Provost Moseley distributed a draft of a position description for the new position of Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies. He noted that the position will be at 0.5 FTE for 12 months. Moseley explained that this position is being created to improve undergraduate studies at the UO and to put it on the same administrative basis as the Dean of the Graduate School. The position has been discussed with the deans, and he also indicated that there is no intention to have undergraduate programs report to the vice provost. The person in this position will have the responsibility of advising departments, especially in the areas of multicultural and process for change.

Moseley also indicated that by doing some reshuffling, there is money in the budget for this new position. In addition, he expects a cooperative relationship between the vice provost, the deans, and the Undergraduate Council. Moseley will incorporate the suggestions made by the UC and discuss the position description with the deans and the FAC. All these groups must be in agreement before he goes ahead with the search. He also indicated that the person will be housed on the second floor of Johnson Hall. Again Moseley stressed that this is a half-time position, with the other half being faculty connected to a department. The highest it might go would be to 2/3's time, but this will be open for discussion. Right now the commitment would be for 1/2 time, may have a GTF for support, and will have clerical support.

Anne Leavitt indicated that the person in this position will be another colleague to discuss issues in student life and give the academic perspective. Jack Rice suggested that wording in the description refer to the position working closely with the Undergraduate Council. Moseley had no objection and will reword the description accordingly. Moseley then indicated his concern that the UC's work has not been given the level of attention it deserves, and hopefully this new position will improve on that situation.

Hilary Gerdes then asked about student services and the graduate component, especially in Multicultural Affairs, in reporting to this new position. Is half-time sufficient? Moseley indicated that OMA works primarily with undergraduate students, and the other services will have to be discussed with the candidates.

Another item of concern related to the wording of the program review process and the sharing of responsibility with the Dean of the Graduate School. This process is one in which each department is reviewed every 10 years. Moseley will reword this item.

The group then spoke about the faculty's feeling that it is difficult to get a new faculty position, yet administrative positions are created. Moseley's response was that administrators do leave and are not replaced (e.g., George Pernsteiner, Chief Financial Officer), but faculty are unaware of these instances. He also indicated that the Senate Budget Committee is trying to focus on the proportion of funds that is spent on instructional, organizational support and administration to avoid the "administration creep", but sometimes it is necessary to increase administrators due to federal regulations and mandates. He noted that since the BARC report, the UO has cut 15% of administrative costs, and we are now at the low level of administrative costs in relation to instructional support. Moseley advised the group to watch for the Senate Budget Committee report which will show that we are spending 31-32 percent on organizational support and the rest on instruction-related activities, which include the library and GTF support.

Moseley indicated that the Academic Affairs Council did not deal with this at their last meeting, so he has nothing to report. The subject will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Academic Affairs Council.

Herb Chereck noted that the certification that the student has completed the general education requirements should come from the institution the student is FROM, not the institution the students is GOING TO. Moseley noted that these will be guiding principles and that the registrar is responsible for their implementation. Jim Earl expressed his concern that the UO might lose the most by this agreement because we are the most demanding in the system. But Chereck noted that there is a small percentage of students who come to the UO having completed their general education requirements. He also noted the fact that students have to earn their OAAT before they transfer, and that other schools in the system have other requirements to offset the requirements of the UO (e.g., social science, upper division synthesis paper, writing).

Jack Rice referred to the flowchart that was previously distributed to the Council. He noted that these guidelines now have agreement by the Dean of the Graduate School, the Graduate Council, and the Committee on Courses. In the past, because of pre-proposals, it took almost two years to get a program approved. The requirement for a pre-proposal has since been dropped and replaced by the provost of the institution advising the Academic Council of a new program and briefly describing it. If the Academic Council found the description too competitive or not in line with the mission of the university, they would ask more questions. But Moseley indicated that most discussions are positive. We now have a synopsis which replaces the pre-proposal, and if approved, the proposal can be developed. The proposal is then reviewed by the Undergraduate Council or Graduate Council (depending upon the program); then it is sent to the Committee on Courses (if it involves new courses); then a report is sent to the Senate and catalog copy is prepared; then the OUS Academic Council; then the Board; then notification to the Senate.

The members then discussed certificates and minors, and a request was made for a set of definitions for qualifications of each.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 am