Present: Baldwin, Bjerre, Boush, Brewington,
Brokaw, Burkhart, Clark, Cohen, Conley, Dale, Dann, Davis, DeGidio, Dolezal,
Earl Eisert, Foster, Grzybowski, Helphand, Hurwit, Kintz, Lachman, Larson,
Leahy, Levi, Luck, Luks, McLauchlan, Meeks-Wagner, Merskin, Moore, Moreno,
Olson, Paynter, Schombert, Singell, Southwell, Tublitz, Upshaw, Vakareliyska,
Whitlock, Wood
Excused: Gilkey, Hibbard, Jenkins, Jones,
Leahy, Terborg, Westling Absent: Eisert, Whitlock
Senate President Jeffrey Hurwit called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:10 p.m. in room 177 Lawrence.
With no additions or corrections, the minutes stood approved as distributed. INTRODUCTIONS As this was the first senate meeting of the academic year, President Hurwit introduced the other officers of the senate (P.Gilkey, vice president and G. Steigelman, secretary), the new student representatives (S. Brewington, E. Dale, J. Grzybowski, J. Luck, and M. Olson), members of the senate executive committee (senate officers, S. Brewington, P. Burkhart, D. Boush, E. Dale, L. Kintz, N. Tublitz, and W. Westling), and the parliamentarian (P. Simonds). Additionally, President Hurwit reminded the senate that we have three representatives to the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. He called for nominations to be made and sent to the secretary prior to the November senate meeting when the elections will be held.
Remarks from University Senate President Jeffrey Hurwit. President Hurwit spoke briefly to welcomed everyone to the senate, especially the newly elected members. He noted that with the restructuring of faculty governance several years ago, the senate is now the primary deliberative faculty body on the campus and has played a central role in important discussions and decision-making over the past few years. As elected representatives, it is each senator's responsibility to bring forward and debate issues of concern to faculty, staff, and students. President Hurwit implored the senators to regularly consult with their constituencies to determine what issues need to be addressed. In addition to its charge to oversee matters of curriculum and general education, the senate through various resolutions, discussions, and debates represents the collective voice of the faculty, staff, and students.
The coming year will be an important one in the history of the university primarily because we begin implementing many of the recommendations made by various committees in the Process for Change. President Hurwit remarked that there is much we can do to improve the university and we have the potential for fundamental as well as cosmetic change. The senate will monitor the implementation phase carefully, debating and approving curriculum as appropriate. In doing so, the president stated his hope that the senate will be diligent in protecting and enhancing the university's traditional mission in the liberal arts and sciences as well as its role as a major research university. Further, it will be the senate's responsibility to ensure that students are offered a coherent, stable curriculum as well as exposure to the kinds of knowledge and critical experiences required to navigate in a rapidly changing world. The continued need to provide faculty the support and freedom necessary to conduct research that broadens our horizons must be emphasized so that our students' benefit.
Implementation of the Process for Change is one of many important issues that will come before the senate during the year. Other upcoming issues include a report from the senate Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review due in December, a report from an ad hoc committee on the decennial review process, and potential changes in benefits with the merger of two employee benefits boards. President Hurwit closed his remarks stating that although the course of senate issues and debates throughout the year may be difficult to determine and predict, it is part of what makes serving in the senate so interesting.
Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer. President Frohnmayer opened his remarks by reminding the senators of the original legislative charter of the university. Somewhat unique in its time, the charter said that the president and the professors shall constitute the faculty and as such shall have responsibility for the curriculum and discipline of the students in the university. He emphasized that the university has a long and treasured history of the president and the faculty working together to determine a strong and sound education for the students, both in overseeing the curriculum and attending to the welfare of the student body. The elected Faculty Advisory Council is a direct outcome of the desire of the president and the faculty to consult with each other in formulating the direction of the university.
President Frohnmayer then shared several agenda items he will be addressing this academic year. The first item is to see the new funding model through the budgeting and state legislative process. This task has become more difficult with the downswing in the Asian economy, which affects Oregon?s economy as well as the number of Asian students attending the university. The president indicated he is locked into a ?no losers? philosophy with the presidents of the other six OUS institutions and will work toward making a more compelling case that the tens of thousands of dollars lost in the aftermath of Measure 5 need to be restored.
A second agenda item concerns our internal Process for Change. The president remarked that simply asking the legislature for more money for the same things is not nearly so compelling as asking them to reinvest to fundamentally recharge the system of undergraduate instruction, graduate education and research, and the transmission of new knowledge. The thrust of the process is to revitalized everything that we do the president wants to assure that we succeed in this process during a time which is instrumentally tied to our potential for receiving a favorable legislative review. President Frohnmayer also mentioned the importance of the post tenure review item on the senate?s agenda for later in fall and winter terms and indicated he had no doubt that the senate would do a good job in discussing and debating that issue. Further, he noted that we also may be asked to take a hard look at our student conduct codes adjudication procedures, what is sanctioned and why to be certain that we comply with state and federal law. The president concluded his remarks saying that we had a lot of work to do together this year, especially in the face of implementing the new funding model. He opined that the new model presents an opportunity for us to make the university one of the nation?s crown jewels: a research university that is large enough to be comprehensive, and small enough to get your arms around.
Remarks from Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley opened his remarks saying he believed there will be two things that define the success of the university this year: first, our success with the legislature in obtaining an adequate funding level, and second, determining what aspects of the process for change will get first attention as the anticipated more robust budget is put into place. It is thus imperative that the senate stay invested in this process. The provost quickly reviewed the earlier phases of the Process for Change saying that after the issues and solution identifying phases accomplished last year, we are now deciding which ideas will be implemented. Implementation teams have been set up based on the general themes from the solution team document developed last May. The teams have been asked to look at the solution document and help the university come to some decisions about the best of those ideas with a balance between how they will improve the quality of education in the university as well as improve our efficiency and ability to deliver that education to increasing numbers of students.
The first group to get started is the Task Force on the Transformation of Undergraduate Education, chaired by Ms. Karen Sprague, biology. The task force, in turn, is divided into four implementation teams focusing on: lower division general education, upper division general education, recruitment and retention, and advising. (Information on the progress of these groups is available on the university?s home web page link, titled Process for Change.) Another implementation team in the area of extended studies is underway, headed by Vice Provost Lorraine Davis. The term "extended studies" includes all off-campus education as well as summer session. Under the new budget funding model, credits offered during the summer will be treated (as far as funding is concerned) the same as courses offered during the regular academic year. Currently, summer session is self-supporting. Thus the motivation to expand summer session and other types of credit courses offered off-campus is increased that is, they will be state supported rather than self-supported. Other implementation teams are being formed under a task force for research and graduate education.
Provost Moseley urged everyone to use the relevant web pages to keep up with the activities of these implementation teams and to make comments and suggestions directly to the chairs of the various groups. Further, he provided copies of two documents, one a fall 1998 updating of the May solution team report, the other a compilation of remarks from department heads after their October retreat with members of Process for Change implementation teams. The provost concluded his remarks by reminding the senators of the key reasons for undertaking this phase of the Process for Change: to set priorities of things we may want to change regardless of our funding, and to determine the direction we want to go if more funding is forthcoming. A brief question and answer period followed. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, asked how the issues of increasing the quality of students and decreasing the class size are addressed in Process for Change. The provost answered by saying that that question cuts across several areas. The overall improvement in the quality of the curriculum attracts better students, as does improved recruitment and retention strategies. Greater flexibility in financial aid packages also will help. Smaller class size will need to be balanced in other ways against the costs of having smaller classes.
Senator David Conley, education, commented that there may be some misconceptions concerning the scope of change envisioned; that is, a tension has developed between those who want to improve versus those who want to reconceptualize curriculum. Provost Moseley replied that the intent of the process is to seize this opportunity to make some transformational changes to move the university to a higher level in the quality of the students that are attracted here and in the quality of the education that is provided. Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, noted the student government?s interest in developing diversity and a sense of community for minority students, primarily through cultural unions, and asked if there is any direction toward increasing this funding. The provost responded that two large commitments have been made already in the development of the Judaic Studies Program and the Ethnic Studies Program. Both of these programs are funded through academic affairs. Additionally, a staff person has been hired to help with programming in the various student unions. Certainly, there is a willingness to put funding into programs that will increase diversity.
Senator Selena Brewington, ASUO, asked for clarification concerning whether a new committee rather than the current Educational Technology Committee will address the technology issue noted in the solution document. The provost answered that the university has done a very good job of utilizing technology, making it available as a teaching tool and a communications tool. The intention is to continue to move in this direction; it has not been determined yet whether a new committee is necessary to maintain this progress. Switching to another topic, Senator Brewington asked how financial aid qualification would be affected by the new funding model for summer session. Provost Moseley indicated that this is a concern of his because current financial aid regulations are not set up to recognize a year round calendar. It likely will require some changes at the federal level to provide the same level of financial aid on a 12-month basis as is now done on a regular academic year. Senate President Hurwit asked for greater clarification of the relationship between the implementation teams and relevant standing committees of the senate, such as the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils, and the Committee on Courses related to the envisioned upcoming changes in the curriculum. Provost Moseley affirmed that suggested changes would be processed through the senate as usual. He hoped, however, that the process could be facilitated as much as possible and that we would be flexible in the way in which we consider the suggested changes that emerge in order that they may be in place in a timely manner.
Remarks from Institutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Paul Simonds. IFS representative Simonds reported on the October 2-3rd meeting of the IFS, noting that there was an especially large number of representatives from various state agencies invited to the meeting. A considerable amount of time was spent discussing strategies for moving the OUS budget through the legislature. The IFS was somewhat optimistic about the prospects for increased expenditures for higher education. The time is opportune for faculty members to call their legislators and tell them your concerns about higher education. Finally, the IFS is developing a plan to nominate an OUS faculty member for appointment by the governor to the State Board of Higher Education.
Library Committee. Ms. Deborah Carver, library system, reported on the status of the ORBIS system implemented last year. Approximately 5 million volumes comprise the holdings of the 14-member consortium. The library benefits in part by receiving discounts on its purchases, especially databases and journals, through the consortium. Oregon State University is nearly ready to join the group, which will greatly enhance the holdings. Portland State University and Oregon Health Sciences University have made similar commitments. Some initial concerns were the negative flow of materials from our library with very little in return in the first year we lent out about 2,000 books for 1,000 borrowed. After consultation, the system was changed so that the UO would be the last option for the borrower; if anybody else in the consortium has the book, it is lent from there first. Even so, the UO is often the only library with a particular title. Many of these concerns will be addressed and partially abated with the impending addition of OSU, PSU, and OHSU. In the past we have been both the heaviest loaner and heaviest borrower in the system. This summer, we borrower more than we lent out. Another concern involves the impact on ?specialty? libraries and the limited number of books available only at our library, which are necessary for teaching certain classes. In these cases, decisions have been made not to lend out those titles. The intent is to make certain we attend to our local needs first. Another advantage to the ORBIS system, however, is increased access to books. It is easier to get a book from Willamette University, for example, than to recall it from another student using the same book on our campus. In addition to the financial purchasing advantages previously mentioned, politically the UO has been recognized as a leader in collaborative education.
In a brief question and answer period, Ms. Carver noted that the UO currently is looking into including journals as well as books in the system. Copyright issues need to be addressed if photocopying is done. It is likely we will wait until the other larger schools join the consortium before doing this, however. Some real saving might be realized by reducing the large amount of duplication that presently exists among UO, OSU, PSU, and OHSU, for example. At some point there is a level of materials that are infrequently used that would make it worthwhile to have only one library purchase and the others borrow. For high volume titles, that would be impractical and we would continue to make those purchases. Inflation and ever-increasing prices have already pushed us in the direction of having to make choices among titles. Lastly, the issue of using the library as a tool for faculty recruitment may be partially compromised. The availability of the UO library to faculty members on the other consortium member campuses may diminish the attractiveness of joining the UO faculty in part because of the quality of our library.
Ad Hoc Riverfront Research Park (RRP) Review Committee Report. Ms. Marian Smith, music, reported that the review committee appointed by President Frohnmayer last spring had completed its work and a copy of the report would be made available to the senators and on the web page (see http://president.uoregon.edu/FinalReport.html). Highlights from the report included recommendations to continue development of the RRP, to increase the voluntary ?set-back? distance of future buildings from the river bank, to increase the density of future buildings, and to undertake a general review before building near the soccer field location north of the railroad tracks. More information will be available after President Frohnmayer has an opportunity to review the report.
Public Employees Benefit Board meeting report. Senator Paula Burkhart, research and graduate education, reported on progress toward combining state employee benefits boards (SEBB and BUBB) and potential changes in the level of benefits affecting higher education employees. There was some concern among higher education officials that benefits might be reduced from their current levels, that options may be reduced, or that cash back may be lost or reduced. No decisions had been finalized at the September meeting; thus it was impossible at this point to know just what the benefits package might look like for the year 2000. PEBB was meeting again in mid October, but there was no sense of whether that meeting would produce a final plan. It was recommended that faculty use the survey enclosed with the open enrollment materials to tell PEBB administrators what was liked as well as disliked about the current benefits plan. Ms. Helen Stoop, human resources, will keep faculty member informed about benefits as information becomes available. Notice of Resolution Quarterly updates of curricular changes to the UO Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin. The secretary was notified that the Undergraduate Council, chaired by Mr. Jack Watson, theatre arts, intends to present a resolution at the November senate meeting requesting that the president and the provost provide for a quarterly update of curricular changes to the electronic version of the university bulletin. Curricular changes are now submitted electronically and passed by the senate on a quarterly basis, hence the more timely updating of the bulletin is reasonable to expect.
With no other business at hand, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Gwen Steigelman Secretary
Senate Secretary Gwen Steigelman email: gwens@oregon.uoregon.edu
Senate President Jeff Hurwit email: jhurwit@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Last changed 11 November 1998