Excused: Baldwin, Eisert, Helphand, Lachman, Luks, Southwell, Tublitz
Absent: Cohen, Jenkins, Larson, Meeks-Wagner, Moore, Westling
Report from Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. Mr. Paul Simonds, IFS representative, gave a report on the recent meeting of the IFS with state Senator Brady Adams who clearly is very supportive of higher education, and who, in turn, asked for support from the IFS. Senator Adams indicated that the budget has bipartisan support. A tuition freeze is generally being accepted by everyone in the legislature and may be scaled to economic status; it probably will be an across the board freeze. Mr. Simonds also talked about the new budget model and indicated that 32% of the total budget will come from state funds for the 12-cell model described by Provost Moseley at a previous senate meeting. Thirty percent of the budget consists of federal funds, another 23% comes from grants and similar monies, and the final 15% is from tuition. Of the total state higher education budget, 50% goes for instruction, which means that students pay for about 30% of instruction costs. The IFS is concerned that faculty do not have a role or input into the budget process. Budget dispersal planning on each campus is different and money is distributed accordingly. For instance, Portland State University allocates funds based on course enrollment; on the other hand, both Eastern Oregon University and Western Oregon University will probably base their allocation on the number of majors in departments. Mr. Simonds suggested that the senate needs to be aware and a part of the process. Finally, the IFS Selections Committee met to determine the slate of three faculty members whose names would be submitted to the governor for appointment to the state board. These names will be submitted for senate endorsement at the March meeting.
Employee Food Drive. President Hurwit reminded senators of the Governorís State Employee Food Drive being held from February 8th - 26th. He encouraged all to participate in this worthy cause. Collection bins are available throughout the campus.
Nominations for spring elections. The secretary reported that it is time to start the nomination process for new members of the senator and elected faculty committees and councils. The call for nominations will be sent to voting faculty members during the third week in February. A similar memo for senate nominations will be sent to the deans' advisory committees in the various schools and colleges. A listing of open positions and nominees will be available for perusal on the senate web page. The secretary encouraged senators to talk with their colleagues about standing for election to the senate or various councils or committees.
The upper division group is currently working on sending out a call for proposals requesting ideas for participatory learning experiences (PLEs) such as internships, research experiences, and so forth. Ms. Sprague encouraged everyone to be imaginative and open to ideas. A small amount of funding will be available to support individual projects if the legislature passes the proposed budget. Organizational support will come by means of hiring a coordinator, and technical support will be provided by the Career Center in the form of an electronic catalog of available PLEs.
The advising subcommittee focused on the freshman year in order to get students off to a good start on their academic careers. Mr. Jim Warhol is working on the technical support aspects of advising, such as an automated degree analysis showing students' progress toward degrees, which in turn will free faculty to do more student mentoring.
Substantial work has been done by the recruitment and retention subcommittee, led by Senator Jane DeGidio, student retention programs, and Mr. Jim Buch, associate vice president for student academic affairs. They are working on short-term interventions. Surveys are underway to students asking questions such as why they did not continue their studies and what they like or do not like about their school experience. Surveys were also sent to students in residence halls in an effort to identify potential problems before they develop so that appropriate preventive actions can be taken. Recruitment efforts already have been implemented with the addition of merit-based scholarships (Deans Scholarships) offering automatic scholarships of $1,000-$2,000 to all Oregon students with a specific GPA, high school rank, or SAT score.
Ms. Sprague also presented an idea from the deans focusing on the freshman year to ensure that students get off to a good start. The principle is to ensure that every freshman enrolls in at least one small, regular academic course of no more than 25 students that is taught by a regular faculty member who also will serve as an advisor to those students for the remainder of their freshman year. This idea would necessitate hiring at least 30 additional faculty members in conjunction with existing faculty, and would require participation of at least 25% of the faculty each year. The committee will further review this idea to determine fiscal feasibility and faculty time commitments. Ms. Sprague concluded her report by welcoming input or feedback on any of the ideas presented.
Process for Change Update -- Report from Vice Provost for Research Tom Dyke and Dean Marian Friestad, co-chairs of the Implementation Team on Research and Graduate Education. Vice Provost Dyke presented a summary of comments concerning research and graduate education that were part of the Process for Change document entitled, ìThe University of Oregon in the 21st Century: Reaching Higher--Reaching Out.î Research and graduate studies are activities that must be cultivated, expanded, and strengthened to follow the mission of the University of Oregon. General goals of excellence in research includes items such as: (a) supporting and encouraging research, (b) initiating and developing research areas, (c) strengthening graduate education to attract and retain quality graduate students, (d) encouraging and facilitating interdisciplinary research, (e) linking undergraduates with research enterprises, and (f) providing time for reflection and synthesis of information. Further, the general goals of excellence in graduate education include: (a) involving graduates students in the university's community of scholars, (b) emphasis on selective applied and professional masters degrees, (c) financial support for graduate students, (d) more flexibility in graduate programs, (e) cooperative programs with other institutions, and (f) five-year courses of study leading to both the bachelor's and master's degrees.
A research subcommittee was formed from the Research and Graduate Education Implementation Team, which identified four major goals for change in the research area. The goals are: To build a culture of faculty innovation and interdisciplinary research through programs aimed at aiding faculty in retraining and redirecting their research efforts; To establish mechanisms for stabilizing research efforts against short-term destructive changes (such as loss or change) in funding resources; To improve and strengthen graduate education and research experiences through analysis of existing models of graduate education and to make proposals supporting change in weaker practices; and To establish programs such as fellowships and research assistantships which increase the degree of undergraduate participation in research.
Item 3 would use the team approach for faculty and students and establish fellowships or other areas for faculty and students to work together. In order to help faculty retrain and redirect their research efforts, the following suggestions were proposed: (a) extend or enhance sabbatical leave and perhaps give faculty time to change research directions, (b) build new interdisciplinary initiatives such as the existing Brain, Biology, and Machine, and (c) establish risk-taking funding mechanisms to allow faculty to change research directions.
Dean Friestad continued by reporting on the progress of the subcommittee on graduate education. She noted that one item continually surfaced -- that investment and support needs to be enhanced in order to recruit and retain quality graduate students. Accordingly, the subcommittee suggests recruiting the highest ranked applicants through use of the following strategies. Establish non-service supplements of $2,000, in addition to the existing GTF support packages, for the highest caliber applicants in departments with doctoral programs. Implement it over a four-year phase-in to cover approximately 30% of new admissions, administer it at the college level, and ask departments to demonstrate the impact of supplemental programs in terms of yield among top applicants and quality of applicants. The second goal involves the creation of a $50,000 travel fund to use in recruiting and bringing highly ranked applicants to campus. The negotiation of such awards is between the departments and dean of the Graduate School. If possible, priority would be given to requests that serve as a match of departments and college contributions. Because some departments may not have matching funds, departments would be dealt with on an individual department level. Over the four-year phase-in period, there would have to be a sustained financial commitment of approximately $500,000.
The graduate education subcommittee also recommends implementing several ideas to improve the quality of the graduate education experience based on principles that the graduate programs are currently following. One example includes developing policies and funding to teach more 600-level courses where eligible applicants would be departments with less than 15% of their current course offering at the 600-level. The proposed 600-level courses must be for more than five students and application for the funding would be made through the dean of the college on an annual basis. In commenting on these ideas, Dean Friestad acknowledged that student credit hours in the new budget model are not compatible with this idea, a problem that would have to be addressed.
Discussion from the floor followed these presentations. Senator Jim Terborg, business, asked if these suggestions applied only to doctoral applicants or to law applicants as well. Dean Friestad answered that there has been a lot of debate on this issue in general, but that these latter recommendations applied only to doctoral programs, saying that perhaps it is not as necessary in the law school. Senator Don Levi, philosophy, stated that this proposal speaks to problems in his department. The current GTF budget is woefully inadequate and thus $2,000 is really not that much help. Perhaps other departments on campus share this problem. Dean Friestad indicated that GTF funding is quite varied on campus and there have been a number of discussions related to this issue. She indicated that generally, the decision on hiring and funding GTFs is made at the college or school level. She would like to see a discussion on what criteria should be used to determine level of GTF funding. The current pattern of GTF participation has evolved over many years and as a consequence has an unusual structure for a variety of reasons. Dean Friestad indicated she would welcome a discussion on optimum size of programs, relationship of size of the program to faculty size, and the number of GTFs in service areas such as the writing program or math. Such a discussion would be an interesting debate.
Senator Levi, returning to the research subcommittee's proposal, remarked that it really did not apply to the humanities. He said that the changing of research direction by faculty members seems to be a novelty, and asked why the focus on a novelty like this? Vice Provost Dyke answered that one set of proposals will not work for all areas and that a set of proposals will be needed to fit different areas. He also stated that many faculty would like a chance to study new areas and different programs are needed for different areas of campus.
Senator Mary Wood, English, commended the committees for their hard work and exciting ideas. She asked if the proposals included ways to attract a more diverse student body by recruiting more students of color. Ms. Sprague replied that there has been discussion on this topic and that a proposal was made to extend the Deanís Scholarships for this purpose.
Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, asked whether the statement of intent to include more undergraduates in research also extended to student representation on research committees. Vice Provost Dyke answered that they are encouraging more students to take part in committees. He acknowledged that there has been some controversy and discussion on appointments of students to committees. Student participation is both wanted and needed, he noted, but he said it also important to follow policies and procedures. The proposals presented here primarily address the issue of student involvement in actual research to explore and learn on their own and with faculty guidance. The proposal is to explore ways to increase research opportunities for students.
Senator DeGidio expanded on her subcommittee's plans for increasing recruitment. For example, middle and high schools hold a college visitation day where students come and sit in on college classes in their area of interest. The Office of Multicultural Affairs also has been very active in such activities. In addition, the Task Force on Race has been convened and the committee is also working with parents of students of color. President Hurwit followed these comments with a question about the proposal for a ìfrequent flierî program for undergraduates where students earn tuition credits for completing certain courses. Ms. Sprague answered that the idea is still being considered in the lower division education group but on a longer-term basis.
Senator Terborg asked how the GPA for the Deanís Scholarships would be computed. He indicated that among high school teachers, there is concern that students will drop hard courses and take easy ones to boost their GPA in order to qualify for the scholarship. Ms. Sprague responded that the head of student academic affairs, Mr. Jim Buch, was aware of this issue and that there is not an easy solution. The best teachers and the schools can do is hold fast to their curriculum. Perhaps the schools should set rules and establish a specific set of courses that all students must take.
Provost John Moseley commented further saying that the Deanís Scholarships are really a simple "filter" for a particular level scholarship. The real virtue of the program is its simplicity. He noted that unlike the Hope Scholarship in Georgia which gives a ìfree-rideî to students that meet a certain GPA, under the Deanís Scholarships program, students may be able to qualify for a better scholarship even if they fall just below the GPA for this scholarship. Students may actually secure a better scholarship in the end, and they are encouraged to apply for other scholarships.
With no further questions or comments on these reports, the discussion ended.
Senator Don Levi, philosophy, questioned the value of PTR. He noted that PTR statements can be vexing, annoying, or laudatory and wondered if it was beneficial and to whom. Vice President Gilkey answered that he felt it was beneficial to have peers look at what faculty members are doing and make thoughtful suggestions and judgments. Using his own department as an example, he noted that a large part of the pre-tenure review in the mathematics department involves visitation to classes by other faculty members and he feels this is very helpful. He added that just because one has tenure, it does not mean one should not continue to strive to be better. Post-tenure review is a good idea; the devil is in the details, but the general philosophy is good.
Senator Suzanne Clark, English, told the Senate that she had two concerns with post-tenure review. First, that there would be an increased workload for departments and that it is difficult to keep the review within appropriate and manageable limits. Her other concern is that post-tenure review clearly be separated from procedures that might lead to termination. Senator Levi spoke again suggesting that the university should have outside reviewers for PTR such as is done for promotion cases rather than having colleagues on campus do it.
Senator James Earl, English, then asked why the senate was even considering this issue. He said he could understand why the administration could see benefit in PTR, but there seems to be a conflict of interest for faculty. Is it worth all the work? Post-tenure review, he suggested, handcuffs faculty even more so, hence why would the senate vote on this? Senator Earl compared a previous PTR five years earlier with the one he is going through now. Previously, the review involved only the submission of a CV, recent scholarly items he had done, two packets of evaluations, and a letter. For this year's PTR, he has to use a three-page checklist to prepare review materials, which took an enormous amount of time. Such reviews, he said, tend to grow and become an administrative nightmare.
In response, Mr. John Bonine, law, stated that we are required to have a post-tenure review policy. This Oregon Administrative Rule can only be changed through the State Board of Higher Education or through the legislature. The senate cannot avoid PTR by not adopting the proposed policy. He went on to say that a "light" review has always been in place and was done every year and probably filed away in the department. The recent accreditation team committee said that PTR must be done every three years (current PTR policy is every five years). The ad hoc committee on PTR's proposal attempts to lessen the workload by having lighter 3-year reviews and a more intensive 6-year review. Some kind of PTR is not only required, but is beneficial if it is helpful and informative.
Provost Moseley spoke on why PTR has become important. He stated that from the perception of the general public, faculty are now one of the last "privileged" groups in society. The public thinks that the granting of tenure guarantees lifetime employment to faculty with no internal process for review. He noted that there is a real "disconnect" if faculty members think they should not have some kind of review. Post-tenure review can improve the university's quality if it is done correctly and improves the public perception of faculty at the university. Provost Moseley stated that PTR is important and should be done at a level that is reasonable. He further noted that the three-page checklist for post-tenure review referred to earlier by Senator Earl did not arise from the provostís office and he was unaware of its source.
Mr. Russo agreed it would be abhorrent to the legislature if tenured faculty do not have any kind of a review. He said the post-tenure review should not be duplicative and there should be a procedure adopted to address the termination issue. Vice President Gilkey returned to the perception of tenure issue, stating that it was not meant to guarantee lifetime employment. Rather, tenure is necessary because society has discovered that it is beneficial to free faculty to pursue academic interests. We need to make sure PTR does not interfere with this or tend to shorten the time frame. Dean Friestad agreed that the decision to have tenure was due to society but now society is changing in their perception of faculty.
Asking whether the proposed PTR policy really represented a bigger workload for departments, President Hurwit said that whatever proposed policy is decided upon, some departments are likely to experience more work while others might experience less. Senator Dave Boush, business, responded that the proposed policy does not represent a greater workload in the business college because reviews are done annually by a committee, so it is actually is a decrease in workload. Mr. Bonine stated that the ad hoc committee proposal's intention is that if a yearly review is being done already, it counts as the review. It does not mean you have to do an extra 3-year review. Most reviews will be filed routinely with the department. If there is a problem with a review, then that can be addressed when it arises.
Senator Terborg asked about the linking of pay to post-tenure review. He asked where the additional money would come from. Similarly, Senator Linda Kintz, English, remarked that PTR seems to be a duplication of merit review procedures. In response, Ms. Lorraine Davis, senior vice provost for academic affairs, clarified that current policy takes post-tenure review into account when the next merit review comes up. She indicated there is a need to link PTRs and merit increases to the extent that we can. Every unit has its own merit procedure -- some are very quantitative and annually oriented, and others use a quite different approach.
With no further question or comments, the discussion ended with anticipation of a forthcoming consolidation of PTR proposals from the newly appointed three-member ad hoc committee by spring term.
Turning to the next agenda item, President Hurwit recognized Senator Olson who made the following motion (US98/99-6) concerning increasing the number of days for dropping and adding courses:
Be it resolved that the University of Oregon allow all students eight academic days to drop classes and ten academic days to add classes at the beginning of each academic term. For academic terms that are shorter than ten weeks, the drop and add deadlines will be applied proportionately. Internships may be added at any point pending the fulfillment of all requirements set forth by a faculty advisor.
Senator Olson stated that the ASUO has had many grievances from students that the current course drop and add time periods are far too stringent. He stated that meeting only a few times in a class is not enough time for students to determine if the class is really one the student needs to take. It is not enough time to get a "feel" for the course. He suggested that the proposed increase time for both dropping and adding courses would help to improve the environment for academic learning.
Senator Olson acknowledged that there are some arguments against motion, such as a student's ability to catch up on course work missed. Ten days may be too much time for students to miss. However, many students who want to add a class already are attending that particular class unofficially, so they are aware of the material and are not falling behind. He further opined that it is not up to the faculty member to do anything to catch the student up; rather, it should be the student's responsibility to catch up when a course is added. It is the student's academic choice.
Noting the lateness of the hour as well as an absence of a fiscal impact statement pertaining to this motion, a motion to postpone the course drop/add motion to a time definite of March 10, 1999 was made and seconded. The motion to postpone US98/99-6 passed by voice vote.