Minutes of the University Senate December 1, 1999
Present:L. Alpert, B. Altmann, E. Campbell,
S. Clark, S. Cohen, L. Dann, R. Davis, M. Epstein, C. Gary, P. Gilkey,
J. Gray, J. Grzybowski, E. Housworth, B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, R. Kellett,
S. Kohl, C. Lachman, E. Luks, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, P. Mills, R. Moore,
M. Nippold, M. Paris, C. Phillips, L. Robare, D. Sanchez, N. Savage, A.
Schneider, J. Schombert, P. Southwell, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Weiner,
T. Wheeler
Excused: C. Brokaw,
J. Earl, K. Helphand, M. Hibbard, D. Levi, D. Merskin, G. Moreno
Absent: D. Conley, J.
Dawson, S. Kolwitz, E. Pfeiffer, J. Terborg
CALL TO ORDER: Senate President Peter Gilkey
called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:07 p.m.
in 123 Pacific.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Minutes of the November
10, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
President Gilkey drew the senators attention to a timeline for upcoming
discussions concerning the budget: a January 10, 2000 broadcast message
and distribution of a White Paper from the Senate Budget Committee, a budget
briefing for the senate on January 12th, the Town Hall meeting
sponsored jointly by the senate and AAUP, a faculty survey conducted early
in winter term, a policy determination in March, and knowledge of faculty
salary adjustments for fall 2000.The chair noted that the senate would
meet in 177 Lawrence during winter term. Further, several notices of motion
have been received: from the Distinguished Service Award Committee regarding
an honorary degree recommendation; from Senator Jereme Grzybowski, ASUO,
concerning changes to internship add/drop deadlines; from Senator Jane
Gray, biology, regarding legal advocacy for the faculty; and from Mr. Jim
Long, chair of the Undergraduate Council, regarding four-credit group satisfying
courses. President Gilkey reported that, in consultation with Senator Gray,
he has appointed an ad hoc committee to provide some background information
concerning the ramifications of Senator grayís motion. Lastly, the president
noted the secretaryís change of phone number (6-3028) and office location
(academic affairs).
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Riverfront Research Park update.President
Gilkey introduced Vice Provost for Research Tom Dyke to provide an update
on the Riverfront Research Park (RRP). Vice provost Dyke reviewed goals
of the research park and a diagram of land parcels included in RRP.He indicated
that there are no current plans for development in the Riverview sector,
but that development is continuing in the Millrace and Silva sectors.The
vice provost noted the positive comments of a recent RRP Review Committee
reporting that RRP compares favorably with most US research parks, which
typically have a 10-15 year gestation period.The current status of development
of Phase I shows 3 buildings completed and 1 vacant in the Silva sector;
26% of the developed park land is built out; tenants include approximately
300 employees whose average salary and benefits are about $50,000 with
a payroll in excess of $15 million; and approximately 330 students have
been employed during the past 6 years.Vice provost Dyke reviewed the RRPís
budget of income and expenditures and noted that for a relatively modest
investment, the return benefits to the university, faculty, and staff indicate
the RRP has been a good investment.
Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, began a brief
discussion period by asking about the senate resolution last year not to
build in the greenway section near the railroad tracks, and wondering if
there had been any progress toward purchasing other land.Vice provost Dyke
responded that the senate motion is being considered seriously, that they
are looking for land, but currently there are no large land parcel funds
available for acquiring land.Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, reiterated
the campus and city support for the no growth north of the railroad tracks
resolution and asked what the justification would be for ever building
there.Again, vice provost Dyke pointed to the benefits noted earlier and
acknowledged that not everyone agrees with the expansion areas; other options
are being actively pursued.Senator Maram Epstein, East Asian languages
and literature, questioned whether the RRP tenants who supply jobs meet
the mission statement of the university, to which the vice provost replied
that the RRPís development affords opportunity for application of knowledge.Ending
the discussion, Senator McLauchlan asked what the faculty mechanism is
for RRP oversight.Vice provost Dyke said that research developments can
be licensed through the technology office and that faculty were represented
on the RRP Advisory Committee and RRP Review Committee
Statement on faculty salaries and governance
issues. Senator Suzanne Clark, English, was recognized to read a statement
reinforcing the important role of faculty involvement via our governance
structures during the upcoming deliberations concerning faculty salaries.She
stated that major planning and decision making about salary issues ought
to come to the senate. (The
full
text is available) President Gilkey noted that the Senate Budget Committee
was heavily involved in the salary issue; it is working closely with the
administration, and would be reporting to the senate in January.
NEW BUSINESS
Fall Term Preliminary Curriculum Report. Mr. Paul Engelking,
chair of the Committee on Courses, asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the previously distributed Fall Term Preliminary Curriculum
Report.Hearing none, President Gilkey asked for the senateís acceptance
of the report, which passed unanimously.
Resolution concerning health benefits under PEBB.Senator
Chris Phillips, mathematics, presented the following resolution concerning
health benefits under PEBB (the
full
text is available)
Resolved, That the Senate of the University of Oregon approve
a petition to request that the Board of the Oregon University System work
with due haste to develop and implement a plan to separate faculty health
care benefits from PEBB control by developing a system of benefits governance
that is more responsive to faculty concerns and more cost effective in
meeting faculty health care needs.
IFS representative Paul Simonds, anthropology,
reported that there is no legal way faculty can have a separate benefits
program not available to all members of PEBB within the PEBB plan.The options
are either to move out of PEBB as an entirely separate unit, or stay in
PEBB and convince the PEBB board to include benefits of particular interest
to higher education personnel as options for the entire PEBB membership.He
indicated an intention to leave PEBB must be declared by OUS by December
30, 1999 and enacted by March 30, 2000.
Speaking in support of his
resolution, Senator Phillips highlighted several issues of concern with
the PEBB system, such as the intention to reduce ìopt outî amounts, continued
movement in a tiered system, and the subsidizing (in effect) of HMOs.Senator
Larry Dann, business, asked about the benefits of staying in PEBB.Senior
vice provost Lorraine Davis noted that the governor, who has been a champion
of higher education, is a chief proponent of unifying all public employees
under one benefits system.Additionally, as a smaller group than PEBB, the
rates are unknown at this point and start up cost is estimated at $125-135
million.With no further discussion, the resolution was put to a vote
and passed unanimously.
Amendments to the Student Conduct Code preamble
and jurisdiction: Motion US 99/00-3. Ms. Lisa Freinkel, English, asked
that a motion concerning proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code (SCC)
preamble and jurisdiction she had forwarded to President Gilkey be withdrawn
at this time.She explained there was a perception that the SCC was extending
its jurisdiction and was punitive in nature.Events such as last springís
sit-in concerning diversity issues in part prompted a new focus of SCC
revision: to clarify and affirm the educational function of the SCC, to
address issues affecting the health and safety of the university community,
and the importance of studentsí privacy. Ms. Freinkel noted that Ms. Anne
Leavitt, associate vice president for student affairs and dean of students,
would oversee administrative issues and work the SCC Committee on code
revisions.
Ad Hoc Committee on Committee Reporting Structure.
Senator
Tublitz updated the senators with the work completed so far by the ad hoc
committee that is investigating current committee structures and reporting
lines (the full
text is available). This work continues the senateís attempt to streamline
and increase functionality of shared governance through committees, councils,
and boards. The committee identified three fundamental principles that
form the foundation for shared governance at the university and which predicated
the committeeís recommendations. These principles are:
-
Shared governance at the University of Oregon includes all segments
of the university community. A founding principle of the University
of Oregon is that of shared governance. Although the University was originally
described in the 1876 Charter as being governed by the President and faculty,
shared governance has evolved in this century to include all constituent
groups within the University community. The underlying assumption is that
all voices within the community are significant and each plays a role in
campus-wide decisions.
-
The University Senate is the primary deliberative body at the University
of Oregon. The current framework of shared governance as set forth
by the University Assembly in May 1995 designates the University Senate
as the sole governing body of the University in all matters of shared governance.
As such, it is the central venue for public discussion and official deliberation
on University issues. Since its reformulation in 1995, it has worked closely
with the Administration and has assumed an increasingly significant role
in many campus decisions.
Regular communication and consultation among
all constituent groups is an essential hallmark of shared governance. A
fundamental principle of shared governance is the agreement that decisions
of community-wide importance be implemented through wide consultation with
all segments of the community. By necessity, this requires the formation
of small groups of community members to deliberate on specific issues and
make recommendations for action.These groups, often called committees,
councils, or boards, must communicate and consult regularly with both the
University Senate and the Administration to ensure the proper functioning
of the University. A welcomed by-product is the enhancement of collegiality
and respect across campus. Both official reporting and informal communication
will take various forms, depending upon the specific charge of each body
and its level of confidentiality.
Senator Tublitz explained that the current committee
categories:
faculty, administrative, externally required
are incongruent with these basic principles, thus
the committee recommends changing the categories to:
(a) University Standing Committees, which are
established by and report to the University Senate;
(b) Administrative Advisory Groups, which are
formed by administrators in consultation with the senate; and
(c) Externally Mandated Boards, which are required
under state or federal law, formed by the administration in consultation
with the senate, report to the administration, and consult with the senate
on issues of campus-wide importance.
Using the three principles as a foundation, the
committee next plans to evaluate all campus committees and, through consultation
with current committee chairs and administrators, make recommendations
for re-structuring and placement within the newly defined categories. A
motion from the floor in support of the committeeís recommendations passed
by hand vote.
Other business.Senator McLaughlan gave
notice of motion regarding distribution of salary increases he intends
to present at the January senate meeting. The senator remarked that cost
of living salary increases should be considered before merit increases.
(the
full
text is available). Lastly, Mr. Richard Sundt, art history, read a statement
concerning the recently announced expansion of Autzen Stadium and its relevance
to the educational mission of the university. Mr. Sundt suggests that the
money spent on the stadium expansion and in subsidies for non-revenue sports
are signs indicating that the role of college athletics at Oregon and throughout
the country is in need of deep and fundamental reformation. Acknowledging
that this is not a task the university can take on independently of other
universities, he nevertheless asks President Frohnmayer to look closely
at our educational and funding priorities play a leadership role in diverting
monies now allocated to athletics back to the educational mission of the
university. (the
full
text is available).
ADJOURNMENT
With no other business, the meeting was adjourned
at 5:13 p.m. Gwen Steigelman Secretary