This File has been scanned, converted to a TIFF file, an OCR program has been run, and then the file converted to HTML. Any errors are regretted and should be reported to Ekaterina Puffini ekaterinapuffin@yahoo.com or to Peter Gilkey (gilkey@uoregon.edu



 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON ASSEMBLY MEETING 3 OCTOBER 1984


The meeting was called to order by President Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m. on October 3. 1984. There being no corrections, the minutes of the June 6, 1984 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

President Olum announced that the reception for all faculty members would be in the Museum of Art following this meeting.

Ms. Edna Wooten-Kolan was recognized to read a memorial for Eugene Evonuk. Mr. Evonuk was a member of the Department of Physical Education and Human Movement Studies from 1968 until his death on June 15, 1984. A copy of the memorial is attached to these minutes.

Mr. Joel McClure was recognized to read a memorial for Edwin Ebbighausen, who passed away on July 18, 1984. Mr. Ebbighausen was a member of the Department of Physics from 1946 until 1976 when he retired. He remained an active researcher and member of the department until his death. A copy of the memorial is attached to these minutes.

It was moved that both memorials be entered into the permanent record of this meeting and that copies be sent to the respective families.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The President recognized Ms. Sharon Gordon, Chair of the Semester System Study Committee, to propose a postponement of the date of the report from that Committee to the University Assembly. Without objection the date of October 3, 1984 was changed to December 1, 1984. The Committee has encouraged all faculty members to send information to the Committee on the subject of the Semester System. Ms. Gordon noted that the Chancellor has brought up the subject of a switch to the semester system for the entire State System at the last meeting of the State Board. It is important that the University be prepared to respond to questions about a switch at the December meeting of the State Board and this Committee will form the basis of a response.

NEW BUSINESS

Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, has given the Secretary the following notice of motion. It will be on the agenda of the November 7 meeting of the Assembly. '.I shall move that the Assembly go into a quasi committee of the whole to discuss the role and future of the University Senate and its relationship to the University Assembly.',

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

President Olum commenced his remarks on the State of the University by saying that he was very confident that the University was moving in a very positive direction in spite of severe budget cuts. This optimism was based in part on the dramatic increase in enrollment. It is anticipated that the Fall 1984 figure will be 15,700 to 15,800. In spite of fewer dollars the Provost has made a maximum effort to spend every possible available dollar to make classes available in the areas of heavy demand. Other areas of effort that contributes to the increased enrollment are the improved image of the University, the advertising and recruitment efforts of the Office of Student Services, increased Scholarship money and faculty effort. The new Freshmen seminars should have a very positive impact on the new students and the faculty should encourage prospective students to seek out these seminars. The strong loyalty of the faculty to the University and to Oregon has continued to keep many faculty from accepting very attractive offers from other institutions. The President indicated that this loyalty should be rewarded by the State in the budget process at the next session of the State Legislature. A compliment was made to the Athletic Department for its NCM championships in track and cross country during the past year and the fact the football team has a record of 4 and 0. Ms. Sue Harbour was singled out as an outstanding student-athlete. A member of the thirteenth ranked U of O Volleyball team and an All American selection last year, Ms. Harbour has a grade point average of 3.98.

Very obviously the salaries will not change this biennium for any of the employees of the University. In 1983-84 $1.1 million was cut from the budget and for the present year just over $1.2 million was cut. These cuts have been achieved partly by using non-recurring funds and although the budget is in place the academic year of 1984-85 will continue to be one of pain and struggle.

The American Studies program, passed by the Assembly in June, has been approved by the State Board. Mr. Richard Steers, Business Administration, has proposed a major in International Business which is a very positive move in the direction of expanding the curriculum by taking advantage of many of the things that we already have--it is a bringing together of separate expertise under one roof. Many other improvements in the programs offered by the University have been made or are being made. The student will be the beneficiary of these changes.

The new budget, as proposed by the Chancellor and the State Board and presented to the Governor, is one that the President strongly supports. The University will benefit from the proposed increases in the budget--from salary improvement to construction and maintenance. No funds are included in the budget, however, for restoring the lost funds from the recent budget cuts. This means that the funding base of the University will continue on a lower level than it should. In the area of construction the proposed funding for a new science complex (with a mix of federal and state funds) is moving forward and the $2.3 million planning grant should be approved by the federal Government by the middle of this month. The need for a new architecture building has been made to the Chancellor, but the push for "high tech" has caused the move of that need as the number one priority in the State System to number eleven. Planning is moving ahead on the development of a Research Park, near the Willamette River on University property, and the Library has been proposed as an important part of the newly initiated capital campaign by the University Foundation.

Briefly the President noted that the Assembly will have to discuss the Semester Plan in December as the State Board is planning a full discussion on the subject at its December meeting. Another subject that will be on a future agenda will be the discussion of Honorary Degrees. The State Board is moving toward the establishment of criteria for the granting of honorary degrees by the institutions in the State System.

ADJOURNMENT

The Assembly adjourned at 4:37 p.m. The next meeting of the University Assembly will be November 7,1984.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


EUGENE EVONUK 1922-1984


Eugene Evonuk died June 15, 1984. He had been the Director of the Applied Physiology Lab in the Department of Physical Education and Human Movement Studies. Evonuk received his B. S. in 1952 and M. S. in 1953 from the University of Oregon. After his graduation he remained at the University as an instructor of physical education. After receiving his Ph. D. from the State University of Iowa in 1960, he joined the Aerospace Medical Research Division. He was stationed with the Arctic Aero-medical Laboratory. Much of his subsequent interest in environmental and stress physiology was developed during his tour of duty in Alaska. He published numerous papers on these topics in the Journal of Applied Physiology, American Journal of Physiology, The Physiologist, and Medicine and Science in Sport. He returned to the University of Oregon in the Fall of 1968 as full professor.

Evonak continued his interests in environmental and stress physiology at the University and expanded his research in cellular and histochemical changes in the cardiovascular system. He was a national and international scholar of prominence. His most recent honor involved his selection as one of 12 U. S. delegates for the "People to People Medical Education Delegation to the People's Republic of China.' He had returned from China just five days prior to his death. He had written a letter to me and his doctoral students expressing his appreciation for the opportunity granted him and his enthusiasm regarding the approaching summer term when he was to hold a seminar for doctoral students during which he planned to share his experiences. In the letter he addressed specific ideas to each of his five doctoral students.

He was known affectionately as 'Doc" by his students. His classroom and lab were his life and salvation. As one student expressed, "Doc was known for his brilliant command of physiology, infectious curiosity, strong sense of justice, inexhaustible cheerfulness and unfailing encouragement to students." He mentored his many students with great sensitivity and selfless devotion.

Eugene Evonuk was an ardent pilot and golfer. He flew his sea plane during many summers to his hunting lodge in Alaska.

He served not only the University, College and Department well but also the community. He and his wife Claire were cordial host and hostess to generations of students.

His honors included being a member of Sigma Xi, Research Fellow of the American Heart Association, Distinguished Service Award, Phi Epsilon Kappa, American Men of Science, Leaders of American Men of Science, and International Whoís Who in Science

Eugene Evonuk will be missed by his family, his students and his friends.

--Edna Wooten-Kolan


EDWIN EBBIGHAUSEN 1911-1984


Our late colleague Edwin G. Ebbighausen was Oregon's '.Mr. Astronomy'. for more than 30 years. After receiving his Ph. D. at the University of Chicago, he was on the staffs of Wilson College, the University of Pittsburgh, and the Westinghouse Research Laboratories before joining the University of Oregon. His arrival in 1946 doubled the size of the Physics Department. Due to the illness of Professor Caswell, Ed was the Physics Department for a year.

Ed was strong in all parts of the traditional triad of teaching, research, and service.

His teaching was legend. His courses in "astronomy for everyone" and in physical science had enrollments in the hundreds. Thousands of University of Oregon students received an in-depth picture of the structure of our Universe from this master teacher who was entertaining but uncompromising. He operated two special programs for the improvement of science teaching.

He kept up active research in astronomy, publishing about 35 papers in professional journals. From the first twenty years he made observations as a visitor at observatories in the U. S. and Canada and returned to Oregon to analyze the data and write the report. In the middle 60's he set up two temporary observatories in the Cascades. He found a good site for a permanent observatory east of Bend, and in 1967 was co-founder of Pine Mountain Observatory, where he subsequently worked and proved that observational astronomy can be conducted in Oregon! His lifelong research interest was the study of §'eclipsing binariesii, pairs of stars which orbit about each other with one star periodically passing in front of the other, dimming the light from the other star. These systems have great importance in the history of astronomy as one can find the orbits and masses of the stars from measurements and analysis of the changes in the intensity and wave length of the light. Knowledge of the masses has been critical to the development of the theory of structure and evolution of stars. His landmark paper on Algol, the Demon Star, established that a third star is orbiting an inner binary system.

Ed did his share of departmental chores and served on University committees, but his outstanding service was as an educator of the state at large. He was tireless in addressing schools, service clubs, and other groups. As the only professional astronomer in Oregon for the first 24 years, he was the state's authority. During times of special interest, such as the appearance of a comet, he would answer about a dozen telephone calls a day from the public.

In addition to these strictly professional matters, his colleagues remember Ed as a warm, gracious, and energetic person with a valuable fund of fascinating stories about astronomy and astronomers. We miss him very much.

--Joel McClure


Assembly Meeting 7 November 1984


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:36 p.m. on November 7, 1984. There being no corrections, the minutes of the October 3, 1984 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

President Olum recognized Mr. John Baldwin, Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, to read the following motion: "That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar after the close of Fall term, 1984, the degree for which they have completed all requirements." The President called for the vote and the motion was approved, without dissent, by voice vote.

Mr. Stanley Greenfield was recognized to make an announcement concerning the Friends of the Library. On November 14, 1984, in the Oregon Room of the Main Library, Mr. Kenneth Helphand, Landscape Architecture, will present a program on "Gardens: Images and Ideas." This will be a presentation using slides to show the development of gardens and why they are what they are. Mr. Greenfield urged the attendance of all faculty and also urged that the faculty seriously think of joining the Friends of the Library.

Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Curriculum Committee, asked that the Assembly approve the postponement of the report of that committee from December 5, to January 16. The President inquired if this would give sufficient time to make the final report to the Office of the Chancellor. Ms. Mate said that it would. The Assembly, by voice vote, approved the change.

President Olum reminded the Assembly that the report of the Semester System Study Committee will be made on December 5. This report is very important as the Chancellor recently asked that all the Universities and Colleges in the State System study the semester system.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The President recognized Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, to make the following motion: "I move that the Assembly go into a quasi committee of the whole to discuss the role and future of the University Senate and its relationship to the University Assembly." Although this is a debatable motion no debate took place. The President stated that a "quasi committee of the whole" allows the chair to remain as the presiding officer of the meeting. The motion was approved by voice vote and President Olum announced "The resolution is before the assembly as if in committee of the whole.''

President Olum, following the discussion on the motion, stated: " The assembly, acting as if in committee of the whole, has had under consideration a motion to discuss the role and future of the University Senate and its relationship to the University Assembly and the following suggestions have been made."

1. The Senate should go back to its original purpose as described in the legislation of 1932. This would be to aid the University in its governance by being a meeting place for the minor faculties to discuss issues between them and resolve these issues without involving the Assembly.

2. The Assembly should delegate housekeeping legislation to the Senate and if no member of the Assembly protested the action within a short period of time following the action of the Senate, the legislation would stand unchallenged.

The protest would be through the Secretary of the University Assembly.

3. The number of Senators should be reduced from the present fifty-four to a more reasonable twenty-seven with the student number cut in half--from eighteen to nine. President Olum, in a straw vote on this proposal, found that those in attendance at the Assembly were in favor of a smaller Senate and that the student numbers should be reduced in proportion to the faculty numbers. Over all it was felt that the Senate, at fifty-four members, is much too large to be effective.

4. The Senate should discuss the issues raised and define what exactly would be delegated to them under the "No Protest" proposal. The Senate should report back to the Assembly, at some future date, the specifics of the delegated powers that they see as non-major and that should not be entertained by the Assembly. It was suggested that major curriculum decisions and degree conferral be left to the Assembly but that the Senate was free to explore other areas to propose for delegation.

The proceedings in quasi committee of the whole were thus concluded. The Assembly moved back into regular session.

The President asked Ms. Eaton if the discussion and suggestions were understood and sufficient for the Senate to act upon. Ms. Eaton stated that it was of help.

NEW BUSINESS

Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Curriculum Committee, was recognized to make the following Notice of Motion. On December 5, 1985, I shall propose to amend the legislation of November 3, 1982, concerning the granting of a formal minor by the addition of the words §and academic programs authorized by the University Assembly' after the phrase 'any degree granting unit.'',

ADJOURNMENT

The Assembly adjourned at 5:02 p. m. The next meeting of the University Assembly will be December 5, 1984.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly



Assembly Meeting 5 December 1984

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:40 p.m. on December 5, 1984. There being no corrections, the minutes of the November 7, 1984 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

President Olum recognized Provost Richard Hill to outline the proposed budget of the Governor as it impacts the University and the State System. Mr. Hill listed several areas that the budget proposal would allow for increased funding. These areas are: salary improvements, library acquisition, telecommunication system, services and supplies, and equipment, among others. Capital construction for the science complex is included and is partly funded through bonding and the lottery. Although the State System had recommended a continuation of the tuition freeze the Governorís budget includes a three per cent increase.

President Olum pointed out that the desire to have a restoration of the base budget for the University to pre-recession amounts was not provided for in the proposed budget.

The President stated that the recent disruption of the Marine recruitment presentation on campus was totally wrong and that University policy would not tolerate such denial of freedom of speech. The Student Conduct Code has provisions for dealing with such situations and future actions of this type would be dealt with quickly. The fact that the Code was not enforced at this particular presentation does not mean that the University was lax. The disruption caught everyone by surprise and the administration was not prepared to deal with the situation. This has now been cleared and all administrators involved understand fully what is to be done in the future.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

MINOR CHANGE. President Olum recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair, Curriculum Committee, to read the following motion: '.I propose that the faculty legislation of November 3, 1982, concerning the granting of a formal minor by the addition of the words  and academic programs authorized by the University Assemblyí after the phrase ëany degree granting unit. ì Mr. Tom Stave, Secretary of the University Senate, gave the vote of the Senate as 26 in favor, O opposed, and 2 abstentions. Ms. Mate, in support of the motion said that the change would allow non-degree granting programs to offer minors. Mr. Stave stated that the discussion in the Senate was slight and that it was pointed out the change would have no fiscal impact. The question was called for and passed by voice vote with little opposition. The legislation now reads:

"Beginning in fall 1983 any degree granting units and academic programs authorized by the University Assembly shall be entitled to offer a formal minor, which must be described in the catalogue. Any minor will consist of at least 24 credit hours, a minimum of 15 to be upper-division. Grading options will be determined by individual schools or departments. Any proposal for the minor must be reviewed by a school or college course committee and by the University Committee on the Curriculum, and will be included in the annual university curriculum change request. Minors will be noted on transcripts.

.'Beyond the original major, each additional major or minor in a general education area approved by the assembly may be substituted for one cluster requirement. Any such substitution, however, must be consistent with the Assembly policy on cluster distribution."

Ms. Sharon Gordon, Chair, Semester System Study Committee, was recognized to open the discussion on the report of that Committee. The report was distributed to all faculty/SUAB members who attended this meeting. Other copies have been sent to all Deans and Department Heads. Larry Jones, a member of the committee, commenced the discussion of the report by stating that the short term cost of conversion would be dramatic and that the long range cost would be a saving over the present system. Some of the departments that reported did an excellent job of cost analysis and direct impact on their curriculum. Mathematics and Architecture were the two departments that did the most thorough analysis of the proposed switch as it would apply directly to them. Not all departments reported, about one-third failed to respond to the survey. A major concern of all those who oppose a change to the semester system pointed out the impact on faculty time as the needed changes in curriculum, adjustment in course offerings as well as complete revision of class presentations would consume a considerable amount of time. At least two reporting areas stated that the change would have a positive impact. Music and the College of Human Development and Performance were favorable to the change.

Ms. Gordon pointed out that the Report indicates the number of student credit hours for the various reporting units and that the opposition to the change came from those that generate the most student credit hours. Mr. Glen Love, English, asked Ms. Gordon why the committee did not investigate the "true" quarter system as they were originally charged to do by the Assembly. Ms. Gordon replied that the reporting units did not respond to the request for information on the "true" quarter system. Mr. Love stated that the Committee did not define the "true" system correctly in its request for information.

As the discussion developed, various points were made concerning the change to a semester system. President Olum stated that he must report to the Chancellor by January 11, 1985, as to how the University of Oregon stands on the semester system. The Chancellor has proposed to make a presentation to the State Board, in late January, on a change to the Semester System. Mr. Paul Holbo, history, made a motion that "The Assembly thanks the Committee for the exceptional job they did in making the study and the report and that each member of the Assembly should read and reflect on the report so that a future discussion of the report can take place..' Discussion of this motion included a further discussion of the report. Among the points made were: the physical facilities of the University might very well limit or totally eliminate the necessary class size changes as demanded by the semester system, the work-load for the faculty would not be increased by the change, but would remain the same as now; FTE might very well increase if more sections of courses must be introduced to handle the number of students in various sections--would this result in increased budgets to hire additional faculty; the Assembly should bring back the "Gale Report" and use that as a basis for discussion on the semester change.

In answer to a question on the impact of the Semester System on the Tenure Reduction/Relinquishment Program, President Olum stated that this would be a problem and it would have to be addressed directly if a Semester System came into being.

President Olum stated that the Assembly had previously expressed a desire to switch to the semester system, but that a choice between the standard and the early system has not been definitive. He further stated that he would not report to the Chancellor until after he has more input from the Assembly. He is willing to call a special meeting of the Assembly on January 9, 1985, if necessary to get a feel on how the Assembly views the proposal. A mail ballot is a possibility in order to get as wide a reaction from the voting faculty as possible. But the mail ballot will not be taken until a full discussion of the entire proposed change to a semester system has taken place.

Each and every member of the Assembly should read and study the document from the committee so that they are totally familiar with the issue at hand. The original reports submitted to the committee are available in the Office of the Provost. Mr. Holbo's motion was called for and the Assembly voted in favor by a voice vote without any dissent.

NEW BUSINESS

No new business was introduced.

ADJOURNMENT

The Assembly adjourned at 5:22 p. m. The next regular meeting of the University Assembly will be January 16, 1985.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


UO ASSEMBLY 16 January 1985


The meeting was called to order by President Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:37 p.m., January 16, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the December 5, 1984 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

Mr. Glen Love, English, announced that all faculty members should attend the meeting arranged by the AAUP at Corvallis on January 19, 1985, at 9:00 a.m. A notice of the meeting has been circulated to all faculty members by Mr. Gerald Bogen, DEPM.

President Olum announced that the Semester System would be under discussion at the February 6, 1985 meeting of the University Assembly. The Chancellor has not set a new deadline for all the reports from the institutions in the State System, but the January date has been postponed.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Curriculum Committee, to make the report of that committee. Ms. Mate stated that the ''Report of the Curriculum Committee', was now formally presented to the Assembly for its consideration. President Olum asked Mr. Tom Stave, Secretary of the University Senate, to give the vote of the Senate on the Curriculum Report. Mr. Stave stated that the vote was 24 in favor and O opposed. Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the Senate, was recognized to give the report of the Senate. Ms. Eaton reported that the Senate had three recommendations for the Academic Requirements Committee based on the Report. They are: 1) The minor in interdisciplinary studies needs a responsible party to sign-off on minors; 2) Because the clusters are being changed form the previously approved clusters, the ARC should develop a method to deal with petitions from students who have already started the previously approved clusters and now find that the clusters are being changed, by some departments/schools, in midstream; 3) Because of the changes in the numbers of some of the Biology courses, the ARC should accept the petitions from students for 1985-1986 academic year and for the Summer Session of 1986. These changes will have an impact on students in upper division areas.

Ms. Mate commenced to go through the Curriculum Report page by page. She stated that the Curriculum Committee urged a moratorium on all cluster changes for three or four years. In addition, she stated that the numbers that are dropped by a department should not be reactivated for a period of four or five years.

On page four Ms. Mate was interrupted by a question concerning the absence of Classics in the Report. Ms. Mate said that the Department would have to resubmit its curriculum suggestions through the College of Arts and Sciences committee for eventual consideration by the University Curriculum Committee next year.

On page 35 the establishment of the minor in Medieval Studies is presented. Ms. Mate stated that the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences would appoint a committee to certify all minors in this area. The minor in Women's Studies (p. 36) will follow the pattern approved for the granting of a certificate in Womenís Studies. In Routine Changes (p.1) Ms. Mate stated that graduate credit (either M or G) for all open-ended courses numbered 407, 408, and 410, was approved by the Assembly in 1975. This Report includes a rescinding of all graduate credit for these courses, except for 406 and 409, in departments that offer 500-level counterparts. As now established, with the passage of this Report, the only open-ended courses numbered from 401 to 410 that will be designated for graduate credit (either M or G) shall be 406, 408, 409 and 410.

With no general discussion of the document taking place, the vote was called for and the Curriculum Report was approved without dissent.

NEW BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Michael Posner, Psychology, to read a Notice of Motion. "Be it resolved that the faculty of the University of Oregon asks the citizens of the state through its legislature to make its highest funding priority the return of basic support to the University that existed prior to the recent recession cuts, to give next priority to holding the line on tuition and improvement of faculty salaries, and to examine new programs based on their intrinsic merit for reaching the goals laid out in the strategic plan for higher education in this state.'.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly UNIVERSITY OF OREGON Eugene, Oregon



 

UO ASSEMBLY 6 February 1985


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:38 p.m., on February 6, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the January 9, 1985 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS UNFINISHED BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Michael Posner, Psychology, to read his motion. Mr. Posner read his resolution Be it resolved that the faculty and students of the University of Oregon asks the citizens of the state through its legislature to make its highest funding priority the return of basic support to the University that existed prior to the cuts of July 1, 1980, to give next priority to holding the line on tuition and to the improvement of faculty salaries, and to examine new programs based on their intrinsic merit for reaching the goals laid out in the strategic plan for higher education."

Mr. Tom Stave, Secretary of the University Senate, was recognized to state the vote of the Senate on this motion. The vote was: 13 in favor and 12 opposed. Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, rose to report for the Senate. She stated that the Senate had debated the motion and that Mr. Posner accepted three changes in his original motion. The motion presented in this meeting reflects these changes.

President Olum, at this time, turned the chair of the Assembly over to Ms. Eaton and President Olum joined the body of the Assembly. Ms. Eaton recognized Mr. Posner to speak to his motion. He made several points in support of his motion, among them were: the base budget of the University had suffered a considerable loss through various cuts made during the recent recession and that this decline had to be reversed. Only if the basic funds were restored could the University make the continued advances in its curriculum that are necessary to serve the students properly. The cuts have resulted in severe reductions in the basic services of this institution. The Chair of the Psychology Department, Mr. Robyn Dawes, has recently tendered his resignation and will leave the University as he has grown tired of trying to do the tasks assigned and expected without proper funding. Mr. Posner concluded in saying this his motion was a .'statement of philosophy...a center of interest" as the only way to get the base restored was to have the Legislature address the problem directly.

Ms. Eaton recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Advisory Council Chair, and Ms. Mate introduced a substitute motion:

Be it resolved by the University of Oregon Assembly meeting in regular session on February 6, 1985:

I.That this Assembly supports the budget submitted by Governor Victor Atlyeh to the 1985 Oregon Legislature for the support of higher education in the State of Oregon during the 1985-1987 biennium, and it most particularly commends the high priority assigned to the improvement of faculty salaries in the State System of Higher Education.

II. That this Assembly urges further that the University of Oregon Administration pursue forcefully with the Board and the Officers of the State System of Higher Education the provision of funds appropriate to the anticipated 1985-1987 student enrollment in the University. In particular, $1.84 million dollars of funding removed from the University's base budget during the academic year 1984-1985 for a projected enrollment decrease which never materialized should be replaced, and this return of funds must be given the highest possible priority. Beyond this, additional funds are required in order to provide programs of high quality throughout the institution to a student body at the University whose numbers have, in actuality, greatly increased over what they were when the decrease referred to above was projected.

III. That this Assembly strongly urges also that the Legislature, without changing the priorities in the budget submitted by the Governor, provide separate additional funding to the State System of Higher Education, specifically in the amount necessary to keep student tuition in the State System during the 1985-1987 biennium at the same level as in the present academic year.

As this motion came from a faculty committee (the Advisory Council) it did not need a second. Mr Paul Olum, Mathematics, was recognized to speak to the substitute motion. He stated that he had no great disagreement with the Posner motion and the restoration of the base budget is indeed critical to the well-being of the University. However, economic development has been given a very high standing in the state and that Chancellor Davis and his staff made it clear that no application to have the base restored would be entertained during the time that the budget was being prepared. Within the budget presented to the Legislature, by the Governor, a number of items are included that are very important to the University and that we should not send the Legislature a sign that we feel these are not of any consequence to this institution. He concluded his remarks by stating that the administration of the University would continue to fight for the restoration of the base budget, with or without the vote of the Assembly.

Mr. James Tattersall, Economics, speaking in favor of the substitute motion, reminded the Assembly that the AAUP and the AOF had recently passed a resolution that was very similar to the substitute motion and that to pass the Posner motion would be to show an incompatibility with the AAUP and the AOF vote. Mr. Larry Jones, PPP&M, stated that the economy of Oregon was very precarious and would be for the next 10 or 15 years as the state geared itself into something other than lumber and wood products as a base for its economic well being. Mr. Tom Givon, Linguistics, thought the substitute was unnecessary as the Posner motion should be voted up or down and it was not necessary to invent something else (a substitute motion) in place of it. The question was one of merit for the original motion and the vote of the individual members of the Assembly should reflect only this. Mr. Matthew Fick, SUAB, moved to close debate. This was defeated when it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote. Mr. Paul Holbo, History, stated that the real issue was a restoration of the budget for all the institutions in the state system and not just the University of Oregon.

The motion was called for and the substitute motion was approved as a replacement of the original motion. The vote, by a show of hands, was 82 in favor and 47 opposed. A motion to divide the motion into its three logical parts was defeated. By a show of hands the motion was approved by a substantial majority.

Ms. Eaton surrendered the chair to President Olum at this time. The President recognized Ms. Sharon Gordon, Chair of the Semester System Study Committee, to review the discussion of the December 5, 1984, Assembly meeting which involved the report of that committee. Ms. Gordon reported that the committee had nothing new to report and that she was turning the "Prothe" motion back over to the Assembly. She added that the summaries made by the committee on the data from the several departments had been made available to all Department Heads and Deans and was available from them. President Olum accepted the report and thanked the committee for the work they had done. The Prothe motion was read: "On behalf of the student University Affairs Board and the Student Body of the University of Oregon, I move that a revised semester calendar plan with Fall Semester commencing no earlier than in September after Labor Day, and concluding in December, and with the Spring Semester beginning no earlier than mid-January and concluding in mid-May be adopted by the University Assembly. This calendar to take effect in the 1986-1987 academic year after approval by the State Board of Higher Education."

President Olum reminded the Assembly that the Chancellor has requested a response from each institution in the state system to a proposed conversion to a semester system. As of now the University of Oregon is the only institution that has not responded. The University Assembly did vote, on March 2, 1983, to move to a semester system. This motion was forwarded, with an endorsement from the President, to the State Board. The State Board, through a vote of 5 to 5 failed to accept the proposal. The Board did ask the Chancellor to have an investigation of any conversion discussed by the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate. However this body was not asked to act and in mid-1985 the Chancellor broached the subject of conversion with the Board. The Board requested that the Chancellor poll each institution to see how they would react to any conversion. The Interinstitutional Faculty Senate has since commenced study on the question of conversion.

Mr. Tom Givon, Linguistics, proposed a substitute motion: "The President will report to the Chancellor the report of the Gordon Committee (the ad hoc Semester Study Committee)." Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, supported this motion as he felt that the data gathered by that committee was what was really needed in making a rational decision on conversion. Mr. Robert Campbell, Economics, disagreed as he felt the data gathered are not dependable and that the Assembly must give some real direction to the President on the proposed semester conversion. The question was called for and was approved by a two thirds voice vote. The vote to accept the substitute motion was defeated. Mr. John Reynolds, A&AA, made another substitute motion: "The University of Oregon objects to the imposition of the change in the academic calendar from the present quarter system until the economic health of the OSSHE is restored.'. The vote to accept this substitution passed by a vote of 39 yes and 30 no. Mr. Larry Jones, PPP&M, offered a substitute for the just accepted substitute: 'The conversion to the 4-1 plan be proposed and accepted by the Assembly." Mr. Jones explained the plan as one term of 13 weeks, one term of 14 weeks and an optional term of 5 weeks in at the end of this 27 week period. This substitute was defeated when Mr. Reynolds requested its removal from consideration. The voice vote to remove was overwhelming. Mr. James Tattersall, Economics, moved to adjourn leaving the Reynolds motion on the floor for the next meeting of the Assembly.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Matthew Fick, SUAB, gave the following Notice of Motion. "On March 6, 1985 I will move that the University Assembly enact legislation that examinations given in conjunction with University courses shall not be given on Saturdays or Sundays. This resolution will become effective on passage by the University Assembly."

ADJOURNMENT

With a reminder to the Assembly members that the consideration of the Reynolds motion will be the first item on the agenda at the March 6, 1985 meeting adjournment was passed and the body adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly



UO ASSEMBLY 6 MARCH 1985

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:36 p.m. on March 6, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the February 6, 1985, meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

Mr Ewart Baldwin, Geology, was recognized by the President to read a memorial for Mr. Ernest Lund who passed away on February 16, 1985 in Astoria. Mr. Lund was a member of the University of Oregon Department of Geology from 1957 until his retirement in 1977. A copy of the Memorial is attached to these minutes.

Mr. Sanford Tepfer, Biology, reminded the Assembly that the Charles E. Johnson Award nominations were to close today. However, the Award Committee has extended the deadline to allow time for more nominations to be made. The new deadline is March 22nd and the nominations are to be mailed to Mr. Tepfer in Biology. The announcement defining the standards for the Award will be sent out to all faculty members.

Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, substituting for John Baldwin, Chair of the Academic Requirements Committee, read the request for Certification of Winter Term Degree applicants: "That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar after the close of Winter term, 1985, the degree for which they have completed all requirements." This was approved by voice vote.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Mr. John Reynolds, A&AA was recognized to read his motion, carried over from the February 6 1985 meeting of the University Assembly, concerning the conversion to the Semester System. "The University of Oregon opposes any consideration of a change in either the academic calendar or the quarter system until the financial health of the State System of Higher Education is fully restored." In support of this motion Mr. Reynolds stated that the time required to make the necessary changes in the curriculum and in the classroom preparation of the individual instructors would be expensive and would have a great impact on scholarship. Scholarship, he pointed out, was the method under which promotion, tenure and merit increases were decided. Mr. Robert Campbell, Economics, disagreed and stated that the motion should be voted down and that the Assembly should get on with the job of telling the Chancellor what we think about the suggested conversion. Financial problems cannot be a basis for opposing change.

Mr. Tom Givon, Linguistics, stated that the present budget was inadequate to provide for the increased services that the change would require. Mr. Matthew Fick, SUAB, felt that the motion was basically an expression of an emotion and lacked specifics. Mr. Paul Holbo, History, inquired as to when we would know if the financial health of the institution was restored. Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, replied that it will be restored when funding per student credit hour equal to what it was in 1980 with inflation adjustments included. Mr. Sanford Tegfer, Biology, called for the question. The question was called by a show of hands and the motion was adopted by a vote of 42 in favor and 32 opposed.

Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair of the Advisory Council, was recognized to read a motion from the Council. "On behalf of the Advisory Council, I propose that the question of what to tell the Chancellor concerning the Semester System (should adequate funding become available) be put to a mail ballot as follows:

"I. Choose one of the following options:

Semester Quarter Other (specify)

"II. If Semester which of the following:

Early (Fall session starting at the beginning of September and finishing before Christmas.)

Late (Fall session starting late September and ending mid-January.)

Uneven (Shorter fall session, beginning no earlier than Labor Day and ending mid-December. Longer Spring session beginning mid-January and ending mid-May.)

"III. If quarter, which of the following:

Present system

True Quarter (most classes are 4 or 5 units and meet 4 or 5 times a week. Students usually take three or four courses a quarter.)"

Mr. Lewis Ward, Mathematics, asked what the official basis of the mail ballot was. President Olum stated that the Chancellor would be given the Reynolds motion, just passed by the Assembly, and also the results of the mail ballot. Mr. Robert Friedman, Speech, inquired of Ms. Mate if the Advisory Council had discussed a preferential type of vote on the issues addressed by the ballot? Ms. Mate said the Council had but decided that the present format was the simplest possible and most direct. Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, made a motion to amend the motion Part III, True Quarter,. option , by inserting after the word "most" "lower division." Mr. Glen Love, English, suggested that the words should be ''undergraduate'' and not '.lower division" as all would have five hour classes and that four class hours per week was really the heart of the true quarter system. Mr. Andrews requested his motion be withdrawn and the vote of the Assembly approved the dropping of the motion to amend. An amendment that when the ballots are counted a tabulation of how each department voted be kept was made and the question (of this amendment that departmental votes be recorded) was called for and approved. The vote on the amendment was defeated by a vote of 28 in favor and 45 opposed. Another amendment to count the SUAB members vote separately was made and after a short discussion was voted on and carried by a vote of 36 in favor and 35 opposed.

A request for a recount was honored and the revote of the show of hands reversed the decision by a vote of 36 in favor and 39 opposed The ballots will not be counted in such a manner that would reflect the origin of the vote.

With unanimous consent of the body the wording on the ballot proposal was altered to read "would you prefer" at the end of each lines numbered II and III. The final form of the motion now read: "I. Choose one of the following options:

Semester Quarter Other (specify)

"II. If a semester system were adopted which of the following would you prefer:

Early (Fall session starting at the beginning September 1st and finishing before Christmas.)
Late (Fall session starting late September and ending mid January.)

Uneven (Fall session beginning no earlier than Labor Day and ending mid December, longer Spring session beginning mid January and ending mid May.)

"III. Of the quarter systems available which would you prefer:

Present System

"True Quarter (Most classes are 4 or 5 units and meet 4 or 5 times a week. Students usually take three or four courses a quarter.)"

When voting each voter is to be able to mark a choice between Semester and Quarters and also the options on each II and III and not be limited by the mark made on I. The Assembly agreed that this was the purpose of the vote. The motion was put to a vote and passed, by voice vote, overwhelmingly.

The President recognized Mr. Matthew Fick, SUAB, to read his motion: "I move that the University Assembly enact legislation that examinations given in conjunction with University courses shall not be given on Saturdays or Sundays. This resolution will become effective on passage by the University Assembly." Mr. Fick asked that this motion be postponed until the April meeting of the Assembly. This request was approved and it shall be the first order of business on the agenda for the meeting of the University Assembly on April 10.

NEW BUSINESS

The Secretary announced that the the Committee on Post-Tenure Review will have a motion on the floor at the April 10 meeting of the Assembly regarding alterations and revisions of the present legislation on Post-Tenure Review. (A copy of the proposed revisions and alterations are attached to these minutes.)

The following Notice of Motion was given by Mr. Roscoe Caron, SUAB: "OAR 58022-090 (d) provides that records tabulated from students' classroom survey evaluations may be released on request without the faculty member's consent, on a finding by the President that privacy rights in an adequate educational environment would not suffer by disclosure.

"This Assembly supports a finding by the President for the release of students' classroom survey evaluations of courses taught by regular University faculty, as described in OAR 580-22-090 (d), under the following condition:

"(1) These evaluations will be made available for student use, only in the reserve reading room of the main Library, the Office of Academic Advising, and in the Office of the Department in which the course is taught.'.

ADJOURNMENT

This concluded the agenda items for the meeting and the University Assembly adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


ERNEST HOWARD LUND April 19, 1915 - February 16, 1985


Ernest Lund was born April 19, 1915 in Glenwood, Washington. His family moved often because his father worked as a carpenter for the U. S. Government, but he spent most of his youth at Boring, Oregon. He graduated from Nestern Oregon State College and taught elementary school for a short time at Paisley, Oregon and near Lakeview, Oregon. He entered the University of Oregon in the early 1940s to study geology, and received his B. S. degree in 1944. He then entered the U. S. Military Service as a navy lieutenant and served between 1944 and 1946. Following navy service, Ernest entered the geology graduate program at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. degree in 1950. His doctoral study of the Morton Gneiss, one of America's most beautiful building stones, was subsequently published in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America.

Dr. Lund accepted a position as professor of geology at Florida State University, and taught there from 1950-1957. He came to the Department of Geology, University of Oregon in 1957 and remained at the University for 20 years until his retirement in 1977. He was known particularly in his teaching for his exacting quality standards and no-nonsense approach to education. There was no grade inflation where Ernest was concerned; however, he was scrupulously fair and he was liked and respected by his students. He was an excellent writer, and his editing ability was of great value to many graduate students and his colleagues. Ernest was active in University administration and served on many University and Departmental committees. He was chairman of the University's General Science Program for several years, and the University§s representative to the Malheur Environmental Field Station in Eastern Oregon. He conducted annual field trips to the Malheur area to study geology and natural history that received high praise from both student and faculty participants.

Dr. Lund was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi, a fellow of the Geological Society of America, a member of the Mineralogical Society, and an Honorary Life Member of the Northwest Scientific Association. He was awarded a Fulbright professorship to the University of Karachi, Pakistan, in 1961-62 and the University of Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1964-65. His research, particularly in his later years at the University, focused on the geology and landforms of the-Oregon Coast. He is the author of numerous monographs on coastal geology that are still standard reference works for anyone studying the geology of the Oregon Coast.

Dr. Lund died February 16, 1985 at his home in Astoria, Oregon. He leaves his wife, Jeanette, in Astoria; a daughter, Barbara, in Virginia and a son, Dr. Peter Lund, a professor in the Department of Economics, Sacramento State University, California. Ernest will be remembered by his many friends for his good humor, his high personal and academic standards, and his honesty and loyalty. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I request that this Memorial be made a permanent part of the minutes of this meeting and that copies be mailed to the family of Dr. Lund.

Ewart Baldwin


POST-TENURE REVIEW April 6, 1977

Mrs. Lucile Aly presented the following motion:

"The Oregon State Board of Higher Education has outlined in its Administrative Rules (AR 41.170) a requirement for a periodic, systematic evaluation of tenured faculty members. The Item and Commentary from the Minutes of the Board that sets forth the regulation and the minimum requirements for the program is attached to this report. The plan for tenure review will be subject to approval by the Chancellor and the Board.

"As the attached Board statement makes clear, the procedures adopted for post-tenure review should follow the already established evaluation programs and should be designed to make positive contribution to the welfare both of the faculty members and of the University. The attached Board minutes include this relevant statement: "the Boardís Office is persuaded that nothing less than the assurance that there is operative in each institution in the state system a program of systematic post-tenure review will satisfactorily respond to the rising tide of criticism of tenure. Nothing less will protect tenure and the institutions against the criticisms and allegations which--however baseless and unwarranted they may seem--are damaging to higher education in the public mind."

''In response to the Board regulation, the Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review has developed the following proposals for implementing the policy established by the Board. Each of the proposals is listed according to the number of the Board regulation.

2. a. "A statement of the objectives of post-tenure review and evaluation of faculty.

"The objectives of post-tenure review are to encourage, to reward, and to support the continuous development of members of the faculty, and through the process of peer review to identify tenured faculty members who merit special recognition or need special assistance.

2. b. "A statement as to the criteria to be used in the evaluations, the nature and kinds of information and data that will be accumulated and by what means, as a basis for the evaluations."

"The procedure for post-tenure review relates closely to the regular review process for faculty. In addition to the review for promotion and tenure by the University Personnel Committee, yearly evaluations of faculty members are made by many department heads, deans, or other supervising officers.

"The following criteria (elaborated in the Faculty Handbook) will be used in the post-tenure review:

"1. Maintenance of high quality of teaching.

"2. Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.

"3. Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service.

ì4. Service and activities on behalf of the larger community.

"In addition, special criteria established by individual departments and schools shall be used.

"The information to be considered in decisions concerning post-tenure review will include the faculty member's statement of scholarly, scientific, professional or artistic accomplishments, goals, and plans; an up-to-date vita and bibliography; accumulated annual faculty evaluation reports; faculty member's responses, if any. Additional information including any of the following may be requested:

"1. A statement from the department head, dean or provost summarizing the past duties and responsibilities of the faculty member, including pertinent information concerning the conditions of appointment.

"2. Student evaluations and other materials relating to the quality of teaching or administration.

"3. In appropriate instances, letters of evaluation from individuals both on and off campus, with particular attention to evaluations by persons specially qualified to judge the contributions of the faculty member over the period of review.

"4. Supportive documents such as copies of publications, manuscripts, photographs of art objects, musical compositions, or reviews of performance.

"5. Other evaluation statements.

2. c. "A designation of those who are to make the evaluations, and with what frequency and regularity."

It is proposed to amend the current legislation by replacing paragraphs one, two, and three under 2.c. by the following:

"Post-tenure reviews shall be conducted by an elected /underlining added/ standing committee of the unit (school, college or department)/ including three or more tenured faculty members, of whom one will be outside the /unit/. The total number of members shall be determined by the /unit/. The committee shall include no department head or dean.

"Each school or college must have an elected, standing oversight committee. In the case of those schools or colleges which have formal departments, the post-tenure review shall be conducted by an elected committee of the department. In the case of those schools or colleges which do not have formal departments, the post-tenure review shall be conducted by the elected, standing oversight committee of that school or college, which may be an existing committee or one newly devised for that purpose. In the case of units so small that a post-tenure review committee is impractical, the larger unit's oversight committee will make arrangements for post-tenure review./

''In addition to any other annual evaluation of tenured faculty, a post tenure review will be required at least every five years. /The post-tenure review is to be conducted at regular intervals regardless of the rank of the faculty member, except for persons within three (3) years of retirement if that is the policy of the school or college./ At the option of the faculty member, the department head, or the dean, an earlier review may be requested. The request for review, submitted in writing, shall include reasons for the earlier consideration. Copies shall be sent to the faculty member, the department head, and the dean. The time for review shall be determined by the review committee.

ìAny review for promotion shall be substituted for the post-tenure review. A tenured member of the faculty or administration may request,in lieu of the post-tenure review, a special review by the University Personnel Committee conducted through the regular review process.

Copies of the report of the post-tenure review shall be sent to the faculty member, and to the appropriate administrative officials. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within thirty days; the response shall be attached to the report of the committee.

2. A description of the institutional plan for (1) tying the post tenure reviews into the faculty reward system so as to provide appropriate recognition for excellence, and 2) for handling firmly but humanely any situations in which a faculty members lessened vitality and drive, or diminishing competence are such that the resources of the faculty career support program are unable to provide the stimulation or help necessary to return the individual to a fully effective state.î

"(1) Post-Tenure Review and Recognition of Excellence

"An unusually strong evaluation resulting from post-tenure review should result in accelerated progression on the salary schedule for tenured faculty. Other faculty rewards should be considered by the post-tenure review committee for recommendation to the Dean or Department Head. Faculty rewards may include but need not be limited to the following: (1) reallocation of departmental resources on a temporary basis to allow opportunity for development of new courses to enrich the curriculum, or to allow additional research opportunity; (2) additional research or clerical support; (3) university recognition of individual faculty members for outstanding achievement.

"(2) Career Support Program

"Upon the recommendation of the post-tenure review committee, the university shall provide to the faculty member such opportunities to improve performance as the following:

'.1. Consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas.

"2. Appropriate reallocation of department assignments to facilitate updating and improvement in teaching or research.

"3. Access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort.

"4. Personal counseling.

(It is proposed to amend that same legislation by deleting under 2.d. "(2), item "5.)

"Until the faculty member has been given adequate opportunities for improvement and an additional post-tenure review by the college or school post-tenure review committee has been conducted, no action resulting or derived from post-tenure review may be taken under AR 41.335 (Initiation of Proceedings for Termination and Other Sanction for Cause).

'If an additional post-tenure review finds the faculty member unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels, altered career plan counseling or early retirement opportunities may be provided by the University.

''Action under AR 41.335 may be initiated only after appropriate career support opportunities have been provided and the second post-tenure review has been conducted.,'

The motion to approve the report was put to a vote and carried.



Assembly 10 April 1985

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m. on April 10, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the March 6, 1985 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEMORIALS

Mr. Richard Desroches, Romance Languages, was recognized by the President to read a memorial for Mr. David Dougherty who passed away on March 3, 1985 in Eugene. Mr. Dougherty was a member of the University Faculty from 1947 until his retirement in 1972, A copy of the Memorial is attached to these minutes.

Announcement from the Secretary on the mail ballot on the Academic Calendar.

The ballot contained the following options (the votes for each option is included on the right of the option). The number of votes in total was 600. This is a return close to 67 per cent of the eligible voters.

I. Choose one of the following options:

SEMESTER 310
QUARTER 275 In this group 1 vote was not valid
OTHER (specify) 1

II. If a semester system were adopted which of the following would you prefer:

EARLY (Fall session starting on September 1st and finishing 235
before Christmas)
LATE (Fall session starting late September and ending 192
mid-January)
UNEVEN (Fall session beginning no earlier than Labor Day and 103
ending mid-December. A longer Spring session beginning mid-
January and ending mid-May)
III. Of the quarter systems available which would you prefer:
PRESENT SYSTEM 309
TRUE QUARTER (Most classes are 4 or 5 units and meet 4 or 5 228
times a week. Students usually take three or
four courses a quarter)
(537 ballot votes were valid)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

At this point President Olum announced that he had to leave the Assembly meeting because of a previously made appointment and that Vice President Richard Hill would assume the position as Chair. Mr. Hill recognized Ms. Louise Wade, a member of the ad hoc Post-Tenure Review Committee, to present the motion of that Committee. Ms. Wade moved that the Assembly adopt the revisions of the Post-Tenure Review Document of April 6, 1977. Mr. Stave gave the Senate vote as unanimous. Ms. Wade read the following in support of the motion and to explain the proposed changes.

The ad hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review Practices has completed its study. The Committee recommends several changes in current faculty legislation, to be placed before the University Assembly at the April meeting.

The Committee has reviewed existing legislation and its implementation. All Units in the University were asked to submit a summary of their post-tenure review practices. The response was rewardingly prompt, and the many reports clarified what the Committee had to do. One thing the Committee did not do was to study actual post-tenure reviews or inquire into the consequences of reviews. That seemed outside our charge. Instead, we interpreted our charge to be a review of existing procedures.

We found that some units in the University have not been acting in full accord with the legislation. On the other hand, present practices generally seemed to make sense.

Committee findings can be summarized as follows:

1. Post-tenure reviews are for the most part taken seriously. A number of reports indicate that the reviews were indeed proving to be useful. Most of the procedures evolved by the various units are the results of considerable thought and careful deliberation.

2. Procedures prescribed by the legislation of April 6, 1977, are generally not being followed. The College of Arts and Sciences is a major offender, as it lacks a College-wide standing committee for post-tenure reviews. Many College departments lack elected standing committees; some have appointed committees and others, none. Similar deviations have occurred in professional schools, although not on such a large scale. Throughout the University, we find review committees that are ad hoc rather than standing, appointed rather than elected, and contain chairpersons or deans among their members. There are cases in which administrators have been conducting or chairing the reviews, where a systematic oversight mechanism is lacking, and where great variations exist in the manner in which reviews are conducted as well as in the preparation and contents of the reports.

The Committee's overall conclusion is that a number of sensible practices have evolved that merit retention. On the other hand, some aspects of present practices are at variance with the spirit of pertinent legislation.

There is one particular policy statement in the 1977 legislation that the Committee believes should be deleted. Item 2.d.(2).5, dealing with Career Support Programs, proposes support and guidance for faculty members whose research efforts have not met with success. We believe that Item 2.d.(2).2 in the same section, which proposes changes in departmental assignments, deals adequately with the subject. In view of the paucity of the University resources, the Committee believes that the main aim of action based on post-tenure reviews should be to reward superior performance, rather than to remedy ineptitude or failure. Many members of the faculty have found the spirit of Item 2.d(2).5 offensive; this is a good time to remove this paragraph while retaining the general theme that supporting steps may be taken to help faculty members who need it.

In making its recommendations the Committee was guided by the following considerations: a) the general spirit of the legislation should not be altered; b) every college and school should have a faculty elected-oversight panel or committee to which reviews are forwarded, which would provide continuity in evaluating the content and quality of the reviews, and which would serve a consultative role with the appropriate dean; c) the faculty should be reminded that neither deans nor heads of units should be involved at any stage in the conduct of the review except to provide facilities and information required by committees, and to receive a copy of the final report transmitted to the appropriate oversight committee and the Provost; d) each college and unit should have uniform procedures to satisfy the objectives, review criteria, and essential kinds of information outlined in sections 2a & b of the 6 April 1977 legislation. It is also strongly urged that in 2.c. paragraph one, concerning the make-up of the elected college and unit or review committee, that the word 'will'. be changed to "may'. so that a college and unit can choose to have or not have someone from outside the college and Unit as a member of its review committee.

The Committee has given notice of motion for the changes as shown in the attached copy of the legislation in the conviction that post-tenure review is a good practice, that it has been accepted as such by the faculty at large, and that long-range effects of the reviews will be beneficial both for individual faculty members and for the University as a whole.

No discussion took place and the motion was passed without a dissenting vote.

A copy of the newly adopted Post-Tenure Review legislation is attached to these minutes.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Hill recognized Mr. John Baldwin, Chair, Academic Requirements Committee, to make a Notice of Motion. The Academic Requirements Committee shall move at the May 1, 1985 meeting of the University Assembly that the drop-add deadline be changed from the current three weeks to the 10th day of classes each term.''

Mr. Hill recognized Ms. Lois Youngen, University Senate, to read a Notice of Motion. ,'On behalf of the University Senate, I will move that the University Assembly consider a proposal for the organization of the Senate at the May 1, 1985 meeting of the Assembly.' A full copy of the proposed changes is attached to these minutes.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the Assembly was concluded and adjournment was at 3:55 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


David M. Dougherty 1903-1985


David Mitchell Dougherty was born August 6, 1903, in Wilmington, Delaware. He received his A.B. degree from the University of Delaware in 1925, and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard in 1927 and 1932 respectively. After serving as an instructor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at Harvard, he joined the faculty of Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1931 as an assistant professor of Romance Languages. There he rose to full professor and chairman of the department before coming to the University of Oregon in 1947 as professor of Romance Languages. At Oregon he held the post of Head of the Department of Foreign Languages from 1947 to 1964, then that of Executive Officer of the Division of Modern and Classical Languages from 1964 to 1967, and finally that of Chairman of the Department of Romance Languages from 1967 to 1969. In 1972 Professor Dougherty retired from active service with the title of Professor Emeritus.

David Dougherty was known as an ardent supporter of proficiency in the spoken language as well as first-hand knowledge of the country where the target language is spoken. He himself had spent his junior year abroad at the University of Paris. In 1939 he was to direct the University of Delaware program in Paris--an academic year that was cut short by the outbreak of World War II. After the war he again directed the Delaware program, this time in Geneva in 1946-47. His experience and interest in foreign study enabled him to establish the University of Oregon National Defense Language Institute, a federally supported summer program of study for American high school teachers of French, which he directed from 1961 to 1968 at Tours, France. In recognition of his many years of stimulating interest in the study of France and the French language, Professor Dougherty was made Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor in 1950, and was awarded the Medal of the City of Tours in 1967.

In local and regional circles his reputation for encouraging language study in general, and French in particular--which he spoke with flawless ease-was also legend. He actively supported close liaison between the various levels of language instruction by inviting high school teachers to meet on the University of Oregon campus, and by urging his university colleagues to participate in secondary school gatherings. Through his recommendation several of us were appointed to write foreign language guidebooks for the Portland school system in the early 1960's. As one of the founders in the 1950's of the Foreign Language Field Day, he lived to see those early meetings of some 500-600 students blossom into the present International Studies Day,


POST-TENURE REVIEW April 6, 1977 and as changed on April 10, 1985


The Oregon State Board of Higher Education has outlined in its Administrative Rules (AR 41.170) a requirement for a periodic, systematic evaluation of tenured faculty members. The Item and Commentary from the Minutes of the Board that sets forth the regulation and the minimum requirements for the program is attached to this report. The plan for post-tenure review will be subject to approval by the Chancellor and the Board.

As the attached Board statement makes clear, the procedures adopted for post tenure review should follow the already established evaluation programs and should be designed to make positive contribution to the welfare both of the faculty members and of the University. The attached Board minutes include this relevant statement: "the Board's Office is persuaded that nothing less than the assurance that there is operative in each institution in the state system a program of systematic post-tenure review will satisfactorily respond to the rising tide of criticism of tenure. Nothing less will protect tenure and the institutions against the criticisms and allegations which--however baseless and unwarranted they may seem--are damaging to higher education in the public mind."

In response to the Board regulation, the Ad Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review has developed the following proposals for implementing the policy established by the Board. Each of the proposals is listed according to the number of the Board regulation.

Post-Tenure Review - Page 23 _

2. a. A statement of the objectives of post-tenure review and evaluation of faculty.

The objectives of post-tenure review are to encourage, to reward, and to support the continuous development of members of the faculty, and through the process of peer review to identify tenured faculty members who merit special recognition or need special assistance.

2. b. A statement as to the criteria to be used in the evaluations; the nature and kinds of information and data that will be accumulated and by what means, as a basis for the evaluations.

The procedure for post-tenure review relates closely to the regular review process for faculty. In addition to the review for promotion and tenure by the University Personnel Committee, yearly evaluations of faculty members are made by many department heads, deans, or other supervising officers.

The following criteria (elaborated in the Faculty Handbook) will be used in the post-tenure review:

1. Maintenance of high quality of teaching.

2. Continuing professional growth, scholarly activities, creative and artistic achievement.

3. Exercise of leadership in academic and administrative service.

4. Service and activities on behalf of the larger community.

In addition, special criteria established by individual departments and schools shall be used.

The information to be considered in decisions concerning post-tenure review will include the faculty memberís statement of scholarly, scientific, professional or artistic accomplishments, goals, and plans; an up-to-date vita and bibliography; accumulated annual faculty evaluation reports; faculty member's responses, if any. Additional information including any of the following may be requested:

1. A statement from the department head, dean or provost summarizing the past duties and responsibilities of the faculty member, including pertinent information concerning the conditions of appointment.

2. Student evaluations and other materials relating to the quality of teaching or administration.

3. In appropriate instances, letters of evaluation from individuals both on and off campus, with particular attention to evaluations by persons specially qualified to judge the contributions of the faculty member over the period of review.

4. Supportive documents such as copies of publications, manuscripts, photographs of art objects, musical compositions, or reviews of performance.

5. Other evaluation statements.

2. c. A designation of those who are to make the evaluations, and with what frequency and regularity.

It is proposed to amend the current legislation by replacing paragraphs one, two, and three under 2.c. by the following:

Post-tenure reviews shall be conducted by an elected standing committee of the unit (school, college or department) including three or more tenured faculty members, of whom one may be outside the unit. The total number of members shall be determined by the unit. The committee shall include no department head or dean.

Each school or college must have an elected, standing oversight committee. In the case of those schools or colleges which have formal departments, the post tenure review shall be conducted by an elected committee of the department. In the case of those schools or colleges which do not have formal departments, the post-tenure review shall be conducted by the elected, standing oversight committee of that school or college, which may be an existing committee or one newly devised for that purpose. In the case of units so small that a post-tenure review committee is impractical, the larger unit's oversight committee will make arrangements for post-tenure review.

In addition to any other annual evaluation of tenured faculty, a post-tenure review will be required at least every five years. The post-tenure review is to be conducted at regular intervals regardless of the rank of the faculty member, except for persons within three (3) years of retirement if that is the policy of the school or college. At the option of the faculty member, the department head, or the dean, an earlier review may be requested. The request for review, submitted in writing, shall include reasons for the earlier consideration. Copies shall be sent to the faculty member, the department head, and the dean. The time for review shall be determined by the review committee.

Any review for promotion shall be substituted for the post-tenure review. A tenured member of the faculty or administration may request, in lieu of the post tenure review, a special review by the University Personnel Committee conducted through the regular review process.

Copies of the report of the post-tenure review shall be sent to the faculty member, and to the appropriate administrative officials. The faculty member may submit a written response to the report within thirty days; the response shall be attached to the report of the committee.

2. d. A description of the institutional plan for (1) tying the post-tenure reviews into the faculty reward system so as to provide appropriate recognition for excellence, and (2) for handling firmly but humanely any situations in which a faculty memberís lessened vitality and drive, or diminishing competence are such that the resources of the faculty career support program are unable to provide the stimulation or help necessary to return the individual to a fully effective state.

(1) Post-Tenure Review and Recognition of Excellence

An unusually strong evaluation resulting from post-tenure review should result in accelerated progression on the salary schedule for tenured faculty. Other faculty rewards should be considered by the post-tenure review committee for recommendation to the Dean or Department Head. Faculty rewards may include but need not be limited to the following: (1) reallocation of departmental resources on a temporary basis to allow opportunity for development of new courses to enrich the curriculum, or to allow additional research opportunity; (2) additional research or clerical support; (3) university recognition of individual faculty members for outstanding achievement.

(2) Career Support Program

Upon the recommendation of the post-tenure review committee, the university shall provide to the faculty member such opportunities to improve performance as the following:

1. Consultation with colleagues for purposes of assistance in problem areas.

2. Appropriate reallocation of department assignments to facilitate updating and improvement in teaching or research.

3. Access to a center for improvement of instruction or scholarly effort.

4. Personal counseling.

Until the faculty member has been given adequate opportunities for improvement and an additional post-tenure review by the college or school post tenure review committee has been conducted, no action resulting or derived from post-tenure review may be taken under AR 41.335 (Initiation of Proceedings for Termination and Other Sanction for Cause).

If an additional post-tenure review finds the faculty member unwilling or unable to perform at acceptable levels, altered career plan counseling or early retirement opportunities may be provided by the University.

Action under AR 41.335 may be initiated only after appropriate career support opportunities have been provided and the second post-tenure review has been conducted.

The motion to approve the report was put to a vote and carried unanimously.


REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE


1. Status Quo Senate

Structure: 54 members 36 Faculty 18 students
Functions: Considers all motions from Assembly, including fiscal impact
Distinguished Service Award decision
Initiates motions in the Senate
Studies issues and makes recommendations as appropriate
(Assembly, President, etc.)
Rules committee (appointed by Senate Chair)
Receives reports from Administration
Meets monthly
2. Committee on Motions and Resolutions (replacing Senate)**
Structure: 12 members 8 Faculty 2 Students Faculty Secretary
& Parliamentarian
Functions: Considers all Assembly motions and makes revisions as
necessary
Distinguished Service Award decision
Meets monthly
3. Senate A
Structure: 27 members 18 Faculty 9 Students**
Functions: Considers all motions from Assembly, including fiscal impact
Distinguished Service Award decision
Initiates motions in the Senate
Studies issues and makes recommendations
Rules committee function
Receives reports from Administration
Meets monthly
4. Senate B

Structure: 27 members 18 Faculty 9 Students**

Functions: Originates all motions**
Refers motions to Assembly when:**
a. less than 2/3 majority decision
b. all curricular/academic requirement matters
c. requested referral by Senate agreement or President
d. petition by 15 Faculty members within specified period
after Senate action
Distinguished Service Award decision
Rules committee function
Report to Faculty on Senate actions**
Meets monthly
5. Senate C
Structure: 27 members 18 Faculty 9 Students**
Functions: Originates all motions**
Refers motions to Assembly when:**
a. less than 2/3 majority decision
b. all curricular/academic requirement matters
c. requested referral by Senate agreement or President
d. petition by 15 Faculty within specified period after
Senate decision
Distinguished Service Award decision
Studies issues and makes recommendations
Rules committee function
Receives reports from Administration
Committee on Committees function**
a. subcommittee of Senate
b. recommends all Faculty committee appointments to
President
c. hears regular reports from committees; takes action on
recommendations
Report to Faculty on Senate actions**
Meets twice monthly**

6. Senate D

Structure: 27 members 18 Faculty 9 Students**
Functions: Originates all motions**
Refers motions to Assembly when:
a. less than 2/3 majority decision
b. all curricular/academic requirement matters
c. requested by Senate agreement or President
d. petition by 15 Faculty within specified period after
Senate action
Distinguished Service Award decision
Studies issues and makes recommendations
Rules committee function
Receives reports from Administration
Committee on Committees function**
a. subcommittee of Senate
b. recommends all Faculty committee appointments to
President
c. hears regular reports from committees; takes action on
recommendations
Communications function**
a. regular report to Faculty on Senate
actions/recommendations
b. Senate monthly newsletter including summary of minutes,
committee report
summaries, Provost report, Faculty Advisory Committee
report
Meets twice monthly**
7. Senate X
**New functions or structure


Assembly Meeting 1 May 1985


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:37 p.m. on M.y 1, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the April 10 1985 meeting were approved as distributed

ANNOUNCEMENTS and MEMORIALS

Mr. Walther Hahn, Germany, was recognized by the President to read a memorial for Mr. Edward Dilier who passed away on March 30, 1985 in Eugene, Mr, Hahn was a member of the University Faculty from 1965 until his death. A copy of the Memorial is attached to these minutes.

President Olum announced that the University Foundation is presently having a feasibility study conducted to see if a major capital fund raising campaign should be undertaken. Over the past year or so many proposals for specific purposes has been compiled and this list has been reduced in its focus to major needs. Items included are: matching funds for a new library addition, repair of Villard Hall, endowed professorships, and more. The study will be completed by early summer and a decision will be made by late summer if the timing is right for the five year campaign to raise the desired funds.

The President also announced that the State Board of Higher Education has approved of the granting of honorary degrees. The process of granting the degrees must be worked out by each institution and approved by the Board. Since the University faculty approved the cessation of the granting of these degrees in 1947 the Assembly must approve of any process to grant honorary degrees in the future. The State Board must approve of any degrees granted.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

President Olum recognized Mr. Roscoe Caron, Student Senate, to read the following motion:

''OAR 580-22-090 (d) which provides that records tabulated from students' classroom survey evaluations may be released on request, and without the faculty memberís consent, on a finding by the President that privacy rights in an adequate educational environment would not suffer by disclosure.

This assembly supports a finding by the President for the release of students' classroom survey evaluations and appropriate questionnaires, of courses taught by regular University faculty, as described in OAR 580-22-090 (D), under the following conditions: (1) These evaluations will be made available for student use, only in the reserve reading room of the main Library, the Office of Academic Advising, and in the Office of the Department in which the course is taught.

Mr. Thomas Stave, Secretary of the University Senate, reported the senate vote on this motion as: 20 yes, 5 opposed, and 6 abstentions. Mr. Caron, in speaking to the motion, stated that the broad access to the evaluations is denied the consumer of the product that the evaluation judges, that the evaluations of the faculty by the students are as legitimate as the evaluation of the student by the faculty and that the 1981 legislation that gave individual faculty members the right to have the evaluations available with their consent and within the home departments is not appropriate to the demand. If they were centrally located and included all the evaluations for the entire University, use would be encouraged. In giving the report of the Senate Mr. Stave stated that the Senate felt quite strongly that the motion was appropriate and that student choice of courses should be based on the best information possible and gained from a variety of sources. Those in opposition felt that the present system was the best possible and fully adequate.

Mr. Ron Rousseve, Counseling Psychology, spoke against the motion and noted that the evaluation process was not geared toward the selection criteria to inform students of the quality or lack of quality of a course or instructor. The base of the evaluation is aimed at self-improvement for the instructor and to be used in promotion and/or tenure decisions. The information in the evaluation could show a bias that needs to be interpreted correctly to be of any Use. Mr. Lewis Ward, Mathematics, inquired as to what exactly the OAR states. President Olum read the appropriate portion of the State Law that governs access to faculty records:

§§351.065 Consent of, access to and control of personal records. (2) Regulations adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall require that personal records be subjected to restrictions on access unless upon a finding by the institutional executive that the public interest in maintaining individual rights to privacy in an adequate educational environment would not suffer by disclosure of such personal record. Access to personal records may be limited to designated classes of information or persons or to stated times and conditions, or to both, but cannot be limited for records of academic achievement or for records more than 25 years oldî.

President Olum stated that if the Assembly approves the Motion that he will find that the evaluation summaries would not be an invasion of privacy and that the material would be made available as outlined in the Motion. However, he clearly stated, that the information was not to be published and if publication, by any source, was to take place he would immediately revoke his finding and close the record.

Mr. Robert Mazo, Chemistry, asked if the bill currently in the legislature and initiated by the Oregon Student Lobby that would open more widely the evaluations to the point of including unsigned statements was parallel to this motion. Mr. Caron answered by saying that the ASUO helped to initiate the bill through its representation on the OSL and that this Motion was not a part of the legislative bill. Mr. James Tattersall, Economics, queried that if the student is intimidated by coming to the department to see the evaluations they could be held by the Peer Advising body of the department. The cost factor bothered him as well. Mr. Sanford Tegfer, moved the previous question. This required a two-thirds vote and the question was moved by a vote of 49 in favor and 23 opposed.

The Motion was now called for and by a vote of 46 in favor and 29 opposed the motion was approved.

Mr. John Baldwin, Chair, Academic Requirements Committee, was recognized to read the following Motion: "The present drop/add deadline of three weeks shall be changed to the first 10 days of classes, excluding Saturday and Sunday, each term. The School of Law shall pro-rate the number of days for the Semester System and they shall have a drop/add time of the first 15 days of a Semester excluding Saturday and Sunday. This legislation will take effect at the start of the 1985-86 academic year."

The University Senate did not act on this motion and thus no report of vote or report of the Senate was made. Mr. Richard Hill, Sociology, asked if this change would have a great impact on the four week reporting figure that gives the attendance number for budget purposes. Mr. Herb Chereck, Registrar, stated that it would not and the Office of the Registrar supported the motion even though it will have an impact on the workload of the office because of the shortened period. He felt that the time lag now available had a negative impact on the students waiting to get into courses that were closed and might open when decisions to drop are made. The waiting list and the openings in courses should be handled by the department so that students can get into desired classes when an opening occurs. The three week period means that the student getting into a class late is already behind in readings, lectures, etc. and this period is three tenths of a term that is lost. Mr. Robyn Dawes, Psychology, felt that the proposed motion removed flexibility from the student and thus was not a positive proposal. Mr. Fred Andrews, Mathematics, stated that the University gets nothing from having a student take a course for three weeks, perhaps taking tests, etc., and consuming class and faculty time only to drop out with nothing gained. A member of the Student Senate felt that the 'W" should be more widely used to discourage the dropping of classes and to make the decision to drop more serious. Ms. Sara Tenney, Student Senate, moved to amend the motion to remove the "drop' from the ten day period. This would leave the drop at the present three weeks. It was pointed out that this is the opposite of what is needed to make courses available for students waiting to get into closed classes. This amendment was defeated, by voice vote, rather strongly. The motion was called for and it was passed by a margin of 52 yes and 17 no.

President Olum recognized Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, to read the Motion on Senate reorganization: ',On behalf of the Senate, I move that the proposed restructure of the University be adopted, with implementation to begin JULY 1, 1986 and the appropriate amendments to faculty legislation to be enacted during the 1985-86 academic year.',

"UO Senate - Proposed 1986 54 members Originates all motions/refers Rules Committee function Studies issues/recommends changes Committee on Committees function Receives administration report Communications function Meets twice monthly'

The specific structural changes are attached to these minutes. Ms. Eaton asked that the motion be postponed to the June 5, 1985 meeting of the University Assembly. This would give the members of the Assembly time to become familiar with the proposal. The Assembly agreed to the postponement and this motion will be the first item on the business agenda in June.

ADJOURNMENT

No further business was on the agenda and the Assembly adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary. University Assembly


Edward Diller 1925-1985


Upon returning from spring break we were overwhelmed by the totally unexpected death of our colleague Edward Diller, and we are still struggling with the immense loss.

Here was a man who dedicated the last twenty years of his life to both the German Department and the University. He came here from Colorado College where he had been active both as a professor and director of the German Language Summer School. He received his training at the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Zurich, and Middlebury College.

In the course of his career he was a Fulbright scholar several times, acted as Resident Director of the Overseas Studies Center of the Oregon State System of Higher Education in Stuttgart and Tubingen, was an assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, directed the affairs of the Robert D. Clark Honors College of the University for five years, and was a member of the current Advisory Council.

Ed Diller was a talented, versatile scholar with a resourceful mind. Ever eager and filled with intellectual curiosity, he was always ready to follow new paths in his research and let his students, graduate and undergraduate, participate in his undertakings. He enriched his literature courses with fertile ideas, thereby engaging his students' interest, and his language classes were outright exhilarating.

When called upon, he was willing to lend a hand, and it did not matter whether it was in the Department, the College or the University at large. He was a man who wanted to get involved, and so he did. He was a man with firm convictions, not afraid to speak out. He felt strongly about his work, his colleagues and was very much attached to his family. He will not be forgotten.

Walther Hahn Professor of German

Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial be entered into the record of this meeting and a copy of the memorial be sent to Mrs. Diller.


May 1, 1985


A. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SENATE CURRENT STRUCTURE

54 Members 36 Faculty 18 students

Distinguished Service Award Decision
Receives Motions from Assembly - discusses, votes, returns to Assembly,
fiscal impact
Rules committee function - refines Assembly motions if necessary
Receives reports from Administration
Studies issues and makes recommendations (motions) as appropriate
Meets monthly

B. CHANGES CONSIDERED BY UNIVERSITY SENATE

STRUCTURE:

54 members 36 Faculty 18 students
27 members 18 Faculty 9 students

FUNCTIONS:

Distinguished Service Award function Originating all motions: including Rules committee function

Referring to Assembly if: not 2/3 majority requested by Senate or President all curricular matters petition by 15 Faculty members

Senate becomes a 12 member committee on motions Studies issues and makes recommendations Receives reports from Administration Reports on Senate action to Faculty (action sheet)

Receives all motions from Assembly and returns to Assembly with action report including Rules committee function

Committee on Committees: Subcommittee of Senate to perform functions of this Committee, includes regular receiving of reports from Committees

Communications: includes newsletter report to all Faculty concerning Senate action, current issues, Administration report, Advisory Council report, summaries of Committee reports - patterned after Senate reports on other campuses in U.S.

Meets monthly Meets twice monthly

C. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SENATE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS:
54 members 36 Faculty 18 students

Meets twice monthly

Originates all motions and refers to Assembly under following conditions: less than 2/3 majority Senate or President request Curricular matters Petition of 15 faculty

Studies issues and recommends changes Receives Administration reports

Committee on Committees function - Committees report to the Senate annually

Communications function


Assembly Meeting 5 June 1985


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Olum in room 150 Geology at 3:35 p.m.. on June 5, 1985. There being no corrections, the minutes of the May 1, 1985 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS MEMORIALS

A memorial for Mr. Graham Hoyle, Biology, who passed away on February 23, 1985 in Eugene, is a part of these minutes and is attached to them. Mr. Hoyle was a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1961 until his death.

Mr. Ted Stern was recognized to read a memorial for Mr. Homer G. Barnett, Anthropology. Mr. Barnett was a member of the University of Oregon faculty from 1939 until his death, in Eugene, on May 9, 1985. A copy of the memorial is attached to these minutes.

The President recognized Mr. John Baldwin, Chair, Academic Requirements Committee, to read the motion from the Committee for approval of degrees: That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar after the close of Spring and Summer Terms, 1985, the degree for which they have completed all requirements. The motion was put to a voice vote and passed without opposition.

The President recognized Ms. Mavis Mate, Chair, Faculty Advisory Council, to read the annual report of that body. A copy is attached to these minutes.

The President recognized Mr. Richard Schmuck, Chair, Faculty Personnel Committee, to read the annual report of that body. The report is attached to these minutes.

The President announced that the budget for the State System was still under consideration by the State Legislature. At this time the funding situation is looking very good and that some inroad on the sparse funding and underfunding of the past few years is being made. However, the picture is not all rosy and that some areas of proposed funding have not been funded, i.e., library automation. Tuition is frozen for the second year of the biennium, but a three per cent increase is required for the first year--that is 1985-86. The salary increase proposal of $20 million seems to be heading for passage and if this does indeed become available it will be across the board salary increases. A second amount of $20 million, if funded, will be available for merit increases and to use as fighting money to retain faculty being tempted by other institutions to move.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

The President recognized Ms. Katherine Eaton, President of the University Senate, to read the motion on Senate reorganization:

On behalf of the University Senate, I move that the Faculty legislation establishing the University Senate and detailing its functions be amended as follows:

1. All notices of motion and motion discussions will originate in the University Senate. (The required timely notice requirements will remain as at present.) Any member of the Faculty or the Student Senate may give notice of motion and speak to it in the Senate. The Senate will discuss and dispose of all motions with the following exceptions:

a. the motion passes or fails by less than a two-thirds majority;
b. the Senate itself or the President of the University requests
referral;
c. all curricular matters;
d. petition of 15 or more Faculty members to refer.
Under any of the above conditions, the motion will be referred to the Assembly.

2. The Senate will receive annual reports from all faculty committees established under faculty legislation and consider recommendations for action.

3. The Senate will establish a mechanism for reporting regularly to the Faculty about Senate actions, reports from the Administration, reports from the Faculty Advisory Council, and other matters of Faculty and Student interest. (i.e., a monthly newsletter.)

4. The Senate will meet twice a month when Senate business requires it.

The vote of the Senate on this motion was reported as being 19 in favor and 2 in opposition with 2 other abstaining. Ms. Eaton spoke to the motion by pointing out that the powers given the Senate under this motion were not radical and would give the Senate a reason for being. Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, asked what a quorum was in the Senate. The response was 28. Mr. Sanford Tepfer, Biology, inquired of the Chair if this motion would require a two-thirds vote to pass. The Chair answered in the positive, however, a simple majority will be sufficient to amend the motion. Mr. Stanley Greenfield, English, asked if a time limit had been thought of for the petition portion of "l.d." Ms. Eaton stated that none had been placed in the motion, but if the Assembly wished they could amend the motion to establish one. Mr. Greenfield proposed an amendment to "1.d." to follow the word "refer" with: "presented to the President of the Senate within fifteen class days following official notification to the Faculty of the Senate action." This was put to a voice vote and passed. When asked the meaning of number 2, Ms. Eaton stated that the Committees would report annually to the Senate and that the Senate might consider suggesting to the Assembly certain actions or legislation concerning the Committee or the report of the Committee. Under no circumstances does this mean that the Senate will attempt to interfere with the right of the Assembly over faculty committees. A further inquiry concerned number 4 and who will decide when a meeting will be necessary. Ms. Eaton stated that the Senate Executive Committee will decide when the agenda is such that a meeting, other than the monthly meeting, will be necessary. The Senate Executive Committee consists of the President, Vice-President, Secretary and the Chair of the Rules Committee of the Senate. Mr. Donald T. Smith, Library, rose in opposition to the motion and reflected on the fact that the original purpose of the Senate was to screen legislation, clean Up motions and prepare them for debate in the Senate and the Assembly. Through the last few years, he stated, this purpose has been neglected by the Senate and perhaps the Senate should return to its original purpose.

Mr. Lewis Ward, Mathematics, asked that "1" be amended so as to read (at the end) "Any member of the Assembly has the right and privilege to speak on the floor of the Senate for debate and discussion on any issue before that body..' This amendment passed by a voice vote. A question as to the meaning of the words "or fails" in .'l.a." was clarified by the President when he stated that it meant less than two-thirds in the negative. Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, felt that the number of students in the Senate was too many and thus could control legislation with a quorum of 28. A combination of the 18 student members and two faculty could control action. He proposed an amendment to reduce the number of students to two and that they be appointed by the ASUO president and that they did not have to be members of the Student Senate. After a short debate this motion was put to a hand vote and lost 14 in favor and 28 opposed. The question was called for and by a show of hands it passed. The motion was now before the Assembly for a vote and it passed by a hand vote of 33 in favor and 12 opposed. As passed by the Assembly the motion now reads:

1. All notices of motions and motion discussion will originate University Senate. (The required timely notice requirements will remain as at present.) Any member of the Assembly or the Student Senate may give notice of motion and speak to it in the Senate. Any member of the Assembly has the right and privilege to speak on the floor of the Senate for debate and discussion on any issue before that body. The Senate will discuss and dispose of all motions with the following exceptions:

a. the motion passes or fails by less than two-thirds majority;

b. the Senate itself or the President of the University request referral;

c. all curricular matters;

d. petition of 15 or more Faculty members to refer, presented to the President of the Senate within fifteen class days following official notification to the Faculty of a Senate action.

Under any of the above conditions, the motion will be referred to the Assembly.

2. The Senate will receive annual reports from all Faculty Committees established under Faculty legislation and consider recommendations for action.

3. The Senate will establish a mechanism for reporting regularly to the Faculty about Senate actions, reports from the Administration, reports from the Faculty Advisory Council, and other matters of Faculty and Student interest. (i.e., a monthly newsletter.)

4. The Senate will meet twice a month when Senate business requires it.

NEW BUSINESS

No new business was introduced.

ADJOURNMENT

This concluded the agenda and the last meeting of the 1984-1985 academic year adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Keith Richard Secretary, University Assembly


Graham Hoyle 1923 - 1985


The shocking news of Graham Hoyle's sudden death has continued to reverberate among his family, friends and associates in the Biology Department and University community. His loss to family and colleagues can never be replaced and it is with much sadness that I prepare these brief comments.

Graham was one of the brains 'drained" from Britain, coming to the University's Biology Department in 1961, a few years after completing his undergraduate work in Bernard Katz's laboratory in the University of London and his doctoral degree in Otto Lowenstein's laboratory at the University of Glasgow. In these laboratories he developed his strong commitment to studying the neurobiological basis of behavior and brought to Oregon a dedication to research and graduate training in the field that has proved most fruitful. Most of the 27 graduate students who obtained their Ph.D. with Graham have themselves become major contributors to the field. Some of these students are the best ever produced by the Biology Department.

Convinced that the simpler nervous systems of insects were ideal for his studies, he, his students, and his many postdoctoral associates, spent the next 24 years probing into neuronal control circuitry responsible for such behaviors as walking, jumping, flight and oviposition digging. Their contributions were published as numerous original papers and reviews over the years. Even some of the more controversial ones, those that questioned fundamental paradigms of muscle physiology and never saw the light of day, eventually appeared in print in his excellent monograph on "Muscles and Their Neural Control".

In the late 60's Graham turned to the fundamental and intractable problem of learning, again Using the simpler invertebrate system. He showed in a brilliant series of experiments that locusts can learn (even excised portions of legs could "learn', and in these last few years he had expanded this exciting new program with much new grant support and a group of younger colleagues. His tragic death came at the peak of his productive career.

Graham had strong opinions which he articulated well and forcefully. His biases could never be misunderstood. There never was a hidden agenda with Graham. This led to frequent disagreements with his colleagues, including myself, but over the years, I realized that Graham was often right, that he showed excellent taste and judgment in his critique of science and those making science. A thought provided by one of Graham's good friends and colleagues, John Edwards, more eloquently expresses my view of Graham at his best: "Graham belonged to a breed of British scholars widely misunderstood in the New World. In the mold of J.B.S. Haldane he was a passionate pilgrim on the path towards understanding of the nature of things. He was a cuddly cactus, a dreamer, an entrepreneur, and an amateur in the strictest sense of the world. Although he aspired to be Prime Minister, he relished his role as Leader of the Opposition. In that role, and out of it, he was an intellectual uncle for many of us -- a source of encouragement and a critic of the Emperor's new clothes." He will be missed by all who knew him, particularly his family, his students, his colleagues and the entire international community of neurobiologists.

Philip Grant Professor of Biology

Mr. Chairman, I move that this memorial be entered into the record of the present meeting and that copies be sent to the members of the Hoyle family.


Homer G. Barnett 1906-1985


The recent death of Homer Garner Barnett has removed from our midst a colleague who throughout a long career enhanced the reputation of this, his university. Born and raised in Bisbee, Arizona, and educated at Stanford (1927) and the University of California at Berkeley, from which he received the doctorate in 1938, he was an instructor at the University of New Mexico when, in 1939, Luther Cressman hired him as the second member of his fledgling anthropology department. Here he was to rise successively through the ranks, becoming professor in 1950 and professor emeritus in 1971. He continued to serve into 1974.

Three themes characterize his professional career, marked as it was by many publications and honors, and they were intertwined. The first was his dedication to fieldwork, the natural laboratory of the anthropologist. His earliest work lay with American Indians in California and the Pacific Northwest. Then the war called him back to Washington, to serve as ethnologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institution and with the Ethnogeographic Board, assembling data on the peoples and places that had become the theatre of war. Here he was assigned to the Pacific, which thereafter became the arena of his research.

The second theme is his theoretical concern with the dynamics of culture change, and with the processes that underlie them. Perhaps the best expression of the manner in which such interests meshed with fieldwork was the large-scale project funded from 1962 by the National Science Foundation, under which, he, as principal investigator, together with his students and colleagues from other institutions, carried on a comparative study of the changes undergone by ten displaced communities in the Pacific. The enlargement of his understanding was to continue throughout his career; and on several occasions he went back to school to study in disciplines which would contribute further to his comprehension. We may count two milestones along this way: Innovation, the Basis of Cultural Chanae, his most influential volume, was published in 1953; while its sequel, Qualitative Science, emerged thirty years later, just two years before his death.

The third theme is that of service. As a social scientist, Homer Barnett was convinced that hard-won insights are not to be stored on academic shelves but should be drawn upon for the solution of human problems. In 1941, he was involved in the first enterprises of the newly founded Society for Applied Anthropology, and thereafter through the years he moved upward in its councils, becoming president in 1961. After post-war research in the Palau Islands, in 1951-53 he held the office of anthropologist on the staff of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, in the latter year becoming consultant to the High Commissioner of the Territory. During this time, he also served on the Research Council of the South Pacific Commission. In 1955, Upon invitation, he was advisor on native affairs to the Governor-General of Netherlands New Guinea. Out of these experiences came another much-quoted treatise, Anthropology in Administration 1956).

As a teacher, Homer Barnett had few peers. To the classroom he brought a presence at once dignified and personable, a warm, and sometimes roguish, personality, a fine intellect, wide learning, and a capacity for expressing lucidly the most complex of relationships. In his prime, he attracted students and mature scholars to the Oregon campus from distant places, as well as across disciplines. For two years (1960, 1961) he served as visiting lecturer for the American Anthropological Association, speaking on campuses too small to support an anthropology department. Within the department and in University committees and Senate, he was a source of quiet wisdom. On several occasions, he served as acting head of department. Upon his retirement in 1971, the Oregon Academy of Science awarded him a citation. In 1980, in recognition of "the high standards of teaching and scholarship,' which he had set for students and colleagues alike, the anthropology department established a graduate teaching fellowship in his name.

Ted Stern Professor Emeritus, Anthropology

Mr. Chairman, I move that this this memorial be entered into the record of the present meeting and that copies be sent to the members of the Barnett family.


FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL Annual Report 1984/5


As always, the Faculty Advisory Council discussed issues with the President as they arose. This year the subjects ranged from the presence of the sniper in Autzen Stadium to the passage of financial and other Bills through the Legislature. Moreover, in addition to its role of sounding board, the Council pursued a number of issues on its own with varying degrees of success.

In the Fall we had a number of meetings with Dan Williams, the Vice President for Administration, and discussed at length with him the problems of adequate parking facilities and the regulation of bicycles. Partly as a result of these meetings, the decision was taken to convert the Alder Street tennis courts to temporary parking and new bicycle regulations will go into effect in the Summer Quarter. At the same time we encouraged, maybe even badgered, the Provost to find the money to fund the Freshman seminar program and extended library hours. We also galvanized the administration into action in opposition to the proposed OSSHE integrated library information system. As a result of their representation, and strong letters from library officials around the state, this system has now been shelved. Finally we proposed a mail ballot on the possibility of a conversion to the semester system ,'should adequate funding become available''. This was accepted by the University Assembly and subsequently carried out.

One of our most time-consuming tasks was discussion of the administrationís proposed extension of the probationary period for tenure as a result of pregnancy and childbirth. This proposal went through five drafts before wording was arrived at that was acceptable to everyone concerned. The result, however, is a policy of which, I think, everyone can be proud.

Recently we have spent much time discussing the Riverfront project with various officials and have been assured that our concerns are leading to modifications of existing plans. This is a matter which we hope will remain of concern to next year's Council. We have also discussed, both among ourselves and with the President and Provost, procedures and policies to be used in determining faculty salary increases and the distribution of merit money across campus. We believed very strongly that any individual salary increases should be only after consultation with a representative, and preferably elected group of faculty. Unfortunately not everyone agreed with this recommendation and it is not clear what changes, if any, will be made as a result of our representation. One other area in which we agreed, reluctantly, to leave matters be, is the question of requiring all students to have two years of foreign language before being admitted to the University of Oregon. While we agreed with the idea in principle, we decided that its introduction, at a time of budget stringency, could possibly have serious, adverse effects on the financial health of the university. We, therefore, agreed not to pursue the matter for the moment, but hope that future Councils will see fit to reopen the issue.

Taken as a whole it has been a profitable and productive year. Council members have worked well together and those giving up their office can feel a sense of modest accomplishment.

Mavis Mate, Chair, History G. Bogen, DEPM

C. Craig, Linguistics E. Diller, German (part of year) G. Love, English J. Moseley, Physics B. Mossberg, English (part of year) A. Urquhart, Geography (part of year) R. E. Smith, Economics (part of year) H. Zeigler, Political Science


FACULTY PERSONNEL COMMITTEE 1984-85 Annual Report to the Faculty


We are charged by the faculty to advise the Provost on all academic promotion and tenure cases in the University. The Faculty Personnel Committee normally consists of eight faculty members and two student members. The faculty members are elected by the faculty for two-year terms, four being elected each year. The student members are appointed Upon recommendations of the ASUO. This year the Faculty Personnel Committee consisted of eight faculty and one student. A replacement for the second student, who decided not to participate, was never offered by the ASUO.

We were called upon this year to evaluate 38 cases, divided as follows:

Promotion to Associate Professor with tenure, 20 Promotion to Professor, 11 Promotion to Associate Professor, 4 Tenure only, 3

We met 24 times. We held our first meeting in September and our last meeting just a few days ago. In addition, in January, we offered a public meeting for the faculty in which we discussed criteria for promotion and tenure, preparation of files, and committee procedures. We strongly recommend a similar meeting be held annually.

Our work was made more efficient this year by a careful screening of the files in the Provost's office before they were passed on to US. Thus, we did not so often send incomplete files back to the departments as in previous years. Even with this increased efficiency, our work was frustrated this year by the large number of late submissions. Based on a comparison with the last four years, this was the worst year for late cases. Most cases were submitted late, and a substantial number of cases did not arrive at the Provost's office until April. A few cases did not get to the Faculty Personnel Committee until May. Since even today our work is incomplete, we wish now that we had not been so accepting of the extremely late cases.

We wish to thank personnel in the Provost's office, especially Ms. Keena Northrop and Ms. Mary Anne Rymer for their efforts in helping US complete our work.

Respectfully submitted, Warren Brown, Business Administration Russell Donnelly, Physics Steven Goldschmidt, Education Robert Hurwitz, Music Barbara Koser, Student Louis Osternig, Physical Education Galen Rarick, Journalism Richard Schmuck, Education (Chair) Nancy Smith, Art Education June 5, 1985


Web page spun on 7 July 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises