problems for the Senate
to address or discuss?
Senator Hurwit asked what the rights of the Senate is viz a viz the central
administration. Fiscal decisions impact on curriculum and curriculum can
become a victim to fiscal decisions. How did we get to where we are with
the student credit hour driven model and productivity used in such a base
way? How much power does the Senate have in this situation?
Senator Leavitt stated that the Senate should show its concern when curriculum
issues are involved. Reacting is not the way to go, so perhaps each Senate
meeting should commence with an open session to bring up topics of concern
or to expand dialogue. Senator Suzanne Clark, Humanities, asked why the
faculty did not have all of the information on hand for discussion when
decisions are made by administrators. Discussion is inadequate because the
information available is inadequate, yet long-lasting decisions are made
which impact on the faculty and the classroom.
Senator Carl Bybee, Journalism, added that he thought the Senate should
be a player in all decision making situations. Some type of "Curriculum
impact" report would be required when fiscal decisions are made. There
is now a "fiscal impact" requirement for legislation, why not
turn it around?
Senator Soper suggested the Senate Budget Committee should report to the
Senate regularly and keep the Senate abreast of what is going on in budgeting
decisions. Rhetorically he asked, how does the decisions of the Provost
impact curriculum?
Senator Bybee thought the Senate should open the Fall Quarter with a long
session where Senators could get to know one-another, discuss ideas and
build an agenda for the academic year. Senator Lesage agreed wholeheartedly.
The Senators as whole wanted it made clear that they were not discussing
a retreat.
ADJOURNMENT
The business of the meeting having concluded the University Senate adjourned
at 4:16 p.m.
Keith Richard
Secretary
University Senate Minutes
University Senate home page
Office of Academic Affairs
and Provost home page
March 19, 1996