Minutes of the University Senate May= 13, 1998
Present: Acres, Berk, Belitz, Boush, Burkhart, Cohen, Dale, DeGidio,= Dolezal, Eisert, Foster, Gerdes, Gilkey, Hurwit, Kahle, Kershner, Kimball,= Kriegel, Larson, Lees, Luks, McGee, Morse, Olson, Page, Paris, Paynter,= Singell, Smith, Stavitsky, Stein, Tedards, Tublitz, Upshaw, Vakareliyska,= Westling, Wood, Young
Excused: Altmann, Baldwin, Conley, Ellis, Farwell, Kintz, Leahy,= O=92Keefe
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Ann Tedards called the regular meeting of the University= Senate to order at 3:11 p.m. in room 100 Willamette.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
With no additions or corrections to the minutes, the minutes stood= approved as distributed.
STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Remarks from University President Dave Frohnmayer. President= Frohnmayer commended the senate and the senate executive committee for the= quality of discussions and deliberations over the academic year and the= substantial amount of business conducted. He noted in particular the= excellent communication developed among the FAC, the senate executive= committee, and his office. Secondly, the president remarked about the= great pleasure he took recently in presenting outstanding teaching awards= to Mr. Dick Koch, mathematics, and Mr. Luis Verano, romance languages, who= were recipients of the Herman Award, and to Mr. Leon Johnson, fine and= applied arts, who received the Ersted Award.
President Frohnmayer spoke briefly about the progress made on the Process= for Change, indicating that a document (see Notes) has been developed and= distributed to the faculty giving a fair, albeit not as rich,= representation of the multitude of ideas and suggestions input by the many= solution teams. Further, the president indicated that he has called a= "town meeting" for discussion on the Process for Change document= on May 20, 1998. A number of proposals for change are included in the= document and an open discussion is requested concerning priorities and= implementation.
Lastly, the president reported on two committees growing out of the= report from the governor=92s task force on higher education, one concerned= with budget and finance, and the other with structure and governance. = Concerning structure and governance, the committee so far has recommended= that campuses could establish separate "advisory" boards (as= opposed to "governing" boards). The recommendation is still in= its formative stages. The other committee has made significant progress on= its recommendations for budget and finance. The president outlined briefly= the proposed funding scheme for the Oregon University System, indicating= that all funds that come to a campus (via tuition, for example) will stay= on that campus. A second aspect of the funding model will include a state= appropriation for each campus, which at this point is not known exactly (a= per student amount from the state=92s general fund). The third component= of the model is the remainder of the state appropriation for each campus to= make sure the campuses stay "equal", that is, with no winners or= losers due to the funding plan. The president noted that in addition to= this reformulation of the funding model, a reinvestment in higher education= by the legislature will be needed to bring the system back to parity,= perhaps as much 100 million dollars plus inflation costs.
Call for nominations for senate officers election. Senator Clare= Lees, chair of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the= committee is accepting nominations for the senate vice president position= for 1998-99 and will do so up to the vote taken during the senate=92s= organizational meeting slated for May 27th. Secondly, she= presented the nominations for next year=92s Committee on Committee (see= Notes) and moved that the slate be accepted. With no discussion, the= motion was passed unanimously.
Announcements and communication from senators. Vice President= Jeffrey Hurwit, art history, presented a special resolution acknowledging= the "extraordinary distinction, grace, efficiency, humor, and= dedication" with which President Tedards has led the senate for this= academic year. The resolution was unanimous approved with a standing= ovation for the outgoing president. President Tedards thanked the members= for their support throughout the year and stated that it has been an honor= to work with and get to know better so many dedicated colleagues at the= university.
Further acknowledgments were made by Mr. Paul Simonds, president of the= Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, who echoed sentiments commending the= senate for its good work throughout the year and encouraged continued= efforts to foster broad participation in faculty governance. Mr. John= Nichols, speaking as chair of the Senate Budget Committee, publicly= commended the concerted, tireless, and productive efforts of both President= Frohnmayer and Provost Moseley in affecting the proposed major changes in= the funding model for the university.
Senator Tamir Kriegel, ASUO, yielded the floor to Mr. Spencer Hamlin who= apprised the members of the students=92 efforts to support greater= compensation for faculty at the university. Noting that faculty= compensation in Oregon ranks 44th among the 50 states, Mr.= Hamlin indicated that the student body, as part of its agenda, is mounting= a letter-writing campaign in support of better compensation for faculty. = He asked that faculty also write letters that the students will then= present to the governor.
Ms. Maram Epstein, chair of the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues= Committee, updated senate members concerning domestic partners benefits= policy changes. Ms. Epstein reported that in April the new Public= Employees=92 Benefit Board (PEBB) approved the extension of benefits to the= families of all state employees, now including domestic partnerships,= beginning June 1st. She was grateful of the resolution the= senate passed last year in support of extending benefits to domestic= partners, both gay and straight, and felt it sent a powerful message that= has now come to fruition.
Secretary Gwen Steigelman, affirmative action, shared results of the= spring elections for the senate and faculty committees. She noted several= committee vacancies that remain to be filled, but thanked those senators= who were willing to stand for election either for a second senate term or= for an elected committee. In addition, the secretary was pleased to= receive kinds words from Senator Margie Paris, chair of the Senate Rules= Committee, as well as President Tedards related to the integral nature of= their work in the administrative and substantive aspects of the senate= throughout the year. President Tedards concluded her announcements with a= reminder of the town meeting to be held May 20th in 150 Columbia= and the senate=92s organizational meeting held May 27th in the= Browsing Room of Knight Library. She noted additionally that handouts were= available regarding a public hearing on proposed amendments to the OAR= setting family housing rates will be held May 28th.
Committee on Courses. Mr. Chris Wilson, member of the Committee= on Courses, presented the preliminary spring 1998 quarterly report. He= noted a few changes to be made, the first in Architecture. On page 4, ARCH= 661 (3R) may be repeated nine times for a maximum of 30 credits;= Prerequisite: Option I student or instructor=92s consent, completion of= technical courses to be studied. Second, for ARCH 690 (3R), in addition to= the current statement, Prerequisite: Option I student or instructor=92s= consent, is added. Further, on page 7, the entire section titled,= "Changes in Multicultural Status" should be deleted. The= committee approved no multicultural courses this term. Mr. John Nicols,= history, advised the senators that some CAS departments that thought their= courses would be approved by the Committee on Courses in preparation for= fall term did not make it to the committee due to a communication problem. = Thus, those courses have not yet been discussed nor approved for fall term.= Mr. Nichols stated that the Undergraduate Council was looking into the= organizational mix-up, trying to arrange the scheduling timeline to prevent= a repeat incident of the problem. Mr. Herb Cherek, registrar, assured= everyone that no courses are published in class schedules that have not= been approved. Without further discussion, the spring 1998 preliminary= report from the Committee on Courses was approved unanimously by voice= vote.
Mr. Williams asked for some "sense of the senate" concerning= courses that are listed and have not been taught for several years as well= as reinstating courses that have been absent from the course list for only= a year or two. The Committee on Courses suggests that they oversee these= situations, asking the relevant departments for rationales for keeping= courses listed that have not been taught for several years, and including= in the preliminary report to the senate the courses which should be= dropped. Similarly, requests to reinstate courses that have not been= taught for a year or two would be included in the quarterly preliminary= reports for action by the senate. The senate was in agreement with such an= arrangement.
Committee on Committees. Senator Gene Luks, chair of the= Committee on Committees, presented the senate with a list of= recommendations for appointments to faculty committees. Mr. Luks noted= that we are in a transitional year complying with legislation passed= earlier by the senate that established the term of committee service as two= years, unless otherwise legislated. Roughly half of the membership of each= committee is replaced each year. Because these appointments are not= official until the president accepts the recommendations made by the= Committee on Committees and passed by the senate, it was impossible to= elect chairs for all committees; hence committee members were polled for= their willingness to serve another year and chairs were designated= accordingly. Senator Peter Gilkey, chair of the Library Committee,= reported that his committee had elected a chair for next year and moved= that the recommendations be amended to list Mr. James Schombert as chair of= the Library Committee. The amendment passed unanimously followed by a= unanimous voice vote to accepted the Committee on recommended= appointments.
Motion US97/98-9 =96 revised charge of the Faculty Personnel= Committee. Senator Gilkey, chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee= (FPC) presented Motion US97/98-9 which is a revision of the FPC=92s charge= which clarifies and codifies its activities (see Notes). Mr. Gilkey noted= that the committee makes its recommendations concerning promotion and= tenure cases to the provost, not the president. He indicated that other= minor changes and updates are included in the motion and that his committee= consulted widely in updating the charge. Senator Jim Upshaw, journalism= and communication, asked if the name should be changed to the Tenure and= Promotion Committee. Ms. Lorraine Davis, vice provost for academic= affairs, responded that this is the committee name used throughout the= university system as dictated in Oregon Administrative Rules. She= suggested passing the motion as presented and taking up the issue of a name= change at a future time.
Senator Michael Olson, ASUO, moved to amend the motion by striking the= word "non" from the section on student participation which, in= part, currently states, "Two university students, nominated by the= appropriate procedures within the ASUO and appointed by the president,= shall serve as non-voting participants in the deliberations of the= committee." Mr. Olson reasoned that tenuring and promoting faculty is= an issue that affects students=92 education thus they should have a vote in= the process. Vice Provost Davis clarified that Oregon Administrative Rules= (OARs) require that the faculty make tenure and promotion recommendations. = When students were added to the committee in 1976, the president said that= students=92 voices could be part of the FPC=92s recommendations. However,= because it was not legislated as such, students' recommendations would be= recorded separately as part of the official vote tally that is forwarded= from the committee. Mr. Gilkey reminded everyone that the FPC only makes= recommendations =96 they do not vote on tenure or promotion per se =96 and= that the recommendations of the students are forwarded as part of the vote= tally and recommendations that go to the provost. Senator Tublitz asked if= the students=92 recommendations are taken seriously to which Ms. Davis= responded that, indeed, they are taken seriously but separately. Mr. Ben= Unger, ASUO vice president, suggested that if changes in existing OARs and= other campus legislation are appropriate they should be made. Mr. Gilkey= noted that the proposed charge is not a change but rather a codification of= existing practice.
Senator Wayne Westling, law, argued against the amendment to strike the= word "non" saying that to vote for the amendment would require= rewording not only the entire proposed charge, but OARs as well. Rather,= he advocated rejecting the amendment, and passing the main motion revising= the FPC charge. If changes are deemed necessary, student senators from the= ASUO and perhaps the FPC could make a proposal for all the necessary= legislative changes, properly taking all the regulations into= consideration. The question was called. The motion to amend the FPC= charge by striking the word "non" in front of voting in the= student participation section was defeated by a vote of 5 in favor and 22= opposed. The original main motion to accept the revised charge to the= FPC was again on the floor. With no further discussion on the main= motion, Motion US97/98-9, revising the charge of the FPC, passed by voice= vote. Mr. Gilkey indicated he would convey the discussion concerning= student-voting participation to the FPC chair for the next academic= year.
Motion from the Faculty Advisory Council to create an ad hoc= Post-tenure Review Committee. Ms. Marjorie Woollacott, chair of the= Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), made the following motion:
The University Senate shall appoint a committee to study the motion= proposed by the Faculty Advisory Council concerning post tenure review and= to consult widely with the University community on all aspects of the= matter, including the financial implications. The committee shall report= back to the senate by the last senate meeting of the fall term 1998, and= the senate shall take action on the committee's recommendation by the end= of winter term 1999.
In way of review, Ms. Woollacott reminded the senate that the FAC= originally intended at the previous senate meeting to move the passing of a= post tenure review policy statement that it had been working on all year. = The FAC generated the post tenure policy statement in response to the= recent 10-year accreditation report. In it, the review committee= recommended that university administrators take immediate action to be in= compliance with Standard 7, Commission Policy 26, which requires that every= faculty member at every accredited institution be subject to some= substantive performance evaluation at least every three years. The council= noted that current university policy requires post tenure review for full= professors only every five years. Additionally, a 1994 university= Commission on Faculty Teaching and Rewards made similar recommendations for= three-year post tenure reviews.
However, the FPC felt that such a policy statement contained personnel= issues, which was in their charge to oversee. Consequently, they= recommended that the senate appoint an Ad Hoc Post Tenure Review Committee= to further study the matter so that it could be brought to the senate floor= for debate. The FAC concurred with this suggestion, hence the present= motion before the senate. In response to a question as to how the= committee will be appointed, Senator Clare Lees, chair of the Senate= Nominating Committee, indicated her committee would received nominations= for ad hoc committee for a week. She reiterated that the committee is open= to the faculty and not limited only to senators. The Nominating Committee= would then consult with the Senate Executive Committee to appoint the ad= hoc committee. With no further discussion, the FAC motion for the= senate to appoint an Ad Hoc Post Tenure Review Committee which will report= by the end of fall term 1998, and with final senate action by the end of= winter term 1999, was passed by unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Gilkey then moved to formally give appointing authority for this ad= hoc committee to the Senate Executive Committee. The motion carried by= unanimous voice vote.
Motion US97/98-10 -- add two questions to required course evaluation= questionnaires. Mr. Unger, ASUO vice president, presented a motion= from the Undergraduate Council and the ASUO to expand the required= questions on course evaluations to include two additional questions. He= indicated they have been working with the Undergraduate Council to find= ways to have more information about courses available for students in order= to help them make their course choice decisions. Mr. Unger reported that= the financial impact may be as much as $360 per term to process these= additional questions. He noted that the Office of Academic Affairs= indicated that they would be willing to assume these costs. Additionally,= this proposal if passed, will not go into effect until next year to allow= departments to deplete their current course evaluation supplies. The= motion is as follows:
It is proposed that University Senate legislation of May 8, 1996= pertaining to Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning be amended to add= the following two required questions on course evaluations under section I.= Quantitative Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning, Item 3.:
c. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, do you= believe that the class time was well organized and efficiently used= throughout the course?
d. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how= available was your instructor outside of class time?
This change is to take effect fall, 1999 to allow use of existing= supplies of forms.
President Tedards gave a slightly different version of the financial= impact of this motion saying that in speaking with Mr. Jack Rice, associate= vice provost for academic affairs, the academic affairs office would assume= the minimal financial impact associated with reprogramming the scanning= software. Senator Cathy Page, chemistry, asked what the other two required= questions on the course evaluation forms were. Mr. Unger replied that they= were, "in comparison with other professors you have taken, how would= you rate this professor;" and, "in comparison with other classes= you have taken, how would you rate this class."
Vice President Hurwit asked what the word "available" meant in= question 3. d. Does it include time after and beyond office hours, such as= time at home? Mr. Unger answered that a similar question and discussion= arose in their wording deliberations. In the end, they believed that both= students and faculty have some general idea of what "available"= means in a reasonable sense; students will have to make their own= interpretations, just as they do for the other questions. Senator Dolezal= concurred with Mr. Hurwit that interpretation of reasonable availability= may very well have different interpretations by students than faculty,= which in turn makes it hard to understand the results. Ensuing arguments= in favor and against the wording in question 3.d. and interpretation of= "available" resulted in a motion to amend the question by adding= the words " particularly in regard to office hours" at the end of= the question. Discussion on the proposed amended wording generally found= the concept of office hours should include email. Thus an amendment to the= amendment added the words "email correspondence" after= "office hours", so that question 3.d. would read:
In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how= available was your instructor outside of class time particularly in regard= to office hours and email correspondence?
Most of the discussion on the amendment to the amendment focused on the= increasingly convoluted wording compared to the original wording and the= fact that not all faculty members have ready access to email. The question= was called. The amendment to amendment adding the words "and email= correspondence" was now on the floor and failed by voice vote. = Now the amendment to add the words "particularly in regard to office= hours" was on the floor. Senator Elliott Dale, ASUO, spoke against= the amendment, saying the ambiguity in the word "available" in= the original question left the interpretation up to the student, thus the= words including office hours were not necessary and were limiting. The= question was called. The amendment to include the words= "particularly in regard to office hours" to the end of question= 3.d. was defeated by unanimous voice vote. The discussion then= reverted to the main to include the two additional course evaluation= questions as originally stated. Senator Luks moved to amend the main= motion by striking question 3.d. He supported his amendment saying he was= not comfortable in the use and interpretation of the question. Again, the= question was called. The motion to amend the main motion by striking= section 3.d. was defeated by voice vote. Senator Hurwit moved to amend= section 3.d. by phrasing the question as follows:
In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how well= did your instructor encourage communication outside of class time?
Without any further discussion, the question was called. The= motion to amend section 3.d. was put to a vote and passed unanimously by= voice vote. With discussion now back to the main motion, Senator= Dolezal asked for an explanation of question 3. c. Mr. Unger replied that= the question focused on the organization and efficiency of the class time= which added to class quality and expanded on the readings and out of class= preparations done by the students. Senator Olson spoke support of question= 3.c. saying that again, the student must interpret the question and make= the judgment. The question was called. The main motion including the= two additional questions, as amended, was now on the floor for a vote and= carried by unanimous voice vote. The two additional course evaluation= questions now read:
c. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, do you= believe that the class time was well organized and efficiently used= throughout the course?
d. In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how= well did your instructor encourage communication outside of class time?
Motion US97/98-11 -- Amend criteria for group-satisfying course= requirements. Mr. Dick Koch, mathematics, introduced a motion= sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee and the= Undergraduate Council to redefine criteria necessary in order to satisfy= group requirements. The current legislation dates from June 1981, and the= proposed legislation would replace it. The substantive change is as= follows: if a course is 200 level or below and satisfies group= requirements, it must be given every year; current legislation requires it= be given every other year. Mr. Koch related that in the past, criteria for= group-satisfying requirements was based largely on "clusters" of= courses, and stand alone lower level courses added along the way were for= the most part "automatically" identified as satisfying group= requirements. The proposed legislation would affect new courses; that is,= the committee would use the proposed criteria to decide whether the course= would satisfy group requirements.
Faculty in each of the three arts and sciences divisions wrote the= group-satisfying statements. Further, the rationale for requiring courses= to be given every year was that if a course really is so fundamental to= satisfy group requirements, it ought to be important enough to be given= every year. Also, for freshmen setting their course schedule for the first= time, it is more difficult if some courses are not offered every year. The= proposed legislation of Motion 97/98-11 follows:
Replace the legislation of June 1981 on group= requirements, with the criteria listed, to become effective in fall of= 1998
Vice president Hurwit asked if group-satisfying courses in the= professional schools must go through the CAS Curriculum? Mr. Koch replied= that with the current policy they would and that this legislation does not= alter that procedure. Senator Lees questioned the rationale for= eliminating the former requirement that all group-satisfying courses be= introductory in nature. Mr. Koch conjectured that many of the current= group-satisfying courses are not introductory but rather talk about= specialized topics and there was no real need to retain it. With no= further discussion, the motion to replace the 1981 group satisfying= requirements legislation with the criteria listed in Motion US97/98-11 was= put to a voice vote and carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5: 45p.m.
--=====================_9323960==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" --=====================_9323960==_--