Present: B. Altmann, E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, R.
Davis, J. Dawson , J. Earl, P. Gilkey, J. Grzybowski, M. Hibbard, E. Housworth,
B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, R. Kellett, C. Lachman, D. Levi, E. Luks, G.
McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Paris, C. Phillips,
L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, P. Southwell, F. Tepfer, J. Terborg,
N. Tublitz , M. Weiner, T. Wheeler
Excused: C. Brokaw, L. Dann, M. Epstein, M. Nippold
Absent: L. Alpert, D. Conley, M. Dixon, C. Gary, W. Gatimu, K. Helphand, S. Kohl, S. Kolwitz, R. McGowen, A. Schultz
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Senate President Peter Gilkey at 3:06 p.m. in 177 Lawrence.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
There were two sets of minutes since the last regular senate meeting, those of the March 8th regular meeting and of the March 29th special meeting. Senator Christopher Phillips, mathematics, moved acceptance of the March 8th minutes, and hearing no additions or corrections, they were approved as distributed. Concerning the minutes of the special senate meeting of March 29th, President Gilkey recognized Mr. Brian Moore, romance languages, who added no specific corrections to the minutes, but rather asked for clarification regarding the proposed salary increases for tenure-related instructional faculty. Noting that part of the discussion at the March 29th meeting focused on the issue of whether salary increases also were intended for instructors and senior instructors, Mr. Moore asked what group was looking into the matter. President Gilkey indicated that he had directed the Senate Budget Committee to address this issue, and Mr. David Frank, Faculty Advisory Council chair, noted the item was under consideration with the FAC as well. With no further discussion, the minutes of the March 29th special senate meeting were approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Report by Mr. John Halgren, president of the UO Alumni Association. President Gilkey introduced Mr. Halgren who presented a resolution on behalf of the UO Alumni Associate expressing their sincere gratitude for the continued service and commitment by the faculty and pledging their support of the universityís efforts to retain and recognize the faculty at the UO. Mr. Halgren spoke not only of the important role faculty play in day-to-day teaching activities on campus, but also of the efforts many faculty made to work closely with the alumni association. Further, many faculty members have participated in linking alumni to the campus through the faculty lecture series in Portland, here on campus for the Eugene-Springfield area, and in Bend (full text of resolution can be found at the end of these minutes).
Thanking Mr. Halgren for the alumni associationís statement in support of the faculty, President Gilkey in turn noted that the university owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to members of the alumni association for devoting countless hours of their time and energy in support of the university, not the least of which is reflected in their impact lobbying the legislature in support of higher education in general and the UO specifically.
Brief remarks from President Gilkey. President Gilkey provided and overview of materials distributed to the senators for their perusal. He noted some of the information relates to legislative issues that may negatively impact funding for higher education which are sponsored by Mr. Bill Sizemore and urged the senators to review the information. President Gilkey indicated the May meeting agenda is very full with several motions coming before the senate including motions to award degrees at spring and summer graduations, to approve the spring report of the committee on courses, to confirm new members of the Committee on Committees, and to approve a series of changes recommended by the ad hoc committee on committee structures. In addition to the regular May meeting, President Gilkey reminded senators of the May 24th organizational meeting for carry-over and newly elected senators to elect a new vice president.
Announcements and communications from the floor. The secretary reported that the nomination process for spring faculty elections was well underway and that ballots would be arriving in mailboxes next week, due back by May 5th. She thanked members of the senate who have encouraged colleagues to stand for election and noted that all nominations are listed on the senateís web page.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS) representative Paul Simonds, anthropology, reported on the recent IFS meeting which included OUS Chancellor Joe Cox, Mr. Grattan Kerans, legislative liaison for OUS, and State Senator Lee Beyer. A primary issue under discussion was the impact the federal tax deduction initiative would have, if passed, on state agencies, specifically, higher education. Projections from the state legislative fiscal office estimates that higher education would take a $65.7 million cut before the first of the year, approximately $47.5 million in academic programs. It would require a 36% increase in tuition beginning the Winter Term to make up for this funding loss. Other cuts would occur in the next biennium. Mr. Simonds indicated that many legislators consider that higher education got its boost in funding last year and thus should not expect increased funding this legislative session. He remarked that faculty members have been effective in the summer months by speaking with legislators about higher education funding issues. Finally, Mr. Simonds noted that one of the other OUS senates has included an IFS representative on its senate executive committee to improve communication between the campus senate and the IFS. He suggest that the University Senate may want to consider a similar arrangement.
NEW BUSINESS
Noting that several of the business agenda items had attracted a number of visitors and guests to the meeting, Senate President asked for a motion to suspend the rules for discussion related specifically to Resolution US99/00-9, affirmation of community values, and US99/00-10A and US99/00-10B, dealing with the corporate licensing code of conduct. He indicated that suspension of the rules would enable him to recognize speakers who may wish to comment in addition to senators and faculty members. Senator Jereme Grzybowski, ASUO, moved to suspend the rules, which was passed by hand vote.
Resolution US99/00-9 -- UO Affirmation of Community Standards. Before the resolution for an affirmation of community values was brought to the floor for discussion, President Gilkey clarified his reasoning relative to how the statement might be used (i.e., as a UO Policy Statement), and why it is appropriate for the senate to discuss such a policy (i.e., the senate oversees student conduct and has a compelling interest in promoting conditions where freedom of speech can be practiced with both openness and civility). If the resolution passes and is promulgated by President Frohnmayer, Senate President Gilkey will forward to him suggestions received from the ASUO executive, the Student Senate, and other members of the UO community. President Gilkey further stated that because freedom of speech is central to the mission of the university and the proposed affirmation statement fosters a culture of respect to encourage free and civil exchange of viewpoints, such a resolution seems appropriate to the business of the senate. Senator Grzybowski moved the resolution to the floor for debate.
Resolution US99/00-9 -- UO Affirmation of Community Standards
Title: University of Oregon Affirmation of Community Standards
Purpose: To set forth and affirm a clear and cogent statement of common
community standards.
The University of Oregon community is dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and the development of integrity. In order to thrive and excel, this community must preserve the freedom of thought and expression of all its members. The University of Oregon has a long and illustrious history in the area of academic freedom and freedom of speech. A culture of respect that honors the rights, safety, dignity and worth of every individual is essential to preserve such freedom. We affirm our respect for the rights and well-being of all members.
We further affirm our commitment to:
Senator Grzybowski spoke to the resolution indicating that it arose
from the diversity internship project that worked throughout last summer
and was supported by both the ASUO Student Senate and ASUO Executive. He
supports the statement saying that it affirms our community values not
by limiting free speech, but by promoting dignity and respect for all viewpoints.
Further, he indicated that if the resolution passes, students will work
together with faculty, the administration, and staff at the university
to develop its implementation throughout campus. Ms. Lisa Freinkel, English,
also spoke in support of the statement noting that rather than being a
ìpledge of respectî, the proposed policy statement affirms the underlying
principles the university community values as a whole.
In response to several questions posed by Senator Phillips via email prior to the meeting, President Gilkey said it was his belief that the proposed policy statement is intended to promote a climate that allows debate on issues such as affirmative action or cultural background with the expression of viewpoints from all sides of an issue to occur without intimidation or harassment (full text of the questions can be found on the senate web page at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/dirextra/phillips11apr00.html).Mr. Scott Austin, a student visitor at the meeting, opposed the resolution on the grounds that it suppresses freedom of expression if members of the university community make statements that are bigoted or discriminatory based on what they believe. He continued that the policy statement does not reflect the thinking of all members of the community; further, by definition the community is everybody, so if the policy does not represent one person, it does not represent the community. (As an aside, President Gilkey reminded the group that policy statements at the university are not statements of universal agreement.) Senator Elizabeth Housworth, mathematics, asked how the policy statement would be enforced, to which President Gilkey replied that it was not going to be enforced, per se. If promulgated by President Frohnmayer it would simply be a statement of community values that might, for example, be included in the University of Oregon Catalog. Senator Jim Schombert, physics, speaking as chair of the Senate Rules Committee, remarked that although the committee struggled with the phrasing of the statement, they concluded that bigotry comes from ignorance and as an educational institution the UOís primary mission is to reject ignorance. Ms. Freinkel stated that the statementís key word is intimidation, believing that a free exchange of ideas in class or in any community activity does not occur if individuals feel intimidated, especially if their ideas that are not currently in the political mainstream. Mr. Austin replied that words such as bigotry and intimidation are too broadly defined. Another student agreed with Mr. Austin that people who do not espouse the majority opinion will be ridiculed and feel as if they cannot speak out.
Ms. Ann Strom, a GTF at the university, spoke in support of the resolution echoing the sentiment that it is important for everyone to feel comfortable and safe in expressing an opinion, regardless of what that opinion is. Mr. Wylie Chen, president of the ASUO, concurred with Ms. Strom saying that this resolution addresses that issue and speaks to the values that we hold. Senator Phillips, speaking against the motion, remarked that while we can encourage civility, it can not be mandated, referring in part to the tone and tenor of recent emails he had seen.
Hearing no further discussion from the floor, President Gilkey asked the secretary to take a roll call vote. Those in voting in favor of the resolution were: B. Altmann, E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, R. Davis, J. Dawson , J. Earl, J. Grzybowski, B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, R. Kellett, C. Lachman, D. Levi, E. Luks, G. McLauchlan, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Paris, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, , P. Southwell, F. Tepfer, J. Terborg, N. Tublitz , M. Weiner, T. Wheeler; those opposed were: E. Housworth and C. Phillips; D. Merskin abstained. Resolution US99/00-9 -- UO Affirmation of Community Standards passed by a vote of 28 in favor, 2 opposed, with 1 abstention. Noticing that President Frohnmayer was in attendance, Senate President Gilkey presented the resolution to the president who indicated that he will promulgate the policy statement.
Resolution US9900-10A -- Licensing Code of Conduct. The next item of business was a report from Vice President for Public Affairs and Development Duncan McDonald, chair of the presidentís ad hoc committee on the licensing Code of Conduct. Vice President McDonald reported on the work of the committee which was charged with two tasks: to develop a workable and fair licensing code of conduct that would guide our relationship with trademark licensees, and, to suggest a workable and fair verification and monitoring of working conditions of people in the manufacture and distribution of university licensed products. The committee made two recommendations to President Frohnmayer on April 4th. The result of the first task was a Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/Licensing.html). The majority of this code of conduct deals with employment standards including working hours, overtime compensation, child labor, forced labor, health and safety, non-discrimination, harassment or abuse, freedom of association, and womenís rights. Another section addresses the complexity of working with a number of subcontracted manufacturers in overseas countries and as well as dealing with the laws of other sovereign nations. In countries where law or practice conflicts with these labor standards, trademark licensees agree to consult with governmental, human rights, labor, and business organizations, and to take effective action as evaluated by the University of Oregon to achieve full compliance with each of these standards. Trademark licensees further agree to refrain from any actions that would diminish the protection of these labor standards.
The second recommendation delivered orally to President Frohnmayer at the April 4th meeting was the committeeís unanimous recommendation to join the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), to work with it to properly implement our code of conduct, and to develop a workable and fair system of monitoring compliance. Vice President Duncan noted that in addition to receiving the sum of these recommendations, President Frohnmayer personally asked each committee member for his or her rationale, in context, for these recommendations. Concerns of some committee members focused on several issues: transparency of activities, balance in representation, sources of funding, and organizational ties of existing WRC members. Notwithstanding, the committee urged the president to move forward and to work with the WRC.
During a brief question period, Senator Ron Kellett, architecture, asked how the university planned to implement the code of conduct. Vice President McDonald responded that the intent is to make the licensing Code of Conduct a permanent part of licensee contracts. Approximately a year ago notification was sent to licensees that the UO would be adopting a Code of Conduct. The vice president concluded his remarks by stating that the code is a work in progress that the UO will try to make work.
President Gilkey noted that there are two recommendations from the committee to consider, Resolution US99/00-10A concerning the Code of Conduct itself, and US99/00-10B which recommends joining the WRC. Senator Suzanne Clark, English, moved the first resolution:
Resolution US9900-10A Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct
Resolved, that the University of Oregon University Senate endorses the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Licensing Code of Conduct appointed by President Frohnmayer and requests implementation of its recommendations.
Senator Clark urged adoption and endorsement of the resolution, noting that specific elements of this code of conduct were thought about very carefully by the committee. She stated that the committee had both faculty and student representation and that student members in particular had been both articulate and impressive in their background preparation. Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, also spoke in favor of the resolution, saying that many of the provisions in the code were won by United States workers in the 1930s. In particular, the code of conduct calls attention to the freedoms we have to state ideas, take stands, and advocate views that are not enjoyed by the majority of the worldís workers. Senator McLaughlan remarked that the code represents a very positive turn toward an upward leveling of conditions and protections of workers and citizens around the world. He was pleased to see that other highly respected universities have decided to join the WRC and support this process.
President Gilkey asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none asked the secretary to call the roll for a vote on the resolution. Those voting in favor of Resolution US9900-10A ? Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct, were: B. Altmann, E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, R. Davis, J. Dawson , J. Earl, J. Grzybowski, E. Housworth, B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, R. Kellett, D. Levi, E. Luks, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Paris, C. Phillips, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, P. Southwell, F. Tepfer, J. Terborg, N. Tublitz , M. Weiner, and T. Wheeler; there were no votes in opposition and no abstentions. The result of the vote was 30 in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions. Resolution US9900-10A Trademark Licensing Code of Conduct, passes unanimously.
Resolution US9900-10BóRecommendation to join the Worker Rights Consortium. President Gilkey recognized Mr. Lynn Kahle, business, who moved the following resolution:
Resolution US9900-10B Recommendation to join the Worker Rights Consortium
The University Senate endorses the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on UO Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct that the UO join the Worker Rights Consortium for the purpose of the consortium monitoring UO licensee compliance with our Code of Conduct.
Mr. Kahle spoke to the motion saying that the committee recognized the importance of monitoring organizations and considered two organizations, the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). Although the committee did not formally vote on joining the FLA, the committee felt there was excessive industry involvement in their monitoring process. Instead, the WRC was viewed as providing greater opportunity to influence how the organization developed because it was a relatively new organization. The committee felt the WRC has the right core values in the arguments that were presented and unanimously recommended joining the WRC.
Ms. Strom, spoke in support of the resolution, acknowledging that there were concerns about the potential for cancelled contracts with apparel and merchandise corporations such as Nike, the UOís largest contractor. She noted that contractors need the advertising and image that university apparel and logos provide, and that 15 of the 40 universities that have joined the WRC have apparel contracts with Nike who has not broken their contract with any of those universityís athletic teams. Secondly, Ms. Strom supported the UO making a 5-year commitment to the WRC, stating that since the UO has multi-year contractual obligations with our apparel and sporting goods manufacturers, it should have the same type of standard for a monitoring body.
Senator Grzybowski also spoke in support of the motion and agreed the UO should make a longer term commitment to the organization. Accordingly, he moved to amend the main motion with additional text as follows:
Furthermore, the University Senate recommends a five-year membership, and, if necessary, any attempt to withdraw from the WRC should be approved by a vote of the University Senate.
President Gilkey deferred to Senator Schombert of the rules committee and Parliamentarian Paul Simonds regarding the language requiring ìapprovalî from the senate for withdrawal from WRC membership. Much discussion on the specific wording followed with a slightly modified version replacing the words ìif necessaryî with ìrecommends thatî being acceptable to Senator Grzybowski. Speaking to the amendment, Senator Schombert suggested limiting the wording to a five year membership. Vice President McDonald pointed out that the committee looked at this issue very carefully. He noted that approximately 90% of the 40-45 universities that have now joined the WRC have done so conditionally, without expressing any particular timeframe. Ms. Sarah Jacobson, a student ad hoc committee member, related a message sent from Indiana University explaining its ìconditionalî membership in the WRC as a fully engaged partner in the activities of the organization, and to the extent the WRC proves itself a most productive mechanism for this purpose, their membership will continue. She spoke in favor of a 5-year commitment in order to have time to develop the networks or relationships among human rights and labor groups from around the world to enable the WRC to be an effective monitoring group.
Senator Tom Wheeler, journalism, questioned the precision and accuracy of the wording in the amendment. It was his understanding that enabling legislation of WRC allows for one kind of membership, and that is a one-year membership. He believes that the issue is not whether we join for one year or five years, but rather do we join or not join. Ms. Jacobson acknowledged that membership in the WRC is a one-year commitment; she believes a 5-year membership would be an internal decision that the UO would make to the WRC relationship.
President Frohnmayer spoke of his concerns of the wording of the amendment. He had hoped to reserve his remarks in support of the main motion only, but several things are problematic about the language of the amendment. He suggested there is that a better way to deal with this issue, that is, to require an annual review brought to the senate by a reviewing body composed of both students and faculty so that were there to be a decision to join some other monitoring body, it could be brought to the attention of the senate without creating a five year membership which simply does not exist.
President Frohnmayer stated that he is not opposed to monitoring, and he is not opposed to making a long-term commitment to making something work. But he did want to speak to the issue that Vice President McDonald raised. He noted that these issues were in the committee and some of them should have created some disquiet about whether, even if there were a 5-year membership, that would necessarily be in the UOís immediate interest in signing. He stated that he wanted the substance of his intention to be understood that he supports the working committee, he supports the referendum of the students, and he supports the university joining the WRC as the monitoring organization. Nevertheless, he has reservations because the UO requested the opportunity to send a representative to the organizing meeting of the WRC and was denied. The press requested access to that organizational meeting and they were denied. In Oregon and at this university there is a very strong tradition of openness. He is sure that other universities that have joined the WRC conditionally have similar reservations, especially about the concerns of openness and transparency of an organization that wants openness and transparency to the administration of apparel contracts. The president noted that there is a veil of secrecy that this campus community would not tolerate for a period of five years without the capacity to change it. Another concern is that there are only three university seats presently in the governing structure of the WRC; he believes it is an imbalance that he and colleagues of other WRC member universities want to see changed. There are legitimate concerns about the financing of the organization and whether it will be adequate in order to carry out the monitoring. And finally, there are concerns about the governing structure.
President Frohnmayer said he did not think that worldwide monitoring of sweatshop conditions ws going to be done in a single year; the FLA is not up and running after two years. But it seems that the proposed amendment adds an undue layer of complication when a simpler way to deal with the issue would be to required an annual report to the senate so that these issues can be canvassed before the administration took any action. Ms. Ann Tedards, music, responding to statements and other sentiments was prepared to offer an alternative amendment. Senate Vice President Jim Earl, English, intervened suggesting that if Senator Grzybowski agreed with the intent of President Frohnmayerís suggestion to have the senate be responsible for an annual review of WRC membership, Senator Grzybowski should withdraw his amendment in favor of an alternate. Senator Grzybowski agreed, thus the main motion, to join the WRC, was on the floor.
Ms. Tedards moved the following amendment to the main motion:
Membership will be for one year with the option to renew for subsequent years based on recommendations of a university oversight committee established to review our membership on an annual basis.
Rules Committee chair Senator Schombert agreed that the amendment had no procedural errors. Carla McNelly, a staff member visitor, inquired about the makeup of the oversight committee. Ms. Tedards replied that the committee could be a senate committee or an advisory committee to the president comprised of faculty and students. Other discussion about the oversight committee, its appointment and composition, prompted the suggestion that the amendment be withdrawn at this time to allow for more consultation regarding these questions. That would permit voting on the main motion. President Gilkey interjected momentarily that the hour was growing late and 5:00 p.m. was rapidly approaching.
Vice President Earl suggested that adding the word ìSenateî after ìuniversityî would improve the understanding that the committee would be constituted by the Senate, which is composed of students and faculty. He believes having a senate committee for oversight is an extremely simple solution to what might be a complicated problem. Ms. Tedards indicated she agreed to add the word ìSenateî to the motion, but asked for further discussion on the idea of a senate oversight committee. Senator Grzybowski spoke in favor of the amendment. Senator Eugene Luks, computer and information science, spoke against the amendment saying it did not strengthen the amendment at all because the senate already can be an oversight group. He stated further that the main motion is stronger without the amendment. He warned of unseen repercussions when writing amendments on the senate floor, and felt the senate should reject the amendment and concentrate on the main motion. With discussion ended, a roll call vote was taken on the amendment to the main motion which states:
Membership will be for one year with the option to renew for subsequent years based on recommendations of a University Senate oversight committee established to review our membership on an annual basis.
Those voting in favor of the amendment were: E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, J. Earl, J. Grzybowski, M. Hibbard, E. Housworth, B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Paris, L. Robare, N. Tublitz, and T. Wheeler; those opposed were: R. Davis, R. Kellett, E. Luks, J. Schombert, and J. Terborg; those abstaining were: C. Phillips and N. Savage. The vote to amend the main motion to establish annual WRC membership oversight by a senate committee resulted in 17 votes in favor, 5 votes in opposition, and 2 abstentions; the amendment passes. The main motion, as amended, was on the floor.
Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, called the question. Senator Phillips asked if there was a quorum. President Gilkey, believing that there was a quorum, asked for a hand vote on the issue of the called question, which passed. President Gilkey then asked for a roll call vote on the main motion:
Resolution US 9900-10B Join the Worker Rights Consortium
The University Senate endorses the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on UO Trademark Licensee Code of Conduct that the UO join the Worker Rights Consortium for the purpose of the Consortium monitoring UO licensee compliance with our Code of Conduct. Membership would be for one year, with the option to renew for subsequent years, based on the recommendation of a University Senate oversight committee established to review our membership on an annual basis.
Those voting in favor of the resolution were: E. Campbell, S. Clark, S. Cohen, J. Earl, J. Grzybowski, M. Hibbard, E. Housworth, B. Jenkins, L. Blake Jones, E. Luks, G. McLauchlan, D. Merskin, P. Mills, R. Moore, G. Moreno, M. Paris, N. Savage, J. Schombert, J. Terborg, N. Tublitz, and T. Wheeler; those in opposition were: C. Phillips; those abstaining were: R. Davis and R. Kellett. Senate President P. Gilkey voted ìpresentî. The results were 21 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 abstentions, and 1 present. Resolution US 9900-10B, as amended, to join the WRC with annual membership oversight by the senate passed.
Senate President Gilkey recognized President Frohnmayer who commented that had he the opportunity, he would have voted in favor of the resolution. He commended the senate on the quality of the debate, noting the importance of university governance that includes all members of the university community.
ADJOURNMENT
President Gilkey noted that there are additional items on the agenda; however, with dwindling numbers Senator Phillips moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
Gwen Steigelman
Secretary
Attachment
WHEREAS, the University of Oregon Alumni Association Board of Directors acknowledges the scholarly excellence, research achievements, and dedication to teaching by the faculty of the University of Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the board recognizes the impact made by the UO faculty -- individually and collectively, former and current -- on the lives of Oregon students; and,
WHEREAS, UO faculty play a critical role in fostering the lifelong connection for alumni to the University of Oregon; and,
WHEREAS, the inspiring efforts of UO faculty have direct effect on enhancing the University of Oregonís position as a premier institution of higher education; and,
WHEREAS, UO faculty make a vital contribution to the quality of public higher education of the State of Oregon,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The University of Oregon Alumni Association Board of Directors, representing 130,000 living alumni worldwide, extends its sincere gratitude for the continued service and commitment by UO faculty, and hereby pledges to support university endeavors to retain and recognize these invaluable members of the university community.