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



 

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR OCTOBER 4, 1989


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:35 p.m. on October 4, 1989. There being no corrections, the minutes of the June 6, 1989 meeting of the University Assembly were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

President Brand introduced the Deans who in turn introduced the new faculty members in each of their Schools and Colleges.

OLD BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

None

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BRAND

The emphasis of the remarks made by the President centered on planning for the future of the University--the mid-199Os to the close of the century. Long-range planning is really strategic thinking, and this comes about by knowing how you got to where you are now, fully understanding where you are at present and how to get to where you want to be in five or ten years. This planning is necessary so that the University will not face a future crisis without having attempted to anticipate what a reaction to any crisis would be and how to adjust to the crisis. Planning of this type cannot be budget based--it must be based on the sound logical principles of decision making.

Can the University do better with the resources and strengths it now has?

Higher Education, nationally, will face a shortage of qualified faculty during the mid-199Os and beyond because the number of graduates in the humanities, basic sciences, business, and other areas are not producing sufficient PhDs to fill the vacancies anticipated by the retirement of present faculty. Tied to this is the dramatic increase of college-aged students in the mid-199Os, the "echo of the baby boom."

Competition for new faculty will increase over the next decade because of this shortage, and at the University of Oregon it will be tougher because of the low salary levels. Qualified faculty will be in the bargaining position--not the Universities. On the graduate side, the students will be attracted to an institution because of the quality of the faculty and the graduate discipline the graduate student is interested in. On the undergraduate side, the quality of faculty teaching high-quality undergraduate courses will attract the best and the brightest students. The University of Oregon must be prepared to meet t his challenge in hiring quality faculty and attracting quality students.

We do not live ;n a vacuum, and the University of Oregon has a good base to begin with when it is compared with its equals in the AAU. However, we do not have good data on our internal programs. This creates the need for a program review. The program review is necessary before any long-range planning can be undertaken. This review-planning must be decentralized and from the bottom up. If necessary, outside reviewers might have to be involved in the review. It must fit the University of Oregon!

Some of the planning must be University-wide: Affirmative Action, undergraduate education, graduate education, funding issues, state-wide programming. But input from the faculty within departments is necessary for the planning to be a success. Common ground must be found and no special interests allowed to dominate. No wish list, no dreams are to be included in this review-planning, and funding sources must be identified prior to any enhancement of programs or added programs. To be successful, the review-planning process must be realistic in its goals and objectives. Programs must dictate decisions. Time is on the side of the University now, but this time is slowly slipping away and the opportunity to do the necessary work will disappear if the University does not act now.

The object cannot be to do everything. Strengths exist and must be built upon. The planning done now must result in wide-range principles for the University that can be used by each unit in the future.

Undergraduate programs, support, etc., must be first rate. The University of Oregon should be able to attract the best that Oregon has to offer and to give them an education that is the best possible anywhere in the nation. The research must be of high quality and continue on a very high level. Some of this will be a continuance of the multi-disciplinary research that we already do so well and is a distinct advantage for us, while other areas will continue to stress disciplinary research. This research should always compliment our undergraduate program and also result in professional education that will serve the State of Oregon in its economic development.

The University of Oregon must make it clear that it supports, unequivocally, cultural diversity on campus--within the faculty and student body, equal opportunity by removing all barriers because of race, creed, sex or sexual preference, and affirmative action by becoming pro-active in bringing about the elimination of all of these barriers.

The President anticipates appointing a committee to commence the planning process within the next few weeks. This group will pick up the outline created by a retreat of administrators and the Faculty Advisory Council in September. The members of the committee will include University Senators, Deans, members of the FAC and a student. By January 1990, a functioning plan should be prepared, and by June 1990 a preliminary plan for each unit should be completed and by January 1991 the finalization of the plan should be readied.

ADJOURNMENT

With this, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University 


Assembly November 1989:


NO MEETING


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR DECEMBER 6, 1989


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:37 p.m. on December 6 1989. There being no corrections, the minutes of October 4, 1989 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

A memorial for Fred N. Miller, M.D., has been presented to the Secretary for inclusion in these minutes. The Assembly approved the insertion of this memorial without the memorial being read. Dr. Miller was head of the Student Health Service from 1925 until his retirement in 1961. He passed away, in Eugene, on November 10, 1989. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.

As a part of these minutes the annual report of the Faculty Personnel Committee for 1988-89 can be found at the end of these minutes.

President Brand announced that the article in the Eugene Register-Guard concerning the dignitaries going to the Independence Bowl was misleading. (The article was in the December 6, 1989 edition of the ERG.) The President stated that the Department of Athletics has chartered 8 flights and that the dignitaries will receive only the flight as a gift. Since the airplanes have been chartered the cost is set and if the flights were full or empty the cost would be the same. The per diem expenses are to be paid by the individuals involved. The University is obligated by the contract signed with the sponsors of the bowl to have certain officials and dignitaries attend the game. The University, the President stated, was keeping the number going at the absolute minimum. The President said that he was the person who had to decide on our taking part in this bowl game.

Mr. Charles R. B. Wright, Math, asked about the memorandum concerning the giving of finals to students that are going to be gone from campus because of the bowl game. Mr. Wright stated that he felt the memorandum was in violation of University Assembly legislation concerning finals and dead week. The President called upon Provost Norman Wessells to answer Mr. Wright. Mr. Wessells stated that the Department of Athletics is in reality a part of the University and that the activities engaged in by the Department are University sponsored events. This is true even though the Department receives no money from the State of Oregon to support its activities. The decision to issue the memorandum and the content of the memorandum came after discussion with various individuals including the President and the Registrar. Mr. Wessells stated that the memorandum did not deviate from previous practice involving students and finals. He gave examples of debate and other non-athletic activities that are extra-curricular or cause students to miss finals. The football players will leave on Tuesday and thus will miss finals scheduled for Wednesday through Friday. The marching band and others will leave on Friday. The President joined the discussion by stating that he felt the memorandum was the best solution to a difficult situation.

Mr. David McDaniels, Physics, stated that he was not an athletic fan but that he was delighted about the success of the football team after so many years of being down-and-out. He added that the faculty always has to make exceptions during finals--illness, conflicts, trips, etc. and that this should not be viewed as any different.

The President turned the subject to the recently surfaced reports about the IO and its relationship to what might be called the Portland situation. He stated, quite strongly, that the UO had to be an active part of the solution and not an observer. The University has much to offer and the need in the Portland area for strong graduate programs in the Professional areas is not at present being met as well as it should be by the State System. The OSSHE must define the mission of Portland State University and it must also define the mission that Oregon State University and the University of Oregon will play in graduate education in the Portland area.

The President called upon Mr. Carl Hosticka, Associate Vice-President for Statewide Educational Services, to add pertinent information to the subject at hand. Mr. Hosticka said that the situation is very fluid and changes daily. The Chancellor has stated that the State of Oregon cannot afford to support three true research universities, but that more education must be available in the Portland Metro area in the future. At present a commission appointed by the Governor is studying the situation and Portland itself has a commission looking into the future development of Portland State. The recently released report of the American Electronic Associationís Oregon Chapter which stated that the Graduate Engineering Programs should be turned over to Oregon State University and that Portland State University should be taken over by the University of Oregon, has inflamed the debate and established a ìturfî war. The total discussion must not be narrowed or centered on one answer or suggestion -- it must be wide open and all sides must be able to engage in the discussions without hostility or the establishing of turf to be protected. It is a serious situation, Mr. Hosticka stated, one that the University faculty, alumni and friends must enter into after they have the facts.

In the general discussion that followed these points were made by faculty members: resources from the UO must not be shifted to Portland; new money will have to support any changes in the delivery of graduate education in Portland, but this might very well impact the UO because it would not get any new money which is desperately needed; has anyone really defined what it is that Portland needs in the area of education?; because of the success of certain quality classes that the UO has taught in the Metro area over the past decade the appetite for quality education in that area has been exposed and now more is wanted; education is the infrastructure of the future if Oregon is going to have its economic development-why does the state not realize this and put money into education from K through graduate school, the University of Oregon is not fully understood as to what it can do for Oregon, is doing and has done and this must be better defined and circulated; the Portland area is the hub of the real metro area of Oregon which is the entire Willamette Valley from Portland up to Eugene; the distance from Portland to Eugene is the same as from North Los Angeles to the Southern end of Los Angeles and Eugene can offer to Portland quality education within a reasonable distance.

The model of the New York City consolidated/united graduate center could be a part of the answer, suggested President Brand. This might be worth looking into and perhaps developing--but it would have to be an Oregon model for Oregon. The ultimate answer, he stated, might be, emphasis on might be, that the UO could take over Portland State and upgrade its undergraduate programs to one of quality and to instill more quality into its graduate programs. It is only logical that the distribution of curriculum in the graduate areas might need some reassignment as duplication could be reduced. Portland is the logical center for a true urban University and its curriculum should reflect this.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Paul Simonds, member of the Committee on the Curriculum, was recognized to read the following motion:

Unless a department has requested that graduate credit be dropped, all courses previously listed in the curriculum as 4XX"G" or 4XX"M"--including 406-410--will be double listed as 4XX/5XX courses. Unless a department has requested that graduate credit be dropped, and except for Thesis (503), all courses previously listed in the curriculum as 5XX courses will be listed as 6XX courses. Academic departments offering master's programs with these will have a course numbered 503 for Thesis, and academic departments offering doctoral programs with dissertations will have a course numbered 603 for Dissertation.

Mr. Wayne Westling, President of the University Senate, reported that the Senate had discussed the motion and passed it without dissent. Mr. Simonds gave the following explanation of the motion:

1. This arrangement eliminated double and triple listing of courses and reduces proliferation in the university curriculum.

2. Undergraduate and graduate students will be concurrently enrolled in 4XX/5XX courses. The 5XX course will permit graduate students to earn graduate credit. Undergraduate students will also be permitted to enroll in the 5XX course with instructors consent.

3. Both master's and doctoral students will enroll in 6XX courses and earn graduate credit.

4. The substance of the proposal replaces the "G" or ''M" for each existing or new 4XX"G" or 4XX"M" with a new 5XX-numbered course. Except for Thesis (503), each existing or new 5XX-numbered course will now be numbered 6XX.

The motion was called for and passed without dissent.

The President recognized the Secretary to present three motions as a package to place the University back on the Quarter System in the Fall of 1990. The first motion is to adjust the credit hours in the legislation of June 1 1988 concerning Field (Group) requirements to the quarter system. The second motion is to make the legislation of March 1, 1989 consistent with the June 1, 1988 motion in the use of the word 'sequences', in place of the word ìclusters''. The third motion concerns degree requirements and placing the credit hours on the quarter system.

Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, stated that the Committee on the Curriculum was opposed to the use of the word "sequences" and wanted to continue to use the word "clusters" as the March 1, 1989 legislation contains. The Secretary stated that if this was an amendment to the motion further amendments would be necessary to make the June 1, 1988 legislation read "clusters" and not "sequences." Further, the Secretary pointed out that, after some debate on the subject, the Assembly had in June 1988 voted to use the word "sequences" and not the word "clusters." The Curriculum Committee had unilaterally decided to use the word ''clusters" without coming back to the Assembly for permission to use this word in legislation. The Secretary's concern is consistency in the language used so that the minutes correctly reflect the wishes of the University Assembly. Mr. Simonds was invited, by the President, to return with new legislation if the Committee wished to have this topic debated and voted upon by the Assembly.

The motions were called for and passed without dissent.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


Fred N. Miller, M.D.


June 7, 1891 - November 10, 1989 Professor Emeritus Physical Education Director Emeritus, Health Service 1925 - 1961

Any comments about Fred Miller has to describe the development and evolution of Student Health Services at the University of Oregon. Fred arrived in Eugene in September 1925 fresh out of internship at Washington Boulevard Hospital in Chicago. Fred had completed his medical studies at the Rush Medical School at the University of Chicago shortly before. Prior to entering medical school, he attended Lafayette College in Easton Pennsylvania where he earned a BA and MA. Between Lafayette and medical school WWI intervened and he enlisted in the Hospital Corps of the US Navy and later was commissioned an ensign and assigned as commander of the US subchaser #281. A far cry from the hospital corps, but an early indication of his ability to be flexible.

While Fred arrived in 1925, the Board of Regents had authorized creation of a Health Service in 1918 with a compulsory fee of $1.00 per term. Faculty and staff could seek similar benefits for $4.00 per term. In the seven years before he arrived the turnover in personnel in the the Health Services was nearly annual. Fredís appointment was the first person chosen who looked upon student health service as a career. His initial appointment as University Physician, Director of Health Services and Professor of Physical Education earned him $3,300 per year several hundred dollars more than the average professor.

His immediate predecessor was Dr. William Kuykendall who also was President of the Eugene Clinic and Hospital. While Dr. Kuykendall was a physician of the highest reputation, the fact he was in a position to refer patients to the Eugene Clinic from the University created a furor in the medical community. Mending this uproar was a major achievement over the next ten years. The final solution was to limit health service personnel to campus duty without engaging in an outside practice. From that moment Fred had resolved what could have been a devastating problem for the University.

While the regents had made health service available to faculty and staff it soon become apparent that faculty expected to be served on appearance and not have to take their place in line. Again, Fred, in a diplomatic fashion, was able to have changes made so the health service was for students.

It was recognized before 1925 that a Health Service building was a crucial need. The existing dispensary was located in a portion of Friendly Hall which was in part a mens dormitory. The infirmary was in a succession of old houses. In those days, with the lack of antibiotics, epidemics of influenza, measles, etc. were common. Additional space was found in other houses and from these annexes grew the student identification of ,"pest houses.'' This drew national publicity which focused attention on the need for a new building. The Oregon Mothers club in the 20's began a campaign to raise money for a new building. Unfortunately, the depression and Mrs. Gertrude Bass Warner proved major stumbling blocks. Mrs. Warner had given her impressive collection of Oriental art and was in the process of raising funds for an Art Museum and this seemed to have a higher institutional priority.

In 1936, President Roosevelt's Public Works Administration approved money to build the new Health Service. Proof of Fred's effectiveness in winning support from the local medical community came with a delegation of Eugene medics going to Portland to lobby successfully to have the funds appropriated. A nearby institution was not as fortunate when their medical community lobbied against their appropriation.

In desperate need of getting people back to work and ending the depression, Fred found he had an appropriation to build, but no time for planning. Fortunately he had spent a lot of time in determining needs so the final product resulted from the architect using most of Fred's ideas which resulted in a 26 bed infirmary and out-patient clinic double the size of the previous facilities.

From 1936 until the building was assigned to the Center for Volcanology and upon completion the new Health Service Building on the corner of 13th and Agate there were only two significant changes to the building. The first occurred during WWII when military personnel assigned to the University needed space for victims of influenza epidemics. The basement was remodeled to provide the needed space. The second, and most significant, involved building a penthouse apartment atop the original structure so the two Drs. Miller could provided 24 hour on call service to students. The previous need to make house calls at student living organizations had become too demanding on time and an inefficient use of both doctors. They lived there until his retirement.

The second new Health Service building again was a matter of Fred lobbying hard for expanded facilities to cope with the rising enrollment. Even though it was not completed until five years after his retirement in 1961, both Fred and Marion made major contributions to the planning process and Marion had the opportunity to be a staff physician serving in the building until her retirement. In 1977 both Drs. Miller were honored by the naming of the Miller Outpatient Service.

In summary, I mentioned how successful Fred had been in establishing a strong professional bond with the practicing physicians in the community and how he was able to prioritize the Center as a student health center. There were many other accomplishments and I will touch only a few. Sanitation, especially in food service, was a concern and Fred and staff personally visited kitchens of living organizations at meal times to see if they were operating in a sanitary manner. By 1955 he was successful in gaining the budget to hire a full-time sanitarian. Problems of mental health are always a concern in a University environment. Fred reorganized the need for more expertise in this area and Marion underwent extensive training to help fill this staff void. Eventually he was able to hire a psychiatrist on a part-time basis. A beautiful example of his sensitivity to student problems was early recognition of the stressful situations created by students in the 11th hour cramming for an examination. He had developed a paper circulated to students on how to sensibly approach examinations.

Most Health Service physicians have little time for research but Fred managed. He authored several important medical articles and monographs. From a six month study performed while on sabbatical his monograph on pneumothorax led to his election as a fellow in the American College of Physicians. Fred enjoyed Eugene Round Table, a Town-Grown study club, and he attended faithfully until well past 90.

He was truly a pioneer in Student Health Service. He did his job competently and was respected by students, faculty and medical colleagues. He got the job done without rocking the boat.

In Respect,

Ray Hawk, Vice President Emeritus


Final Report of the 1988-89 Faculty Personnel Committee


The Faculty Personnel Committee met almost weekly, except for holidays, from December through May. Forty-six cases from within the University were reviewed, twenty-six for promotion and tenure, six for tenure only, thirteen for promotion to full professor, and one for promotion to associate professor without tenure. The committee also reviewed a number of candidates from outside the University who were being considered for appointments with tenure.

In addition to considering cases, the FPC also has a responsibility to explain and demystify the RTP process to the University community. This year's committee has created a Letter to Untenured Faculty which will be distributed next fall. It is our hope that subsequent committees will make the letter a tradition--modifying, rewriting, and changing this letter in any way they see fit, and distributing it to future generations of assistant professors.

The FPC also participates in two important forums. In the Fall the FPC and the Oregon AAUP chapter co-sponsor a forum on the RTP process at Oregon. In the Spring CSWS sponsors a forum in which the FPC participates, on the special problems of RTP for women faculty.

The FPC has encountered three issues this year which we wish to highlight. First, appointments with tenure seem to becoming more common. Often, only scanty information is provided by the department wishing to make such an appointment. The FPC review file should be assembled in such cases. At a minimum, these files should include a C.V., candidates statement, letters (or reports of telephone interviews) from referees other than the evidence regarding the candidate's teaching.

Second, there seem to be a number of University employees in tenure-track positions who have what can only be described as special job descriptions: they do something other than the sorts of work described in the Faculty Handbook for Officers of Instruction. The FPC recommends that the Provost's office create a separate category for these positions. The people in question make important contributions to the University and should be suitably rewarded, but their performance cannot be adequately evaluated through the traditional RTP process.

Third, we note that faculty legislation establishes the two student members of the FPC as non-voting. They participate fully in the work of the committee and contribute valuable insights in the consideration of each case. This year's FPC urges subsequent committees record student member's votes and report them as advisory to the RTP process.

There are also a few points the FPC wishes to make that have become almost routine with each year's committee, but they are important enough that they bear repeating. First, FPC service is very time consuming. Committee members devote several hours each week to this task. Departments, schools and colleges, and the University should not expect much other committee work from FPC members.

Second, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough that the quality of a candidate's file can help or hinder the case for tenure and/or promotion. The files this year were generally of high quality--all requested material was provided, and it was organized in a fashion that facilitated its review. Joe Hynes of the Provost's office, along with staff in the school and college offices have made a special effort in this regard. They are to be commended.

Third, adherence to the timetable announced by the Provost's office has always been spotty; this year was no exception. The FPC recognizes that there are sometimes compelling reasons for deviating from the established timetable, but they should be the exception. It not only disrupts the committee's work, but produces necessary emotional strain on the candidate awaiting a decision.

Respectfully submitted June 15, 1989:

Michael Hibbard, Chair (Planning, Public Policy & Mgmt) Henry Dizuoy (Educational Psychology) Sally Fullerton (Human Services) Barbara Gordon-Lickey (Psychology) Ray Hyman (Psychology) Duncan McDonald (Journalism) John Orbell (Politcal Science) Harold Owen (Music) Deanna Robinson (Speech) Lew Ward (Mathematics) Angela Bolton (student representative) Stephen Curran (student representative)


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR JANUARY 10, 1990


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:38 p.m. on January 10, 1990. The minutes of the December 6 meeting were approved.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

None

OLD BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

See pages 4-6

DISCUSSION ON THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

The topic was introduced by President Brand. He reiterated some of the points on long-range planning that he made at the October meeting of the Assembly and emphasized that all planning had to be decentralized--faculty lead--if it was to be successful. The charge was given in October that the University had to prepare soundly for mid-to late 1990s. Nothing that we (the University) are doing well now, and should be doing, is to be lost, but we should be able to improve some programs, to make them even better, and to build on the strength we have at the University. The President did not see any reallocation of funds as basic to the process of planning or in the results of the plan presented within the next two years.

The President introduced Senior Vice-Provost for Planning Mr. Gerald Kissler, Chair of the committee charged with developing a strategic planning process. Mr. Kissler introduced his committee: Mr. James Terborg, CBA; Ms. Mary Kuntz, Classics; Mr. Davison Soper, Physics; Ms. Marliss Strange, Student Services; Ms. Tiffany Weed, Student Senate; Ms. Esther Jacobson, Art History; Mr. Joe Stone, Economics; Mr. Richard Schmuck, Education, Mr. Chris Ramey, University Planning; and Mr. Wayne Westling, Law, who headed the separate, but vital, committee that relates to the Planning Process on Affirmative Action.

Mr. Kissler started his presentation by asking .,Why planning now?. The timing is right, Oregon is coming back from a deep and serious recession and a period of

budget slashing. Because of this it is wise to anticipate the future--to attempt to see what is ahead and to improve the already high quality of the University. He suggested that the State of Oregon would not be able to give higher education all it wanted in the way of budget support and so another part of the process of planning will be to gain more private money, grants and of course to educate the general public that higher education is vital to the future of the State of Oregon.

If the process of planning is to work the entire campus community must engage in the process. No plan will work or succeed if it is presented from the top down. The next phase of the process will be in the hands of the departments, institutes, centers, colleges and schools. No part of the University can be left out and no part can choose to not participate. To implement this each department will have to commence planning in accordance to the guidelines created by the development committee.

Mr. Kissler presented a list of factors and trends, that his committee identified, as being crucial to the future of the University. These are: Oregonís changing economy and work force

The cultural, educational and professional needs of Oregon Recruitment and retention of faculty Research and graduate education Undergraduate Education International affairs and its global context Technology and the campus infrastructure Affirmative Action

Mr. Kissler emphasized that these topics were presented as a part of the process of planning, a presentation of the topics that must be addressed in detail by the departments, etc. These topics should not be looked upon as the plan! Each of these topics will be given to a Task Force to develop and investigate. Each task force will have to work parallel with each department, etc. developing their plans. No work will be done in a vacuum--interaction, exchanges, discussions between all members of the University community will be vital to the success of the actual planning process. In addition each of the Task Forces will have to work with one another, keeping each Task Force fully informed of what the other seven are doing.

Mr. Kissler presented a ''Proposed Planning Timetable'' so that the time line of what is to be done and when it is to be done/completed was made clear. It is a tight schedule and thus work must commence immediately.

Various members of the Committee made short presentations of what could be done or how the planning process would work. Such items as: what is needed to be a well educated student, who will be adaptable to future changes in the work force after that student leaves the University; how does the University respond to a future that will be more and more expensive to educate the students and to continue research with technology getting more expensive; how will the University recruit minority and female faculty when the market is tight, salaries high, and competition is intense, how will the University be able to attract the quality student it wants without addressing class size, enrollment management, class offerings, computer skills and language skills; recruitment of minority students must be taken seriously and the University will have to find ways to induce these students to come to this campus.

Mr. Charles Wright, Math, asked if the planning process will be ',user', driven? The faculty will be the key to any success was the reply. Mr. Henry Goldstein, Economics, queried if the money recently directed toward the Office of Affirmative Action would not have been better spent if it had been given to departments to add to regular salaries to attract minority faculty members. President Brand stated that the best qualified candidates, who are a member of a minority, are very expensive and that the amount that might be added would not have been sufficient to attract them. The Office of Affirmative Action is, he stated, the infrastructure to support our efforts to attract minority faculty members. Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, asked how interdisciplinary programs would take part in the planning process--through the Deans or through the Vice President for Research or the Associate Vice President for Research and International Affairs? It was stated that the interdisciplinary programs would be a part of the process and not left out. Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, was curious about who would make the ultimate decision on priorities. After all the planning is done, reports submitted, etc., who will digest the information and make the final report public and how will that person or those persons make the final decisions on priorities? Mr. Kissler stated that the process will be very open, widely public and faculty generated.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly



The following is presented to make sure that the University will be on the Quarter System in the fall of 1990. The Degree Requirements and Group Requirements for the University of Oregon are as follows:

1. B.A./B.S. GROUP REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the Group Requirements and Degree Requirements shall be rescinded and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) quarter

hours and must be approved by the University Committee on the and the University Assembly.

2. Three (3) General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and

Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must earn credit in six (6) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) approved General Education sequence in each group. A total of eighteen (18) courses are required. (Approved courses and sequences shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Students in all other Bachelor degree programs must earn credit in four (4) courses in each of the three (3) General Education groups, with a minimum of one (1) General Education approved sequence in at least two (2) groups. A total of twelve (12) quarter courses of at least three (3) credits are required.

3. An approved General Education sequence is an approved set of three (3)

interrelated courses which may be offered by one or more departments.

4. No more than three (3) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any

one department to meet the group requirements. Sequences must be completed in courses outside the major department. Standalones can be completed in the major department. Beyond the original major each additional major or minor in a general education area may be substituted for one (1) sequence in that area. Any substitution must be consistent with the policy on course requirements.

5. Courses eligible for group satisfying status must meet the following criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200- levels, but 300- level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in 2. a) and b) above; 400- level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is offered less than twice in any four-year period will be dropped from the General Education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying nor does the first year of a foreign language.

6. Degree Requirements and a summary of Group Requirements.

a. The B.A. degree requires proficiency in a foreign language. This requirement may be met by the completion of at least the third term, second year of a foreign language course, taught in the language, with a grade of C- or P or better, or by passing an appropriate examination.

b. The B.S. degree requires proficiency in mathematics. This requirement may be met by satisfactory completion of an examination demonstrating mathematical competency equivalent to that attained at the end of one year of college-level mathematics, or by the completion of three approved courses with grade of C- or P or better.

7. All Bachelor degree students, including those with A. A. degrees, must successfully earn credit in the following:

a. Three (3) quarter credits of approved course work involving either a non-European-American topic or issue of race or gender.

b. Writing 121 and 122

c. One course is required in Special Studies (HES 199), Community Health (HES 211), or Personal Health (HES 250). Elementary education majors may complete Elementary School Health Education (HEP 440) to satisfy this requirement.

d. Group Requirements--see above 1. though 5. e.

8. Effective Fall quarter 1990 the following successfully completed

minimum credits shall be required for graduation from the University of Oregon for a Bachelor Degree.

186 cumulative credits for a B.A., B.S., B.Ed., B.P.E. and B.Mus.

220 cumulative credits for a B.F.A., B.I.Arch., and B.L.A.

231 cumulative credits for a B.Arch. (220 cumulative credits for students admitted prior to Summer 1987).

62 upper division credits at the 300- level or above are required for all degrees.

36 Credits in the major, including 24 in upper-division courses, are required for all degrees. Exact requirements are specified by the departments, schools or colleges.

24 credits, of which at least 15 must be upper division, are required for a minor. Minors are awarded only upon graduation.

After successfully completing 126 credits of the 186 required (or 160 of the 220 required, or 171 of the 231 required), each student must take 45-credits in residence at the University of Oregon as a regularly admitted student. Credits completed through the Community Education Program do not satisfy this requirement.

125 graded credits (A, B, C, D) must be completed by students admitted after Fall 1987. Students admitted prior to Fall 1987 must earn 90 graded credits. (Courses required in the major and designated P/N only may be counted toward the 45-credits in residence only if the 125 credit (or the 90-credit) requirement has been satisfied.)


MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR FEBRUARY 7, 1990


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 150 Columbia at 3:38 p.m. on January 10, 1990. There being no corrections, the minutes of the December 6, 1989 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

Ms. Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs, Sociology, has submitted a memorial for Mr. Richard J. Hill, Professor of Sociology who passed away on December 19, 1989. Mr. Hill joined the University faculty in 1971 and served the University in various positions during his tenure. His memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.

OLD BUSINESS

President Brand recognized Mr. Keith Richard, Faculty Secretary, to present the motion concerning the B.A./B.S. and Group Requirements.

The following is presented to make sure that the University will be on the Quarter System in the fall of 1990. The Degree Requirements and Group Requirements for the University of Oregon are as follows:

1. B.A./B.S. GROUP REQUIREMENTS

All legislation enacted concerning the Group Requirements and Degree Requirements shall be rescinded and replaced by the following:

1. All group-satisfying courses must carry at least three (3) quarter

hours and must be approved by the University Committee on the Curriculum and the University Assembly.

2. Three (3) General Education groups shall be satisfied: a) Arts and

Letters; b) Social Science; and c) Science.

a. All students taking a B.A./B.S. degree must earn credit in six (6) approved courses in each group, including at least one (1) approved General Education sequence in each group. A total of eighteen (18) courses are required. (Approved courses and sequences shall be listed in the University of Oregon General Bulletin.)

b. Students in all other Bachelor degree programs must earn credit in four (4) courses in each of the three (3) General Education groups, with a minimum of one (1) General Education approved sequence in at least two (2) groups. A total of twelve (12) quarter courses of at least three (3) credits are required.

3. An approved General Education sequence is an approved set of three (3)

interrelated courses which may be offered by one or more departments.

4. No more than three (3) group-satisfying courses may be taken from any

one department to meet the group requirements. Sequences must be completed in courses outside the major department. Standalones can be completed in the major department. Beyond the original major each additional major or minor in a general education area may be substituted for one (1) sequence in that area. Any substitution must be consistent with the policy on course requirements.

5. Courses eligible for group satisfying status must meet the following

criteria:

a. Courses should introduce the basic methods, concerns and subjects of particular disciplines or interdisciplinary topics.

b. Courses should be open to and designed for a general University undergraduate population and thus should have no, or at most, only one or two basic prerequisites.

c. Courses commonly will be offered at the 100- and 200- levels, but 300- level courses may also be listed in the group requirements as long as they clearly meet the conditions in 2. a) and b) above; 400- level courses cannot be used to satisfy group requirements. Courses dealing with basic topics in small classes are encouraged.

d. Courses satisfying the group requirements should be offered every year. A course listed in the group requirements that is offered less than twice in any four-year period will be dropped from the General Education group list.

e. Writing 121 and 122 do not count as group satisfying nor does the first year of a foreign language.

6. Degree Requirements and a summary of Group Requirements.

a. The B.A. degree requires proficiency in a foreign language. This requirement may be met by the completion of at least the third term, second year of a foreign language course, taught in the language, with a grade of C- or P or better, or by passing an appropriate examination.

b. The B.S. degree requires proficiency in mathematics. This requirement may be met by satisfactory completion of an examination demonstrating mathematical competency equivalent to that attained at the end of one year of college-level mathematics, or by the completion of three approved courses with grade of C- or P or better.

7. All Bachelor degree students, including those with A.A. degrees, must successfully earn credit in the following:

a. Three (3) quarter credits of approved course work involving either a non-European-American topic or issue of race or gender.

b. Writing 121 and 122

c. One course is required in Special Studies (HES 199), Community Health (HES 211), or Personal Health (HES 250). Elementary education majors may complete Elementary School Health Education (HEP 440) to satisfy this requirement.

d. Group Requirements--see above 1. through 5. e.

8. Effective Fall quarter 1990 the following successfully completed minimum credits shall be required for graduation from the University of Oregon for a Bachelor Degree.

186 cumulative credits for a B.A., B.S., B.Ed., B.P.E. and B.Mus.

220 cumulative credits for a B.F.A., B.I.Arch., and B.L.A.

231 cumulative credits for a B.Arch. (220 cumulative credits for students admitted prior to Summer 1987).

62 upper division credits at the 300- level or above are required for all degrees.

36 Credits in the major, including 24 in upper-division courses, are required for all degrees. Exact requirements are specified by the departments, schools or colleges.

24 credits, of which at least 15 must be upper division, are required for a minor. Minors are awarded only upon graduation.

After successfully completing 126 credits of the 186 required (or 160 of the 220 required, or 171 of the 231 required), each student must take 45-credits in residence at the University of Oregon as a regularly admitted student. Credits completed through the Community Education Program do not satisfy this requirement.

125 graded credits (A, B, C, D) must be completed by students admitted after Fall 1987. Students admitted prior to Fall 1987 must earn 90 graded credits. (Courses required in the major and designated P/N only may be counted toward the 45-credits in residence only if the 125 credit (or the 90-credit) requirement has been satisfied.)

Mr. Richard explained that this motion was being presented to bring all the degree requirements into one location in the faculty minutes and to clarify some of he language presently used in the minutes concerning the requirements.

The motion was called for and was passed without dissent.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Wayne Westling, President of the University Senate, was recognized to introduce a motion. Mr. Westling moved that the University Assembly vote to suspend its rules on 10 days notice to introduce a motion. Mr. Westling explained that this motion, if passed, would be followed by a motion asking the Assembly to reverse the March meeting dates of the Senate and the Assembly. The University Committee on the curriculum will soon be finished with the two year revision of the curriculum. The report will be about 400 pages in length and will be available by early March for review. The Senate must entertain all motions prior to the Assembly according to assembly rules and if the Senate could meet on March 7 and perhaps 8 and 9 or more ays it could have the Report ready for the Assembly by March 14. The motion to suspend the rules was passed and the motion to reverse the dates of the March Meetings was approved by the voice vote.

Mr. Westling stated that the Report will more than likely take more than one meeting date of the Assembly. The 14th of March is the middle of finals week, spring break follows and that the Assembly might very well have to meet the week following Spring break to complete the Report.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary


Richard J. Hill


Richard Johnson Hill died on December 19, 1989. He was 64.

Dick served as a combat Marine in World War II, and went on to receive an A.B. with Great Distinction from Stanford University in 1950, M.A. from Stanford in 1951, and Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 1955. After research stints at UW and Bell Labs, he was a member of the faculties of UCLA 1957-60, the University of Texas, Austin 1960-65, and Purdue University 1965-71.

Dick joined the faculty of the University of Oregon in 1971. He served as head of the Sociology Department 1972-75, Director of the Institute for Social Science Research 1975-78, Dean of the School of Community Service and Public Affairs 197880, and Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost from 1980 until January 1, 1988. He resigned the position of Provost to take a much-needed sabbatical, with plans to return to teaching and scholarship for a few years and then to travel with his wife, Barbara, in retirement. He rejoined the department with enthusiasm, but for just one year before being drafted back into administration, serving his final months as Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs for eight campuses in the Oregon State System of Higher Education.

As a scholar, Dick was best known for his expertise in research methodology and measurement and, in social psychology, for his original contributions in the study of attitudes and behavior and mass media. From his first research note in the American Sociological Review in 1953, Dick published continuously into the 1980's. A measure of his colleagues, regard for his knowledge and judgment were his term as the editor of Sociometry (now, Social_Psychology Quarterly), 1973-76; his election as President of the Pacific Sociological Association, 1974-75; and his election as Vice President of the American Sociological Association, 1987-88.

As an administrator at the University of Oregon, Dick, oversaw possibly the most difficult financial and personnel situations ever seen at our institution. He was known as a man of integrity--able to see all sides of an issue, capable of making and carrying out difficult decisions, and as systematic and reliable in his administrative duties. Interpersonally, he was kind, inquiring, and gently behind a sometimes--gruff pose reminiscent of his days as a Marine. He took time to mentor more junior administrators and he let the people around him know that he cared for them.

Dick was a man of integrity and distinction, a gentleman and a scholar. He gave selflessly of himself to this University. He will be sorely missed.

Patricia Gwartney-Gibbs Department of Sociology

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR MARCH 14, 1990

The meeting was called to order by President Brand in the Walnut Room in the Erb Memorial Union at 3:33 p.m. on March 14, 1990. There being no corrections, the minutes of the February 7, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

Mr. Arnold Ismach, Dean, School of Journalism, has submitted a memorial for Mr. John Crawford, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, who passed away on January 22, 1990. The memorial can be found at the end of these minutes.

OLD BUSINESS

The President recognized Mr. George Shepard, Chair, Committee on the Curriculum, to read a motion:

The University Committee on the Curriculum moves that the following  amended curricular changes be approved.

Mr. Jack Bennett, University Senate, gave the report for the Senate. He briefly covered the work of the Senate, in reviewing and studying the curriculum document and the amendments made by the Senate. Mr. Shepard was recognized to speak to the motion. He stated that the document before the University Assembly would, if approved, become the curricular offerings of the University for the academic year 1990-91. The Report contains a total increase of 1,422 credits and a total decrease of 1,437 credits. The net decrease is 15 credits, indicating a remarkable balance between what was discarded and what was added. Credits in generic open-ended courses (numbered 196, 198-200, 399-410, 501-510, 601-610, 701-710) and overseas study courses (numbered 188, 288, 388, 488, 688) are not counted in the tally of credit changes.

President Brand stated that the meeting would be postponed definitely to 3:30 p.m. on March 28, 1990 if the business of this meeting was not concluded by 5:30 p.m. He asked if there were any objections and hearing none he so ordered the postponement definite.

The Report would be gone through by discipline--starting with American Studies and proceeding to the end. Mr. Arnold Ismach, Journalism, asked why the History Department had expanded from 3 hours to 4 hours of credit for several classes. Mr. George Sheridan, History, explained the additional hour was added to give students an opportunity to meet in small discussion groups to expand on what the regular lecture course contained. Mr. Ismach asked if thought had gone into this concerning the impact it would have on students, faculty workload, etc. Mr. Sheridan stated that it would increase the teaching load and that during the next year the History Department would study the situation to see what the impact on students and faculty/GT'F would be, and if the changes were as positive as anticipated. Mr. Ismach questioned the experimental nature of the change and its impact on students and course selection by students. President Brand concluded the discussion by stating that this change must be revisited within two terms and not after one year. Mr. Sheridan agreed that this would be done by the Department.

Mr. Helmut Plant, German, was recognized, and he challenged the use of the word "sequence" throughout the Report and that the word "cluster" should be put back into the Report. (The Assembly had approved "sequence" in place of "cluster" during the Semester Conversion period and reaffirmed this change in January 1990.) Mr. Plant moved that:

Wherever the word "sequence'' appears in this Report or the Time Schedule that it be removed and replaced by the word "cluster."

Mr. Paul Holbo, History, rose to oppose the motion and to point out that both words are confusing and that "sequence" is less confusing than "cluster". He went on to point out that this was not a matter of "time-related sequences" but a way of informing the students that these courses--interrelated or not--had to be taken as a basic requirement. Several individuals from Academic Advising stated that the word "sequence" was too confusing to the students and that it was difficult to have students understand that it did not mean sequential. Cluster would be a better word--although it too is not without difficulty.

Mr. Plant stated that some classes must be taken in sequence and this requirement must be met. Because of this the courses that are marked "sequence" and do not have to be taken in a sequential manner were difficult to distinguish from the usual use of the word "sequence" and differentiate from the required sequential courses. The question was called for and by a vote of 50 in favor of the motion and 15 opposed, the word "cluster" was accepted as a replacement of the word "sequence".

Mr. Jack Bennett, Academic Advising, moved that the statement on page 177 of the Report defining sequence be abandoned and that it be used to define cluster. This was passed.

Ms. Beverly Fagot, Psychology, asked if EPSY 212 and 213 were professional courses because they no longer are 300-level. She stated that previously Psychology majors that had an interest in these courses could not take them as they were professional for the College of Education. Mr. Bruce Wampold, Counseling and Educational Psychology, explained that other courses will now cover the professional training aspects of what had been these courses when they were 300 level. The courses, now on the 200-level, will be accessible to other students outside of Education.

Mr. Ken Liberman, Sociology, was recognized and he proposed the removal of ANTH 362 from the acceptable courses to meet the "Race, Gender, Non-European-American Requirement." He read the current description of the course in the 1989-90 catalog and stated that this particular course did not give the exposure that the requirement established. Mr. Paul Simonds, Anthropology, stated that this course did indeed meet the requirement as it introduced the student to humankind--genetics, biological and social customs are covered. This course, he said, proved the brotherhood of mankind. The move to delete this course was defeated by a show of hands with 23 in favor and 33 opposed.

Mr. Ed Coleman, English, moved to remove ANTH 341, 342, 343, 433, 444, and 445. Mr. Jack Bennett reported that the Senate had defeated this motion when made at the Senate meeting. Mr. Liberman said that the courses treat primitive people through European eyes and not through the life and eyes of the primitive people and thus they should be deleted. Mr. Simonds stated that to treat these people properly today you must have knowledge of their past, to show that their past was important and that it was developed even though it was not western. The move to delete was defeated by a hand vote of 18 in favor and 41 opposed.

Mr. Ron Rousseve, Counseling Psychology, said the title of the requirement was too broad and that several suspect courses could be brought under the umbrella and not really satisfy the requirement. He felt a criteria should be related to current thought and current situations. A better title, he suggested, would be Ethnicity, Race and Gender in the latter 20th Century.

Mr. Marshall Sauceda, Multicultural Affairs, moved that the entire requirement be removed from the Report and that further study be made to correct any problems and to strengthen the requirement before it is implemented. The discussion that followed made the point that the requirement was passed by the Assembly by a very narrow vote initially and that it might not be passed again if it is removed and brought back to the Assembly. A suggestion to postpone the requirement failed to gain any support, and Ms. Mary Rothbart, Psychology, in support of the move to delete, stated that the University should take the time to make sure it is done right or not at all. Some of the faculty felt that the offerings were too broad and that a better definition could be developed that would create better offerings. It was pointed out that this is a graduation requirement and not a general education requirement. This is an important difference as it has an influence on transfer students and what requirements they can meet prior to transfer. This requirement cannot be met through the completion of the general education requirements. Any study that takes place must keep in mind the purpose of this requirement and that it fits the degree requirements alone.

The motion to delete was defeated overwhelmingly.

Mr. Bennett read the motion that the Senate had passed on this requirement as it showed the concern of the Senate in making this requirement work.

The Provost shall appoint a Chair to call a meeting of all those teaching classes meeting this requirement, with the stipulation that attendance at this meeting be a requirement, to review the requirement prior to the close of the academic year 1990-91. The Chair is to prepare a report on the findings of the group and report the findings to the Senate. This review is to be an annual review for no fewer than four (4) years. The Report to the Senate is to be no later than April.

The faculty entering the discussion on this motion felt that April was too late for such a study. The accepted timeframe was to start such a study now and have a report ready for the University Committee on the Curriculum by mid-November 1990. It was agreed that the requirement does indeed need study and a more real scope in what courses should be acceptable. A new definition or title might be of help. The Assembly accepted the study group idea, but with the mid-November deadline.

The main motion, as amended, was now on the floor. The Assembly passed the amended motion without dissent.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


IN MEMORIUM John W. Crawford


John W. Crawford led the University of Oregon School of Journalism as its dean for six years, from 1969 to 1975. He continued as a member of the faculty until his retirement in 1980.

When he died on January 22, 1990 at the age of 75, Professor Crawford left a legacy of influence on the course of advertising education at the University and throughout the academic world. He was the author of two widely respected books about advertising.

Before coming to the University, he established the advertising program at Michigan State University. Before turning to journalism education, he worked for major advertising agencies in Chicago.

Professor Crawford's many achievements were recognized nationally. Among his honors was the Silver Medal for service to advertising, awarded in 1965 by Printer's Ink and the American Advertising Federation. He served as President of the American Academy of Advertising in 1968.

John Crawford was known at the University for his sense of humor as well as for his strong convictions. He was a leader of the School of Journalism at a key period in its development as a premier academic program. His wife, Margaret, and their sons, John, James and Paul, can take pride in his exemplary career.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the immediate family by the Secretary of the University Assembly.

Submitted by: Arnold H. Ismach Dean, Journalism


April 4, 1990:


NO MEETING


May 2, 1990:


NO MEETING 



 

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY FOR JUNE 6, 1990.


The meeting was called to order by President Myles Brand in 138 Gilbert at 3:38 p.m. on June 6, 1990. There being no corrections, the minutes of the March 14, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/MEMORIALS

Mr. Warren Smith, memorial for Mr. Franklin Harr. Mr. Harr joined the University of Oregon Faculty in 1949 and served on the faculty until his retirement in 1972. Mr. Harr passed away on February 22, 1990 in Eugene. A copy of this memorial is attached to these minutes.

Mrs. Thelma Greenfield, English, read a memorial for Ms. Lucile Folse Aly, a member of the University English Department faculty from 1960 until her retirement in 1979. Ms. Aly passed away on April 16, 1990, in Eugene. A copy of this memorial is attached to these minutes.

Attached to these minutes is the annual report of the Faculty Advisory Council. This report was prepared by Mr. James O'Fallon, Chair of the F.A.C. for 1989 -90.

President Brand presented two proposals concerning salary distribution for discussion/reaction. The two proposals were:

I. Across the Board increase - - 3% II. Across the Board - - - - - - 43
Equity issues - - - - - - - - 2% Combination of equity,
Market issues/merit on the market & merit - - - - - - 3%
school/college level - - - - 2% Provost's distribution - - 1/2%

Provost's distribution - - - 1/2%

The President stated several factors will govern the actual distribution that must be in place for the October OSSHE Board meeting. 1) it is not known at this time if the additional funds from the Emergency Board will be tied to market/equity/merit, 2) a definite 5% is available for distribution, and the funds in 1) will add 2.5%; 3) equity issues cannot be cured in one fell swoop, it will take time and more money to clear these issues, 4) long term faculty, senior faculty of quality and dedication who have made the choice to stay at the University through thick and thin need to have increases to bring them to the level at which they should be in comparison to the market place. This is an equity issue.

Overall, the President stated, the major problem is compression of the salary scale caused by new hires and the market driven salary system. Full professors in one department could be getting less than a new associate professor without as much experience. The problem is not uniform throughout the campus, it is localized in various departments, schools and colleges. The President wanted to know how to remedy this situation.

Mr. Henry Goldstein, Economics, stated that the University is fighting a losing battle with the fighting fund as it makes the overall salary issue very unequal and that it is a bad strategy. President Brand asked, hypothetically, if the UO should not attempt to counter any outside offer. Mr. Ronald Rousseve, Education, stated that he thought it was a good idea, the present method hurts morale, hurts the dedicated teacher who desires to stay at the UO and does not apply at other Universities to drive up their salary. Mr. Frank Anderson, Mathematics, felt that this would be a bad idea and if it had been in place over the past twenty-five years the UO would not be the quality institution it is today. Mr. James O'Fallon, Law, asked if this would be applied in such a way that the UO would not compete in the market place when higher salaries are required to hire new faculty.

Mr. Bruce Wampold, Education/Counseling, inquired if all those who get offers from outside are matched or receive counter offers. President Brand said that some who get outside offers do not pursue counter offers. The process commences at the department level and goes to the Dean and eventually to the Provost. The department head or Dean might very well say 'igood-bye, and that ends the matter. Negotiations might take place at any level, but usually at the department or school/college level. The department and the school/college must decide if a counter offer will work, if the price that must be paid is reasonable when all factors are included, and if a limit must be set as to what will be offered.

Mr. Thomas Brady, History, felt that we are involved in institutionalized discrimination because of the present salary system and it is the history of the University to continue this discrimination between departments and that merit and equity are not equally distributed. The President countered that he disagreed, the UO faces stiff competition in the market place and that we must recognize this fact. Mr. Brady felt that the UO was in a position to lose Junior Faculty because the market place would buy them away unless they played the game of applying for another position and went into negotiations to have their salary increased. President Brand stated that Senior Faculty as well as Junior Faculty need to have increases and they should not have to propose leaving the campus to get these increases. The problem is that the amount of money available for salaries and higher education are limited and that the legislature will have to be convinced that more funds are needed over and above what they might consider adequate.

Mr. Jack Sanders, Religious Studies, echoed Mr. Brady's concern that one is forced to go out and search for a job elsewhere to get a raise of any size at the UO. Ms. Marie Vitulli, Mathematics, asked if any long-range plans are being developed to solve the problem. The answer was Yes, the UO is at present playing catch -Up, but the principles could be established now and that they could be in place within the next few years. Mr. Rousseve asked, when the administration appoints new administrators, they think about comparing the salaries they pay these people in relation to the salaries of faculty members. Perhaps, he suggested, it would be best to consult with faculty before the fact and not after the fact.

Mr. Barry Siegel, Economics, said that the funds captured from early retirement has in the past gone into instructors/GTF salaries, and that this money could be shifted to fund salaries of faculty members. President Brand said that the instructors at the University should be paid a living wage and that it is necessary to get the instructors salaries increased. He affirmed that it is possible to recapture the money from early retirements and to redirect the funds.

Mr. Norman Wessells, Biology, stated that two critical problems faced the University. One is the Law School and accrediting and the American Bar Association. The second is the School of Journalism and the problem they face with too small a faculty in comparison with the enrollment and this impacts on the School's accreditation.

Mr. Goldstein suggested that if the budget is one big pie any extra money given to the Law School will mean that much less available for the rest of the University and thus everybody else will suffer. President Brand said that the intention is to ask for new money for the Law School.

Mr. Leland Roth, AAA, said that Proposal II was the best because it was more flexible. Mr. Wayne Westling, Law, asked if compression was such a big problem why did the two proposals ignore it. He proposed that the 3/ be put into compression. Mr. Charles Wright, Mathematics, said that compression was not easy to put into a formula. Mr. Theodore Palmer, Mathematics, thought that the best proposal was I. Mr. Ken Stevenson, Computer Science, said the differences are found across departments and not just within departments.

President Brand brought the discussion to a close as the hour was growing late and the agenda still had items that had to be covered. He stated that the administration was putting together an advisory panel of faculty for the upcoming legislative session. He asked if anyone who was interested in serving on the panel to be sure to let him know. The panel will develop strategy for the University to use during the session.

Mr. Wessells presented an outline of the Banner Student Information System that will be activated for student registration, etc., in Spring 1991. The report on the system is attached to these minutes as Appendix I.

Mr. Dan Williams, V-P Administration, gave a report on the budget woes of intercollegiate athletics at the UO, OSU, and PSU. The total deficit of the three is about $6 million, (UO portion = 1.8). The State Board will be asked to find state funds to cover some parts of the athletic programs. These areas would be: academic advising for athletes, fee remission, and paying the salaries of non revenue sports coaches. This problem will be such that it could have a further impact on funds for the University. It is hoped that the debt will be retired over a 5 year period. The Sports Lottery will play a part in this scenario, and the amount of $1.5 to $1.7 million needed to fund the programs might be less if the lottery is able to disconnect with the present state lottery.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Zimmerman, Chair, Academic requirements Committee, presented the following motion:

That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer Upon the person whose names are included in the official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 1989-90, and Summer Session 1990, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

By voice vote this passed without any negative votes.

Mr. Wayne Westling was recognized to read the following resolution:

Resolved: The University Senate urges the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences to rescind his decision to suspend the American Studies Program, and seek the approval of the faculty for any such action.

Mr. Palmer stated that as Acting Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences he suspended the program because of budgetary problems within the College. The suspension will not allow any new majors to register in the Fall of 1990, but that those that are already majors will be provided the opportunity to complete their degrees. Furthermore, he stated, those that commenced sequences within the program will be allowed to complete the sequences. If money is found next year the Program could be removed from suspension. But, a discussion next fall would be best because any money put into the program must come from within the College and that might mean cutting something else.

Mr. Siegel pointed out that the University Charter grants to the faculty curriculum decisions and that the faculty created this program and the faculty should decide to cut the program, not the administration. Ms. Marliss Strange, Academic Advising, asked how the current students would be handled. For how long into the future will the course required for a major be available? Mr. Palmer said that very few actual Program courses are required, most of the courses are interdisciplinary and are offered all the time. President Brand said this was a good question and one that should be addressed. A time certain should be established for completion if the Program is eliminated or continues on suspension.

Mr. Don Dumond, Anthropology, moved that "This motion be postponed to a time certain, October 1990.'. After a short discussion the motion was called for and was defeated by a voice vote.

Mr. Robert Mazo, Chemistry, asked what was the purpose of the resolution. Mr. Palmer said that the program would be offered in the academic year 1990-91 in a different mode. No new majors and the completion of sequences would be provided. The motion was called for and was passed by a voice vote.

President Brand stated that the issue of curriculum decisions vs. budget decisions would be a top item on the agenda for the November 1990 meeting of the University Assembly. He felt this was an important topic/issue and that a full discussion must be held.

During the academic year 1989-90 the University Senate passed the following legislation that was not appealed to the University Assembly. Thus, this legislation is University legislation and so stands:

May 9, 1990: "Effective fall term, 1995, all undergraduate students will be required to satisfy the general education requirements in effect for the fall term 1990.' May 9, 1990: "The recorded term or cumulative University of Oregon grade point average may exceed 4.00."

October 11, 1989: ìThe Curriculum Committee for academic year 1989-90 shall be increased in size by two faculty members, one from the College of Arts and Sciences and one from the Professional Schools and Colleges. The two additional faculty members so appointed shall serve for a one-year termî.

ADJOURNMENT

The business of the University Assembly having been concluded, the meeting adjourned, sine die, at 5:31 p.m.

Keith Richard, Secretary University Assembly


FRANKLIN B. HAAR


Franklin B. Haar died February 22, 1990 at the age of 83.

Frank Haar completed his bachelors degree in Physical Education and Health at Springfield College in 1928. His graduate studies at the University of Pittsburgh led to the Master of Arts degree in 1933 and the Ph.D. degree in 1946 in Health Education and Counseling. He taught Health and Physical Education in the Pittsburgh Public Schools for 15 years prior to World War II. He also had the additional responsibility as Chairperson of the Health Education Commission for the entire Pittsburgh Public School System.

During World War II, Frank served in the Navy Aviation Program from 1942-46 organizing preflight fitness programs, and co-authored the U.S. Navel Institute's Gymnastics and Tumbling publication in 1943. Upon leaving the service and receiving the Ph.D. degree, Frank served as an associate professor of Health Education at the University of Florida at Gainsville from 1946-49.

In the fall of 1949, Frank accepted the call from the University of Oregon to head the Health Education program of the College of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, now known as the College of Human Development and Performance. Until his retirement in June 1972, he served as the Head of the Department of Health Education. During his tenure at the University, he developed a curriculum in Health Education that was considered to be one of the finest in the nation. One curricular option he developed was a very successful pre-dental hygiene program involving two years of study on campus and two at the University of Oregon Dental School in Portland.

Frank was respected as a co-author of one of the leading Community Health texts and of three other health texts. His teaching skill was recognized by the students in 1955 when The Oregana, the University yearbook, selected him as one of the outstanding professors on campus. Frank was a Fellow of the American Public Health Association, the American School Health Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society of Health (London, England), and a member of the Eugene Rotary Club.

Frank will always be remembered as a person who was thinking about the welfare of his students and how he could help them. As an administrator, teacher, and adviser. Frank was always cheerful, dedicated and enthusiastic in doing the best for the students, the College and the University. Most gratifying was the impact he had in changing the lives of so many students into fruitful and highly challenging personal and professional directions. His loss to the University of Oregon and to our College upon his retirement in 1972 was a serious one, but his recent passing was an even greater loss for his closest colleagues. Frankís contributions to the health profession, though many and significant, were overshadowed by his good humor and youthful zest for life which he displayed until the end. He will be missed.

Warren E. Smith

Department of School & Community Health


LUCILE FOLSE ALY


Lucile Aly was born July 31 1913 in Kansas City, MIssouri, and died on April 16 1990 in Eugene Oregon. She earned a Bachellor of Science in Education from the University of Missouri in 1935 and a Master of Arts in Speech at Columbia 1942. her teaching began with six years of high school speech and English. In the early 1940s Lucile married Bower Aly, a distinguished professor of speech at Missouri and later at Oregon. She slowed her pursuit of an additional degree to rear five children acquired with her marriage and to give birth to a son, Stewart; but she managed to keep on teaching, now at the university level, as she was to do later when she adopted twin granddaughters in need of a home. By 1959, Lucile completed work for the Ph.D. She accepted an instructorship in the UO Department of English in 1960. She was tenured in 1963, promoted in 1964 and in 1971. In 1979, she retired with the rank of full professor.

Although Lucile taught writing and grammar, her publication was in the speech and literature. She devoted herself to the works of John G. NeThardt, on whom she produced a monograph with the Western Writers Series and a long critical biography in the Melville Series and whom she also discussed in some half dozen articles. A Midwestern writer who celebrated the natural scenes, frontier populations, and Native Americans of the land of his birth, Neihardt became a close personal friend of Lucileís as did his whole family. She was quick to recognize the lasting value of such a work as his visionary reportorial Black Elk Speaks. A resurgence of interest in Neihardt has made her publications more than ever relevant.

Lucile pursued other interests as well. In collaboration with her husband, she wrote a textbook on rhetoric and edited two still very useful collections of public speeches. She also worked with Glen Love on the five language and rhetoric volumes of Albert Kitzhaber's Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Oregon Curriculum in English project. After her retirement she hoped to edit NeThardtís letters and write on William Dean Howells and George Meredith.

Lucile served on many department and University committees. She chaired the Ad Hoc Post Tenure Review Committee and shepherded arrangements for this then touchy procedure through the Assembly with a plan so well drawn that it passed without amendment. Member of a number of professional organizations, she participated actively in regional conferences. She lectured at local secondary schools and to several private groups.

Two things about Lucile Aly must not pass unmentioned. One is her generosity to the University and in opening her home to students, sometimes for an evening, sometimes for months on end if a student needed a place to stay. The other is a personal charm, her "class," qualities that in no way diminished her strong, independent convictions nor her ardent curiosity about the world. Throughout her lifetime this remarkable lady faced weighty challenges, always, she met them fearlessly, with poise and elegant grace.

Mr. President, I request that this memorial be made a part of the official and permanent minutes of this meeting and that copies of the memorial be sent to the immediate family by the secretary of the University Assembly.

Respectfully submitted, Thelma Greenfield, Professor Emerita Department of English


FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT TO THE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY for 1989-1990


Submitted by James M. O'Fallon, Chair of the FAC

The Faculty Advisory Council consists of eight faculty members (four from CAS and four from the Professional Schools and Colleges) and two Officers of Administration. Members are chosen in campus-wide elections and serve two year terms. One-half of the FAC is elected each year.

The FAC meets weekly with the President and Provost to provide advice on policy matters. Agenda items may come from the administration or on the initiative of FAC members, often in response to inquiries from members of the faculty or staff. When necessary, meetings may include other administrators with responsibility for the subject under discussion.
 

1989 marked the beginning of Myles Brandís presidency. He quickly and enthusiastically embraced the University of Oregon tradition of faculty governance, including consultation with FAC. The opening event of the year was a conference to initiate the long-range planning process, in which members of FAC participated together with other faculty and administrators.

Among the most important issues considered by the 89-90 FAC was the determination of criteria for distribution of new salary funds authorized by the legislature. This discussion continued into the winter and spring quarters as faculty raised questions about the procedures and criteria for determining raises, and the FAC made suggestions about improving the process for the next round of raises in 90-91.

Among the matters receiving attention from FAC during the year were faculty and staff child care, student grievance and conduct policy, retired faculty privileges, GTF negotiations, sabbatical policy, harassment problems, student body composition, course access, higher education in Portland, relations with the Peopleís Republic of China, affirmative action, academic dishonesty, the Riverfront research park, honorary degrees, trailing spouse policy, policy on off-campus activities of faculty, establishment of Martin Luther King Day, Law School accreditation problems, budget proposals for the 90-91 legislative session, the capital construction list, and the administrative structure of the Provost's office.

FAC met with Chancellor Bartlett in November, continuing a conversation about the role of the University in the State System begun when he first took office. We also met with the State Board during its campus visit in January.

At the end of fall term, Esther Jacobson resigned from the FAC in order to pursue her sabbatical research project, and Lou Osternig (the leading non-elected candidate in the last election) was appointed to serve out her term. Other members whose terms expire at the end of the year are James Buch, Jim O.Fallon, Davison Soper and Joe Stone. Beverly Fagot, Jeffrey Hurwit, Michael Posner, John Reynolds and Joseph Wade will be joined by five newly elected members to make up the 1990-91 FAC.

The year established a sound consultative relationship with President Brand which will serve the University well in the years to come.

On behalf of the 1989-90 Faculty Advisory Council, James M. O'Fallon, Chair

James Buch, Admissions Michael Posner, Psychology
Beverly Fagot, Psychology John Reynolds, Architecture
Jeffrey Hurwit, Art History Davison Soper, Physics
James O'Fallon, Law Joe Stone, Economics
Louis Osternig, Physical Joseph Wade, Academic Advising
Education and Human Movement and Student Services


APPENDIX I

BANNER STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEM STATUS UPDATE UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY June 6, 1990


After years of coping with an antiquated student information system, the University administration authorized purchase of a commercial software package called Banner from Systems and Computer Technology in April 1989. It is comprised of functional modules - recruiting, admissions, course catalog, class schedule, registration, tuition assessment and billing, academic history, degree audit, and financial aid. Banner utilizes a relational data base management system that will allow many of our now stand alone operating systems to function as an integrated information system. When the Banner package was purchased, it was well understood that about 80% of the Universityís policies and procedures could be implemented on the baseline product Full implementation of Banner will evolve over a three- to five- year period. Initial efforts have been dedicated to converting data from the old system to the new system and interfacing current processes and procedures with the new system. These efforts require modifications to the baseline system to be kept to an absolute minimum. Some of our traditional policies and procedures can not be included in the early stages of our student information system. We must be patient when a familiar feature is delayed or does not work the first time around. Implementation of Banner provides an opportunity to examine the administrative process, and hopefully, incorporate new or better ways. I want to give you a brief status report on efforts to date.

An Administrative Computing Advisory Council was formed in 1989 to advise on the requirements for functions in Banner that are to link the core OSSHE systems e.g. Financial and Human Resources. This council provides communications among users and advises on the elements, relationships and procedures that must be set as systems are installed. The council consists of representatives from the Library, Research, Public Affairs & Development, Human Resources, Auxiliaries, Budget, and Academic Affairs.

An Implementation Team was formed to organize and implement the Banner System. This team consists of representatives from the offices of: Admissions, Business Affairs, Financial Aid, Registrar, and Computing Center. As of today, the recruiting, admissions, course catalog, and class schedule modules are in production. By the end of spring term, data conversion of basic student demographic information will be under taken. Registration and tuition billing activities will be in production by fall term. Arena registration will still be utilized for the fall, 1990, and winter, 1991 terms. At long last, we plan to implement touch-tone registration for the spring term, 1991. We are moving along our production time lines as planned.

A Policy and Procedure Committee was formed to assist the Implementation Team in three areas:

1. To deal with University policies and procedures that were in conflict with the purchased software.

2. To review policies and procedures which have been developed in a manual environment, and consider changes which might take advantage of an on-line environment.

3. To help make the difficult decisions and provide guidance about implementation priorities, acknowledging that staff would not be able to manage both the conversion and the regular workload during the conversion period.

Some challenging issues this committee has dealt with include:

1. General Deposit - The banner system does not have the capability to assess and collect the $50 general deposit. The deposit will not be collected for one year on a trial basis.

2. Annual Schedule of Classes - The banner system does support an annual class schedule. During the first year or so of implementation, only a single term class schedule will be published with future term offerings listed by course and number of sections offered.

3. Confidentiality Restriction Indicator - The banner system does not permit restriction to the data element level. This issue has been referred to the Dean of Students for possible policy revision.

4. Credit Hours Earned as a Non-Admitted Student - The banner system does not exclude credit hours earned as non-admitted student from residency, graded credits, and academic progress for students. This issue has been referred to the Academic Requirements Committee and Graduate School to redefine or propose an alternative requirement.

5. Grade Point Average Computation - The procedure used to calculate a grade point average has been discussed and reviewed by the faculty several times over the past ten years. The banner system will not exclude the first 15 credit hours of "N" grades from the grade point average computation as required in the faculty legislation. Since this is a graduation requirement, the first 15 credits of "N" will be excused for students applying for graduation and who do not meet the minimum 2.00 g.p.a. requirement for graduation. The committee has recommended that the Academic Standards Committee review: the current grading system/symbols, the practice of providing each studentís grading option selection as information on the faculty grad rosters, and the substitution of P/N for grades.

6. Audit Enrollments - The banner system does not exclude audit enrollments from being recorded on a student's academic record. This issue has been referred to the Academic Requirements Committee for review and possible recommendation to the faculty for change in legislation.

The committee membership includes the following: Mike Utsey, Architecture & Allied Arts; George Rowe, Arts & Sciences; Don Lytle, Business Administration; Dennis Pataniczek, Education; Toby Deemer, Graduate School; Greg Kerber, Journalism; Randy L'Hommedieu, Music; Jack Bennett and Marliss Strange, Academic Advising and Student Services; and Herb Chereck, Registrar and Joanne Hugi, University Computing, Co-chairs. If you have any issues or concerns about Banner, please refer the item first to your college or school representative. It is anticipated that this committee will forward issues to the faculty or other appropriate groups for review and discussion during the next academic year.

I ask for your support in the coming months for the hardworking staff in the offices of Admissions, Business Affairs, Financial Aid, Registrar, and University Computing as they work to move us forward in the implementation and development of a new student information system. It will not be easy for anyone. Hopefully, your support and patience will result in new and improved information and tools to assist in the educational process. I hope you feel, as I do, that it is important to all of us.


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