Minutes of the University Senate November 11, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Bailey said there were no real surprises in the recently concluded elections, and that support from the governor for higher education continues to be strong. He stated that as the governor puts together his budget blueprint for the next session, higher education was the only gaining state agency with an additional $81 million proposed above current levels for both OUS and the community colleges. This does not include Oregon Health Sciences University or private higher educational institutions in Oregon, and is based on revenues forecasted. Although it may not go as far as we would like, it is a step in the right direction.

He went on to say that there are slight changes in the state legislative picture. The senate leadership is expected to moderate slightly. In the house, however, with a 34 to 25 split in favor of the Republican Party, it is likely to take a more conservative focus. Mr. Bailey was not sure how the recently elected Speaker of the House Lynn Snodgrass will be toward higher education but she has always been receptive in the past. He is hopeful she will make higher education a more bipartisan issue in this legislative session.

Mr. Bailey's real concern was the revenue forecast which shows declining revenues. Revenues are down from $455 million in July to $172 million in the ending fund balance in October. Analysts predict this may drop to zero by the end of December. If so, several things might take place. For example, there could be tax increases or more agency budget cuts. But on a positive note, no one has said directly that higher education will be one of those agencies to receive a cut. During a question and answer session, he was asked by Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, whether there were figures on the proposed budget Mr. Bailey responded that there were no figures as yet regarding the funding level for the UO but he should receive the proposed budget in early December and will be able to provide more information at that time. Mr. Bailey also informed the members that there was a bill in process that would limit the number of lobbyists allowed from the different entities. The governor has requested that no more than two persons from a campus be registered as lobbyists. For the UO, these people are President Frohnmayer and Mr. Bailey. A draft of the rules and all regulations regarding lobbying will be posted soon on the legislative relations office web page. The key points are that: (a) any contact with a legislator, whether it is by phone, letter, in person, e-mail, or other, is considered lobbying, and (b) any meeting forthe purpose of promoting "goodwill" for the university is also considered lobbying. The caution here is that if one spends in excess of 24 hours during a quarter (3-month period) on lobbying activities, one must register as a lobbyist. However, remember that providing factual information at the request of a legislative member or staff is not considered lobbying.

Mr. Bailey was asked by Senator Linda Kintz, English, what the consequences were of going over the 24 hours and having to register as a lobbyist. He responded that if this happened, the individual would have to account for the number of hours spent, money spent on the activities, any gifts received, and so forth, to the Government Standards and Practices Commission. Failure to do so carries a fine and penalty.

Senator Paula Burkhart, research and graduate education, asked what activities should be reported to Mr. Bailey's office. He responded that the office shoul at least receive a heads up on any contact that a faculty member may have with legislators. In particular, his office needs to know if you talk to any legislative member on budget issues, which automatically is defined as lobbying. Senator Jim Upshaw, journalism and communications, asked if there could be a simple rules and regulations sheet, which could be distributed to faculty about how to handle themselves with legislators. Mr. Bailey indicated he would put one together and distribute to it to senators who can pass it along to faculty members in their departments.

Senator Priscilla Southwell, political science, asked about testifying before a committee on a proposed bill and whether or not this was lobbying. The answer was that testifying, when requested as an expert witness, was not lobbying. Senate President Hurwit expressed his concern about the chilling effect of the rules and regulations on lobbying. He asked if there was a distinction between using UO letterhead and one's own stationery. Mr. Bailey replied that the rules apply only to work situations and not to anything personal that is done on one's own time. Faculty members are still allowed to lobby but should remember to be cautious about the 24-hour rule.

Remarks from Ms. Karen Sprague, chair, Task Force for Transformation of Undergraduate Education.

Four sub-committees of the task force have been designated and are already working. The committees and their chairs are as follows: Lower Division Committee, Ms. Jo Anna Gray and Mr. Dick Koch; Upper Division Committee, Mr. Mel Aikens; Advising Committee, Mr. Jack Watson and Mr. Joe Wade; and Recruitment and Retention Committee, Mr. Jim Buch.

The task force will have definite proposals by March 1999. Portions of proposals will be circulated for feedback throughout the year. Ms. Sprague urged everyone to check the task force web page frequently and provide feedback and ideas directly to the committee chairs or her. (Click on Process for Change on the UO home page, then scroll down to the Task Force for Transforming Undergraduate Education.) Their underlying principles provide an emphasis on long-range values to increase the rigor of the program as well as the use of innovative ideas for change. See also: 1) Task Force Web Page, 2) reports and 3) > summary

The Lower Division Committee will focus on a desire for more coherence They will try to design pathways, or groups of related courses, which will introduce important analytic skills and fulfill some general education requirements. The committee will identify ideal pathways and ask faculty for ideas and then select ideas to test. This committee will also consider other items. The Upper Division Committee will focus on increasing the number of students engaged in participatory learning experiences. They will try to capitalize on the advantages for undergraduates at a comprehensive university. One aim is to make it easier for students to find such experiences through the use of a database of this information. The Advising Committee is responding to the suggestion from numerous sources that advising be mandatory for all students. They will likely come up with several plans, based in part on finances available, for minimal through maximal advising requirements. The Retention and Recruitment Committee is focusing primarily on recruitment for next year, and is trying to attract the best students to UO and not merely focus on increasing numbers of students.

Senator Southwell asked about the "pathways" concept and whether this would constitute a core curriculum. The answer was that this would not be a core but instead a large number of pathways with choices for students. The question was also asked if it was necessary to change what we do or just do what we do better. Ms. Sprague replied that some changes necessarily would occur as a result of this process, but for many areas we will indeed expand on doing things better. Senator McLauchlan asked if there were students included on these committees with the answer in the affirmative. Senator Laura Blake Jones, student life, asked if there were differences between the pathways and the Freshman Interest Groups. The response was they are very similar and the pathways were patterned after the interest groups. The idea is to have intense experiences to start off students, then have such experiences connected to other classes. Senator Blake Jones also noted that there is a committee working on retention as well as recruitment, and that they have been active.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

NEW BUSINESS

 
• 1. To reaffirm the critical importance of the following four recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Riverfront Research Park (RRP) Review Committee (October, 1998):
 
• (a) that no building be sited in the Riverview Sector prior to the completion of another public review of the RRP (p. 2)
• (b) that the university seriously consider increasing the density of buildings in other sectors in order to leave as open space a large area of the Riverview Sector (p. 2; also see Mike Pease conceptual design)
• (c) that building setbacks from the river be increased to 100 feet, rather than the current 35 feet (p. 2)
• (d) that President Frohnmayer should investigate trading land in the Riverview Sector with the City of Eugene, for preservation as park land in the Willamette Greenway, in exchange for the former Coke plant and other city-owned property in the vicinity of or useful to the University for RRP purposes (p. 11)
• 2. To urge President Frohnmayer to instruct the appropriate committees, groups, and individuals charged with future development of the RRP to incorporate these four Review Committee recommendations in a manner that assigns highest priority to the permanent protection of University land north of the railroad tracks as open space, recreation fields, and natural areas.

Resolution US98/99-1

A question was asked concerning what happens when regulations are changed during the course of a student's studies. Provost Moseley addressed this question and said that changes actually operate in favor of the student. Students are held to the bulletin that is in effect when they first enroll. However, they may take advantage of any new changes that may be beneficial to them, or fall back to the rules in place when they entered. He anticipated no difficulties with the electronic updates.

Senator Earl asked if there were enough curricular changes per quarter to warrant the use of electronic updating. The answer was that arts and sciences, for instance, had six pages of changes during the last quarter. Mr. Paul Simonds, anthropology, indicated that in the past, the former Curriculum Committee had processed over 300 changes during the course of the year.

After discussion ended, President Hurwit asked for a show of hands in favor of the resolution. Resolution US98/99-1 requesting the quarterly electronic postings of curricular changes in the UO Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin passed unanimously.

Motion US98/99-2

• 1. Engage institutional faculty senates in identifying qualified and willing candidates for the position. Have each institution forward its nominations to a Nominating Committee their IFS representatives by January 15, 1999.
• 2. A Nominating Committee, consisting of faculty from the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, Association of Oregon Faculties Board, and other faculty leadership groups, will select no more than three names to submit to the governor.
• 3. These names will be shared with each senate and other groups for endorsement prior to submission to the governor.
• 4. The finalists' applications will be sent to the governor.