Also, there will be a forum on post-tenure review co-sponsored by the senate and the campus chapter of the AAUP held on February 3, 1999 in Room 100 Willamette from 3:00-5:00 p.m. Senators were urged to attend. President Hurwit strongly encouraged everyone to raise any issues and concerns they may have and contact him with these issues. Senators were reminded to keep their constituents informed of things that are happening in the senate and to make an extra effort to contact departments who do not have a representative from their department in the senate to inform them of these meetings as well as other issues.
As part of the continuing effort to stay abreast of the Process for Change implementation phase, President Hurwit has asked Ms. Karen Sprague, biology, to once again update the senators on proposed changes in by the undergraduate education task force. Also invited are Mr. Tom Dyke, research task force, and Dean Marian Friestad, graduate education task force, to talk about activities in their respective areas.
President Hurwit reported that he has appointed a five member Ad Hoc Committee on Decennial Program Review. The committee is charged with reviewing, assessing, and critiquing the nature, procedures and impact of the program review process. He has asked them to report on their findings during spring term 1999. The president also reported two resignations from the Senate Executive Committee. ASUO student senators Selena Brewington and Elliot Dale have resigned to pursue other academic goals. The president was pleased to announce that Senators Jennifer Luck and Michael Olson, ASUO will serve in their place.
Senator Michael Olson, who also serves as the ASUO student senate president, made a cordial invitation to all university senators to visit the student senate meetings. They are held every Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. in the EMU Board room. He also informed the senate that he would present a notice of motion at the next meeting regarding the extension of the add/drop time periods for classes. Senator Jereme Grzybowski, ASUO, also stated he would present a notice of motion regarding student control of the student incidental fees. [These last two notices of motions, though technically out of order during announcements portion of the agenda, are recognized by the president and secretary as due notice under New Business.]
Remarks by Provost John Moseley regarding budget issues. Provost Moseley gave the senate an update on the internal process for allocation of funds. The whole funding process is undergoing major changes and the bottom line is that this will be more favorable for the university than the previous BAS (Budget Allocation System) model. In anticipation, he has been working with the deans and an advisory committee to come up with a budget model for UO that will reflect the principles of the new budget model.
The provost began with a brief explanation of the old BAS model that was, essentially, an institution-centered model. It assumed all costs relative to cost basis, that is, it rolled up costs on an annual basis to the continuing service model. The budget was either increased or decreased based on the whims of the legislature. This model, based data from the 1970s, was begun in 1984 and continued through this year using the same antiquated and complex allocation formulas with some annual increases. Higher education has changed dramatically during this time periods, but the budget model did not.
The new budget model resulting from the governor's task force on higher education is characterized as a student-centered model. Provost Moseley stated that currently all K-12 schools and community colleges operate this way and receive their funding based on a per capita basis on number of students. K-12 and the community colleges have been more successful in maintaining and increasing their general funds under this model. In the new model, budget money is no longer "pooled" then distributed to campuses. Rather, it will stay on the campus where the tuition is generated.
The provost indicated that beginning on July 1, 1999 the university will be allowed to keep all student tuition monies. Although it will not immediately result in large increases in total budget, by next year it will represent $3.5 to $4 million additional dollars in the budget. The model will use a 12-factor model and divides the university into lower division, upper division, and masters and Ph.Ds, and into high, medium, and low cost disciplines. There are various dollar figures associated with these elements. This creates a new dynamic in the legislature because now the discussion will be on how much money will be provided to fund students.
The university needs to develop a student-centered university model that is consistent with the spirit of the new funding model. The model must recognize that our departments, schools, and colleges make long-term commitments that cannot be `whip-sawed' around from year to year.
The provost listed the following principles driving this model that were discussed at the last dean's retreat:
Provost Moseley displayed a chart showing revenue pools and the recognized costs attributed to these resources as: organizational support costs, investment funds, deficit repayments, reserve funds, and the single largest cost--academic program support. There are two sources of revenue, state tax funds that contain tuition funds from student support, and lump sum pools (resource fees and course fees). In addition, there are the education and general budget monies, which consist of all monies that go toward supporting the educational mission of the institution. Two-thirds of total resources are in academic support. Resources are divided into two major areasóorganizational support and academic program support.
The historical trends of unrestricted expenditures show there has been
no major shift in categories from 1990-91 and 1997-98. Instruction monies
are down slightly while academic support is up slightly. Provost Moseley
addressed the question of how it appeared that administrative support had
increased so much. One of the primary reasons was that computer support
had been categorized as academic support and was later changed to administrative
support so it appeared that this shifting caused a great increase in administrative
costs.
The provost's expectation from this legislative session is that the university will receive additional funds to cover the current running rate, which is significantly higher than the current service level as defined by the legislature. Zero-based budgeting calls for an enrollment reserve that is equal to tuition plus state revenue for at least 275 students. The proposed initial allocation to the university is evaluated against current funding levels. For this year, the university has an $8 million dollar deficit. There are reserves to cover it for this year but the university will need funding from state general funds to cover it for the upcoming biennium. This is the item that needs to be resolved. At current enrollment, tuition could generate several million dollars in new funds. The new budget model provides uncertainty in one direction because the total enrollment increase is not known. On the other hand, it provides a certainty because we know that the university will continue to serve students and receive funding for that mission. The provost finished his remarks by expressing his belief that the largest opportunity for the university now is through increasing enrollment that will bring additional tuition and state general funds.
Senator Olson noted that some departments in the social sciences are concerned with cutbacks such as those in political science. If money follows the students, how will programs such as this one develop? Provost Moseley did not address the specific situation in the political science department, but responded that the fact is the university has been underfunded and has had to make cutbacks. The incentive in the new budget model will be to put funds and faculty where the students are. The dynamics of the model will drive educational resources to where they are needed.
Senator Mary-Lyon Dolezal, art history, asked if this would be similar to the SCH (student credit hour) model and if this model which fostered competition for funds among various departments and programs. The provost replied that student credit hours would drive the base budget. The university will look at comparative data from peer institutions, in part, to help make decisions on funding. The model is designed to provide resources where students' needs are.
Senator Paul Simonds, IFS representative, asked how the talk of tax cuts would affect higher education. The response was that the Republican state senate has come out in favor of a larger number of dollars for higher education. The Republicans and Democrats are not fighting over this issue. But the House is an "unknown" and it is not clear where they stand on higher education. It is far too early to tell.
Senator Wayne Westling, law, posed the final question in the discussion. Referring to the chart showing sources of funding, he asked what the percentages were for funding? The provost said that of the three sources of funding, tuition is the largest share. Of the education and general budget funds, the division is 50/50, and fees are approximately 5% of the total. For other institutions there are more state general funds than there are tuition funds because of relatively large non-resident populations.
RESOLVED, that the University Senate hereby urges President Frohnmayer to exclude the University-owned lands in the River View and Gateway Sectors from any future commercial development and to designate these lands for open space, recreational fields and natural areas.
Senator Tublitz spoke to this resolution by stating that it was built upon Resolution US98/99-3 concerning recommendations for use of areas in the Riverfront Research Park adopted during the December senate meeting. The previous resolution asked President Frohnmayer to set aside the River View parcel and build in the Gateway Sector. This resolution goes one step further and requests that there be no future building on either land parcel. Senator Tublitz noted that there is, on a federal level, a mandate to protect riparian zones. The Willamette River has been selected for protection as a riparian zone. Further, the Willamette Greenway is the only green corridor in any city in the U.S.; we must protect and maintain movement of organisms within that corridor. City support has been shown by increased funding for green corridors. Senator Tublitz believes personally that it is an important and valuable area to protect, and is an area for solace and natural beauty. He presented a list of 129 full-time faculty in support of this resolution representing approximately 20% of the faculty at the university.
Senator Tublitz went on to say that he was not arguing against the research park, but believes the research park can expand without impacting the riverfront by using other existing property. Other areas that possibly could be considered include the agripac, the old hog fuel site, the bottling plant site and the parking lot and storage yard. A little further away, but which might also be considered, are the ODOT building and the car dealership. He suggested that this decision is not just an internal one and UO must be cognizant of the community impact of any decision.
Having polled organizations outside the university, Senator Tublitz listed 16 of 19 community organizations that were in support of the as well four elected officials (Peter Sorenson, Kitty Piercy, Betty Taylor, and Ron Wyden). In his conversation with US Senator Ron Wyden, the senator indicated that this could become a national model with an environmental area and an active research park adjacent to it. Lastly, Senator Tublitz voiced the concern that many land use decisions are regretted later on; you can build a research park anywhere but once you destroy the riverfront, you destroy it forever.
Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, spoke in enthusiastic support of this resolution as he did the previous resolution that he co-sponsored. He said this is an advisory resolution that sends a message that the university administration should do everything possible to avoid development of the greenway, especially if there are other options. He further clarified that the previous resolution adopted last month supported the main points of the Riverview Research Park Review Committee regarding development in the Gateway Parcel and the Riverview parcel set-aside. Senator David Cohen, physics, also spoke in support of the resolution. The question was called. Resolution US98/99-4 resolving to exclude the River View and Gateway parcels of land in the RRP from future commercial development carried by voice vote.
Moved that the senate adopt and endorse the report of the senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review.
Ms. Lorraine Davis, vice provost for academic affairs, indicated that the university has had a post tenure review policy since 1977. The changes in post-tenure review were proposed by the FAC last spring were driven by recommendations from the accreditation review committee calling for a third year post tenure review rather than the current five year review. A follow-up report indicating the recommended changes is due by the end of the academic year. OAR (Oregon Administrative Rules) and IMD (Internal Management Directives) govern this process. The state board's IMD calls for direct link to remuneration with faculty performance.
Ms. Melinda Grier, university general counsel, advised the Senate that the requirements that were not addressed in this report were a statement of the actual objectives. She also stated that the criteria for post tenure review must be institutionalized and not departmentalized. The Board of Higher Education is adamant about a direct link between post tenure review and outstanding performance. Further, indicated that there must be a descriptive plan to deal with punitive measures. Ms. Grier stated that if the Ad Hoc Committee's report were recommended as a policy at this point, she would be unable to recommend to the board as is. President Hurwit interjected that the Ad Hoc report is an advisory statement and must be reorganized as a policy statement to address the issues and problems mentioned.
Senator James Earl, English, asked if the senate had only an advisory role for the policy or did the senate have more substantial authority. Ms. Davis responded that the report should be formulated to read as a policy statement that would come back to the senate for any recommendations and approval as policy. It is then submitted to President Frohnmayer who can promulgate it as policy. Mr. Simonds stated that the faculty and the president do have authority in these areas. Senator Michael Hibbard, PPM, cautioned that if the senate does not come up with an actual policy, then President Frohnmayer will. At this point, Vice President Gilkey reminded everyone again of the public forum on this topic scheduled for February 3, 1999 and urged everyone to attend.
President Hurwit stated that when the FAC developed its post tenure review policy proposal last spring, it created controversy because it was read as too punitive in tone. However, the FAC proposal, in fact, stated what has been post tenure review policy for many years -- that faculty are subject to disciplinary action. The Ad Hoc committee report has a more tolerable tone that focuses on faculty development and helping faculty to improve. He suggested there needs to be a melding of some of the language of the FAC report with the spirit and tone of the Ad Hoc Committee report. President Hurwit indicated that the post-tenure review discussions will continue in February and March if necessary in order that all viewpoints can be heard and that a policy meeting all requirements can be successfully crafted
Senator Hibbard stated that all senators should check with their constituencies and come to the meeting on February 3rd with appropriate input. Provost Moseley advised that the senate must be sensitive to the fact that whatever policy results, it will go before the board when the legislature is in session. He wants to avoid any linking of tenure issues with this policy when this is presented before the state board. There is a double credibility issue that must be dealt in which the senate must come up with an document that is acceptable to President Frohnmayer and that is acceptable to the board. He also indicated that we need to put a positive face on post-tenure review policy.
Senator Suzanne Clark, English, remarked that this is an extremely controversial subject with all constituencies. Mr. Simonds reported that Ms. Shirley Clark, OUS vice chancellor for academic affairs, was present at the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate meeting when post tenure review was discussed. She was very interested in the development of the rewards part of post tenure review as well as the punitive part.
Senator McLauchlan addressed the issue of remuneration linked to Post tenure review and stated that Oregon salaries fell behind others at senior level. He stated faculty should have a positive attitude towards this review as it could move Oregon salaries toward those of other comparable universities. Paul In a circular way, it should increase the remuneration for faculty. President Hurwit commented that the FAC proposed post tenure review policy included salary increases for good performance.
Senator Dolezal remarked that she is concerned post tenure review may have a negative and demoralizing effect. Salaries are already inequitable and some faculty will never be able to be on an even level with others no matter what their performance. Thus, post tenure review might well be considered punitive in such cases. Mr. Engelking stated he participated in developing both the FAC proposal and the Ad Hoc Committee report. He believes the proposal from the FAC is still viable. The Ad Hoc Committee attempted to emphasize that the university already has merit review and receives its merit money from the legislative process. The existing merit review and developmental reviews need to be presented together as a whole package.
Lastly, Senator Earl stated that everyone should keep in mind that there are many faculty concerns. He is skeptical because he is in a department where this proposal doubles the number of reviews the department will have to do. There is a terrible irregularity in policy implementation from department to department. His constituency would like other departments to carry out reviews as called for in current policy.