Present: Present: B. Altmann, M. Bayless, R. Cambreleng, E. Campbell, S. Cohen, R. Darst, D. Dugaw, J. Earl, C. Ellis, D. Hawkins, K. Howard, C. Lachman, K. Lenn, R. McGowen, G. McLauchlan, L. McLean, P. Mills, R. Moore, M. Nippold, C. Phillips, M. Reed, L. Robare, N. Savage, J. Schombert, S. Stolp, F. Tepfer, N. Tublitz, M. Vitulli, M. Weiner
Excused: D. Conley, J. Dawson, M. Holland, L. Kintz, D. Strom
Absent: L. Alpert, D. Dinahanian, M. Epstein, C. Gary, J. Hosagrahar, S. Jones, R. Kellett, S. Khader, S. Kohl, D. Merskin, J. Raiskin, J. Raiskin, T. Wheeler, P. Wright
Senate President James Earl began the meeting by stating that the first 45 minutes of the meeting would be used for open discussion of issues of interest, after which the regular meeting of the senate would be called to order. Before proceeding, he asked President Frohnmayer for any comments concerning the election of the preceding day. Although offering no prepared remarks, President Frohnmayer commented on the outcome of several measures affecting the university. Specifically, he reported that Measures 8, 91, and 93, each of which would have significant negative effects on the state higher education budget, were defeated. Measure 88 (increasing the maximum deductible on federal income taxes paid from $3,000 to $5,000) passed, with a cost impact estimated to be approximately a negative $168 million in the 2001-2003 biennium. Governor Kitzhaber and his staff are looking into contingencies for meeting the budget shortfall if the measure is to go into effect in this biennium. Ballot Measure 7 (compensating private landowners for loss of land value) also passed. There are dire predictions on what this will cost the state (estimated in the billions) and that it would effectively end the Oregon Beach bill. Much about this measure is ambiguous, and it will likely prompt legal challenges.
President Frohnmayer fielded a question from Senator Richard Sundt, art history, who wondered how passage of Measure 1, which states that the legislature must fund school quality goals adequately, might affect the university. The president noted that this measure requires implementation by the legislative assembly and is not a constitutionally mandated expenditure of funds. Still, it means that the legislature must follow through on the appropriations process by which various education priorities are made.
The discussion then moved to the Bend branch campus proposal. Provost John Moseley was available to update the senate on the proposal preparations in progress. Senator Marie Vitulli, mathematics, noted that the faculty is charged with curricular oversight and asked what the plans were for ensuring there would be widespread faculty involvement with what transpires at the proposed Bend campus. Will our existing committees have an additional charge or will there be new committees formed? Will branch campus courses be diluted?
Provost Moseley replied that the curriculum issue specifically has to do with our various degree authorities and the curriculum that we offer. Any program that is offered off-campus, whether in Portland, at the coast, or in Bend, has to go through our processes here on campus. The same would be true for the branch campus in Bend. Degrees will not be offered in Bend that have not been approved by normal curricular procedures on this campus. The accreditation comes through the UO, and all the authority continues to rest with our faculty committees and with our processes.
The provost went on to say that there is no additional curricular process; it is the same process that we use for any program. There is no need for new committees and there should not be a large impact on the work of existing committees because we are only offering a few new programs, and currently, no new degrees or minors that we do not already have degree authority to offer. The dilution question raises staffing issues. Faculty would primarily be drawn from two sources: regular UO faculty, some of whom may be recently retired and on 600-hour appointment or who are volunteering and interested in teaching in Bend; and, Central Oregon Community College (COCC) faculty who have been approved by the UO department that has the authority for the program in which they will teach. They will all be hired through our regular processes.
Senator Sundt expressed disfavor with the competitive nature of the request for proposal process, wondering why the strengths at each school are not combined in a joint venture rather than compete. The provost noted that such was offered from the beginning and that OSU rejected it. The provost remarked that he is equally uncomfortable with pitting campuses in competition. The UO has been very open in its willingness to work in partnerships with other institutions that would bring their programs to the proposal. We are trying to position ourselves as an institution that wants to cooperate with other institutions to meet the higher education needs in Central Oregon, focusing on our core of liberal arts.
Senator Jim Schombert, physics, wondered what the impetus was for putting in a proposal at all. Provost Moseley spoke at length debunking the myth that only land-grant institutions have statewide educational missions. He noted that historically the UO was the state’s first public university established by way of a land grant, and further that the University of Oregon currently has various substantial programs in Portland, and in the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology; we have a large number of programs in Central Oregon already, such as the College of Education’s educational administrator’s program, numerous field studies programs, programs in PPPM and the community services workshop, and the RARE program. A branch campus in Central Oregon would facilitate all of those activities.
A second reason for proposing a branch campus is that the people in Bend, most prominently people on the Central Oregon Regional Advisory Board (CORAB), want an actual college with an arts and sciences core, not just a set of programs. We are offering to meet the educational needs that Bend authorities have determined exist through their own surveys. And, it is important politically to have a presence state-wide.
Senator Martha Bayless, English, asked how programs are designed, who heads them, and how are they chosen. Provost Moseley replied that the operational structure is one that essentially sets up administrative divisions. Those divisions will offer programs from the UO and, for example, if we are offering an English minor, the department head in English will be the key person in the selecting faculty. There will be a division director who will work with the appropriate campus departments to get the program staffed. Division directors for the early, developmental phases have been identified using current faculty at the UO and at COCC; if the proposal is accepted and funded, the provost expects that all positions would be filled in manners similar to those on campus, which in some cases means an external search, in some cases an internal search, and in some cases an appointment by a dean.
Senator Lindsay McLean, ASUO, asked what the impact on students at the UO might be. The provost answered that students both here and in Bend will all be University of Oregon students, accepted into the programs both here and in Bend under the same standards as we accept any students to the University of Oregon. Students will be free to go back and forth between campuses depending where the courses/majors are offered.
The discussion then moved on to another topic, the Workers' Rights Consortium (WRC), when Senator Greg McLauchlan, sociology, questioned the soundness of President Frohnmayer’s decision, on advice from university General Counsel Melinda Grier, not to pay the university’s affiliation fees to the WRC. Senator McLauchlan pointed out that problems concerning the WRC’s certificate of incorporation, tax-exempt status, and indemnification of members raised by Ms. Grier in advising non-payment of fees had been responded to convincingly, according to Senator McLaughlan, by WRC board member Professor Mark Berenberg of Columbia Law School. In Mr. Berenberg’s opinion, the WRC is not a membership organization, and, he is confident that affiliated universities are not legally liable for any actionable claims that are made against the WRC. Senator McLauchlan acknowledged that risk is an important issue for universities, but suggested the broader issue is that the university as a public institution has to weigh risks of not doing certain things against the risks of doing them. He suggested that factory workers around the world producing UO logo apparel take health risks by working at their jobs under very strenuous conditions. Senator McLauchlan asked what specific actions must the WRC take for the university to become affiliated and pay its fees.
President Frohnmayer responded that the senate has established a review committee, which met with Ms. Grier after she issued her opinion. It determined that it should continue its work. Further, the president stated that he does not agree that Mr. Berenberg has resolved all the issues that were raised in Ms. Grier’s opinion. Under Oregon law, we are bound by the opinions of the Attorney General’s office and the opinion written by Ms. Grier was approved by the Attorney General’s Office. The opinion recognizes that conditions may change that might alter her judgment. At the time she wrote her opinion, she advised not paying the membership or affiliation fee because of the risk of liability, which she pointed out could be substantial. She further indicated that additional information is needed to determine what level of risk would be acceptable. That includes what kind of monitoring, inspections, or other activities the organization engages in; and, is the fact that the WRC is a non-member organization sufficient to insulate affiliate organizations from legal liabilities, especially in a foreign tribunal which may not recognize the immunities of our law. The president reiterated that these are important questions that are appropriate for Ms. Grier to discuss with the Senate’s review committee, and that he must be deferential on behalf of the institution to our counsel and the Attorney General’s Office best view as to what the level of risk is.
With the allotted time for the open forum slightly exceeded, Senate President Earl called an end to the discussion and proceeded to the business portion of the meeting.
The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order by Senate President James Earl at 3:52 p.m. in 240C Grayson Hall.
President Earl asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. Hearing none, the minutes were approved as distributed.
President Earl began by announcing the creation of two new committees. The senate’s WRC oversight committee has been reconstituted as was recommended in its interim report. Although there was considerable discussion whether to continue in the wake of the decision to not send affliation fees, the committee decided that there were many reasonable goals still to be achieved surrounding the licensing issues regardless if the university joins, or then renews, its membership in the WRC. David Frank, Honors College, chairs that committee and is joined by Ann Tedards, music, who was on the previous committee; additional members are Margaret Hallock , Director of Labor Education and Research, Lynn Kahle, business and sports marketing, Matt Dyste, marketing and licensing, students Anna Holcomb, Serene Khader, Zach Smith, and Chad Sullivan, and President Earl, who serves ex officio. The committee’s report will come to the senate at the March 21st meeting.
Also, an ad hoc committee on instructors has been created to look into the problems of instructors and other non-tenure track faculty on campus. President Earl noted this issue was a nationally recognized problem in the structure of instructional faculties. Responding to a number of requests to look into the way in which this problem manifests itself on our campus, the committee was formed and is chaired by Gina Psaki, romance languages, and includes Shaul Cohen, geography, Susan Fagan and Henry Wonham, English, Wayne Gotchall, romance languages, and Jim Long, chemistry. This committee also will also report at the March 21st senate meeting.
Senate representatives on various other committees include Fred Tepfer, university planning, serving on the Educational Technology Committee, and Katy Lenn, library, and senate president Jim Earl representing the senate on the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee.
Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS). IFS representative Paul Simonds, anthropology, encouraged senators and other faculty members to consider serving on the IFS replacing him as his terms expires in December. The IFS consists of 20 members, with representatives from each campus, and meets five times a year on the various system campuses primarily to address system-wide issues of concern to faculty members. The IFS has been active as a group advocating for higher education during legislative sessions and identifying faculty members who are willing to provide their expertise to legislators when they need to be informed about relevant legislation. The president of the IFS reports to the state board at each of its regular meetings, providing an avenue for faculty concerns to be presented to the board. The IFS members regularly deal with substantive issues in the educational process to affect some influence on the decisions that are made. (For more IFS information, see their web page at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ifs/ifs.html.)
President Earl reminded everyone that any faculty member, not just senators, may be a nominee for the open IFS position
Senate Budget Committee (SBC). Wayne Westling, law, updated the senate on the budget committee’s activites. Mr. Westling reminded the senators of the three documents prepared by the SBC and passed by the senate last spring: Basic Principles of Compensation, the SBC White Paper, and the Implementation Guidelines. The Implementation Guidelines were the focus of Mr. Westling’s remarks. (See http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/budgetcom9900.html.)
From 1992 to 2000, the average faculty salary across the board at the UO, increased about 2% per year, averaged from different sources. Many of those salary increases came with the budget from the legislature, which restricted what the campus could do with it. In the first year of the new plan, the average salary increase campus-wide was 6.75%. There were a number of factors operating simultaneously which allowed this to happen. First, the new budget model gave the campus more autonomy over our own budget and how we made allocations. There was a growing awareness of the disparity between salaries on this campus and salaries at other major public universities with whom we compare ourselves. That awareness was shared by the faculty, the administration, and by the students. There was a resolve last year to do something about it and the task was given to the Senate Budget Committee, working with the provost, to put together a plan that could be implemented over a period of time that would help redress that situation. So the SBC came together and created a plan for widespread salary enhancement. One of the goals was to give an increase to virtually every tenure-related teaching faculty on campus, and to that end there was a cost of living adjustment built into every pay raise, including the one most recent one (effective November 1st). Next, the provost found a way a way to fund it. Part of that was through state allocation and part was through reallocation of funds from within our own units on campus. The goal of the White Paper was to achieve a 5% salary increase across campus and the implementation actually exceeded that percentage by a significant amount, primarily because the deans and department heads dealt with individual cases of inequity. When this was added to the general across the board increases, the overall increase was in excess of the targeted 5% (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen001/Nov2000salaryincreases.html). He noted that on average, salary increases for every rank in every school are over 5%, with the exception of full professors in the business school, which is 4.96%.
To a question asking why was there a difference between departments, Mr. Westling replied that the guidelines were reaching the 95% of comparative equity, addressing compression, redressing salary inequities, and insuring the vast majority receive significant increases in attaining the 80% salary floor. These guidelines would be interpreted differently in different department, depending on where the department was in these areas. One of the basic principles was that every satisfactorily performing faculty member should have a salary no lower than 80% of people with similar ranks in similar departments. This was largely achieved.
There were two procedures involved in the implementation of the guidelines. Each department was to establish a set of systematic principles and procedures for merit raises that was to be discussed within the department and completed last spring. The second procedure was that any deviation from the basic principles including this 80% principle had to be explained and justified to the provost and accepted by that office. There were only 10 cases not meeting the 80% measure and these cases were explained and justified to the provost.
Mr. Westling went on to say that the goal is to reach 95% of parity with our comparator institutions over the 5 to 7 years of the White Paper plan. As a practical matter, the SBC will not have the comparators’ salary data until January or February at which time the committee will report back to the senate. The SBC will continue working with the provost on the 5 to7 year plan outlined in the White Paper. Mr. Westling also noted that the SBC will provide whatever data they find regarding compensation for other instructional faculty who are not on a tenure-related appointments to the ad hoc Instructors Committee. Initial attempts to gather data proved difficult – other institutions do not have this data readily available.
Senator Chris Phillips, mathematics, asked where the internal reallocations came from, and would the same reallocations be made in ensuing years. Mr. Westling replied that there was a total of $2.75 million generated from the combination of factors that the SBC and the provost worked with. That was not the entire amount, but rather equivalent to 5% of the raise: $400,000 came from reallocation from other parts of campus, a decision by the Provost; $550,000 came from reallocation within each individual school and college -- the Provost instructed each dean and then each department head to come up with ½ to 1 % of his or her budget to be used for this purpose; $200,000 came from athletics; $.5 million came from auxiliary funds that might have otherwise gone to reserves; $1.1 million came from the state. In the coming years, the SBC will likely look to monies gained by increased enrollments, increased external development funds within the control of each department and colleges, and possible increases in tuition, some of which might go toward salary increases.
President Earl mentioned that another potential funding source is the athletic department’s $2 million subsidy. He has been looking into it so he can understand the subsidy fully; accordingly, he has asked Vice President Dan Williams and Athletics Director Bill Moos to attend the next Senate meeting on November 29th. President Earl is interested in an explanation of what that subsidy is for and whether it might be phased out faster than what was agreed to last year.
Senator Vitulli suggested that it would be useful to have more information to review regarding the subsidy. Vice President Tublitz, biology, said that the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee has been briefed several times in the last few years about the athletic department budget. Perhaps athletics could provide a spreadsheet that outlines the allocations within the department.
IFS election. President Earl noted that there were no nominees for the IFS position, thus the IFS election agenda item would be moved to the next meeting.
Further discussion regarding the Bend proposal. Vice President Tublitz indicated that a resolution in support of the Bend branch campus proposal would be made at the November 29th meeting, after the Senate Executive Committee had met with the provost for more details on November 15th. The final proposal will be available at the next (November 29th ) meeting as the proposal is due December 1st.
Senator Vitulli indicated some frustration that more faculty had not been involved to a greater degree in formulating the proposal. It was noted that the administration is scrambling to try and put together a proposal and some of the details are not quite forthcoming. Senator Tublitz reiterated that the senate executive’s meeting with the provost on November 15th is an open meeting that senators are welcome to attend. Further, issues that come up at that meeting can then come back to the senate before the proposal is submitted on December 1st. He opined that the issue is really one of shared governance, and how decisions are made on this campus. The proposal will come back for discussion a final time and a resolution by the senate in support will be put to a vote.
Senator Bayless remarked that more appropriate and fairer way to design the whole proposal would have included more faculty input. Senator Del Hawkins, business, said that his understanding is that if we offer a program in Bend, it would be exactly the same program that is offered and monitored here. New programs would require the approval of the colleges and schools here just as if we changed a minor program on this campus. The faculty would control the curricular content and the instructional quality in the same manner that they do now.
President Earl brought the discussion to a close noting that seeing the whole proposal would have been more helpful in the discussion. He indicated he would provide the Senate with as much information as possible before the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.