ROLL CALL Present: Altmann, Susan C. Anderson, Anderson-Inman, Belitz,
Bennett, Blandy, Davis, Ellis, Engelking, Farwell, Gerdes, Halpern, Hawkins,
Hurwit, Kimball, Kintz, Leavitt, Lees, Luks, Maxwell, Ostler, Owen, Page,
Paris, Pope, Ravits, Ryan, Soper, Stavitsky, Tedards, Westling, J. Young,
P. Young, M. Davis, S. Larson, D. McGee, S. Rogers, B. Unger.
Excused: Acres, Berk, Chadwell, DeGidio, Gilkey, O'Keefe, Wolfe
Absent: Morse
CALL TO ORDER: There being a quorum, the meeting was called to order
at 3:08 p.m. on Wednesday, November 13, 1996 in room 204 Condon Hall.
President Bybee began the meeting by welcoming the five new Student Senators,
and by having them stand and introduce themselves. They are: Sadie Rogers,
undeclared; Michael Davis, third year Law student; Ben Unger, a junior majoring
in English; David McGee, senior in Biology; and Sarah Larson, senior in
Political Science.
President Bybee then reminded all Senators that whenever they speak during
a Senate meeting, they should begin by stating their name and department,
so that people can continue to get to know one another. (Most Senators
forgot to do this during the November 13th meeting.)
The first and most important item on the day's agenda was an address by
Provost John Moseley. Provost Moseley spoke to the Senate about issues
of importance to the University in general and also provided some post-election
reflections.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 9, 1996
Before Provost Moseley began his address, President Bybee called for a motion
to approve the minutes from the October 9th meeting of the Senate. The
motion was made and seconded, and the minutes were approved. President
Bybee explained that the minutes would be posted on the Senate Home Page
for those who are interested in reading them on-line.
After the meeting had concluded, Senator Dave Soper came to the Acting Secretary
with a correction on p. 8 of the October 9, 1996 minutes. The correction
had to do with one of Senator Soper's remarks concerning the Revised Policy
on Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power. Page 8, lines 3-4 of the October
9th minutes as originally published read: "He expressed his concern
that the judges in these cases might be biased, since a "preponderance
of evidence" requires only that it is more probable than not that the
accused is guilty." Instead, this passage should have read: "He
expressed his concern that innocent people might be convicted, since a "preponderance
of evidence" requires only that it is more probable than not that the
accused is guilty."
PROVOST JOHN MOSELEY'S ADDRESS
Provost Moseley introduced the three topics he wished to address: 1) a follow-up
on the November 5th election; 2) the policy on Knight chairs and professorships;
and 3) a brief update on the Strategic Planning process and the "Solution
Teams" that are currently working on various issues within the State
System of Higher Education.
ELECTION RESULTS: Overall, Provost Moseley interpreted the election
results as a move toward the center. Extremes on both sides were rejected,
and in general, the more moderate candidates and ballot measures won. Some
strong supporters of higher education were elected and re-elected to the
Legislature, and many of the most negative ballot measures were soundly
defeated, including: 1) the ballot measure that would have made it very
difficult for the Legislature to amend laws that had been changed by the
initiative process; 2) another ballot measure that would have given the
Legislature direct oversight over all OAR's; and 3) two initiatives that
would have directly and negatively affected public employees, i.e., the
one affecting PERS, and a measure that would have required the reporting
of total compensation rather than just salaries of all public employees.
These measures all went down by substantial margins.
The new Speaker of the House and the new Senate President are Republicans,
but both are described as moderates. The House is very narrowly controlled
by Republicans, but the perception is that both leaders are able to work
across party lines. All of state government and higher education is better
off that the Legislature did not get split, with one house being Democratic
and the other Republican. This way there will be a real objective to get
through the Legislative session in a relatively clean and expeditious fashion.
The passage of Measure 47, the so-called "cut and cap" property
tax limitation initiative, was probably the most negative thing that happened
on November 5th. Given the general results of the election, it is reasonable
to interpret the passage of Measure 47 as a pocketbook issue. Voters are
fed up with our tax system. Even with the passage of M5, property taxes
have continued to rise, and voters are concerned that as property assessments
continue to climb, so will property taxes. It seems to reflect a weakness
in the initiative system that what may well be a call for needed tax reform
ends up being foisted upon us in the form of a very flawed ballot measure.
The measure may even be challenged constitutionally, although no one is
at present very confident that it will be found unconstitutional. But it
certainly is poorly conceived, and as a part of the Constitution it will
be difficult to change. What we need to consider for at least the near-term
future is how the state is going to live with the property tax limitations
of Measure 47.
During the next biennium, Measure 47 will take about one billion dollars
out of play. It will take that amount away not specifically from higher
education, but from K-12, community colleges, local government and other
items supported by property taxes. But it is clear that the Legislature
and the Governor will move to compensate for some of the cut, particularly
in the area of education.
On the positive side, the Governor has vowed to protect education, and has
made it clear that this includes higher education. There are two or three
major differences between the situation we now face with Measure 47, and
what we faced six years ago with Measure 5. One is that M5 had an explicit
revenue replacement requirement, and M47 does not. This will have an effect
on how the dynamics play out in the Legislature. The second point is that
we have a governor who is explicitly a supporter of higher education. When
M5 passed, the governor was frankly NOT a supporter of higher education.
The third thing is that the economy, which was in moderately good shape
when M5 passed, is actually in better shape now, and is generating more
revenue through income tax and other revenue sources. Thus, there is more
of a capacity to ameliorate the effects of M47 with regard to higher education
than there was with M5.
We also have more supporters in the Legislature now than we have had for
the last two or three Legislative sessions. Furthermore, there is a general
understanding among most legislators that higher education has taken the
largest cut as far as general funds go, and that reduction in general fund
support has been made up largely through tuition increases. The Legislature
also seems to understand that there is no longer any capacity in higher
education to make up for a loss of general funds through further tuition
increases at rates that exceed inflation.
So, we expect to get a fair hearing from the Legislature, and we hope and
expect that the Legislature will fund as a minimum what the State Board
has proposed as the "current service level." The "current
service level" amounts to more money than we are getting this year,
because it includes inflationary roll-ups, including a large one for the
Library. It also includes state funds for 6% salary increase (effective
1/1/97 and 2/1/97) which the University is self-funding for 1996/97. So
Provost Moseley is optimistic that the Governor's budget, which will come
out in early December, will include most of what the State Board defines
as the current service level. If that is the case, it is clearly a positive
outcome for us. However, it is NOT as positive a result as we could have
hoped for if Measure 47 had not passed.
Beyond that, we are going to have to work hard to get funding for anything
else. We have some very important targeted initiatives in process that
are above the current service level. The one that has the highest level
of general support among all of the institutions in the system is for the
State to at least match the contributions to the development of instructional
technology that our students are making in the form of Ed Tech fees. We
have made great progress on this campus (and elsewhere in the state system)
in terms of instructional technology, but there is room for further improvement,
and the State needs to fund its share of that growth.
There are some other areas/initiatives that we also hope to pursue. Although
the state will have less opportunity for re-investment in higher education,
it is hoped that at least the disinvestment will not continue. From our
perspective, if the state picks up the current service level, it will give
us some flexibility within our budget for some things we badly need to do.
It is important that we (the faculty and administration at the UO) respond
in a way that shows that we are concerned about the overall situation in
the state, and that we take our responsibility to our students and to education
seriously.
First, and most importantly, we need to continue to make a case for higher
education and its importance to the State's economy.
The importance of having a well-educated populace cannot be overestimated,
in terms of both our quality of life and the economic viability of the state.
The University of Oregon makes a significant direct contribution to the
state economy. Each year, through grants and contracts, tuition from non-resident
students, and expenditures of non-resident students, the University brings
in over $150 million to Oregon from outside the state. The state in turn
provides the UO with somewhere between $41 million and $42 million in general
fund support per year. So, we provide the state with a very good deal--and
this is not to mention the educational services we provide. We will be
making this point with the Legislature.
The UO as well as other institutions in the state system responded to the
challenges of Measure 5 very productively--some would say too productively,
because we managed so well. On the other hand, we stepped up to our responsibility.
While the UO has certainly suffered under the strains of M5, it is still
an excellent, high-quality university, the flagship institution in the state.
Our national academic reputation as measured by the survey that is taken
by U.S. News and World Report has actually gone up from 59, in 1990
when M5 passed, to 55 in the most recent survey. (This is not to be confused
with our ranking, which is determined in large part by the amount
of state support a public institution receives.)
We need to keep reminding people that we are a low-cost provider of very
high quality education.
Second, we must stay the course if higher education in this state is not
to be seriously damaged. Staying the course means that we must continue
to improve both our quality and our productivity. Given the documented
increase in high school graduates over the next decade, in order to fulfill
our responsibility to the state, we must be prepared to serve these students
with high quality programs in the areas that they and the state need.
We must continue to attract and serve qualified students. In the early
phases of M5 we closed some programs--those that were deemed to be the least
central and least critical to the University's mission. We have nothing
left that fits that category; one might even argue that we went too far
with the M5 program closures. There are probably no remaining programs
that we could close and net a savings, because when you close programs,
you reduce access, thereby reducing the number of students. Beyond the
fact that we might directly lose money if we close any more programs, there
would be other indirect costs as well. We lost tremendously in the beginning
of M5 because of the perception that higher education was unstable, and
the fear that additional programs might be closed. This perception, as
much as the program closures themselves, contributed to the loss of 2,000
students in the first two years after M5. We are not yet back up to the
enrollment level we had reached prior to the passage of M5.
So, program closures are not on the horizon in any reasonable response to
M47; instead, we must continue to selectively look at new programs that
meet the student demands and the needs of the state. We have already been
doing that; we started an Environmental Studies program, and we have instituted
a joint degree between Math and Computer Science. We need to continue this
process of selectively looking at programs and moving forward with those
that meet students' and the state's needs.
We also must continue to attract and retain outstanding faculty. This means
that we must not let our salaries become any less competitive than they
already are. Therefore, we cannot pull back from the salary increases that
we are planning to give in January, which have been approved by the Legislature
and are already budgeted. While the public may perceive these plans to
continue to move forward as meaning the University "doesn't get it,"
it is our job to convince them that we DO get it, and to help them to understand
that it would be counterproductive for both the University and the state
for us to take steps such as program closures or salary/hiring freezes to
cut costs. The Provost hopes that by having a clear understanding of the
University's position, those who find themselves serving as spokespersons
for the University (in varying capacities) will be better able to help the
leaders of the state understand why we are NOT cutting programs and why
we are NOT freezing recruitment of "new" (i.e., replacement) faculty.
The Provost pointed out that we are not adding new faculty positions; we
are simply filling positions that are left vacant by retirement or resignation,
and we are doing that as student enrollment continues to grow. We need
to do what we can to try to help other people understand this.
Finally, we must continue to serve the needs of the state, not only by providing
graduates and educated people to the state, but also through research, which
is supported almost entirely by non-state funds, and service.
That is where we are right now. While we certainly would be better off
if Measure 47 had not passed, if it had failed there almost certainly would
have been some other move in the Legislature and/or among people with initiative
petitions for other kinds of tax reform. Measure 47 has forced the issue,
but we must remember that that full $1 billion probably would not have been
available in any case.
At this point in the meeting the Provost invited questions or comments from
the floor.
Senator Westling noted that the Provost had painted a very impressive and
optimistic picture, but that it seemed to conflict with an article he had
read in the Oregonian that morning which stated that all state agencies
were being asked to submit budgets with a 10% reduction. Are the OSSHE
budgets to be excluded from this 10% budget cut?
The Provost replied that the full budget that we submitted would have assumed
more than a 10% increase over the current service level. He does not know
exactly what that will mean, but he does not think all state agencies will
be cut by 10%. His prediction right now is that higher education will be
funded somewhere near the current service level as submitted by the Board.
We will know more by next June.
There are other factors that can come into play as well, one of which is
enrollment. We don't know how much enrollment is going to grow or be allowed
to grow, but that is another way to affect the budget. Still another factor
is tuition.
The Provost stressed that he wanted to make sure that there was no uncertainty
about our intent with regard to the plans that we have already made concerning
such things as faculty salaries and programs.
Senator Soper then asked the Provost whether he had any predictions regarding
tuition.
Provost Moseley responded that he did not. Both in-state and out-of-state
tuition are currently about as high the market will bear. Raising tuition
at this point would probably NOT bring any more money into the State System,
because if we were to raise tuition, fewer students would come. The Provost
feels that there is no more room for our resident or non-resident students
to make up for state underfunding by increasing tuition, and he hopes we
can get the Legislature to understand this.
Had Measure 47 not passed, the current student campaign to freeze tuition
might have been successful. This would have been good for the University,
because it most probably would have increased enrollments. However, as
things currently stand, we may see tuition go up by 3% or so, to reflect
the average rate of inflation. If tuition is increased by more than the
rate of inflation, we will probably lose money, due to a decline in enrollments.
Senate President Bybee then expanded upon the Provost's remarks by noting
that higher education had taken a disproportionate hit in terms of solving
the financial problems of M5, and while we are dealing with a different
measure now [Measure 47 instead of 5], there seems to be a greater recognition
on the part of the Legislature that higher education DID shoulder a disproportionate
share of the burden last time around. It is hoped that because we more
than fulfilled our obligation with regard to M5, we will be a less likely
target now. We hope to receive enough support to at least maintain things
as they are, and possibly even to strengthen certain areas. While this
may be good news for the UO, it requires that we be sensitive to other state
agencies and city and local governments who are getting bad news; we must
be careful about how we handle our relationship with them.
The Provost interjected that no one wants to see K-12 take a 20% cut; that
would not be a desirable outcome from any point of view. However, there
are other possible revenue sources. The "kicker" [state income
tax surplus] will have close to $300 million in it, and the leaders of both
the House and the Senate have publicly expressed a willingness to look at
this as a source of revenue for bridging the short-fall caused by M47.
In addition, property tax this year is at a very high level. Cities and
counties could decide not to spend all of this revenue and save some of
it to deal with the 10% roll-back provision of M47.
There is clearly more flexibility now than there was at the time of the
passage of M5.
DEVELOPING POLICY ON KNIGHT CHAIRS AND PROFESSORSHIPS
A draft of the Knight Chair policy dated 11/13/96 was handed out at the
meeting, and is included on pages 18 and 19 of these minutes.
Phil Knight has pledged and has already given a major part of a $15 million
gift to the University for establishing several endowed chairs and professorships.
This gift would allow us to establish 15 fully funded chairs at the University,
or it could be used to fund a combination of chairs and professorships,
which require about half the amount of a chair. The gift was given with
the stipulation that it be distributed at the discretion of the University
President, so it is the President who will ultimately decide on the final
form of the policy under discussion. The President has been discussing
the policy with his staff, with the Deans, and with the Faculty Advisory
Council, and is having the Provost discuss it with the Senate. He would
like to receive any suggestions or comments as soon as possible so that
the policy can be finalized. The policy will provide an outline of our
current plan for using what Phil Knight intended to be a "transforming
gift" in a way that will maximize the gift's effect.
All appointments will be approved by the President. Interest income from
the Knight gift will remain in one central fund, administered by the Office
of Academic Affairs, from which money will be transferred to the schools
and departments that have been awarded Knight Chairs or Professorships.
In order to become eligible for a Knight Chair, the School or College will
need to raise a matching chair. The intent is not to have just 15 new endowed
chairs, but to have 30 (or more, if some of these are Professorships).
Each Knight Chair will receive an income stream that will begin at $40,000/year--so
obviously these are not fully-funded positions. Endowed chairs are typically
"add-ons;" some of the money goes into salary enhancement, and
some of it typically goes to program support and to fund research.
These Chairs are not intended to be entitlements based simply upon seniority;
rather, they will be given based on extraordinary and continuing accomplishment
and service.
A Chair will not necessarily stay dedicated to the specific area to which
it was initially awarded. It can be moved around within the school or college
in which it was granted, according to the priorities of the University and
the school or college. Furthermore, these chairs will not be given in perpetuity,
but instead will be granted for fixed terms, with the possibility of renewal.
The chairs are intended to be used by the University to try to achieve
its highest priorities at any point in time, so there are some differences
between these Knight Chairs and the more typical endowed chairs.
The Provost invited the Senate to discuss the Knight Chair policy at its
December meeting, and then get back to him with comments. He also invited
individual comments.
Concern was expressed from the floor that the matching requirement might
lead to a concentration of the Chairs in certain schools or colleges where
fund-raising is easier than for others.
Provost Moseley responded by saying that it is the administration's intention
that the chairs be distributed generally in proportion to enrollments; the
chairs will NOT be concentrated in one area. The general expectation for
distribution is that the smaller schools and colleges will probably be eligible
for only one or possibly two chairs; the intermediate sized schools and
colleges will get two or maybe three chairs; and the College of Arts &
Sciences, which comprises half of the University, will get approximately
half of them.
The matching requirement will be absolute, but this does not mean that the
chairs will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, beyond the
expected allocation plan outlined above.
Raising matching funds should not be a problem. It is more likely that
the matching funds will be raised before we have received the entire Knight
gift. We currently have $6 million of the gift in the bank, earning interest.
By the Fall of 1997 we hope to begin to support six of the chairs. Knight
has five years to fulfill the $9 million balance of his pledge. The Knight
chairs are intended to serve as a positive incentive to other donors to
endow other chairs.
At this point, there was a question from the floor: Will the $40,000 for
a chair always be an augmentation of an existing line item, or is it possible
that it could be used to substitute for other funds for a position?
The Provost replied that the Knight money is NOT intended to be used as
a substitute for other funds. The intent is that a faculty member holding
a chair like this would have a base salary funded by other sources, usually
departmental funds, and that the endowment would be used to augment that
salary and provide additional support. It is possible that the endowment
funds might be used to bridge appointments, or that a department might have
funds only for an assistant professor, and would use the endowment income
to bring the salary up to a more senior level.
The schools and colleges have been asked to come up with their own processes
for allocation of the Knight Chair funds.
The question was asked about what funds would be counted as part of a school's
or college's "match." Overall, the University has already raised
$150 million, some of which is in faculty development, and the senator wanted
to know if any or all of that would count towards the match.
Provost Moseley replied that the raising of funds for matching purposes
started last July. Any gifts given now, or during the past couple of months,
are considered to be part of the match. The Provost went on to emphasize
the importance of this gift to our core mission, and he stressed that we
have a responsibility to use this gift wisely, so that its potential for
transforming the university can be realized. He noted that gifts like these,
if used wisely, can move a campus to a level of national prominence that
otherwise might not have been possible.
The first Knight Chair appointments, possibly as many as six of them, could
be made in the Fall of 1997, so the endowment funds could be used as a recruitment
tool this year.
The Senate President then inquired as to how open the policy was to further
adjustment.
The Provost answered that the issue is open until it is closed, but ultimately
the final form of the policy is up to the President. There is a lot of
flexibility in this policy; there are also aspects of the Knight gift that
distinguish it from many of our previous endowments.
Senator Tedards then asked whether the matching amount for a Professorship
would be $40,000.
Provost Moseley answered that the matching amount would be an endowment
of $1 million, which is enough for one endowed chair. The Provost pointed
out that the matching program is already working to entice new donors to
endow a chair.
In answer to another question about whether this money would be used to
"top off" existing lines, rather than create new ones, the Provost
pointed out that it would take a $2-2.5 million gift to generate enough
money to support a completely new senior level position, if one assumes
that salary and OPE would cost the University somewhere between $75,000-$100,000.
Virtually all of our current endowed chairs have base salaries that are
paid with state funds that are then augmented by endowment funds. This
does not mean that some of the Knight Chairs will not be used to attract
new, outstanding people from the outside; but these new hires would be based
on existing lines, for example to fill a position when someone retires.
So the Provost's hope is that we will be able to use these Chairs to help
us with a mix of retention, recruitment, and salary improvement.
The Provost looks forward to input from the Senate on the Knight Chair policy.
REPORT ON THE OSSHE PLANNING PROCESS
Beginning last Spring, the State Board initiated a very complex planning
process which resulted in a set of goals and strategies which were assigned
to various "Solution Teams" for investigation and recommendations
for implementation. There are several important Solution Teams currently
at work on various issues. One that may have some effect upon the UO is
the Solution Team on Engineering. There are some differences of opinion
between OSU and PSU about how Engineering should be organized in the state.
That Solution Team will report to the Board on Friday.
Related to the Engineering issue is a proposal that the UO has made called
the Oregon School of Computing. The UO is best equipped to make a major
contribution to the high tech industry in the area of Computer Science.
We have been concerned that because our Department of Computer Science
is in the College of Arts and Sciences, (whereas the Computer Science departments
at OSU and PSU are a part of their Schools of Engineering), our Computer
Science department would get swept up in the Engineering initiative, and
would be left in a less than ideal position. Our Computer Science department
would continue to exist, but we would not benefit from any additional funding,
nor would we be able to serve the needs within the state which our department
is in some cases best qualified to serve.
We therefore proposed the Oregon School of Computing as a consortium involving
UO, OSU, and PSU. The reason we gave for NOT supporting a consolidation
of Computer Sciences in the state into one big mega-department is that there
is a need for integration of the computer science departments into the rest
of their respective universities. There are many connections, programs,
and inter-disciplinary involvements that our Computer Science department
has with other departments on campus. This is also true to a lesser degree
at OSU and PSU. To not have a good Computer Science Department in a modern
university is unthinkable.
But recognizing that each institution needs and wants to have its own Computer
Science department, we also recognize the need in Portland and in other
areas of the state for a higher level of continuing professional education.
There is a need for more undergraduate degree programs in computer science,
as well as a need for more Master's programs. The Oregon School of Computing
is a cooperative plan that appears to be getting a high level of support
from the other institutions. It would both augment support for the computer
science departments themselves, and for this joint program. The Oregon
School of Computing would be most visible in Portland, but it would serve
the entire state. Gene Luks was one of the authors of the proposal for
this cooperative venture. It is hoped that the Board will ask the UO, OSU,
and PSU to proceed with the development of this proposal, thereby setting
a positive example for how cooperative consortia can operate in this state.
Another very important solution team, chaired by President Frohnmayer, is
looking at graduate education in Oregon. Graduate enrollment at the UO
has been gradually but steadily declining for the past 4-5 years, a trend
which is not good for the health of a comprehensive research university.
In some cases those declines have been deliberate, where job market considerations
have led programs to take fewer students. In other cases the decline is
due to a decrease in student interest, a phenomenon that can be seen at
many major universities around the country, but which is nevertheless a
cause for concern. The President's committee has just begun to look at
this issue.
Together with Stephen Reno, the President of Southern, Provost Moseley is
co-chairing a solution team which is charged with looking at the Chancellor's
office. This team has completed a first round of investigative interviews
on campus and has had a first meeting. The two conclusions that have emerged
so far are: 1) there is a need for some kind of coordinating central agency,
such as the Chancellor's office; and 2) there is a need, particularly among
the four-year schools, for many of the services that a Chancellor's office
provides. This committee is going to focus on what the real needs, services,
and types of policy guidance are that the Chancellor's office could provide,
and how best to fund those administrative services. The Chancellor convened
this solution team with the hope that it will produce positive and useful
recommendations for change in that office, and the Provost is optimistic
that this review of the Chancellor's office will provide a positive contribution
to the entire state system. There is also the possibility that the recommendations
might lead to some monetary savings.
The Provost promised to keep the Senate informed as things develop on these
Solution Teams.
The Provost then opened the floor to any further questions.
Senator Ryan asked the Provost to clarify the current policy concerning
review of academic deans. The Provost replied that the controlling policy
document states that academic administrators should be reviewed every six
years, although the practice has not always been rigidly followed. Reviews
have taken place at five, six, or even seven years, although the Provost
intends to adhere to the six-year schedule, barring any policy changes.
Senator Ryan then said that he believes the Faculty Handbook mentions reviews
every three years. The Provost explained that this probably refers to mid-term
reviews, and that the administration intends to stick with the sixth year
review for the purpose of re-employment decisions. The mid-term reviews
are intended to provide an opportunity for constructive criticisms that
can be addressed before the formal fifth- or sixth-year review. Senator
Ryan pointed out that faculty must submit to reviews on a regular basis,
and that more regular reviews of administrators would be beneficial to faculty
morale. Provost Moseley agreed that we need to take all review processes
more seriously. Currently, annual reviews for non-tenured faculty are not
done on a regular basis, nor are the post-tenure reviews, which are supposed
to be conducted every five years. Senator Ryan asked if a dean could be
reappointed without a [fifth- or sixth-year] review. The Provost responded
by stating that no dean's contract would be renewed for more than one year
[beyond the initial five-year appointment] without a formal review.
The Provost thanked the Senators for inviting him to come and speak.
At the conclusion of Provost Moseley's presentation, President Bybee drew
attention to the rest of the day's agenda. Making reference to item 6.1
under Unfinished Business, he asked that Senators be sure to
take with them a copy of the 10-page summary of issues from the "Building
A Senate Agenda" project, so that it can be discussed at the December
4, 1996 meeting. President Bybee was pleased with the initial level of
response to the survey. In this first step, the range of issues was identified;
the next step will be to begin to prioritize those issues. The 10-page
hard-copy summary document will be posted on the Senate Web Page for those
who wish to access it electronically.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE SENATE
FLOOR
President Bybee mentioned that nominations are being sought for a member-at-large
for the Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate. The IFS is putting together
a state-wide faculty plan for lobbying during the coming legislative session,
so this is an important time to be involved.
With regard to the Sexual Relations and Abuse policy, the hearings have
taken place, and in response to the oral and written testimony, there will
be one more fairly significant revision of the document. It will then be
referred back to the Senate.
The same is true for the changes in the Student Conduct Code. There has
been a lot of press coverage, there was a lot of valuable testimony at the
public hearing, and the committee has received lots of written input. As
a result, the committee is putting together a revision of the proposal before
it is brought before the Senate as a formal motion.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Senate Budget Committee
Ms. Gwartney, 1995/96 Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, gave the 95/96
report for that committee. She provided several copies of one-page report,
which is included on page 20 of these minutes. Ms. Gwartney reviewed the
roles and purposes of the Senate Budget Committee, which are listed in her
report. In 1995/96, there were six continuing members and nine new members
of this committee. Ms. Gwartney noted that given the steep learning curve
involved, it is desirable that members of this committee serve for more
than one year if possible. The members of the committee first met to receive
a budget tutorial, and then met to discuss specific issues, which are outlined
in the report. Three of those discussion items, numbers 1, 2, and 6, (serials
cuts, parking, and the financial impact of proposed student and peer course
evaluations) had been specifically requested by the Senate.
Ms. Gwartney characterized much of the committee activity as "informed
and watchful oversight." The committee did take action on one item--the
Senate Budget Committee resolution dated March 20, 1996. The text of this
resolution, which is on the subject of parking fee increases, can be found
in the report of the committee.
Ms. Gwartney then outlined the recommendations that the 95/96 committee
made to the members of the 96/97 committee for the coming year. These items
are also outlined in her report.
Senator Kimball asked whether the March 20, 1996 resolution had ever come
to the Senate floor. Senator Soper noted that there had been considerable
discussion of the parking issue. President Bybee said he believes that
the resolution did not ever come to the Senate floor. Ms. Gwartney expressed
surprise, saying that the SBC had sent a memo to then-President Paul Simonds
about the issue. Senator Tedards said she would find out just exactly what
had taken place, and would bring that information back to the Senators.
Concerning the final recommendation of the SBC for 96/97, i.e., that the
Senate Budget Committee report to the Senate more than once per year, President
Bybee agreed that this might be a good idea in general with regard to committees
that report to the Senate. If reports are delivered only at the end of
the year, it is often too late for the Senate to take any action on issues
that are raised in those reports.
Senator Kimball then raised a concern about a Register-Guard story
on the Senate's position regarding the Sexual Relations and Abuses of Power
policy. He noted that if the Senate is to be an effective body, it needs
to be able to make clear decisions that are recorded and reported accurately.
Senator Belitz asked whether the Senate should have a policy or mechanism
for dealing with wrongly reported information. President Bybee agreed that
this would be desirable, and suggested that when things are incorrectly
reported by local news media, that perhaps our Communications Office would
have a way to see that a correcting statement was issued.
Faculty Personnel Committee
Martin Wybourne (Physics), Chair of the 1995/96 Faculty Personnel Committee
(FPC) delivered the next committee report. A copy of this report can be
found on pages 21 and 22 of these minutes.
The purpose of the FPC is to advise the Provost on all tenure and promotion
cases. Last year's committee was comprised of 10 faculty members and one
undergraduate student. The ASUO was unable to provide the name of a graduate
student to serve on the committee in 95/96. However, it is the recommendation
of the FPC that in the future the ASUO try to provide two student representatives
to serve on this committee.
The committee met on at least a weekly basis from January until June, with
more frequent meetings as the June 15th deadline approached. The committee
reviewed a total of 39 cases: 5 for tenure only; one for promotion to Senior
Instructor with tenure; 24 for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure;
8 for promotion to full Professor; and one new hire at the level of Professor
with tenure. The FPC's recommendation to the Provost was favorable in 28
cases, and negative in 6. In 3 cases the committee was divided, and a mixed
vote was recorded. In one of the remaining two cases, the FPC was unable
to decide because of a lack of guidelines with which to judge the case,
and in the other, there were issues that caused the committee to remain
undecided.
The Provost agreed with all of the committee's favorable decisions, and
with 3 of the 6 negative decisions. The Provost acted favorably in two
of the three cases that received mixed votes from the FPC, and favorably
in one of the two cases in which the committee remained undecided.
The main frustration the committee had--and one that has been expressed
by the FPC previously--was the inadequate documentation of teaching performance
contained in some of the files. The FPC would like to urge department heads
to adhere to the new policies on teaching evaluations, which should help
provide more uniform reporting campus wide.
One issue on which the University should provide definite expectations is
on the promotion from Instructor to Senior Instructor with Tenure. This
caused serious problems in one case during 95/96. There are at present
no clear guidelines, and the expectations vary widely across the campus,
which makes an objective review of these cases very difficult.
The Committee also discussed and in general supported the policy on Sexual
Relations. However, the policy raised a serious issue for the FPC, that
is, when a written reprimand is included in a faculty personnel file, how
is it to be weighted with respect to the other evaluative components of
teaching, research and service? The FPC believes that this is an area where
the new policy will have a substantial and long-lasting impact on a person's
career, and it is felt that the University should provide future committees
with carefully crafted directions to assist them.
The FPC recommends no changes in procedures for this year's committee, and
would like to publicly thank Vice Provost Lorraine Davis and her assistant,
Carol White, for their considerable help as the FPC worked through its heavy
caseload.
At the conclusion of Mr. Wybourne's committee report, the floor was opened
for questions.
Senator Engleking asked to whom the FPC's recommendations were made. Mr.
Wybourne answered that the recommendations are included in the committee's
formal report, and they were also forwarded to Lorraine Davis.
Proficiency-Based Admissions Standards System (PASS)
Senator Kimball gave the final report of the day on the Proficiency-based
Admissions Standards System, which potentially has some major implications
for higher education. The PASS project report details a major revision
of the K-12 testing and evaluation system. Senator Kimball delivered a
packet of materials to President Bybee, which describes the legislation
in 1991 that created a completely new approach to curriculum in the public
schools, moving towards the production of a portfolio for each student that
measures talents, capabilities, and accomplishments. These portfolios would
replace the more traditional high school transcripts. The system would
also guide students into one of two basic tracks, college-bound or "workbench"
bound. Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery are awarded when students
have demonstrated the required skills.
The 1991 legislation was amended significantly in 1995. While it is up
to the public schools to figure out how to deal with the new form of evaluation
outlined in the PASS project, the issue for higher education is that students
might come to us with documentation of their accomplishments that we do
not know how to interpret. This could especially present problems for Admissions
office. Professor David C. Conley (Education), who has been actively involved
in this project since 1991, is a good resource for questions on this matter.
Other active participants have included Jim Buch from Admissions, and Lorraine
Davis in Academic Affairs.
Senator Kimball recommended that the Senate take no specific action on this
issue at this time, other than to encourage the University Curriculum Committee
to look over the document before it is put in final form to make sure that
it describes properly the sorts of talents and capabilities we would expect
students to have.
The floor was then opened to questions/discussion. Senator Westling asked
if the portfolios would be used to waive lower-division courses. Senator
Kimball replied that as far as he knew the answer was No. Senator Young
raised the question of how this will affect admissions for out-of-state
students--that is, how the evaluation of portfolios will compare with the
review of traditional transcripts. (It was pointed out that this will also
be an issue for Oregon students who apply to out-of-state colleges and universities.)
Senator Kimball answered that at this point we are not sure how the two
forms of evaluation will be compared, although he again referred Senators
to David C. Conley. Senator Kimball noted that there is only about a 7%
variance between admissions based on the portfolio versus traditional admissions
procedures.
Senator Soper asked whether the Undergraduate Council had been looking at
this issue. Senator Tedards replied that the Undergraduate Council has
spent two full meetings on this topic.
Senator Kimball reminded Senators that the public schools are going to implement
PASS, no matter what our views on it might be. But he did add that he felt
encouraged that Lorraine Davis, who has studied the issue extensively, and
who initially had serious doubts and many questions about the project, has
begun to change her mind.
Senator Engleking asked what the estimated workload of evaluating the portfolios
would be. Senator Kimball replied that the major burden will fall on the
Admissions office, not on faculty, and that is something Jim Buch is looking
at right now.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion or questions, the meeting was adjourned
at 5:03 p.m.
Julia J. Heydon
Acting Faculty Secretary