1. The UO Senate was established under legislation passed by the University Assembly on 17 May 1995 http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~assembly/dirassembly/A3May95.html
2. Minutes of the 28 February 1997 meeting of the UO Senate where the issue of Student Representation was discussed at length http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen/2_12_97mins.html
3. By laws of the UO Senate- Table of Contents (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/table_contents.html) for the Charter (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/SenateCharter.html)

Peter B Gilkey (UO Senate President 1999/2000) 1 October 1999

LEGISLATIVE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE PERTAINING TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY ON MAY 17, 1995

• 1. Abolish the Current System of Faculty Governance 1.1 The faculty legislation establishing the current system of governance is repealed, effective December 31, 11:59 p.m., 1995. This includes the following legislation: June 4, 1969, concerning election and balloting procedures and amending legislation of November 6, 1974, as to the number of student senators in the University Assembly. June 6, 1984, concerning those who shall have the right to vote in the University Assembly and defining the voting faculty. November 6, 1985, concerning the present power of the University Senate.
• 2. Establish a New System of Faculty Governance 2.1 Effective January 1, 1996, the University Senate shall be sole governing body of the University in all matters of faculty governance. The University Senate shall consist of forty eight senate seats distributed among officers of instruction, librarians, officers of administration, and students, as follows: 37 Officers of Instruction 2 Librarians 3 Officers of Administration 5 Students 1 President of the Senate 2.2 The thirty seven officer of instruction senators shall represent specific constituencies, as follows: College of Arts and Sciences: The Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences shall be: Natural Sciences : Biology, Chemistry, Computer and Information Science, Exercised and Movement Science, Geological and Earth Sciences, Mathematics, Physics, Psychology. Social Scienes : Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, International Studies, Political Science, Sociology, Women's Studies. Humanities : Classics, Comparative Literature, Creative Writing, East Asian Languages and Literature, English, Germanic Languages and Literature, English, Honors College, Linguistics, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Romance Languages, Russian, Theatre Arts. 7 Humanities 7 Natural Sciences 7 Social Sciences Professional Schools and Colleges: 5 Architecture and Allied Arts 3 Business 2 Education 2 Journalism and Communication 2 Law 2 Music 37 2.3 The number of officer of instruction senators representing the three divisions in the College of Arts and Sciences, as well as the number of officer of instruction senators representing each professional school or college, shall be based on the approximate proportion of tenure related full time equivalent (FTE) appointments in the constituent unit relative to the total University of Oregon tenure related FTE. Senate representatives shall be elected only by their constituent bodies. 2.4 If major changes occur in the distribution of officers of instruction for example as the result of closure of a professional school or college the University Senate shall undertake reapportionment. In the absence of major changes in the distribution of officers of instruction, the senate shall consider reapportionment in 2006 and every ten years thereafter. 2.5 The five student members shall represent academic majors and consist of the academic senators as defined in the constitution of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO). The five student members of the University Senate shall be chosen by the nine ASUO academic student senators in a method designed by the latter. The same five shall serve as student senators for the academic year. Changes in the number of student senators can occur only as a result of senate reapportionment. The number of student senators shall be independent of future changes in the ASUO constitution.
• 3. Election Process 3.1 At the beginning of fall term 1995, there shall be a special election for the full slate of senators from among the officers of instruction, librarians, and officers of administration as specified in section 2. 3.2 In each school and college and in the University of Oregon Library System, the Dean's Advisory Committee or a similar elected body shall nominate at least two more candidates than the required number of senators to be elected for that unit. 3.3 Eligible candidates in each unit may nominate themselves, and eligible candidates may nominate other eligible candidates within their own units. 3.4 The secretary of the faculty shall arrange for the election to the senate seats held by officers of administration. Nominating petitions shall be circulated to each officer of administration for either self nomination or for nomination of another officer of administration. At least two more candidates than the required number of senators to be elected for this unit shall be nominated. Officers of administration, in this unit, shall vote only for these nominees. 3.5 All nominations for nonstudent senators as provided for in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 shall be sent to the secretary of the faculty, who shall conduct the elections by mail ballot. Officers of instruction, librarians, and officers of administration shall vote only for those candidates nominated from within their own units. 3.6 Terms of office for all officer of instruction, library and officer of administration senators shall be two years, with the following exception: At the organizing meeting of the senate in January 1996, the terms of office for each officer of instruction, library, and officer of administration senator shall be determined by drawingÔligible candidate is available to fill the vacancy, the seat shall remain vacant.
• 4. Eligibility and Voting Criteria for Officers of Instruction, and Officers of Administration. 4.1 Each academic unit specified in Section 2 shall determine who is eligible for the purpose of voting for and nominating candidates to serve as officer of instruction senators, subject to the following limitations. All tenure related officers of instruction holding the academic rank of instructor or higher, and employed at .50 FTE or greater, shall be eligible. No faculty person appointed at less than .50 FTE shall be eligible, nor shall any officer of administration who does not hold a tenure related officer of instruction appointment in a school or college, nor shall courtesy, adjunct, or visiting faculty members, nor shall any student. Senior administrators, who are ineligible for membership on the Faculty Advisory Council, shall also be ineligible for election to the University Senate. 4.2 Officers of instruction who are appointed at .50 FTE in each of two units, as specified in section 2.2 shall declare in writing to their dean in which one of those two units they want to be eligible officer of instruction for the purpose of senate nominations and elections. The Dean shall forward the lists of eligible officer of instruction to the Secretary of the Faculty, who shall distribute the list for each unit to all eligible officers of instruction in that unit. If the Secretary is notified in writing by any eligible officer of instruction that he or she does not want to stand for election, that person's name shall not appear on any ballot for election. 4.3 Officers of administration, excluding those specified in section 4.1, and holding appointments at .50 FTE or greater, are eligible to be nominated for, serve as, and vote for officer of administration senators. 4.4 Officers of administration who do not want to be nominated shall notify the secretary of the faculty in writing of their desire not to be nominated when the nomination forms are distributed by the secretary.
• 5. University Senate Rules and Procedures 5.1 The senate shall adopt its own internal rules and procedures . 5.2 At the December 1995 meeting of the University Senate, as constituted at that time, the senate shall elect from among its second year officer of instruction senators both a president and a vice president/president elect for the newly formed University Senate that will be seated in January 1996. The terms of office for both shall be January 1, 1996, to May 22, 1996; the vice president shall become president at that time by confirmation of the senate. On May 22, 1996, and thereafter the election of senate officers shall take place at the last meeting of the University Senate each spring. The vice president shall be elected from among the officer of instruction senators completing the first year of their terms and will become president at the end of the following year by confirmation of the senate. The president shall thus hold that position during his or her third year in the senate. 5.3 The seat of any senator shall be considered vacant if the senator is absent two times in one term from regularly scheduled meetings of the senate, unless the secretary has been notified in advance of the senator's illness or anticipated absence on university business. 5.4 The president of the ASUO shall be notified by the secretary when a vacancy in a student senator position occurs. The ASUO president shall fill the position through the method established by the ASUO constitution. 5.5 No senator shall serve more than two consecutive two year terms but may be elected again after an absence of two years.
• 6. University Assembly 6.1 The University Assembly shall be composed of all University of Oregon officers of instruction, librarians, officers of administration; eighteen members of the Student Senate; twenty five members of the ASUO Executive; and five members of the ASUO Constitution Court. 6.2 All members of the University Assembly shall have the right to introduce legislation and shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate. 6.3 The assembly shall convene three times a year (once each term) and at the request of the president of the university, the president of the senate, a vote of two thirds of the senate, or a petition signed by 10 per cent of the officers of instruction, librarians, and/or officers of administration. 6.4 The Assembly may discuss any matter that it wants to provided that the first meeting of each academic year shall include the State of the University address by the president of the university, and the introduction of new officers of instruction, librarians, and officers of administration. All memorials shall be presented at meetings of the University Assembly and shall be entered into the minutes of the assembly. 6.5 Within a reasonable time period, the assembly may refer any legislation passed by the senate back to the senate for reconsideration. This referral must be accompanied by a recommendation and can only be used once for each piece of legislation. 6.6 The University Assembly, with full legislative power, shall be convened after a petition to do so has been signed by 33 percent of those eligible to vote for non student senators, as provided by other sections in this legislation.

A second matter of unfinished business concerning student senator input and representation on the university senate was raised by President Bybee. He reported receiving a motion in the form of a resolution recently passed by the student senate to increase the number of student senators in the university senate from the current five students to nine students, that is, the number of ASUO senators representing academic majors. The president and secretary determined that a motion to change the number of student senators in the university senate was not within the legislative power of the senate for consideration until the year 2006 according to senate enabling legislation. After conferring with the motion s originators, it was withdrawn and replaced with a request for senate discussion of the issue and endorsement of the ASUO resolution.

Senator Ben Unger, ASUO, spoke to the issue of student representation on the university senate and clarified the rationale driving the student resolution. He noted that the proposed increase in student senators on the university senate could not be approved by senate motion; such action falls under the jurisdiction of the university assembly, that is, the entire faculty, and only when it is called into special session with full legislative powers. Rather, Senator Unger hoped that the senate would endorse the principle of increasing the number of student senators from five to nine in order to preserve the direct constituency representation for whom students are elected to student senate seats. As an example, Senator Unger noted that in the student senate he represents arts and letters and journalism students, one of nine such student academic representatives. However, because university senate by-laws permit only five of the nine ASUO academic senators to be members of the university senate, he must represent business students in addition to his arts and letters and journalism constituents. Further, Senator Unger reminded everyone that in the former university assembly, the student participants represented specific constituencies. But when the university senate was reconstituted to represent faculty constituencies, the number of student senators was reduced--they believe disproportionately--to the current number of five senators. Senator Unger argued that issues discussed in the senate such as curriculum and the student conduct code, affect the entire university. If the faculty wants the senate to be truly a university senate, not simply a faculty senate, the number of student senator representatives should be increased to nine.

Senator Unger responded to queries by Senator Paul Engelking, chemistry, and Vice President Ann Tedards, music, about the composition of the student senate, explaining that there are 18 student senators elected: nine financial senators (responsible for disbursement of student incidental fees) and nine academic council senators, representing academic majors. It is from these nine academic council members that five student senators are elected to participate in the university senate. Senator Dave Soper, physics, wondered whether it might be possible in future years to change the way the student senators are elected, that is, to have students elect the five student senators that would participate in the university senate. Ms. Kalparna Krishnamurthy, ASUO academic senator, replied that changing the election of student senators meant changing the student senate constitution, an unwieldy task requiring a vote by the entire student body. She indicated that the nine student senate seats are reflective of the academic areas and to reduce them further would not serve the natural constituencies well. Mr. Bill Minor, ASUO finance senator, suggested that increasing the student senators to nine participants on the university senate affords four more students the educational experience of participating in university governance.

Senator Jenny Young, architecture, wondered if anything precludes all nine academic student senators from coming to senate meetings and participating in discussions and debate, even though they could not vote. She also asked what the reasoning was for setting the student senators number at five when the senate was restructured last year. In response, Senator Unger noted that the original proposal from the restructuring committee was for nine student senator representatives. That proposal was amended from nine to five student senators by senate vote perhaps, as Senator Unger speculated, a result of a relative power issue. Returning to the former question, Senator Unger suggested that although anyone, student or faculty has the right to speak in the senate, full, active representative participation in the senate necessitates the privilege of voting.

Senator Ryan questioned what the compelling reason was to change the number of nine students originally proposed to five students, other than to keep the number of student representatives at a minimum. He acknowledged there must have been a discussion on the issue, but if the main reasoning was to keep student participation at a minimum, that was not a compelling reason for him. Senator Sarah Larson, ASUO, remarked that the number of students represented by the nine academic student senators is relatively large, thus all nine ASUO academic senators should be able to participate in the university senate and vote.

Hearing no more discussion, President Bybee reminded all that the senate could not, by law, entertain a motion to increase the number of student senators from five to nine. Rather, he asked if there was motion for the senate to endorse the resolution passed by the student senate. Senator Leavitt as a point of information provided details of the current representative organization in the university senate, namely: 37 officers of instruction, 2 librarians, 3 officers of administration, 5 student senators, and the president--48 senators in all. President Bybee then reminded the senators that the current composition of the senate as it moved from the assembly form of governance to the senate form of governance had considerable serious, and sometimes contentious discussions resulting in compromises from all factions concerned about the representative apportions. However, the senate s role in this discussion is whether to instigate further conversations about the appropriateness of the representations and whether there is adequate reason to reconsider apportionment at some future date.

Senator Jim Isenberg, mathematics, noted that there was little point in voting on an issue which the senate cannot take legislative action for nine more years. Senator Dan Pope, history, suggested that a vote could be taken to get a sense of the senate on this issue. Ms. Krishnamurthy noted that student senators were not permitted to make motions regarding their representation in the senate. What the student senators hoped to achieve was a vote of support from the senate on this issue. Regardless of the senate s support or nonsupport, the students plan to follow procedures to call for a special assembly with full legislative powers for action on their resolution.

Senator Pope then moved that the senate express its endorsement of the principle that there be nine student voting members of the university senate, and it is hoped that procedures be initiated to put that into effect. Speaking in opposition to the motion, Senator Del Hawkins, business, stated his strong belief that curricular matters were the primary domain of the faculty who have much more experience in curricular matters. Further, there are multiple important stakeholders that the university serves; students are one absolutely critical group, but not the only group. The university also serves the interests of society as a whole and has an obligation to consider their interest in curricular matters, thus faculty should maintain maximum control. Senator Terry O Keefe, business, also spoke in opposition, saying that this structure had not been in position very long and it should be given a chance to see how well it worked. Secondly, new senators were not well-versed in the discussions held previously concerning the number of student senators and had not talked with their constituents to see how they felt on the issue.

Speaking in support of his motion, Senator Pope suggested that the move to reduce the number of student senators from the proposed nine to the current five senators may be a vestige of an earlier time when students in the senate comprised one third of the voting senators and when faculty attendance and participation in the senate was not particularly high. However, the reduction from one third to one tenth seemed somewhat excessive, especially when the students are forced to vote as the representative for a constituency by which they were not elected. Senator Catherine Page, chemistry, concurred with earlier comments about being hesitant to vote for a change when not cognizant of the prior discussions. But she noted there are other constituencies, such as officers of administration and librarians, who might also like to be considered for reapportionment. It is not appropriate to second-guess why the previous senate voted for the five senator configuration.

Though a member of last year s senate, Senator Susan Anderson, Germanic languages, did not recall explicit reasoning for reducing the number of student senators. Regardless, she felt that the ASUO resolution is very compelling about the difficulties of representation for the students. All that a positive vote on this motion would do is to support the students going to the faculty at large to discuss this matter. Senator Christopher Ellis, economics, indicated he did not have enough background information concerning the way the students constitute their own senate, that is, who votes for whom and how, and was inclined to put this motion off. Senator Soper stated he was uncomfortable as a senator voting to change what the faculty, that is, the university assembly in their wisdom had put into place so recently. Rather, he would like to see the students take the issue directly to the place where some action could be taken--to the university assembly.

One of the visiting student senators reaffirmed the intent of the students to take this issue to the faculty at large and asserted that it was in the senate s best interest to vote in support of the student resolution to do so. Senator Gene Luks, computer science, countered that a vote in support of this resolution was ill-timed, saying that only a year ago his larger constituency, the faculty, had voted to put the current configuration into effect. For the senate to vote in support of the motion to endorse an increase in student senators without having tried it for any reasonable period of time, was in effect to say the faculty had made a mistake. If the students want to take their case to the university assembly and persuade them of their error, that is fine and they should. But to have one of the first acts of the new senate be to endorse a change in the representation in the senate seems inappropriate. Senator Howard Davis, architecture, reiterated that there was likely good discussion and reasons as to why the number of student senators was reduced to five, but that we were not hearing those reasons now. Instead, the students were making a compelling argument that their numbers should be increased to nine. Continuing that line of reasoning, Senator Ryan remarked that although numerous persons have suggested there must have been "good reasons" for the five senator decision, no one present seems to remember those reasons, and if they do, he would like to hear them. Otherwise, it would appear the main reason was to keep student representation at a minimum. Vice President Tedards noted that regardless of how the vote goes in support of the change or not, the students intend to take the issue to the university assembly the only body that can enact a change in representation. If and when the assembly meets on this issue, it is likely they will want a "sense of the senate" at that time. Senator Jeff Ostler, history, commented that as a new senator he was not hearing reasons why not to vote for this motion, that is, why increasing the number would be harmful. On the other hand, it seems a positive move to have the student senators number be representative of their constituency.

Ms. Krishnamurthy reminded the senators that the vote to change from nine students to five came up on the floor of the assembly and was not the recommendation of the restructuring committee. The discussion was contentious and the vote itself was relatively close, about 84 to 51 in favor of only five student senators. Had it been a more lopsided vote, and without a contentious debate, perhaps the will of the faculty would have been more clear and would not be worth revisiting the issue. Following up these comments, Senator Engelking said that he is reluctant to revisit the issue for the very reason that it was a contentious one at the time. There was polarization on the issue and a vote was taken. In the whole restructuring process, a lot of compromises were made. But now that they have been made, it is his belief that many of his constituents would not be interested in having this topic come up again for discussion. Senator Pope finished the discussion with his opinion that the university assembly as a deliberative body was largely seen as a failure, and he was not inclined to give its deliberations a sudden burst of deference. Thus it seemed to him that if the majority of the senate felt it was appropriate to make the reform that the students propose, it should not feel reticent to vote in favor of the motion. If the senate did not feel that way, then presumably it should vote against the motion.

As a point of information, Senator Steve Owen, music, noted that the issue of obtaining a quorum in the university assembly came up numerous times, in part prompting the move to the senate as the legislative body. To enact legislation in the university assembly with full legislative powers, one-third of the voting faculty must sign a petition to call the assembly, and more than half must be present to vote on any legislation.

The question was called. The motion to endorse the principle that there be nine student senators on the university senate was passed (15 yes, 13 no).